# [Wet Thumb Forum]-Lighting Question



## bebop (Jul 8, 2003)

I'm leaning toward of purchasing a Fermosa 30" 65 Watt... My question is how good is this light second I have a choice of either getting a 50/50 daylight/atinic a total of 6500K or daylight bulb only with a 6500K which one should I get?... currently I upgraded my stock aquarium light with a Aqua Glo 24" 20W with a 18000K and the light is not to bright... I want something that is bright and the same time will be okay with the plants... I appreciate the help.


----------



## bebop (Jul 8, 2003)

I'm leaning toward of purchasing a Fermosa 30" 65 Watt... My question is how good is this light second I have a choice of either getting a 50/50 daylight/atinic a total of 6500K or daylight bulb only with a 6500K which one should I get?... currently I upgraded my stock aquarium light with a Aqua Glo 24" 20W with a 18000K and the light is not to bright... I want something that is bright and the same time will be okay with the plants... I appreciate the help.


----------



## Jon Mulzer (Mar 9, 2003)

Actinic is only for reef tanks with live corals. Get the 6500K. 18000K is the wrong spectrum for plants. That is also a reef spectrum.

I don't know where you are planning on getting the fixture but Robert carries them in the proper lighting spectrum and at the best prices I have found on the net. And I should know, I know the cheapest place to get everything, lol.

----------------------------

15XH, 36W PC, XP-1, Onyx Sand, DIY CO2

Crypts spiralis, ciliata and wendtii bronze and red, pennywort, wisteria and java fern and moss.


----------



## bebop (Jul 8, 2003)

Well it say that it is good for the plants and promotes photosytesis so I get it, so do I need to daylight 6500K or 50/50 daylight/actinic 6500K


----------



## Jon Mulzer (Mar 9, 2003)

Just daylight, no actinic. Actinic is only for live corals in marine setups. It does nothing for plants. If you used the 50/50 bulb you would only have 50% of the light usable by your plants.

----------------------------

15XH, 36W PC, XP-1, Onyx Sand, DIY CO2

Crypts spiralis, ciliata and wendtii bronze and red, pennywort, wisteria and java fern and moss.


----------



## 2la (Feb 3, 2003)

> quote:
> 
> Originally posted by Jon Mulzer:
> Actinic is only for live corals in marine setups. It does nothing for plants. If you used the 50/50 bulb you would only have 50% of the light usable by your plants.


Can someone please explain where this incorrect notion got started, and why it keeps getting perpetuated with nary a thought otherwise? Actinics usually feature a single strong but often broad peak in their spectra at about 420nm, which nicely corresponds with the absorption spectrum of chlorophyll (a and b):










Saying that actinics "do nothing" for plants is completely incorrect, as is saying that using a 50/50 bulb is akin to wasting half your lighting. How so when you've actually emphasized a large part of the spectrum that plants need (and that encourages shorter internode lengths and thus bushier growth)? However, I'd completely agree if the statement were amended to say that actinics are _incomplete_ for the purposes of growing plants, since they do lack anything in the red end of the PAS. Someone please enlighten me.

 
(Click for pics)


----------



## Jon Mulzer (Mar 9, 2003)

Would you recommend an actinic bulb for a planted aquarium?

----------------------------

15XH, 36W PC, XP-1, Onyx Sand, DIY CO2

Crypts spiralis, ciliata and wendtii bronze and red, pennywort, wisteria and java fern and moss.


----------



## Rex Grigg (Jan 22, 2004)

Actinics are not good over planted tanks. They tend to cause the plants to grow very leggy and sparse.

Moderator










American by birth, Marine by the grace of God! This post spell checked with IESpell available at http://www.iespell.com

See my Profile for tank details.


----------



## Vicki (Jan 31, 2003)

And they look awful-at least they do to my eye. That may not seem like a big deal, but it is to me, I want to enjoy looking at my tanks. What's the logic in wasting half your light on a bulb that only provides a portion of what your plants need and makes them look unattractive besides? I agree that actinic bulbs won't hurt, and will actually help some (at least more than not having the extra light would), but only if they're used in combination with a bulb that has a more complete spectrum for plants, or at least adds what the actinic lacks. I doubt a tank with nothing but actinic lighting over it would be very successful.

