Converting Lighting From T5 To T8

February FOTM Photo Contest Starts Now!
FishForums.net Fish of the Month
🏆 Click to enter! 🏆

chesterjohn

Fish Fanatic
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Is it possible to just change the connectors for the tubes and use the same ballast for T5 and T8 tubes?

I want to change to T8 as I get loads of algae with T5 and it's a waste blacking out one of them.
 
Is it possible to just change the connectors for the tubes and use the same ballast for T5 and T8 tubes?

I want to change to T8 as I get loads of algae with T5 and it's a waste blacking out one of them.

I think rather than changing the lights we should establish why you have so much algae.
How long are the lights on for per a day?
How often do you do water changes?
How stocked is your tank?
 
The cause of the algae is a planted tank with no CO2. I don't really want to buy a CO2 thing as they are plants that don't require it and I don't want to get it wrong and poison my fish.

I currently have on of the bulbs blacked out and there has been virtually zero algae growth since

Lights are on about 8 hours a day.
Water changes usually weekly, but going for 2 weekly now as the nitrates aren't building up
I'd say the tank is somewhere around 60-70% stocked. Don't have time to calculate it now, but I know I can add a school of cardinals, a plec and either some rams or apistos with what I have...
 
Let me try to step into the middle of this. A T-5 and a T-8 are very similar in the plant's response. Unless you are running T-5 HO, expect either lamp to be about the same in actual use. The photoperiod is far more important in controlling algae than the diameter of the lamp tube. What that means in practical terms is that replacing a T-5 connection with a T-8 connection will cost you money in bulbs and connectors but won't change the balance of light, nitrogen and CO2 much at all. Instead, please explore the correct relationship between light, CO2 and other nutrients since it is far more likely to give you good results.
 
Let me try to step into the middle of this. A T-5 and a T-8 are very similar in the plant's response. Unless you are running T-5 HO, expect either lamp to be about the same in actual use. The photoperiod is far more important in controlling algae than the diameter of the lamp tube. What that means in practical terms is that replacing a T-5 connection with a T-8 connection will cost you money in bulbs and connectors but won't change the balance of light, nitrogen and CO2 much at all. Insatead, please exp,ore the correct relationship between light, CO2 and other nutrients since it is far more likely to give you good results.

At the minute I have 2 x 54W tubes in. The Juwel T8 tubes are 30W. my tank is around 55 gallons (can't remember exactly), so to have about 1WPG, I would need to downgrade to T8, plus it will also save me money in bills in the long run.

I had a longish thread on the planted forum with RadaR and his advice was that as I don't want to inject CO2, tu put lots of floating/big plants in to shade the tank, or put a reflector on one of the tubes. After blacking that out, I've had virtually no algae, so I assume it is working.
 
2 wpg should not be causing algae if the tank is properly balanced. How are you fertilizing?

Was told macro shouldn't be necessary because it is stocked. And I'm not putting any micro currently in because the only stuff I can find has copper in which I'm pretty sure will kill my shrimp
 
Copper is indeed a bad idea when you have invertebrates. The lower wattage you cite will indeed save you a bit on electrical costs. The algae thing is an entirely different matter. At around 1 WPG the algae has nothing to do with the light being too bright although it could be related to leaving the lights on for too long in a day.
 
2 wpg should not be causing algae if the tank is properly balanced. How are you fertilizing?

Déjà vu! I have just been discussing the use of the words balance/imbalance on another forum, regarding fertilising planted tanks. The words imply that there is a ratio between certain required elements. This is not the case. As long as there is sufficient quantities of all the elements to the plants, to cater for the amount of growth being driven by the light levels, then the ratios are irrelevant.

EI has always advocated this, with the proviso that the quoted ppm for NPK be reduced to a point where the plants still have all they need, but fert wastage is minimalised.

Increased flow/turn over is also advocated in EI, so that ferts become available even more so to all corners of the tank, and dosing can be reduced even further. I dose about half EI targets in a 32USG tank with 108W of T5HO. There is no balancing act involved. My plants just have enough of everything. I don`t measure any one element against another.

The levels of copper present in fertilisers prepared for aquariums shouldn`t be a problem to inverts. Trace amounts of copper are necessary for planted tanks, yet many of us keep, and breed shrimp.

The cause of the algae is a planted tank with no CO2. I don't really want to buy a CO2 thing as they are plants that don't require it and I don't want to get it wrong and poison my fish.

It is the light levels that determine whether you need to add additional carbon, not the plants. You are on the right track by reducing light levels, but just to let you know, I used to run two T8s the width of a 240l tank, and found that I needed to add CO2.

