# Best Lighting for Growing Stems AND groundcover?



## DonaldmBoyer (Aug 18, 2005)

Hi Guys!

I have a real basic question: What is the best type of lighting for growing plants? I run PCF's which have given good results; however, it does seem to have its shortcomings when it comes to bringing out the real color of the plants. For instance, my Rotala Colorata remains green and yellow until it is about three inches below the surface of the water, then turns brilliantly red. On the other hand, my Amania Gracilis colors up really nicely at about a foot below the water surface. My foreground plants are great. But, my Limnophilia Aromatic grows really well, but remains bright green and doesn't really "purple-up" until it is only a few inches from the water's surface as well.

In contrast, someone I know runs TEK T5's over his tank; he can't seem to grow ground cover too well, but his Cabomba Furcata goes BRILLIANT red/purple. In contrast, in my tank, it grows well, but remains light green. He claims that he can't grow groundcover really well because he lack the light intensity to penetrate the tank depth (standard 120 gallon), whereas my lighting penetrates the water depth well, but my stem plants can't "handle" the lighting intensity. WHAT??? This is frustrating me!!

I don't have any experience with MH's, and would prefer not to use them.....but I am open to the idea.

Is there a combination of lighting that I can use over my 100 gallon tank that would grow the ground cover the same as my PCF's, yet color up my stems better? Perhaps some sort of PCF/T5 combo? And, what is the difference between TEK T5's and say TEK T12's? Are all T5, T8, and T12's TEK lighting? Or is there TEK T5 and "regular" T5 lights?

GAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! I thought that I had all of this crap worked out!! How does one get that beautiful plant color while maintaining excellent groundcover?

PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF MARY, HELP ME!!!


----------



## howie (Jan 5, 2007)

I have the same issue but I have MH. I have Limnophilia Aromatic too and it is always bright green under PC and MH.
I do have the TEK HO T-5 but don't grow those type of stems plants there.


----------



## DonaldmBoyer (Aug 18, 2005)

Why don't you try? and.....that doesn't really help ME, howie


----------



## Jeff.:P:. (Nov 20, 2007)

> But, my Limnophilia Aromatic grows really well, but remains bright green and doesn't really "purple-up" until it is only a few inches from the water's surface as well.





> For instance, my Rotala Colorata remains green and yellow until it is about three inches below the surface of the water, then turns brilliantly red.


I have both of these issues as-well. I have 130 watts over 20 gallons, so I never thought it was a light issue but more a nutrient control problem. I've been using Seachem line for fertz but just got my greg watson supply and getting the pre-mix solution ready.

According to PlantFinder..


> Iron is especially important for good coloration and growth. A rich substrate will accelerate growth, as this species often develops a substantial root system. Nitrate limitation or phosphate excess usually produces the most pleasing colors.


I was hoping that I could increase and decrease these nutrients with the Watson fertz to achieve the colors. We'll see..


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

Height matters!

I have two suggestions for you Donald. One either get a shorter tank or two get rid of your CF lighting in favor of MH. From my experience nothing penetrates better than MH lighting. It takes more intensity for most plants to color up than it does to grow ground cover. From what I understand most plants turn red or other colors because the plants chlorophyll production is corrupted from the very intense light. That's why most plants color up on top. By the time the CF light reaches midstem or lower the plant is protected by the depth of the water. MH lighting is much more intense so the light can penerate deeper IMO.

In this pic of my L. Aromatica. Both tanks have CF lighting between 4 and 5 WPG, Aquasoil, same fert routine, but the tank on the left is 22" deep and the tank on the right is only 10" deep.


----------



## Jeff.:P:. (Nov 20, 2007)

Great comparison pic!

I might have to take my 150w MH off my
reef tank and stick'em on the 20g planted. :mrgreen:


----------



## DonaldmBoyer (Aug 18, 2005)

Howie: Dude....sorry. I was only kidding with you. Hope you didn't think that I was being "snotty" or anything  I apologize if that came across poorly, so "I'm sorry!"

