Too much light for non-CO2 injected tank?

[AK-71]

I need your opinions for light options
Is it bad to have 200 Watts of light for 55gal tank with no CO2 injection?

I thought of 135W back+ 65Watts front compact lights.
IOr maybe 135Watt compact on the back+ 2x15 regular (front) is better?

I was lucky to buy used 55gal tank for a very good price and now I am thinking of what can I use for lightning:
I already have a 65Watt compact light on 29gal I have now. Used tank came with 2x15Watt lights. I am going to buy 135 Watt light for this tank too.

Reason I ask:
Right now I have  29gal tank with 85 Watts of light I keep on for 9hours/day. When I just bought good light - plants responded with "bubbles" and good growth, but after couple weeks it stopped - plants look good and green, they don't die or melt as before, but stopped growing and black beard algae started to grow (started adding Excel because of algae- seems starting to work). I suspect plants suck all CO2 out of water with light like that.

--

[eklikewhoa]

Re: Too much light for non-CO2 injected tank?

Depending on how good the light is making through the tank....

I think any tank will benefit from co2 injection but if not something along the lines of 2wpg or more should be required.

[Mzungu]

Re: Too much light for non-CO2 injected tank?

I agree. Your plants probably took everything (nutrients, etc) out of the system. Before you began dosing with Excel, did you add any fertilizers at all?

As for CO2, there are people that don't use it, but I think it all depends on your priorities. I would definitely recommend it, especially with a higher light tank. And since you're thinking about using a lot of light, I'm assuming you are going for a heavily planted tank? Without the CO2, it's possible that you'll have the same experience with the 29, and all that light will just start to encourage algae after a while.

Have you already decided not to supplement CO2, or are you still tossing the idea around?

[AK-71]

Re: Too much light for non-CO2 injected tank?

I am using "Flourish comprehensive" and some iron/trace additive going by instructions on the bottle.
I really don't want to mess with CO2 - I was reading about it  and pressurised systems are $$$ and DIY seem to be hard to keep steady. I will have to keep using Excel, I guess. Aquarium is "medium" planted and fish is more important for me.
It just seems that ~3WPG gives me more options with plant selection - my 29gal tank looks much better with 85Watts than it was with 40Watts before.


So, it looks like it's better to stay <3WPG without CO2 injection?

[nacra99]

Re: Too much light for non-CO2 injected tank?

If you don't want to mess with CO2, then excel is the next best way to go.
The only thing is that it gets expensive real quick, especially if you dose daily.

29 gal (tall) is pretty deep, i think 65W CF should be just right for most common plants. That way you don't have to worry about the carbon supplementation as much as if you had 3WPG.

[Mzungu]

Re: Too much light for non-CO2 injected tank?

I understand.  :)  I wasn't going to go pressurized, but I found someone on here that was selling their 5# tank and accessories for a good deal, so I went ahead with that one, but on my others I use DIY CO2, and some have none.

>3wpg will give you a more comprehensive plant selection, that's true, but without CO2 I wouldn't bother. So, like you said, probably better to stay with <3wpg. You could use just the 135W on the back.

[eklikewhoa]

Re: Too much light for non-CO2 injected tank?

I would say that anything more then 2wpg should have co2 of some sort wether it be pressurized or supplemented. Also keep in mind that with the higher lighting ferts will be needed to keep the plants healthy.