No two tanks seem to be the same, so you may never need to add CO2, but be aware that you may not be curing the carbon deficiency problem. Adding Excel or Easycarbo could be another answer, but these could end up expensive additives in the long run. Personally, I would embrace pressurised CO2 if I were you, and learn to love the huge difference it can bring to a planted tank.

An eight hour photoperiod is about right for a plante tank.

Dave.
 
Just to add to what Dave has said above (Which I agree with)

Balance is the key. Far too many people think that copper cannot be added with shrimp. Dosing an off the shelf fert will have nowhere enough copper in it when dosed correctly for the shrimp to even know it is there. With EI you would be looking at a much higher amount than any off the shelf fert. probably 10x or more yet lots of EI tanks (including mine pre non CO2 days) had an uncontrollable shrimp colony.

What many need to understand is the relationship between light, CO2 and nutrients. They apply to all methods. Yes that includes a 'non CO2' setup.

In reality there is no such thing as a 'non CO2' setup as an amount of CO2 will naturally be in the water. 'Non CO2' refers to tanks that do not inject CO2.

Light is a subject where there are many disagreements. This is because it is something we think we all know something about as we can see it (or can we?) We see brightness, therefore we can see 1 light is brighter than another however we cannot see how much light is coming from the tube. The brighter one may be emitting less actual light. Therefore we have to make an assumption. The easiest is the WPG rule which has many faults but at least we can read the wattage from the box and equate it to a figure from the known measurements and volume of our tank. This is where the arguing starts because different people then start putting ranges of figures to state what you can do with each range and of course many have different ideas about what the ranges are.

Nutrients are a lot easier to manage. Put more than you need in and you can forget about it. That doesn't mean chuck in loads as that of course would be a waste and also could in extreme cases lead to problems with toxicity and/or algae if you don't have a balance.

Onto what you want to hear:

I would suggest that you should look at the following thread r.e. a 'non CO2' setup. It is long, it will take time to digest and you may still need help understanding some things but is very helpful:

http://www.barrreport.com/showthread.php/433-Non-CO2-methods

One thing that people seem to think is CO2 tanks need nutrient addition and non CO2 tanks don't. In reality CO2 tanks need ferts in most cases and non CO2 tanks do too. The reason that most non CO2 tanks need ferts is because the owner is still following generally understood principles of fishkeeping where a planted tank is much different. Non CO2 tanks can be run without fert addition but it depends on a few things:

The substrate is important. Much more important than a system where water column dosing is heavy. If you get the substrate right it can supply a slow release form of carbon. It can hold nutrient both from the original content and what it 'stores' from the waste within the tank and it can also produce CO2 from organic breakdown.

Another aspect is water changes. A non CO2 tank with no water changes means that all those vital goodies remain in the tank. A good filter can 'polish' the water but the fish waste (including waste food) and other detritus remain in the tank and contribute to the 'system'. All the filter does is clean the water so it looks clear. The plants consume most of the ammonia and other goodies that non planted tanks would need to remove.

So in summary (as you will read in the link above) A non CO2 tank has a 'natural' level of CO2 through gaseous exchange at the water surface. The substrate 'adds' some CO2 too. It needs no (or absolute minimal) water changes. It can be run purely off the livestock's waste but in the majority of cases will need a little boost every now and then. I am talking here of a pinch of KNO3 every few weeks to top it up a little.

So there you go. Have a good read. I think you should be OK with your lights although they are higher than I would put on a non CO2 tank.

Just as a pointer I would guess I have much higher PAR than your lights even though I only have 1 WPG yet I add no ferts, no CO2 and I haven't done a water change since September 2009 (10 months ago.) I have a huge breeding colony of shrimp (cherry) and a breeding group of Corys within this tank :) The tank runs itself basically and the occupants are very happy and healthy ;)

AC
 
im not too clued up on the science of algae but found that having my tank near the window caused problems due to the daylight coming through and then the hood lights running on a night.
 
Thanks for the help guys.

I haven't yet read the link, will do that shortly.

I haven't done a water change for 3 weeks now, but the nitrate has gone up to 40ppm. I would expect this to be much lower considering the amount of plants I have. Most are growing ok, but a few are struggling. I will add small amounts of micro ferts to give them a boost and hopefully sort out the lights soon.
 
If your nitrates have risen to 40 ppm, it is time for a water change. The plants don't need that much and it is not good for the fish to live with constantly rising nitrates. I dose nitrates when my own tanks get to less than about 10 ppm but that is in a very lightly populated and heavily planted tank. When I say heavily planted, I mean something like this, not just nicely aquascaped.
XenotaeniaCrop.jpg


This one is lightly planted and water changes to control nitrates are still a must in this tank.
Aponogetifolia1024.jpg
 

Most reactions

Back
Top