# Sticky  Is lighting the ultimate algae control?



## Laith

Curious to know what people think...

Given that all your other plant nutrients (including CO2) are available to your plants in adequate (or more than adequate) amounts for your level of lighting, what lighting changes will have a positive impact on the reduction of algae?

Assume that you have let's say 3-4wpg.


----------



## niko

To me the control of nutrients in the water is the ultimate approach in algae control.

But I chooze the "noon light burst" as most efficient if we talk about the light.

--Nikolay


----------



## Edward

The answer would be *Reduce lighting period*.
In my sunroom some aquariums are receiving strong direct sunlight. Interestingly, only the aquariums with additional artificial lighting increasing the lighting period are developing GW green water.

Extra long lighting periods makes plants weak and less resistant to algae. The old saying that plants need sleep time is true.

Edward


----------



## RTR

False premise? Lighting, nutrients (including bioavailable carbon), and plant mass must all balance. Changing one requires sampensating changes in the others.


----------



## trenac

I voted for reduction of lighting period and intensity. But I also agree with RTR, change one aspect you have to change another.


----------



## ja__

trenac said:


> I voted for reduction of lighting period and intensity. But I also agree with RTR, change one aspect you have to change another.


reduction will also promote algea off you are not talking about massive reduction


----------



## Laith

I can understand the comments re balance.

However, are your tanks *that* delicately balanced that a "fine tuning" of the lights will throw everything off? I don't think so. If so, then you're constantly walking a tightrope and that can't be too much fun! 

Remember, I'm talking about fine tuning here; not massive changes...


----------



## RTR

That is exactly why I quit running high light fast growth tanks. I had more algae issues. Lower and slower has a wider safety zone.


----------



## Laith

RTR said:


> That is exactly why I quit running high light fast growth tanks. I had more algae issues. Lower and slower has a wider safety zone.


I couldn't agree with you more! But many people are still convinced that high light plants means that they need 5+wpg. At that high of lighting if you fall behind on ferts it's an algae disaster waiting to happen. That is definitely a tight rope...

I still hear comments about how 2 to 2.5wpg will only let you grow low to medium light plants.

More opinions please! 82 views and 8 votes? [smilie=t: ... speak up!


----------



## MatPat

I've said this before, but I grew some of my nicest Rotala macrandra and Pogostemon stellatus with 136 of T-8 (96w, 9325K) and T-12 (40w, 5500K? Nutrigrow) lighting. I did have pressurized CO2 which was a big help. Algae was practically non existent and P. stellatus rarely if ever stunted. The plants grew much slower with that amount of light, but so did the algae.

Why is it that such high light levels are recommended and do we _really _need it for _most_ plants?


----------



## AaronT

Well, because I'm American and I love stem plants and I like to grow them fast and "have it now" as they say, my vote was for the noon burst method. I find that simulating a real daylight period works well for keeping algae at bay.


----------



## Edward

Grandmasterofpool,
Have you tried the noon burst method and what Wpg have you used?

Thank you
Edward


----------



## Laith

So I'd really like to hear from the person who voted that they never have algae!

Speak up and tell us all your secrets...


----------



## Laith

I've recently been experimenting with the noon burst on a tank. Too soon to really tell the impact (only three weeks so far) but I've noticed quite a bit less buildup on the glass. Used to have to clean the glass once a week but now could probably go two weeks without.

The stem plants grow at a more manageable rate too...

I have 2x 39w on for 8hrs and 4x 39w on for 5hrs (the noon burst). So 2x 39 on for 1.5hrs, 4x 39 on for 5hrs and 2x 39 on for 1.5hrs.

There is an excellent set of discussions on light, noon burst and nutrient uptake that I ran into a while ago. Here are some comments by PJAN, who is a plant physiologist based in Holland (and has some beautiful tanks by the way):

(Post 91):
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=19984&page=7&pp=15&highlight=light

And again:

(Post 109):
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=19984&page=8&pp=15&highlight=light

Further along in the thread are some replies by Tom Barr.

Very interesting reading!


----------



## AaronT

Edward said:


> Grandmasterofpool,
> Have you tried the noon burst method and what Wpg have you used?
> 
> Thank you
> Edward


Yes, I have but it's more of a midday burst as I use an 8 hour period.

I built a custom pendant for my 75 gallon tank using a retrofit 2 x 175 watt MH kit from Cool Touch Lighting. I then added a 48" T5 HO bulb on either side of the two MH bulbs. The bulbs used are Ushio 175 watt 10,000Ks and Aqua Medic Planta T5s.

I turn the T5HOs on for 12 hours a day and the MH comes on for 8 hours in between that for a total of 460 watts. No, I do not recommend this setup for a beginner.  I have to be very diligent about fertilizing or things get out of whack fast.