Jeff and House: First, thank you for the advice!! However, I am a tad confused, House. Jeff has PCF's on his 20g, wouldn't that mean that the light should penatrate "all the way" to the bottom? My thinking, too, is that MH is SOOOO bright that would "corrupt" the chlorophyll worse than the PCF's. Or, are you suggesting that this chlorophyll "corruption" is what causes color change? Isn't it true that higher light causes bleaching in plants?? Perhaps Jeff is right with the nutrient load that needs to be increased, however, I run a very steep fert schedule to the point where any more would cause green water (greg watson ferts).....so I don't think that it is that.

For instance, "Fluo" recently posted his tank in "Aquascaping" forum; he runs 5x80watt T5's over his tank which a quick calculation equates to a standard 120gallon tank (he gave his specs in cm's.......). His plants are beautiful!!! That's what I want, but thought that with my fert dosing and incredible amount of lighting, I would have accomplished that.

This makes me believe that either I need TEK T5's, MH's, or some combination of both. My tank is deep, but running over 7watts/gallon of PCF's, I would think that I would be able to accomplish great colors. My plants look either "bleached-out" or they aren't getting enough light. Hence, the confusion.

It is important that I get this resolved soon, as I am planning to make 375gallon juggernaut....if it doesn't have the right lighting, then it will be a huge waste of money!! I'm planning for a tank that is about 20 inches in height, if that helps.


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

Which 20?


----------



## Jeff.:P:. (Nov 20, 2007)

> Jeff and House: First, thank you for the advice!! However, I am a tad confused, House. Jeff has PCF's on his 20g, wouldn't that mean that the light should penatrate "all the way" to the bottom?


My glosso is covering the foreground very nicely, not breaking more than a 3/4" in height. So It's definetley reaching the bottom with some intensity.

The reef club I belong to shares a PAR meter, If I get a change to borrow it I'll post some readings here for the planted tank


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

Jeff which 20 do you have H or L?


----------



## Jeff.:P:. (Nov 20, 2007)

> Which 20?


I have a 20g with 130w PCF's also growing L. Aromatica. 
My colors are a mix of your two pictures.
Somewhat colored with green new growth.

Donald is confused, cause based on you're theory with my 
130watts I should have purple L. Aromatica..


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

Do you have a 20H or 20L?


----------



## Jeff.:P:. (Nov 20, 2007)

20h


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

Jeff.:P:. said:


> 20h


That's what I thought. So the tank is about 16" high, plus you might have a glass canopy and/or the light is on legs. The tank in my pic is 10" high with no canopy and the light is sitting right on top of the tank. Not that it's not good light, but again it's a matter of the penerating ability of CF.


----------



## Jeff.:P:. (Nov 20, 2007)

> So the tank is about 16" high, plus you might have a glass canopy and/or the light is on legs


Actually the light is in the water. :heh: jk

Ya it sits on 3" legs. I guess you're right with the PCF penerating ability. Like I said I'll be checking PAR levels at the bottom of the tank when the meter becomes available.


----------



## howie (Jan 5, 2007)

No worrys Donaldmboyer. No need to apologize.


----------



## DonaldmBoyer (Aug 18, 2005)

How can PCF's have enough penatrating power to grow groundcover, but not color up stems? I have enough light to grow Elatine Tiandra very nicely, but not color up my Rotala Colorata? Forgive me for being repetitive guys, but that doesn't make sense to me at all........How can TEK T5's, which are less "bright" than 10,000K PCF, color stem plants better than light that is more "penatrating"?

So, is "3wpg" to grow a plant mean "3wpg" MH, or "3wpg" PCF, or "3wpg" TEK T5 (or T8, or T12)??? Why isn't THIS issue specified when traders and stores sell plants? I WANT TO KNOW NOT ONLY HOW MUCH LIGHT IS REQUIRED FOR THE PLANT TO GROW, BUT ALSO HOW MUCH LIGHT IS REQUIRED FOR THE PLANT TO OPTIMIZE IN COLOR AS WELL!!!!! It seems as though this should be addressed too! Sadly, nobody seems to distinguish between these types of lighting.

PS--thanks, Howie 

PPS--Sorry, again, everyone......this is just really confusing, and very frustrating because I thought that I had this all figured out. Something just isn't working the way it should.......what to do? WHAT TO DO! I just don't want to sound "ungrateful" or anything. But, UGH!


----------



## MatPat (Mar 22, 2004)

I''ll try give some input here though I don't have any experience with either T-5 or MH lighting. I honestly think the issue here is dosing and K temp of the lights in question.