P.S. BeBop, if you see this, I wish you would respond to my answer to your post about aquarium salt that you put in the Aquarium Fertilization forum. I've moved that post to The Fish Bowl, but I left a copy in Aquarium Fertilization in case you couldn't find it.

http://www.wheelpost.com


----------



## George Willms (Jul 28, 2004)

2lA....

Are you saying that 50/50 bulbs are actually ok to use with a planted tank? Are they better or no better than say using a full 6500 K bulb?

George


----------



## imported_Fred (Feb 1, 2003)

I believe what 2la is saying is the actinic will work BUT you need to balance it with the red end of the spectrum...... plants mainly use the 400~450nm(blue) and 650~680nm(red) parts of the spectrum, give or take.....

If you were to run just actinic(~420nm) your plants would need a source of red light for balance. Otherwise they will grow leggy and weak also giving algae an edge. 

Another problem is actinic bulbs tend to have a shorter effective life span than daylight bulbs.

Balance in every thing is the name of the game ;^)

Fred


----------



## 2la (Feb 3, 2003)

Thanks, Fred, that's precisely what I'm saying. The only notion I was challenging was that actinics "do nothing" (good) for plant growth (which no one's yet countered), not that there aren't better options. But, regarding the effects of blue light:



> quote:
> 
> The best place to start is by considering the following parameters that are important when choosing lights for a planted tank.
> 1) Intensity of light is more important than spectrum
> ...


From http://www.animalnetwork.com/fish2/aqfm/1998/mar/aquatic/default.asp

 
(Click for pics)


----------



## Jon Mulzer (Mar 9, 2003)

So 2la, would you recommend actinics for planted freshwater aquaria?

----------------------------

15XH, 36W PC, XP-1, Onyx Sand, DIY CO2

Crypts spiralis, ciliata and wendtii bronze and red, pennywort, wisteria and java fern and moss.


----------



## Steve Hampton (Feb 13, 2004)

> quote:
> 
> Originally posted by Jon Mulzer:
> So 2la, would you recommend actinic for planted freshwater aquaria?


Jon, I really believe your are completely missing the point and the whole issue 2la was presenting. He do not recommend using actinic lamps as the sole choice for planted tanks. He was simply correcting some misconceptions that appear across forums on the web way to frequently.

Are there times to use/recommend 50/50 or actinic lamps. I believe there is. Many people here, myself included have found that having a mix of bulbs that include a lamp that is strong in the blue end does result in more compact growth. Tanks that lack height are very well suited for this type of lighting. It can also make some fish more comfortable and it certainly enhances the color of some fish.

But, the point is for most applications we discuss here, the standard recommendation of 5000K to 6700K seems to work for most people and they are happy...the plants really don't care though.


----------



## Jon Mulzer (Mar 9, 2003)

No offense Steve, but my answer was 100% wrong so I would like a 100% answer yes or no from 2la. Would you recommend actinics or 50/50's for planted freshwater aquaria?

I admit, my answer was incomplete but I received a discourteous response. I would NEVER recommend actinics for a freshwater aquarium where aesthetics were any concern because actinic light looks like $(#$. It washes out the color of most species and the one tank that I have observed firsthand with actinic light looked like $(#$. All of the plants grew very sparsely. Actinics are the absolute last bulb I would recommend anyone ever buy for a planted freshwater aquarium.

But that is just my opinion and experience. I could be wrong. I am just basing it on what I have seen. I am no expert. I have only been in this game for a year or so. But I certinaly did nothing to warrant such a discourteous repsonse.

----------------------------

15XH, 36W PC, XP-1, Onyx Sand, DIY CO2

Crypts spiralis, ciliata and wendtii bronze and red, pennywort, wisteria and java fern and moss.


----------



## Steve Hampton (Feb 13, 2004)

Jon, I have the added benefit of knowing 2la extremely well and while it's improper for me to respond for him, I can say with almost certainty that 2la was responding to the myth that's been/being perpetuated not to you personally. That being said, I also understand why you feel you may have been treated rudely. But, again knowing 2la as a do I'm certain no malice was intended.

The issue is this, you don't like actinic based on your experiences. You are completely entitled to that opinion. However, to say that "Actinic is only for live corals in marine setups. It does nothing for plants. If you used the 50/50 bulb you would only have 50% of the light usable by your plants" is to confuse opinion with fact...something 2la pointed out. Could the wording have been better, yes...ask me how many times I've been guilty of the same thing.