----------



## plantbrain

edit


----------



## plantbrain

edit


----------



## Edward

plantbrain said:


> Plants do not need that much and algae does do better as higher and higher light intensities are present.
> Tom Barr


The 6 Wpg PC aquariums with daily PPS dosing and UV look impressive. It's worth the trouble.

Edward


----------



## Avalon

I've been on both sides--low light and high light. Light is a critical factor in algae issues. High light can create some spiffy plants. I would recommend it for smaller stem plant tanks. Low light can still create nice plants, if you've got the time. I maintained a heavily planted 100g tank for over 2 years with very low light (1.6w NO). Best algae free tank I've ever had; by far the easiest tank to care for by far--moreso than a 20g high light tank. 

Overall observations I've made: You need only enough light to grow what you are trying to grow. Adequate light spread is more important than sheer intensity alone. Also, the bigger the tank, the bigger the headache of high light systems. Algae in a 100g? There goes your Sunday.

So I will vote for a reduction in lighting intensity. 10 hours per day at one intensity will provide the best results. I'm trying the "sunburst" method now to see if it works.


----------



## Laith

Ok, out of 26 votes so far, 8 votes, or 31%, voted the noon burst of light, followed by 7 votes, or 27%, for reduction of light period. Next comes 6 votes for reduction of light period and intensity.

Interesting that the most votes so far go for the noon burst of light; I didn't realize that so many people were using this method. I'm trying it out and so far I like it. I might even reduce the noon burst further.

More votes/opinions welcome!

And I still want to hear the magic recipe of the person who never has algae!


----------



## standoyo

cool discussion, never really thought of light being a problem in the first place but this thread set me straight.
i voted to reduce light intensity as i don't like stem plants going haywire and needing constant attention. limnophilia aquatica is a pain to trim as it grows at 6-8 inches a week.
i'm only half of what edward is doing at 3WPG at 12 hours constant. i can't imagine 6WPG... whoa...i'd say it would be cool if at those intensities it sped up the growth of the slower than turtle ones like bolbitis, downnoi and the crypts...but the algae! i can't imagine as i've made peace with the algae. 
i have it easy and scrape once fortnightly and the tank is good to look at for at least ten days without any interference other than dosing and water top up.


----------



## Edward

Hi standoyo
Some plants under the 6Wpg high light grow denser and shorter. Some actually bend and grow horizontally as they were afraid to come any closer to the light source. Dosing must be done daily keeping the high nutrient demand. If one or two days are missed plants complain by turning reddish in hours. A usual fresh dose returns their mood back to normal like nothing had happened. Water changes are not that necessary because the daily dose has been used up in a day or so. The PPS dose is 2 ml SS, 4 ml PF, 4 drops Mg and 4 drops TE per 10 gallon. 

The water flows through a UV sterilizer keeping GW green water away and making crisp clean visibility while having no filter and no filtration in these aquariums. Algae is absolutely 100% non existing. 

Thank you
Edward


----------



## Bill Weber

Water change, water change, water change.
With that amount of light you need to do a 50% water change at least every other day. Over time this will reduce the algae in your tank.


----------



## Laith

Bill Weber said:


> Water change, water change, water change.
> With that amount of light you need to do a 50% water change at least every other day. Over time this will reduce the algae in your tank.


I'm puzzled as to what the relationship is between light levels and having to do many large water changes as you suggest?


----------



## standoyo

Edward said:


> Hi standoyo
> The PPS dose is 2 ml SS, 4 ml PF, 4 drops Mg and 4 drops TE per 10 gallon.
> 
> The water flows through a UV sterilizer keeping GW green water away and making crisp clean visibility while having no filter and no filtration in these aquariums. Algae is absolutely 100% non existing.
> 
> Thank you
> Edward


i like the idea of speeding up some plants but alas i'm not around everyday to dose. works takes me away for 3wks at a time.

erm, never had green water issues but spot algae yes. i like it on the rocks but not on the glass. scrape scrape scrape!
i have trouble getting loose ferts and luckily friend has found some kh2PO4 and KNO3.
let me reread the PPS and i'll get back to you as i'm new to PPS...

thanks a heap...

stan


----------



## banderbe

Laith said:


> Curious to know what people think...
> 
> Given that all your other plant nutrients (including CO2) are available to your plants in adequate (or more than adequate) amounts for your level of lighting, what lighting changes will have a positive impact on the reduction of algae?
> 
> Assume that you have let's say 3-4wpg.


If healthy thriving plants are the true enemy of algae, then assuming your ferts are in order, it stands to reason that MORE light is a good way to stop algae.


