Thoughts on lighting

[Aquattro]

Just a thread from Eric Borneman I saw...

"orginally posted by EricHugo

As far as actual reef lighting, I disagree that it would take 2000 watt metal halides. At the surface of my tank, I have irradiance levels approaching sea surface values for the tropics. But, most of our corals aren't coming from sea surface values of the tropics. They come from some amount of depth, easily equalled by many types of lighting. As for the specturm of light, I don;t care and neither do the corals. In the rainy season, their water gets green. After storms, its brown. On a great day, its blue. After spawning, its cream. When a cloud passes overhead, its dark and red-shifted. When its sunny, its turquoise clear. At dusk and dawn, its red-shifted. If a coral gets shaded by another coral or algae or sponge, it gets less light than it did. If a storm breaks it and it falls down under a rock, its gets less light. If it fall from an area of lower light into an open area, it gets more light. Corals grow in deep water, shallow water, etc. So, to simulate natural light levels might take a lot of light, might take a 24" fluorescent. Could be any spectrum, depending on what the ocean is like that day.

The whole lighting issue has been almost laughable to me for years.

Depending on the coral, they can adapt to fairly huge variation because they have such good photoacclimatory responses. Most corals saturate at or well below 20,000 lux or so...about the equivalent of a single 175 watt metal halide halfway down an average size tank. So, photosynthetic requirements met, end of story for all practical purposes...from there, it becomes a matter of specifics to a coral or aquarist and what they want...or think they want.

I care that corals live for aquarists. I care little if they are the color they want them to be, if they have a 10000K bulb or a 12000K bulb, or if they think their lighting can ever be "ideal" - if there is a question about where a coral is found, and if it needs a lot of light or has specific light requirments, I deal with that. I hate lighting banter, in general, cause I think its techno-babble that is for the most part absolutely irrelevent beyond a certain stage. Zooxanthellate corals need light and light is important for them. We have a thousand ways to provide them that light. Have had it available for going on twenty years. What else is there? "

[Son Of Skyline]

That's a very strong theory. I've always wondered about corals in nature as well. When I was snorkelling in Hawaii I noticed lots of shaded areas with constant cloud cover and wondered why I always needed intense light when they don't always get it in nature! Although the theory doesn't explain why many corals do die under relatively weak lighting, or "inadequate" lighting.

[George]

Corals need energy to grow. IMO, the energy comes from either light or food. We don't know the exact percentage between these two. But I guess it is not a fixed ratio even for a particular coral.

I mean, when a coral has more food to eat, it doesn't need that much light. And vice versa.
In the ocean, there are plenty of plankton and such for corals as food. I never dive or snorkel. But by watching numerous videos of reefs at night, I can see that the reefs turn into a plankton soup at night(may be at day too).
Most of our tanks are almost sterilized when comes to coral food. Therefore we might need more light than usual to keep corals.

Anyway, food for thought.

George

[Troy F]

I think you hit the nail right on the head George. If we could feed enough and still manage to export the unused nutrients in some manner we'd probably get by with less light. Also, animals like dendronepthya might become possible.

[StirCrazy]

I was going to refer to that the other day when I read it Brad but I still haven't decided how to interpret it. George makes some good points but I am still undecided.

Steve

[Aquattro]

Steve, my interpretation, for what it's worth, is that we tend to place too much value on hype. We worry about color of light, micro-einsteins, and a bevy of other details that our corals just don't care about. We often don't explore other contributing factors in the growth of corals, such as food, current, etc. Perhaps stronger light increases the available plankton in a tank, thus providing more food for them (the corals). Perhaps an alternating current provides for better respiration and this in turn contributes to growth.
Lighting may only be a small part of what a coral really needs. Look at Shane's tank; it has beautiful corals and he hasn't bought the bigger badder light hype.
We tend to choose lighting based on what we like, or perhaps what we (erroneously) perceive the corals to need. To be truthful, we don't have a clue!!
We tend to lose sight of what our intent is with this hobby. We set out to grow beautiful, healthy corals. It turns out, however, that our actions are possibly detrimental to these very same corals. It is documented that captive corals have a lower skeletal density than wild corals. It is hypothesized that our attempts at accelerating growth are directly attributable to this. So do we then require excessive light? Should we not go for lower light levels and slower growth? We are, after all, trying to replicate nature. Also, some of my nicest corals are brown. Should I ethically try to artificially induce some other color? Who knows?

I think the main point of Eric's comments is that just because Dana or Sanjay say it's so, doesn't mean it is. More is not always better and there are many more factors involved in the husbandry of corals.
I'm tired of typing now....bye-

[StirCrazy]

Originally posted by Reef_Raf:
Look at Shane's tank; it has beautiful corals and he hasn't bought the bigger badder light hype.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Um, isn't Shane running 3, 400 watt MH? :D I would say thats big and bad :D

I get a lotof the same ideas out of it also but I don't think that it is in the wayof people worring to much about PAR and such but rather people going with the "bigger is always better" attatude. I am a firm beleaver that if a 2 oz hammer will do the job there is no need for a 10lb sledge hammer. but... and a big BUT, if you look at Erik's tanks he is blasting them with 400 watt iwasakis.. so that goes againse everything he posted there.. THIS is the part I am confused about.. if he preaches one thing and does another which do you believe?

I see beautifull tanks with 250 watt DE HQI's (big and bad a$$ power) then at the same time I see the same types of corals under 175 wat MH that look just as pretty. sothis showes quite plainly that lighting isn't the only factor.. and almost sugests that it isn't the most important factor but of course this is my opinion only and I am sure others will disagree.

