90 Gal Lighting / flourite Question

[mbeck]

I'm putting together a new 90 gal plant tank - and I've got a question. I wanted to do some plants this time that require more light, or at least have the ability to do so.

I'm building a light hood with the AH Supply kit that gives 4x55. That gives 220 over a 90 gal, which is about 2.4 watts/gal. I've seen that the bright light requirements are about 3 / gal, but also I've seen a lot of people say that the reflectors with the AH supply kits give a lot more light. Is this sufficient, or should I perhaps build the hood to allow for some additional?

The new tank is 100% Flourite (man that took a lot of rinsing) - any problems with any plants running that way? I've seen a few things saying some plants may not be cool with that. I'll be moving the CO2 to the new tank, and am running a Fluval 404 in there as well, with the Fluval media, Eheim Substrate, and filter floss.

In my old tank - a 55 gal - I just had a dual tube flourescent (All glass) which didn't give the light I needed. Even with CO2 I still had problems with anything that wasn't low light.

I'm really looking forward to having a nicer plant tank - you all seem to be a great source of information.

I'm also looking forward to converting the 55 to Cichlids. :)

[emoore]

I think you should be ok with 220W on your 90. The wpg rule breaks down with larger tanks. You might have trouble growing high light forground plants (Glosso, etc). To be on the safe side I would build the canopy to accomadate 6 55W bulbs. That way you can upgrade in the future if you would like to.

[mbeck]

Actually Glosso is one of the plants I've been interested in...

I think I'll take your suggestion and build the hood to accomodate more if I need it... in the meantime maybe I'll try the glosso with the 4x55s and see how it does.

[djlen]

Excellent advice from emoore.
That 2.4 watts/gal. will be more like 3/gal. with the CF lighting and their excellent reflectors, but you might find that Glosso requires more light down the road and since you have the option to accommodate more wattage later, it's a good idea to use it.

Len

[plantbrain]

Some of the best gloss I've ever seen was with 2.1w/gal of NO FL's lighting at 24" depth, the other tank was 18" and 1.5 w/gal lighting.

I like less lighting for Gloss, it looks better.

Flourite will be great for any plant.
Add mulm/peat top the bottom of the flourite to start up the tank well.

Anyone that wants to claim that Gloss is a high light plant should take a look at SFBAAPS and see Jeff's and Steve's old tanks.

I grew it fine at 2w/gal NO FL's.

Regards,
Tom Barr

[mbeck]

Thanks for all your input.. would what I'm setting up be enough for plants that require bright light? It's actually pretty interesting looking at the plant competition tanks - some are only about 2.1 or so wpg, some are like 4.

[djlen]

Tom knows his stuff. I would follow his advice, go with your original plan, plant your tank, and see how different plants grow in your conditions. You can always make modifications if you feel it's necessary.

Len

[plantbrain]

Amano, Steve, myself, Jeff, we all have done it, this means other folks can too. But we are also pretty good at plants, the CO2/NO3 etc stuff will get you far and especially so with moderate lighting, since thigns are not so hard to keep up on.


Regards,
Tom Barr

[mbeck]

the CO2/NO3 etc stuff will get you far

Quick newbie question - what does NO3 refer to?

[emoore]

I would also suggest you take the advice of Tom. He has much more experience in this hobby than I do.

mbeck: NO3 is nitrate

[mbeck]

Thanks, this all should get me started.

I'm used to the long names for things like Nitrate, etc - guess I'll have to bone up on the chemical designations. :)

I'm still in the process of cycling the new tank - but I'm using media from my old tank filter. A few more weeks of balancing and I should be set to go.

[beviking]

Mr. Barr, could you be a little more specific on the addition of peat to the substrate? I'm going to be changing mine over in my 90g tank and would like to know how much to add, along with the mulm syphoned from the old gravel. I've read cautions about adding organic matter to the substrate but I've also read the boards enough to know that djlen is correct..."Tom knows his stuff."

I apologize for "piggy-backing" on your thread mbeck, but this might benefit you too!

[plantbrain]

Peat is added the very bottom layer, roughly 1 handful per sq ft, more if you are a non CO2 person etc, then perhaps 1" dry. Then add the mulm, lots of it. 1/2" or so of fairly rich soupyness.

Adding organic matter can be bad if it has NH4/Urea. These cause algae. NO3 is fine.

But mulm is very safe since it's already well broken down and is loaded with bacteria, the right kind of bacteria, that are present in established tanks. The organic matter feeds them till things stabilize after a few months and then you do not have any new tank start up issues, it runs like an established tank.

We all enrich the substrate some and also take nutrients from the water column, some m,ethods rely more on the water column, some more on the substrate. There is on;t a finite amount that can be supplied to the substrate, adding ferty sticks can extend this or frozen soil/mud cubes/clay balls etc, but the water column is easy to dose over the years, but folks will forget to do it etc also, so a combo of both methods is good idea.

Gives you more leeway.

Regards,
Tom Barr

[beviking]

Thank you.