----------



## banderbe

plantbrain said:


> Most of the answers in the poll are possible, there is no correct single answer.
> 
> If the other elements are non limiting, a reduction in light intensity will add a more robust anti algae environment than higher intensity. It will slow growth, allow better plant health and a more stable system. Time of lighting can play a role going longer/shorter. Burst works well and allows less to be used for the remainder of the light cycle. I would say overall though at 10 hour photoperoiod, less intensity is the best option if algae is the only factor but there are other possible answers.
> 
> Still, way too many folks have way too much light as a rule.
> Plants do not need that much and algae does do better as higher and higher light intensities are present.
> 
> Regards,
> Tom Barr


So what IS "too much light" ?

I have 2.25 WPG and a mid-day 3 hour period of 4.5 WPG, and I am going to expand the mid-day period until eventually I have 4.5 WPG for the full 10 hours of my photoperiod.


----------



## banderbe

Every single time I see "experts" talking about combating algae, they *always* talk about nutrients, CO2, healthy plants, etc. 

It seems to me that if you are having to back off your lighting, install UV sterilizers, etc., then you are fighting symptoms rather than the cause, which is an imbalance in your tank.

I could be wrong. I'm a noob, but this is what I have gathered after hours upon hours of reading people like Tom Barr, Roger Miller, old papers like the Sears-Conlin paper, etc. People may disagree about the nature of the nutrient imbalances, or how to go about correcting them, but I haven't seen anyone suggest that lighting is the problem.

As a temporary corrective measure, lighting could be eliminated or reduced but that's not a good solution and not a way to have a vibrant planted tank. Or so I have read.


----------



## banderbe

Bill Weber said:


> Water change, water change, water change.
> With that amount of light you need to do a 50% water change at least every other day. Over time this will reduce the algae in your tank.


I have read some experts say water changes make an existing algae problem *worse* but maybe that's only for non-CO2 tanks... can't remember..


----------



## jeff63851

I voted for the reduction of light. When I have the 4.0 wpg power compact lighting, there was so much algae, it wasn't even funny! But I reduced the lighting to 2.0 wpg and the algae started to die off. As my aquarium got more established, I slowly added more lighting.


----------



## Elkmor

IMHO, light manipulations, if in appropriate for plants range, doesn't affect algae at all. If plants suffer from deficiency, reducing light will reduce uptake rates, and, therefore, increase plant's health.

Plant's health affects algae much more than light.

Edward, plants aren't afraid to be closer to light source. There are no such thing in nature, like "near light source". IMHO, plants simpler thinks, that they will get much more light by spreading horizontally then by growing up (in case of poor light).

I'm a novice at plants cultivation, but some thing seems to be obvious.


----------



## yildirim

Hello all,

In my 32g tank with a little more than 4wpg I only have GSA on older leaves of Anubias which after several tries I considered as normal to have it. My tank is very heavily planted and all the nutrients are above the suggested levels (perhaps much more). I pump CO2 into the tank with a DIY setup and never take into consideration so called CO2 charts of pH and kH. The onlt indicator for me for CO2 is my fishes responses. Unless u have enough nutrients, co2 and plenty of plant I never considered lighting as a very important issue for algal growth. But anyway due to my working hours and I wish to see my tank when lights on during the time I'm at home, I apply a midday siesta for two hours in my tank. Besides that lights are on for 5hrs in the morning and 2 hours siesta and then on again for app. 8 hours which means that my tank is lighted with more than 4wpg for app 13 hours (which most of you will consider as a long period). So according to my current configuration going for over a year my vote goes for midday siesta. This much and long lighting didn't cause me an alg problem but incredible growth and too much pruning.

YILDIRIM


----------



## mlfishman

*hi light*

I like the look of the plants that high light yields. Lower lighting may make it easier to grow the plants with less algae but lets be realistic here. Alot of people are trying to shoot for the stars with their tank, and recreate some of the top notch tanks with vivd colors that they see all over the net. if someone does not have the time to put it that it requires to maintain a high light tank properly then no it wont work< and lowering the light is better> But if you take the best quality mid to low light tanks and compare them to the top notch high to ultra high tanks the higher light ones are always more stunning in terms of plant quality and color (there are exceptions but for the most part) to each his own but i"d rather walk that line and deal with hte issues of a high light tank


----------



## Laith

mlfishman said:


> ... Alot of people are trying to shoot for the stars with their tank, and recreate some of the top notch tanks with vivd colors that they see all over the net. ...But if you take the best quality mid to low light tanks and compare them to the top notch high to ultra high tanks the higher light ones are always more stunning in terms of plant quality and color (there are exceptions but for the most part) ...


It depends what one is considering as low, mid and high light tanks. Most of the well known aquascapers that produce those top notch tanks are for the most part *not* using 4+ wpg on their tanks!