Take a look at the pics jersey jay posted in this thread and see what a difference in the color of the red plants using a higher K light. The 9325K lamps seem to make the reds "pop' while the 6700K lamps seem to wash out the colors. No one has mentioned the specific color temp lamps they are using unless I missed it  I'm using two 55w CF lamps (9325K) and three 32w T-8 lamps (~8800k I think) on my 75g and getting nice color from my L. aromatica and R. macrandra 'Green'

No one has mentioned much about their dosing either. If you take a look at the Plant Finder, I think you will find both of these species exhibit more "red" coloration when you keep the NO3 levels low, PO4 levels high, and dose a good amount of micros, including iron. At least that has been my experience so far.


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

I think MatPat is on the right track. Plants turn red because they are using a less efficient carotenoid pigment to trap light energy than the usual 'green' chlorophyll pigment. A plant that has less red light from the spectrum will compensate for this by using more blue and green light. Some plants are able to change the pigment used for photosynthesis. Red leaved plants will turn green if the lighting is not adequate, and some green leaved plants will produce red towards the top of the plant or in overall bright (intensity) lighting.

Typically a higher kelvin rated light source will have more blue light in the spectrum. Donald, the 6700 lights have a large amount of green light in their spectrum and appears bright to us humans and will give a washed out look to plants. The GE9325K (IMO, the real kelvin is not 9325. This is a marketing gimmick) bulbs have a low CRI and do not allow colors to be represented correctly.

Regular additions of iron are always a good way to increase coloring. Seachem's iron is absorbed much more quickly than most iron supplements and is not 'left around' for algae to assimilate.


----------



## MatPat (Mar 22, 2004)

One thing I forgot to mention, Elatine triandra loves high NO3 levels. This plant will grow like a weed (even in lower light situations) if given plenty of NO3. When I have lower NO3 levels than it likes, it dies off. It may be hard to get the "red" out of your plants and keep a nice foreground of Elatine at the same time.

EDIT

I missed your WPG comments. That so called "rule" seems to have been developed back in the days when the average hobbyist used T-12 lamps and magnetic ballasts. People can probably get by with much less than 3wpg for most plants today given our more intense lighting levels.


----------



## DonaldmBoyer (Aug 18, 2005)

???

Mat--I was using ten 10,000K power compact fluo's on my 100 gallon without great coloration; in fact, almost all plants were "creeping" because there was so much intensity. I replaced four of the lights with 6700K's and there is slightly better color, but better "upward" growth. I don't know if 9325(K) would propose any solution to this problem I'm having (?).

Newt--Maybe I need to switch back to Seachem iron, though I dose every other day with Watson iron. 

I'm just wondering now from what Newt and Mat have suggested that this is more of a nutrient problem than anything else?? Mat, you said you also run T8's....could this explain why you are getting (obviously) better coloration than I am?


----------



## MatPat (Mar 22, 2004)

Don, you say you were using ten 10,000K bulbs, what type were they, spiral, regular CF, wattage?

I think my results have to do more with dosing and the color temp of my lights to be honest. If I had some 10,000K bulbs I would put them in my front fixture and take some pics to see if there was a noticeable difference. Judging from Jersey Jay's pics in the link in my post above, there is a definite difference in red plants when using 9325K (or whatever temp they really are) lamps over the 6700K and maybe even 10,000K. Gomer's post (#6) in the same thread also has some good pics of mixed temps of lighting. I prefer the look of 9325K as long as I have some red plants or fish in the tank, and I always seem to have a few red plants.


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

I personally disagree with all the attention to dosing in terms of plants being red or not. I mean I'm sure you can tweak things with a lean no3 diet and different bulbs but IMO it's 95% light intensity. Why do these plants show color on top when they get next to the light and not further down the stem. The dosing is the same in the tank. In my examples with the two L Aromatica plants the tank on the right (redder one) as only 6700k bulbs, but the depth is only about 10" from bulb to substrate. In the one on the left the tank has both 10k and 6700k bulbs, but the plants are about 22" from bulb to substrate. That is just too much depth for CF bulbs to have enough intensity to work. BTW the tanks both have AS and I only dose K and micros ones a week and you could see the plant on the right is very red throughout. The Chlorophyll process absorbs mostly blue and red light that is why the plant tissue looks green, since green isn't absorbed. When the chlorophyll process is distrubed by extremely strong light the plant shows more color. Reefers use MH lighting because of the intensity of light it brings to their corals. CF lights simply can't deliver that top of intensity with any kind of real depth.