Truly this needs to end or be challenged based on factual differences.

Cheers,
Steve


----------



## George Willms (Jul 28, 2004)

In the interest of being a sort of devil's advocate here. I am running two 50/50 bulbs over my tank. Everything in there is doing fine, if not really well, with the only exception being the ammania gracilis I recently acquired. What I like about having at least some actinic in there is that it tends to bring out the irridescent colors in fish, and I have a hankering for rainbows, so I like the effect. Plus to me, having only 5000 or 6700k bulbs makes everything look a little yellow IMO. Just my two cents worth!

George


----------



## 2la (Feb 3, 2003)

> quote:
> 
> Originally posted by Jon Mulzer:
> No offense Steve, but my answer was 100% wrong so I would like a 100% answer yes or no from 2la. Would you recommend actinics or 50/50's for planted freshwater aquaria?


I will oblige by answering your question but with the caveat that the above question and subsequent answer has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of what I wrote in response, and that in applications with very little light in the blue end of the spectrum the answer will be quite the opposite. My answer is no, because there are better alternatives. But I implore you to re-read what I wrote and focus on the issue I was addressing, and I do this not to be rude but only because your question suggests that you probably have missed the point of my refute. If you feel I insulted you in some way, I apologize, though my intent was to challenge a notion (not you, specifically) that I strongly feel is incorrect and that gets perpetuated all too often without being given a second, more critical thought.

If you feel this reply insufficient to settle this issue, I'd invite you to continue it with me in a Private Topic.

Regards,

2la

 
(Click for pics)


----------



## Justin Fournier (Jan 27, 2004)

Not to beat a dead horse, or take sides, but just to share my ignorant generalities, that I have spread to many, I will throw in MHO.

I have told many a people that actinics are useless as far as plant tanks are concerned, perhaps for different reasons then Jon, but all the less valid IMO.

Plants do require a blue peak, ideally 420nm I believe. On this I believe we all will agree.

Check out the spectrum of any bulb, and you will find there is a blue peak in each one. This is due to the nature of how they are made.

IMHO almost ANY bulb we chose to put over our tanks will provide enough blue peak to give the plants the spectrum in blue they need. Actinics give off very little lux compared to any other bulb. Since almost any bulb has enough blue spectrum to keep the plants satisfied on that end, and not all bulbs give off enough red to satisfy plants, blue is not the main concern. (Green is a whole other subject best left for further discussion.) If almost any bulb give enough blue to keep plants happy, a bulb that is almost all blue must give off more blue then the plants care to use. IMHO light energy that goes into that tank, that is not used by the plants will be used by something else. Algae. So if you have room for an actinic, you can put another bulb there. IMHO there are MANY better choices for plant tanks that are superior to an actinic. This leads me to conclude that pretty much any bulb is better then an actinic for plants.

I would love to hear anyones opinions on this topic. As matter of interest, I have an extra single flo fixture, and a Coralife T12 Actinic bulb I can throw on my tank to document changes. I would guess that the 8500K red peak bulb I have would benefit the plant far better then the actinic would though. 

What do you guys & gals think?


----------



## Jon Mulzer (Mar 9, 2003)

Go ahead, beat the dead horse. It relieves aggression. And it is dead, so what does it care?









2la pretty well said the same thing. There are better choices than actinics.

I am also of the opinion that the sharp peak in the actinics would be utilized by some sort of algae. All things have to be balanced right? And algae will utilize basically any imbalance right?

To make sure I haven't gotten (and subsequently spread) disinformation, plants utilize very little of the green part of the spectrum correct? Now, assuming that this is correct, would it be a proper assumption that since plants don't absorb much of the green spectrum that it is reflected? And that is what gives the majority of plant life it's green color? Now assuming that this is correct (I know, there is a WHOLE LOT of assumption going on on my part, lol) would that mean that red plants don't use as much of the red spectrum?

Don't worry about taking sides. There are no sides to take. I overreacted. What was left to say was taken to a private topic. And all that was left to say on my end was an apology for my overreaction.

----------------------------

15XH, 36W PC, XP-1, Onyx Sand, DIY CO2

Crypts spiralis, ciliata and wendtii bronze and red, pennywort, wisteria and java fern and moss.