----------



## standoyo

ha... glossy mags use flash photography...


----------



## Edward

Elkmor said:


> IMHO, light manipulations, if in appropriate for plants range, doesn't affect algae at all. If plants suffer from deficiency, reducing light will reduce uptake rates, and, therefore, increase plant's health.
> 
> Plant's health affects algae much more than light.
> 
> Edward, plants aren't afraid to be closer to light source. There are no such thing in nature, like "near light source". IMHO, plants simpler thinks, that they will get much more light by spreading horizontally then by growing up (in case of poor light).
> 
> I'm a novice at plants cultivation, but some thing seems to be obvious.


I noticed that under high light intensity a hungry plant turns away from light source and when full of nutrients it turns back. This can be observed in a matter of few hours.


----------



## Laith

That's an interesting observation... never noticed that.


----------



## Elkmor

Laith said:


> That's an interesting observation... never noticed that.


It's a kinda magic. Only chosen can notice that.


----------



## Elkmor

Elkmor said:


> It's a kinda magic.


Interesting fact: my wife, the biologist, said, that some of dry plants can rotate their leafs parallel to light in case of very hight temperature. She have no information on water plants.


----------



## gf225

Fascinating thread. 

Since using EI and pressurized CO2 I've never had algae issues (except BGA via too low NO3). 

I only have 2 WPG T8 though and run 10 hours straight. I assume it is my lower lighting intensity that helps - although it is still enough to carpet glosso very quickly.


----------



## tonym

i use split photo period it helps but the best way is to have fast growing plants to out compete algae ( ps also good for compost heap)


----------



## MatPat

I have read through this thread again and it does seem that reducing the lighting period (a "noon burst" may also be considered a light reduction depending on the application) may be the best effort to reducing algae. A lot of folks with high light tanks (myself included), seem to have some issues with algae in their tanks. 

I think the majority of issues are CO2 related since fertilizing has been covered pretty much by the EI and PPS methods so fertilizer deficiencies should not be much an issue any longer. Some folks just just can't seem to get enough CO2 into their tanks regardless of their methods and reducing the light intensity/duration will help with CO2 levels. 

I have combatted both Green Dust and Diatoms successfully by reducing my photoperiod and intensity of lights. I think the one things we may have overlooked (or not mentioned) thus far in this discussion is determining and or applying the Watts Per Gallon rule.

Wasn't the WPG rule created a long time ago when T-12 lamps were our only source of lighting for planted tanks other than incandescent bulbs? T-8 lights have now replaced T-12 lamps in most commercial strip light fixtures today. T-8 lamps give us more intensity per watt when compared to T-12 lamps. How much do we decrease the original wpg rule for the greater intensity of T-8 lamps?

Compact Flourescent lights are a big step up from the T-8 lamps in intensity per watt yet people still use 3+ watts per gallon with these more intense sources of light. Do we need to decrease the WPG rule more to take this more intense light source into consideration? How much more intense are PC lamps..are they double the intensity of T-12 lamps?

I believe the linear T-5 lamps are an even greater increase in intensity over the compact flourescent lamps since they have less restrike and possibly even better reflectors. Should the WPG rule be decreased even more for linear T-5 lamps and if so, by how much? 

One of the SWOAPE members, rwoehr, is growing a nice variety of plants in his 75g tank with 108 watts of T-5 lights. I don't think I would try to grow those plants with 120w of T-12 lighting over a 75g tank 

I realize the WPG rule was originally devised to make it easier on new hobbyists to select lighting for their tanks but again, it was created with the inefficient (by today's standards anyway) T-12 lamps. 

We used to believe PO4 caused algae and a lot of folks now keep their tanks at 2ppm or better. It is now commonly believed that increasing PO4 levels actually reduces Green Spot algae. I really think when dealing with lighting and the WPG rule we need to revise it for todays higher intensity more efficient lamps. The fertilization methods have changed greatly since the WPG rule was developed why not revisit the WPG rule also?


----------



## ruki

This is really complicated. Lots of different types of algae out there. Lots of different water conditions and plants. My guess is that bright light with plants that can take advantage of it will help control algae. Do this with plants that can't fully take advantage of this and algae may gain the upper hand.



MatPat said:


> Wasn't the WPG rule created a long time ago when T-12 lamps were our only source of lighting for planted tanks other than incandescent bulbs? T-8 lights have now replaced T-12 lamps in most commercial strip light fixtures today. T-8 lamps give us more intensity per watt when compared to T-12 lamps. How much do we decrease the original wpg rule for the greater intensity of T-8 lamps?


This is my personal crusade on this forum.   
Repeat after me, three times: "WPG is an estimate, not a rule."