----------



## DonaldmBoyer (Aug 18, 2005)

Hi Mat--They are 65watt REGULAR (straight) PCF's....no spirals in my tanks. With reflectors, too BTW. I don't get a lot of bleed out of light from the tank that I know of....pretty much stays "in the tank." But, I could be wrong.

House--I WOULD agree with you, except why does Fluo's tank look so good with T5's? Which are less intense than PCF's? Do you see where I am coming from here? If you are "arguing" the point of "intensity has everything to do with color," than this is where I am getting confused because my current lighting is more intense than Fluo's, we have similar sized tanks and plants, and our nutrient dosing is similar, yet I am getting "average" results at best.

So, I guess that what I am saying is that your MH lighting is most intense, followed by mine, followed by Fluo's, yet yours and Fluo's plants look better than mine. Depth alone doesn't seem to be the issue.....lighting intensity alone may or may not be an issue, but if it is, than why do Fluo's plants look as good as yours IF his lighting is less "intense" than mine? It would at least APPEAR that at least SOME T5 lighting is required for excellent coloration.......to me....who doesn't really know (apparently  )


----------



## MatPat (Mar 22, 2004)

I think the order of light intensity for our purposes is more like:
MH
T-5 (actually a straight CF)
CF (close to T-5 but light is lost due to the bent tube)
T-8
T-12
Incandescent

There was a chart or post somewhere that listed the lumens per watt output also. I don't know where that is but I'm sure someone does. Intensity will also vary by bulb brand, age and probably color temp too. I don't want to confuse you any more than you already are but PAR also has a lot to do with plant growth. I haven't quite grasped the whole PAR concept thing yet but I think that is why certain bulbs may look dim to our eyes but make the plants grow faster.

Hopefully HouseofCards can give us a bit more input here. I'm only going on my experience with T-8 bulbs of varying color temps. They have always worked well for me so I don't see the need to change them for something more intense.


----------



## DonaldmBoyer (Aug 18, 2005)

I suppose that what I am "looking" for is for someone to be able to tell me "Hey, your tank has 'x' dimensions, you will need 'x' lighting to achieve good growth and good coloration." I foolishly thought this would be handled by running a high watts/gallon of high intensity PCF lighting in a tank that isn't a 100H.....it is standard two feet, and when you tank into account the height of the substrate, it is only about 20"-ish from the light. Now, maybe I could "understand" if I had red microswords that weren't coloring well, but to have L. Aromatic NOT color until it gets a few inches from the surface is frustrating. So, obviously I am not doing something right.

From what I have received regarding feedback, light intensity doesn't seem to be the real issue EXCEPT that it is needed to penatrate in order to maintain ample "growth." The "color" aspect of this problem seems that it would be resolved IF I ran "x" amount of T5 or T8 lighting in addition to my PCF's.

What I DON'T want to have happen is to spend a ton of money on a custom built 375 gallon tank, and not be able to end up with excellent color. So, I need to figure out the best lighting scheme for it, and not repeat the same mistake again.

It would appear, on that note, that some MH is required to achieve acceptable growth from stems and groundcover specimens and some T5 fluorescent light is needed to acheive the desired color effect that I am looking for. 

Would this notion be correct, or not? And if not, then why not? If someone runs JUST MH on a tank and can acheive that, I would be interested to know that. Or, if someone runs JUST PCF or T5's, I would be interested to know that as well. House runs both MH and T8's, so this is what I am basing my opinions on for right now.

Chlorophyll science doesn't interest me right now  Nerds!! HA! I took plant bio and physio in college too! But it isn't really helping me with all of this pigment talk  Speak to me as though I am a 5 year old......I need something more "plain." I know people are experts here in lighting and know more than me, I just need something a bit more understandable than wavelengths and pigment absorption spectra. HA! You guys!!!!.....It isn't that I don't apprecieate the help, which I do, but I didn't mean for this thread to get too full of scientific jargon is all.


----------



## DonaldmBoyer (Aug 18, 2005)

Mat--Interesting chart.....I was under the impression that PCF's were brighter than T5's! That COULD explain some of my issues!!!