----------



## Justin Fournier (Jan 27, 2004)

Amano says green is the good stuff. Some say otherwise. Who knows. I guess it just fuels the fire of discussion: Any bulb will keep plants healthy.....


----------



## Steve Hampton (Feb 13, 2004)

> quote:
> 
> Originally posted by Justin604:
> IMHO almost ANY bulb we chose to put over our tanks will provide enough blue peak to give the plants the spectrum in blue they need. Actinic give off very little lux compared to any other bulb. Since almost any bulb has enough blue spectrum to keep the plants satisfied on that end, and not all bulbs give off enough red to satisfy plants, blue is not the main concern.


This is precisely the point where I think we disagree. I have never seen anything to suggest that plants only require a certain amount of red or blue, and that upon receiving that "amount" will cease to benefit from more light from that end of the spectrum. What does seem apparent is loading one end of the spectrum with more lighting intensity will cause a change in growth. Blue creates short bushy plants, red creates tall leggy plants. That's why a good mix works well, not because plants "require" certain amounts, but rather what happens when denied both ends of the spectrum. As I mentioned before, I like to place a 50/50 in a nano planted tank and find it helps keep plants more compact. There are times when if rooms permits, adding a single actinic or 50/50 can really highlight the coloration of some fish species. And IME red plants "seem" to benefit from having additional blue end spectrum.

What I think we both would agree on is that for maximum plant growth and speed (read tall growing plants here), actinic is a poor choice. And certainly too much blue end spectrum does look completely funky.

I found a few interesting tidbits I thought you may enjoy reading. The first is from Dr. Tim of Marineland:



> quote:
> 
> The Correct Lighting for Your Aquarium
> 
> ...


And this is a superbly informative post from Tom Barr off of rec.aquaria.freshwater.plants posted back in February. Tom's response was regarding whether the type of lighting or spectrum favored algae.



> quote:
> 
> Algae and aquatic plants can use both blue and red wavelengths and
> everything in between. Algae and plants both live and grow in water less than 3 feet, the issue of blue wavelengths are not that great when dealing with the average tank.
> ...


What's of real interest in Tom's post is his upper limit of 10000K. I wish we could ask Tom a few questions regarding 50/50's.

Thanks for the wonderful way everyone has handled this sometimes touchy subject. The quality of the posting has been outstanding and it's a perfect example as to why people come to these forums for information, opinions, and questions.

Cheers,
Steve

[This message was edited by Steve Hampton on Thu July 17 2003 at 10:07 AM.]


----------



## imported_timlawyer (Jul 14, 2003)

First time posting...(yea)...Any comments on the Coralife Nutri Glow 40watt NO flourescent as compared with the Coralife 10000k ? Specifically, I have a 55g with 3 NO 40watt Coralife Nutri Glows (I know...I should switch to CF) and am wondering if when adding a 4th light - should I add another NutriGlow or go with the 10000k (which is visually more appealing)?


----------



## Justin Fournier (Jan 27, 2004)

Wow Steve, that is some great info. Interestingly enough he pointed out the best performance will be provided by a bulb with a read peak, which he suggested over 650nm woiuld be best, and a good blue spike, which are both provided by the ZooMed FloraSun, which is actually 8500K.

Judging by what Tom said, I kind of got the impression that a mix of a 50/50 based on a 6500K, with a warm red bulb would be a great mix. Hmmmmm, If I do go to 5.2WPG, I am getting there based on a 50/50 bulb, on 10K. I might not go that high because at 3.8WPG every leaf underside is covered with pearls, and there are atleast 12 streams of bubbles going up at any given time. Also, the filter keeps coughing up 02.

Thanks for the great topic everyone, I greatly appreciate the learning experiance. I love Toms suggestion on MH. Intrigue...


----------



## Justin Fournier (Jan 27, 2004)

Tim, sorry I forgot to reply to your post. I have used the Coralife Nutriglow bubl, and find it to be satisfactory. It is missing a nice red peak however, and I would reccomend adding a ZooMed FloraSun as your 4th bulb to provide your palnts a peak in red that is over 650nm. This is all JMHO and should be taken as such. 

I prefer the NutriGrows's to the 10000k's. If you must stick with Coralife bulbs, and want to add a 4th, I would reccomend the Coralife TriChromatic. It is a warmer red bulb then the NutriGrow is and wilol provide your plants a little less green and a little more red.


----------