My rough calculation is that WPG is +/- 50 percent considering tube technology (efficiency), tube spectrum, and reflector.



> Compact Flourescent lights are a big step up from the T-8 lamps in intensity per watt yet people still use 3+ watts per gallon with these more intense sources of light.


My 2nd personal crusade on this forum is that Compact fluorescent lights only make sense for tanks less than 24 inches wide. Linear tubes, whether T8, T5, or T5 HO make much more sense for tanks wider the 24 inches wide. This is due to three factors.

Factor one is that power compact tubes are bent in a way that sends light back into the tube. This means that reflectors are basically crippled with these lights.

Factor two is that the ends of fuorescent tubes don't produce as much light, so really short tubes don't produce as much light. So this technology is appropriate where you would have to use a really short tube because of limitation of physical space.

Factor three is that aquariums tend to be rectangular. Therefore, it seems totally insane to me to have 48 inch compact flourescent fixtures when T5 HO produces a little bit more light per watt than compact flourcent lamps and can have much better reflectors. T5 HO also work better warm and don't need (the wasted energy for) a fan when the fixture is designed properly.



> Do we need to decrease the WPG rule more to take this more intense light source into consideration? How much more intense are PC lamps..are they double the intensity of T-12 lamps?
> ...
> Should the WPG rule be decreased even more for linear T-5 lamps and if so, by how much?


Yes, there are some tables online for this. You will probably like this http://woo.gotdns.com/Aquarium/CalcLight.php?Width=18&Length=48

What makes more sense to me is to come up with a scheme to modify lumen/lux watt meters. Need to fliter out the UV and infared to get something close to PAR, then notch out the green. $100 for the light meter, $100 for the filter is my gut guess. May only make sense for photographers who have other uses for the filters and meter.



> I believe the linear T-5 lamps are an even greater increase in intensity over the compact flourescent lamps since they have less restrike and possibly even better reflectors.


In order of efficiency of lumens/watt:
T5
T8
T5 HO
Power Compact *
T10
T12
T12 VHO
* I have a spiral twist hydrobulb that claims to be better than metal halide, but provides no proof for this on the bulb package 



> The fertilization methods have changed greatly since the WPG rule was developed why not revisit the WPG rule also?


Repeat after me...   

With the greatest respect, but can't help being fanatical when people want to use rough estimates as absolute rules.


----------



## rhinoman

I tried dosing, I tried presurized CO2. I didn't see much of a change in algae growth. I cut back my lighting period from 10hrs/day to 8hrs/day my algae growth slowed noticibly. My 2500G tank will be low tech with 4x 1000w MHs. I will start with 4 hrs per light per day. I'll run 4x 96w CF's about 8 hrs/day. 2 13w CF's will run 12hrs/day. 10 lunar lights will run when the 13w's turn off.


----------



## standoyo

Is it true T5's have a lower life span than T8's?
Somehing about less gas.


----------



## Laith

standoyo said:


> Is it true T5's have a lower life span than T8's?
> Somehing about less gas.


This is the first time I've heard this. T5s, as far as I know, have a *longer* usable lifespan than T8s...

So far I've been running T5s on planted tanks for just about two years without changing them and still have yet to see a problem.


----------



## Edward

rhinoman said:


> My 2500G tank will be low tech with 4x 1000w MHs. I will start with 4 hrs per light per day.


How is your aquarium? Maybe 6 hours MH would work well?


----------



## rhinoman

The 2500 will be built when the house is built fall "08".


----------



## gf225

ruki said:


> In order of efficiency of lumens/watt:
> T5
> T8
> T5 HO
> Power Compact *
> T10
> T12
> T12 VHO
> * I have a spiral twist hydrobulb that claims to be better than metal halide, but provides no proof for this on the bulb package


What is the difference between T5 and HO T5, and why is "non-HO" T5 more efficient? I thought HO T5 i.e. linear 5/8" dia. 24w, 39w, 54w, 80w were the most efficient...


----------



## A_Shea

i have 2wpg on my 55. two 55 watt 6700k pc, and have been able to grow anything i have wanted. Glosso and hc have all done great, wonderful carpets of each.


----------



## Paul Munro

Hi, I have been reading on here for HOURS as I have an algae problem.

There has been no mention yet of different light temperatures affecting algae. I am suspicious of one of my two Arcadia t8 bulbs, it emits a rather red light.

Any more light temperature thoughts??


----------



## hoppycalif

Some people think that some color temperature bulbs encourage algae more than plants, but I haven't seen any test results that show that to be true. Light intensity and duration seem to be the primary parameters that determine whether the light will encourage algae.


----------



## lowfi

hmmm so is that website saying (or calculating) T5HO lights the same as PC? I am trying to 'guesstimate" what 48watts of T5HO would be over my 20H...medium high? I know its just an estimate.


