# Who has 3 watts or more per gallon?



## Jag1980 (Aug 1, 2008)

I was wondering who has had in the past or has 3 watts or more per gallon and what problems have you had that you could not eliminate, such as algae that was solved when you lowered your wattage over your tank.


----------



## supersmirky (Oct 22, 2008)

I have over 3 watts per gallon overall. My photoperiod is a dawn dusk setting with only 156 watts 1 hour in the AM and 1 hour in the PM and then an hour in the afternoon I have all lights blazing at 468watts. The rest of the photoperiod runs at 312 watts.

This is over a 140gallon tank and I haven't had issues yet. I also only have a 7 hour photoperiod


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

I recently bought a TEK 4x54watt w/ Midday bulbs for my 75. This was in addition to 2x40watt T12 Grolux and Grolux WS that I use for dawn/dusk. I developed a bad case of GDA o many of my plants. Perhaps my CO2 was not enough with the extra light but I did go back to using a 3 tube T8 with different bulbs. The Midday's washed out the colors which are coming back with the T8 setup.

The TEK is for sale, BTW.


----------



## Freshwater (Oct 22, 2007)

Hey Jag,

I assume you are asking in regards to your 29 gallon?

On my 29 gallon I am running 3.3 W of T5HO (Nova Extreme fixtures) as well as Press. Co2, and PPS-Pro dosing. 7 hours in the afternoon/evening and 1.5 hours of 1.6 W alternating fixtures in the morning. I did have GSA and staghorn until I nailed down my Co2 levels and dosing levels (I dose heavy). Tank has been quite stable for several months. GDA is apparent on the glass still but that is such an easy task to remove I hardly consider it.

Are you running T5HO's in your 29 gallon?

I did just this past weekend raise my lights an additional 2" up. More as an experiment to see if that will bring out more color in my Hygro Sunset, not due to algae.

Todd


----------



## rodrigaj (Aug 17, 2008)

I have 220w over a 55gal, which I run 12 hours a day. CO2 @ 2 bubbles /sec. EI. I have had this photoperiod and setup since day one.

When I first set up the tank I had problems with algae, but I've had enough experience not to panic. The plants grew like mad, I cut out the leaves and branches that had algae, introduced 6 SAE's, an army of snails and never changed anything. After about the 3rd month the algae was gone and it has never returned.

I've had algae problems in the past and it has always been when I try to limit some parameter...be it light, fertilizer, CO2. Or when I got lazy and didn't clean my filter.


----------



## Quetzalcoatl (Feb 13, 2009)

I've had 160 watts over 40 gallon for about 2 years now and haven't had much problem caused by light. It is almost impossible to "over dose" light. No matter what fixture you use, you will never get any close to what sun has to offer in the nature. What's important is to keep everything in balance. With higher amount of light, you can expect faster growth of plants so you will need to sufficiently dose liquid fertilizer and/or have rich substrate, and CO2.


----------



## BenBOMB (Apr 25, 2009)

I have 30Ws over my 5G aquarium. So thats deff over 3wpg, but it does break down for smaller aquariums.

I never really had a problem with algae until recently I got attacked my very, very, very, bad hair algae. I run my lights at 10 hours a day, but moved it down to 7 to control algae and hopefully will make the plants happier. If not i'll slowly move up to find the balance.


----------



## osnapitseric (Apr 9, 2009)

i had just about every algae and is currently battling rhizoclum. Most of the problem came from inadequate co2


----------



## jazzlvr123 (Apr 29, 2007)

I have 370 watts over a 60 gallon. higher wattage just means shorter photo period, my tanks on for only 4 1/2 hours a day and i have literally no algae issues. most algae issues with higher light situations are caused by inadequate co2 or lack thereof which the plants demand in high light situations in order to avoid algae. nutrients also play a role however not to the extent co2 does plants can get by with too little or too many nutrients without getting algae. however with co2, its not the case


----------



## Chris. (Dec 22, 2008)

I have 130 watts over a 20 gallon for 2 hours from 4-6pm and from 12-9 (9 hours total)it's just 65W. I have dust algae, and I did have a short outbreak of what looked like staghorn.


----------



## surpera1 (Feb 18, 2009)

guess i'm in that category


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

I run about 3.25wpg of CF. Lowering light levels can fix things, but for the wrong reasons. If you have nutrients limiting from under-dosing (including CO2, ESPECIALLY CO2), decreasing the light will slow the speed it's expended at. High light just means faster plant growth, faster response times. It's possible to maintain just about any plant in the hobby at 50 milimoles PAR when you know what you're doing; this is a very low level of light.