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

I believe MH is the strongest with T5HO second. CF might be stronger than a regular T5. 
Remember most people hang MH bulbs so they are further from the water than in a T5HO setup. But intensity to intensity it's MH. 

Donald who's tank are you referring to "Fluros" I must have missed something.


----------



## Jeff.:P:. (Nov 20, 2007)

> It would appear, on that note, that some MH is required to achieve acceptable growth from stems and groundcover specimens and some T5 fluorescent light is needed to acheive the desired color effect that I am looking for.


 I can guarantee that if you do a combo retro fit with 2 t5's and a couple MH any plant on this planet will color-up the way you want it. And you'll have great ground cover. I got a set-up from hello lights with 2 150w MH, 2-54w t5's for my reef tank for a decent price. You could have the 9325K for the t5's and 10000k for MH. Just gotta do heat management.


----------



## MatPat (Mar 22, 2004)

Ah yes House, I forgot about T-5 HO and regular T-5's Also didn't take into account VHO T-12's but I don't know if many people are still using those.

The problems with lighting is there are so many variables to take into consideration...distance (bulb to water), lamp age, glass covers (or not), quality of reflectors and even water turbidity figure into the equation. Dirty glass tops will diffuse the light even more...yeah I know common sense huh. It is highly possible that in the two side by side pics one of the lamps is older and therefor less intense than the other. Again, another guess on my part. 

I don't think Kelvin ratings have anything to do with intensity or plant growth, but rather, how we see the color of the plants. 6700K seems to wash out the reds in my tank. A lot of people think the 9325s make the tank look pinkish. I like them and think 6700K lamps make my tank look washed out. It's a personal preference.

Don't forget that since we are using digital cameras people need to correct their white balance to get accurate colors. There is also the factor of photo manipulation with software to "color up" pictures posted online. I'm not savvy enough to play with the white balance or manipulate the color in y pics yet but my L. aromatica does look a bit more red in the pic than in person. 

To sum it all up, I don't think there is a way to say you need "X" amount of light to get "X" results. Someone would have to set up two exact tanks as a study to figure this out. They would have to be dosed the same, CO2 levels kept exact and all that fun stuff to give an accurate analysis of lighting. Most of us hobbyists have enough trouble maintaining constant CO2 and fertilization levels in one tank, let alone maintain two with the exact parameters


----------



## MatPat (Mar 22, 2004)

Hey Jeff,

Are they now making 9325s in the T-5 size? I've not wanted to switch over to T-5 since no one seems to make a 9325K (or even a similar color temp) in a T-5 lamp. Do you have any links?


----------



## Jeff.:P:. (Nov 20, 2007)

I'm trying to get on hellolights.com right now to check, but its redirecting me to some bogus site. Its possible they makem I could be wrong though.


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

MatPat said:


> There was a chart or post somewhere that listed the lumens per watt output also. I don't know where that is but I'm sure someone does. Intensity will also vary by bulb brand, age and probably color temp too. I don't want to confuse you any more than you already are but PAR also has a lot to do with plant growth. I haven't quite grasped the whole PAR concept thing yet but I think that is why certain bulbs may look dim to our eyes but make the plants grow faster.


MH does deliver the most intense light. Intensity and brightness are not the same thing. As you said PAR and PUR are what mattters to plants. Lumens is a measure of brightness to human eyes which is most affected by green light. Also remember that Brand X 10,000K bulb may not emit the same spectral light output as Brand Z 10,000K. Kelvin is not the way to choose bulbs for growing plants anyway. You need to see the spectral graph for what light is emitted and most important to plants. Kelvin is more how you want your tank's appearence to look under that type of light. Also the kelvin is usually just a guesstimate by the manufacturer. Age of the bulb does matter. Light intensity and spectral output can change over time. Cathode tube decay can't be avoided. Linear fluorescents should be changed every six months, CF/PCs annually.

Donald there are some T8 bulbs that will deliver a good punch at the correct nanometer of light for plant photosynthesis at a very high output(intensity). If you have a T8 fixture try some Philips ADV850's and Aquarelles (the european aquarelles not the imitation ones now being made for the US market) in combo. They are probably the most efficient linear fluorecents on the market.










I believe that differences in water and light can make all the difference to what your plants do and don't do. Just my opinion.