----------



## Homer_Simpson

hoppycalif said:


> ...Light intensity and duration seem to be the primary parameters that determine whether the light will encourage algae...


I agree and in my experience based on my experimentation with different tank setups, I would dare say the "biggest" parameter, even though not the only one by any means.


----------



## Paul Munro

Thinking back.. when I went from 15watts to 30watts on my tank, that's when the algae started!

I suppose to compensate I need adequate CO2 and nutrients! 

I'm learning \\/


----------



## SPC

ruki said:


> In order of efficiency of lumens/watt:
> T5
> T8
> T5 HO
> Power Compact *
> T10
> T12
> T12 VHO
> * I have a spiral twist hydrobulb that claims to be better than metal halide, but provides no proof for this on the bulb package


Do you have a link you can post that shows how this data was arrived at?

Thanks,
Steve


----------



## reefcrawler

Laith said:


> This is the first time I've heard this. T5s, as far as I know, have a *longer* usable lifespan than T8s...
> 
> So far I've been running T5s on planted tanks for just about two years without changing them and still have yet to see a problem.


I can't agree, bulbs will decline it's spectrum around 1/2 ~ 1 year, the bulb is still working doesn't means it wroks the right spectrum range for plants, I'll suggest to change bulbs every year even for our human eyes can't tell the difference.

Just my 2 cents. :mrgreen:


----------



## fishyman

Hi,
I am relatively a very new member but have been visiting this site very often. My aquarium has all the algae you can think of and also all other which you cant think of. I wonder how come my aquarium can home so many kinds of algae.
The water parameter seems fine to me. ph 6.7, GH 3deg, NO3 10 mg/l, NO2 negligible and water temp of 26-27 deg celcius.
The tank is approx 95 gallons and i am using two MH 150 watts each switched on for 5 hrs and there after two 18 watts osram fluora. for next 6 hours. I am using pressuried co2. The plants are growing very well but even better the algae.so far i have noticed black beard algae, green spot algae, dust algae, thread algae. theres another algae some what blk brown in colour and appears as small algae balls stuck to my gravel.
before i bought these MH i did my required reiki and came across with MH with ceremic techology and found their spectrum good enough for consideration. the spectrum were peaking in red and blue, 4200 k, 14000 lumens and cri of 95.
I am following estimative index for fertilisation which involves khpo4,kno3 and microsol-b.
Any one who can render some advise.
regards
Tarun Jawa


----------



## bear24

I reduced lighting duration and wattage. It didn't really work. I'm trying Noon burst this week now.


----------



## thefishmanlives

MatPat said:


> I've said this before, but I grew some of my nicest Rotala macrandra and Pogostemon stellatus with 136 of T-8 (96w, 9325K) and T-12 (40w, 5500K? Nutrigrow) lighting. I did have pressurized CO2 which was a big help. Algae was practically non existent and P. stellatus rarely if ever stunted. The plants grew much slower with that amount of light, but so did the algae.
> 
> Why is it that such high light levels are recommended and do we _really _need it for _most_ plants?


watts per gallon isnt a truly accurate way to mearusre lighting at all. 110 watts with a good reflector or separate relfectors for hte bulbs is a whole different animal then 110 watts with a poor relflector. I think this is where people are giving advice without know what the deal is. And pressurized co2 makes a world of difference. moderate lighting with press co2 will grow almost anything, just more slowly. However high lighting plus excel or diy co2 will almost always cause algae disaster or take up all your time mixing yeast bottles. 2 watts per gallon of pc light with AH supply lighting + press co2 will def grow almost anything and fairly well.


----------



## thefishmanlives

fishyman said:


> Hi,
> I am relatively a very new member but have been visiting this site very often. My aquarium has all the algae you can think of and also all other which you cant think of. I wonder how come my aquarium can home so many kinds of algae.
> The water parameter seems fine to me. ph 6.7, GH 3deg, NO3 10 mg/l, NO2 negligible and water temp of 26-27 deg celcius.
> The tank is approx 95 gallons and i am using two MH 150 watts each switched on for 5 hrs and there after two 18 watts osram fluora. for next 6 hours. I am using pressuried co2. The plants are growing very well but even better the algae.so far i have noticed black beard algae, green spot algae, dust algae, thread algae. theres another algae some what blk brown in colour and appears as small algae balls stuck to my gravel.
> before i bought these MH i did my required reiki and came across with MH with ceremic techology and found their spectrum good enough for consideration. the spectrum were peaking in red and blue, 4200 k, 14000 lumens and cri of 95.
> I am following estimative index for fertilisation which involves khpo4,kno3 and microsol-b.
> Any one who can render some advise.
> 
> regards
> Tarun Jawa


Id be willing to bet that your co2 is too low. bump it up and get a drop checker. 2nd, with all that light your probably bottoming out your co2, stop using test kits and start dosing EI. 3rd, your tank should be heavily planted with all that light, at least until you get your algae in check. If you havent already get a bunch of cheap fast growers to get your tank under control. You should be dosing a pretty high amount of N and P with MH light and Press Co2.