-Philosophos


----------



## chagovatoloco (Nov 17, 2007)

*Isn't really just about par? This one of my favorite posts by Tom Barr.*

I just got back today from Aqua Forest's gracious event and demo. I took my PAR meter and Ian brought his as well to the event. Every tank I measured, the one that ranked 20th in the ADA contest last year in the wolrd ranking had no more than 150 micromol at the surface of the tank right near the HQI MH light. At the bottom all along the front, 35-40micrmol and near the window at noon time(north face), 50-55 micro mol.

Gloss, HC, E tennellus, moss etc, no issues..............

This is very low light overall.

PAR meters do not care about brands, lux, lumens, funky nutty correlation tables, the water, reflections, distance etc, they can drop down and measure the parameter that makes the plant produce sugars via photosynthesis right at the surface of individual leaves.

Someone said "there is a redder plant, measure there", so I did: no difference.
On to other tanks, exact same trends, all very low, 30-50micromol ranges at the bottoms, 150 or so at the highest, did not matter if if was a 180cm, 120cm, 90cm, 60cm, 45 cm sized tank, all where pretty much lower light tanks in each and every case.

I was a bit mythed about the ADA lights, they are really inefficient or set up that way to limit folk's from going wild with the lighting.

Many think more is better, so reducing it down helps folks do better and have better luck with CO2, so many think the ADA lights are better.

But not when tested...........

Almost 1/2 of what my lights are at home.
Much less.

How might this influence what folks think and assume about CO2 and stability?
How about nutrient demand and uptake?

If you cut the light by 1/2, what do you expect?

This was not some aberration, this was done in front of 50 plant hobbyists in the club here. I'm not pulling anyone's leg here with some baloney.

This was not merely 1 or 2 tank,s this was 7 tanks and other folks' I've gone to to measure had similar values and results.

I've heard about every crazed idea about measuring light that's out there, yet few have ever bothered to measure the one that matters the most in situ and compare. I have a bit more lately and the cost is not much now either.

I have 2-3x as much light in some of my tanks, yet I also have no issues, but much faster growth rates.

I also scale up the nutrients, and the CO2.
If you don't, then you have a lot of issues.

So keep light low, not high!
BTW, the T5's rock and produce some of the best light and are very even. I like them, but.......I like HQI and ripples light real sun light too

*Sorry for the long read but this made things so clear.*


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

This is one of those posts by Tom that I agree with, but can't duplicate. I don't have a quantum PAR meter, or access to one; this is the major reason for me, and a big frustration. I run high-ish light for the sake of plants in the lower areas of the aquarium, and because high light is a great thing to have around when getting a new aquarium filled in. I also find that for right now, it lets me use one tank to try new things with chemistry, trimming etc. in more limited space due to the faster reaction times.

Light quantity is also about esthetics. Do you want a shadowed rain forest, or a brightly lit tropical beach? Do you want to ditch ideal mmoles PAR per watt for ADA green, or grow stem plant clippings out in a blatantly pink-tinted aquarium?

I completely agree, high light isn't necessary for nice plant growth. I just don't think it's about to disappear.

-Philosophos


----------



## chagovatoloco (Nov 17, 2007)

As a beginner I was under the impression that I could not grow the plants I wanted due to my light. I went with the whole 4+ wpg thing and it was a PIA. I feel that most go through a lot of undue stress thinking that with out the high light plants can't grow and this is simply not true........................... Wish I knew that a few years ago.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Most of us would like to have known that most algae isn't caused by excess phosphates, that CO2 IS the biggest issue for algae, and that fish care more about osmotic pressure than pH. 

The issue here is that we need another H. Axelrod. A guy willing to publish books, dodge a million dollars taxes, then finish things out with a multi-million dollar charitable donation of Stradivarius instruments, and life on a private yacht in Hemingway-inspired epic win. We do not another dosing of snakeoil from a large company, a person who is only a good supporter of some fish club or other (though the many individuals who meet this description are still of innumerable value), and not a haiku-writing photographer turned sales man. We need some one willing to push out multiple high quality books for the average person, coming from a stable scientific basis. This is why I think we should all picket in front of Tom Barr's home until he publishes some in-depth books for planted aquariums.

Perhaps the argumentum ad verecundium of popular published material will get the marketing dept. of some of the larger companies to suggest products for us that we need. I want my pH meter-driven instantaneous CO2, 2 in 1 needle wheel canister filter/CO2 diffuser and all-in-one dosing water change system. I want an in-line heating system for nano tanks rather than 200W as a minimum. My greatest hopes would be with SeaChem and Eheim. Anyhow, I'll shut up and quit ranting.

-Philosophos


----------



## surpera1 (Feb 18, 2009)

i like tom barrs approach - it was easy for a newb to follow - but in the beginning i was intimidated by all the information and opinions


----------



## chagovatoloco (Nov 17, 2007)

I'll hold a picket and stand in front of his house....hahahahah. I have been asking for him to write a book as well. I don't think that there is any book out there for the new way of doing things.


----------

