[tusk]

Just wondering what the current thought on this.

Is it better to run higher wattage lighting for a shorter photo period compared to lesser wattage lighting for a longer photo period?

 

[jmhart]

Well, that kind of depends on a couple of things:

What wattages are we talking about?
What photoperiods are we talking about?
What plants?


Generally, no matter what wattage you have, 10 hours is about as long as you want to go on your photoperiod. 5-6 hours is probably about as short as you want to go as well. In that range, it's up to you depending on what you want. Longer photoperiods of high light will increase the risk of algae issues. Shorter periods of low light just won't yield a lot of growth.

I had a 45g tank, 192w of light, and a 6 hour photoperiod:

Very intense colors, slower growth, no algae issues.

 

[tusk]

110 gallon (26-28" deep) has been on 274 watts of CF lighting for 7hrs a day for a while. Some good some bad. I just started up honest EI dosing again, ferts are fine. Decent CO2 setup, with high injection for 7 hours.

I've always seemed to have a bit of an alge issue. I just had my large tiger lilly which has never had leaves get any closer than 12" from the surface have a flower bloom. Things can't be all that bad. Just been thinking that I'd rather cut back on my photo period or wattage.

I just started my current wattage on 6 hrs a day. I was going to se what happend with that. Wondering if lowering the wattage, but running the 7-8 hour photo period. I can cut either the following; 55, 96, or a 13. It is a different style tank.