----------



## fastang80

All elements need to be balance to keep algae on check and lighting is only one of them.


----------



## chagovatoloco

I had algae issues in my main tank until went with a 6 hour photo period. I dosed ei and had pressurized co2 with a good substrate and 4wpg of pc light. If found out later that what my problem was my co2 measureing system, got a drop checker and that was fixed. My point is that IMO a shorter photo period will make up for other mistakes and keep algae at bay. I know am going to longer photo periods and seeing more growth. From what I learned most beginners should stay with a short photo period until things are well in control.


----------



## xavierj123

Somewhere along the line, I read that a seller of aquarium light fixtures replaced the blubs in the fixtures that he was selling to prevent the growth of algae. It was mentioned that 10000k grows algae so he replaced the bulbs that came with the light fixtures with 6700k. 
I have two tanks. The one with 10000k grows algae. The one with 6700k is algae free. I do not use CO2, just Florish Excel & Seachem and lots of aquatic plants.


----------



## barbarossa4122

I have 2.5 w/g t5ho on my 55g and 30g goldfish planted tanks. I have some algae, GSA I think, but it's not an invasion, just on some of my plants and here and there on decorations. Today I started using Excel and I am waiting for my dry ferts from Green Leaf. Right now I use root tabs, flourish, flourish iron, Fleet enema and Epsom. I do 60% wc weekly on both tanks. New to this hobby(since Sept the 1st) and I love it. I vote for reduce lighting period, but as I said I am new to this.


----------



## Troy McClure

Very old thread but still very relevant. I've been out of the hobby for a couple years because of moving so much but I'm finally settled and getting back into it. Figured I would toss my opinion in on this subject. I voted for noon burst, and to explain why, I'll just going to repost part of a conversation I had with WolfenxXx a few years back:



> I feel like people are using far too much light for far too long. If I can make an analogy, it's like red-lining an engine every time you drive. You get to where you want to go quicker, but eventually that engine is going to fail. You may run out of gas, blow a gasket, throw a rod, burn off engine oil, crack the head, etc. There is a ton of problems that can come up if you are constantly running at very high RPMs in a car that was not designed to do so. Cars that were designed to do that, like F1 cars, have teams dedicated to maintaining them after every race or practice. It requires constant maintenance, and neglecting even one aspect will result in the entire system being unable to function. Similarly, I think with so many people using high light for eight and ten hours a day, it is almost a guaranteed catastrophe waiting to happen because of the constant need for maintenance. In many cases, this maintenance is specific to nutrients. I am not saying "no high lighting EVER," just in *moderation*. Similarly, it is good to almost red-line your car every now and then to blow out carbon deposits, etc. My bimmer gets red lined at least once a week (or near redline, at least.) My brother does the same on his Acura. I can also relate the lighting issure to weightlifting. If you lift hard for eight and ten hours each and every day, injury is all but inevitable no matter what supplements you add to your body. We grow while we sleep, and I think (I can't prove it unless it's already been proven) that plants do the same during non-photosynthetic periods.
> 
> I think a good discussion to start up would be the use of staggered lighting. Not the "siesta" BS that was all the rage back in the day, but better regulation/management of lighting intensities. Hopefully next year I will finally get my 50gal set up with a 24" Coralife Aqualight Pro HQI. That 2x65W plus a 150W HQI @ 10kK. That's a friggin ton of light!!! However, my plan is to run only one of the 65W bulbs for eight "viewing" hours (maybe ten depending on when I'm home) with the HQI turned on for maybe four hours in the middle of the day. Think about what happens in nature - the *sun doesn't shine for eight or ten hours at maximum intensity all day every day.* I do not believe high light = great plants. I think short bursts of high energy = great plants. If I'm not mistaken, Amano uses similar short, high intensity photoperiods on his tanks.


Of course, there are other variables involved but light is the primary. No light- no algae.