House: gorgeous plants, btw.


----------



## DonaldmBoyer (Aug 18, 2005)

House: I may be spelling the name wrong, but a guy here from France by the name of Fluo or Flou or something.....anyhow, he posted pics of his tank about a week ago, and it is frankly beautiful. Nice colors in his tank!

Newt, Matt, Jeff, House: Thank you for all of the help, so far. This is just completely confusing to me sometimes because there is a bit subjective opinion as to what lights are the "best" and why. It would seem as though I need a "mixture" of lighting, and we'll see if I can get more advice from other posters here.

Newt: thank you for the info....I'll check out that lighting fixture and see. Maybe a "trial" run is the best way to go for now until I have that tank built.


----------



## hoppycalif (Apr 7, 2005)

It isn't necessary to have the best light system, nor the best substrate, nor the best fertilizing scheme, etc. Several versions of all of those will work fine for growing aquatic plants. If you have enough light with adequate fertilizing and CO2 or Excel, with a usable substrate, the plants will grow. If you have too much light without adequate CO2, algae may become a problem.

T5 lights seem to offer the best lighting efficiency, largely because they generally have individual reflectors for each bulb, and are the smallest diameter tubes generally available.


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

MatPat said:


> Hey Jeff,
> 
> Are they now making 9325s in the T-5 size? I've not wanted to switch over to T-5 since no one seems to make a 9325K (or even a similar color temp) in a T-5 lamp. Do you have any links?


I just checked the GE Lighting site and the only 9325K bulb they make is the T5 CF; they do not show a T5 linear bulb. The 9325 is in reality more along the lines of 4100K, or even less. It's way too pink to be near 10,000K which would appear blue or blue/white. Its a marketing scheme.


----------



## DonaldmBoyer (Aug 18, 2005)

Again, we seem to have differing opinions on what constitutes "good light" for growth AND color. Hoppy seems to suggest that it is more of a nutrient/substrate issue? I would assume that all things being equal, that it is more of a T5 lighting issue.....


----------



## MatPat (Mar 22, 2004)

I think Hoppy was trying to say it is more a combination of lighting and nutrients that bring out the "red" in plants and not either item by itself. At least that was my take on his response.


----------



## epicfish (Sep 11, 2006)

Just jumping into the conversation, but from what I've seen in the past dozen or so replies:

1) Intensity matters, of course. I had MHs on my tank for a while and not only the tops, but probably at least the top half (close to 9-10") of my L. repends, Rotala sp. plants turned a dark red hue.

2) Nutrients, fertilization, CO2, etc...all play a role in plant GROWTH, but what about coloration? I don't think they play a major role in fertilization except for going lean on NO3 and dosing extra iron. Other than these two factors, fertilization helps growth more than coloration IMO.

3) Bulbs...I think a major component of "coloration" is the spectrum that the bulbs put out themselves, which are reflected off the plants into your eyes. After the MH setup, I moved to a six-bulb T5 setup, of which I consistently used four bulbs, so I'll only discuss the four bulbs. I had two 10KK and two 6700K bulbs, and the tank looked pretty decent to me. However, during moving the fixture, I broke a bulb and decided to get another 6700K bulb for a total of one 10KK bulb and three 6700K bulbs. I realized that this resulted in a slightly more yellow look to the tank, but that it brought out more of the reds at the tops of my plants. The 10KK washed out some of the reds, and made the tank look a "crisp white", whereas the 6700K brought out the deeper shades on both the plants and the fish.

These are just my observations and experiences and aren't really backed up with many scientific facts...yet.

So, basically, if you're looking for great coloration, your best bet is to find a fixture with many bulbs (basically impossible to achieve with MH alone), and mix-and-match bulbs to find a color that suits your plants and your eyes. A combination of a MH/T5 fixture would probably be best, since the MH would help to bring out the intense red/purples, and the T5 bulbs could be mixed to find a lower color temperature to bring those colors out. 

Most MH bulbs I've seen come in either really low color temperatures (5200K, 6100K) which are too yellow for my taste, or they're for reef tanks (10KK, 14KK, 20KK), which are too yellow. 

The best combination would most likely be a 10KK MH bulb with 6700K T5 bulbs...or the ADA 8800K MH bulb with a mixture of 6700K and 10KK T5 bulbs.


----------