----------



## menguyen

I think light is the main control for algae. From my experience, in places where the light is not present in the tank (ie under the shade of plant growth or under the aquascaping) THERE IS NO ALGAE. 

so here is a true story from experience. i'm a college student. set up a planted tank at home before i left for school. came back thanksgiving to find that algae had completely ugly-fied and taken over the take. i cut off the light source completely. the only light came from ambient light from outside bouncing off my walls. lights out from one whole month. came back home during christmas. viola. no algae present. the plants that i did already have in there certainly weren't high-light plants (banana plant, java fern, java moss, anubias, rotola, microblade) BUT they all survived 100% and were perfectly healthy after the absent of light.

a few questions tho...
i've kept a saltwater tanks before too. one of the most important factors in determining coral growth/health and algae control was water flow. is that true for freshwater aquariums as well? do plants like circulation?

another question: how do you make ur plants GREEN? mine are of course green but they're never as green looking as fresh from the store or as some of your own plants in pictures


----------



## agy

Of course plants too love good water circulation, almost all tropical fishes and plants from rivers 

But all algeas Depend on many factors. If high amonia, nitrate, phosphate. Then possibly better cover top of tank with lot of elodea, they suck all nutrients very fast and make good shadows for algea. And after then lower light intensity and shorten lighting period to some 8hr. My expiriments show, light must be constant, if make short on off periods, give more light for short period in day time period then there algea raise more.
Lower intensity and time period helps, but light need constant all day time period.
Also for me help with little nutrients dosage. Dose only Postasium (K2so4) and little micros, that necessary for plant survive and first sucked all phosphates and nitrates. And to much Potasium absolutely not harmfull, can dose always more as necessary.


----------



## badlad53

I didn't actually read past page 3 so not sure if this has been mentioned but...
I've been maintaining a 6.8wpg "propagation chamber" for a little over 4 years. Lights are on 12 hours/day no matter what. The only time it grows algae is when I get lax on the ferts for more than a week or 2, and even then the algae only grows on the very bottom of the glass, hahaha like as far away from the light as it can get. You can actually see a line where the algae will not grow, as though it was cleaned all the way around the perimeter to 1/2 inch of the bottom or so. But as soon as I get back to dosing the algae goes away completely and it turns once again into the only tank that grows no algae!

Just a thought...


----------



## hornedtoad1

i'm a newbie, 2 months with a npt 10g. slow, steady growth of fur/string algae over the last 3 weeks or so. i got some floating frogbit that's multiplying like crazy; light is 23w cfl clamp light probably 8" above the tank; 5 hours siesta, 5 hours each in the am and pm. plants are doing well, but the algae just doesn't go away after reading this, i think i'll shorten the lighting day.


----------



## DeChaoOrdo

Im unable to vote. None of these options seem appropriate. Light is just another nutrient. Granted, making light the limiting nutrient seems the most important factor in algae control to me, it is not alone in controlling algae. All of the options other than lighting spectrum seem like they would work for controlling algae under the right circumstances. IMO its all about creating a situation in which the plants are able to monopolize the available light. So, "none of the above".


----------



## thefisherman

fastang80 said:


> All elements need to be balance to keep algae on check and lighting is only one of them.


+1

and just to paraphrase - what i believe is everyone's goal to control algae; "you want your plants to outcompete the algae for nutrients"

this is more likely to occur with vigorously growing plants; which is why people step on the light/co2/fertz gas pedal, rather than the opposite

Sent from my iPhone


----------



## maverickbr77

I voted "I don't know: I never have algae!" which isn't quite true its more that I never seem to get nuisance algae. I'm a bit of a nutter though and like to see just a bit of algae in my tanks (looks natural to me and feeds my fishes and inverts)


----------



## Irida

Laith said:


> Curious to know what people think...
> 
> Given that all your other plant nutrients (including CO2) are available to your plants in adequate (or more than adequate) amounts for your level of lighting, what lighting changes will have a positive impact on the reduction of algae?
> 
> Assume that you have let's say 3-4wpg.


 Reducing light intensity, due to a personal belief that it is a smaller shock to the system than changing duration of the photoperiod. I use floating plants for that. I actually cannot remember a time when I hadnt had any floating plants. Using only a DIY CO2 in a dirt tank this was a reasonable thing to do. 
Plants will utilitize any color spectrum, its just that algae and the human aesthetics prefer those known as daylight this or natural that. Ive had 30+ aquatic plants in several tanks under different lighting conditions and all grew well and looked the same, when taken out of the tank. Maybe my opinion would change if I had used a microscope.  Sure Ive never tried Rotala walichii and Toninas couse I have a hardwater tank, but HC grew well and slow even in a biorb with no WC and dosing at all under window light. 
OT> As a lot of members suggested, light is just another nutrient. Id like to add there is no algae free tank, BUT tank maturity, and high oxigenation of the tank will reduce algae. 
Oxygen is of utmost importance, not just CO2 levels. Beneficial bacteria will not benefit of CO2 but of O2, and that will have an impact od reducing ammonia levels and ammonia spikes. 
Good water surface agitation is important even in an El Natural tank!


----------