I have come to the conclusion that this is what makes lighting suck a hard desision ... no one realy knows what is better.. for example..lets say some one is running oh... 400 watt MH and there tank is wonderfull.. they give frags to some one else who has a simular set up but they are running 250 watt radiums. in the new tank the frags develop a different colout than the frags from the same coral that he gave to another guy with 150 watt bulbs.. but the are all coloured and none are brown.. I read a lot of posts like this. on the other hand I have also seen cases whare identical lighting produces different colours in different tanks.

I think the only way you can look at lighting is with a "what ever works good in YOUR tank" kinda attatude.. sure the lumen and PAR meters are usefull tools for aproxamating but that is it. the main reason I bought mine was to help me determin when I should change bulbs, and of course as a toy :D :D

but I think I beter stop befor I start to babble

Steve

[DJ88]

Brad,

my .02

In our closed systems we don't provide near the feeding requirements that those corals get in nature. We don't provide the mass water volume to carry away wastes and such so we can't massively over feed to compensate for this lack of food as found in nature. It is this natural abundance for the proper foodstuff's that allows the corals in nature to be as colorful yet at a deeper depth. On a reef you can measure over 2000gpm going past a specific area of a reef. That is a heck of a lot of water carrying food and carrying away wastes. In addition to this lack of water volume and flow to carry food to the corals we don't feed the corals everything found in nature. Not even close. We are using chemically developed salt that mimics NSW as close as we can make it. Thing is we can't. It varies too greatly from reef to reef. There are so many factors in just the chemical make up we don't understand that we are obviously lacking. Food is a no brainer. We aren't even close to being able to provide for them as they are supplied in nature. If we were meeting those needs we could keep non-photosynthetic gorgonians and other corals with ease. We can't. Yet.

With all of these areas lacking that we can't recreate, the corals that are brought into our tanks would not survive if it weren’t for the boost we give with our lighting. And by lighting I mean intensity. Color means squat. It is to satisfy our eyes and make it aesthetically pleasing.

We have removed many parts of the whole equation for the survival of coral in our tanks in compared to nature. To get them close to looking like they do in nature we need to boost the one area we can assist these animals with so they can grow and flourish. Lighting. To me this means as close to natural sunlight as possible. With that we need to keep an eye on one area of light. The light that is useable by corals in photosynthetic production of energy. PAR in essence. Lumens aren't the same thing and aren't an accurate representation. Color temperature is nothing but for our benefits. If you want to keep corals and have them thrive you need to get as close to or higher than the sun's output or PAR.

Look at Shane's tank; it has beautiful corals and he hasn't bought the bigger badder light hype<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Shane has 3 400W MH's over his system. That is a LOT of light on a 24” deep tank. He hasn't completely fallen into the color temperature hype the hobby has going on right now but he is putting more juice into his tank most people do. Even then the last time he posted shots he said he was running two 55KK and one 20KK. So even then he is still coloring for aesthetic reasons. The only way he can do more is to step up to 1000W MH. Shane does more with lighting than most do. He is doing a lot more IMO. And a very great job of it too. It is what I consider to be one of the more successful tanks in our area. He is a better example of what proper lighting can do than not do.

I have seen tanks with corals under lower wattage lighting, MH and VHO. Even a few with NO's and they don't get the growth or coloration that they get under a good amount of light. In some cases they look like they have one foot in the grave. Others don't seem to mind keeping corals under low light but I myself do mind. We have removed many sources for nourishment to let these creatures thrive and grow abundantly, so I am making up for it by giving them the photosynthetic energy they need to do more than just be alive. My tank shows the results of this. I get great growth and coloration. In all the corals I have. Seeing a coral in an under lit tank bothers me. It is like taking a large dog and putting it in an apartment. To give it what it needs to survive and be healthy you have to take it out to run. Without that exercise it becomes lazy, obese not the dog it is supposed to be. If you put a coral under inadequate lighting you are denying it a chance to grow as it is meant to grow. It is one thing to keep it alive in our tanks it is another to let it thrive.

It is documented that captive corals have a lower skeletal density than wild corals <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There are too many possible reasons as to what causes this to attribute it to our lighting.
A list of possible sources are;
</font><ul type="square"> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Chemical make up of our salt water. We aren't matching NSW. Its an attempt. And just that. Without the proper mixture that the coral finds in its particular local in the wild it won't grow in our tanks as it did out there. Without the exact makeup in our tanks the skeleton won't grow as it does in nature. </font> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Current/water flow. We don't even come close to what goes past the reef in nature. When the current in the ocean can move a huge ship with ease you know the corals are feeling a lot of power hitting them. To grow in the shapes they do they will need to be strong enough to withstand those forces. Walk into a strong wind constantly and you will build up strengths to make it easier for you to be out there in the wind. Look at Newfoundlanders, they are short n stocky. A big part due to walking into the winds that hit the Rock. ;) It's a part of nature. React to the stimuli given. </font> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Food. We can't provide all the food sources that the corals get in nature. We all know this. Without all the foods available we aren't giving it all the nutrients that it used in nature to grow as it did.
</font>[/list:u:a38cbb21be]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Basically I see lighting as something we do to make up for what we can't do. Give these corals a chance to grow as much as they do in nature. To do this we have to fill in for what we have taken away. And the only thing we can do right now is light. When someone comes up with a food source that makes up for what a coral receives in nature then we can back off on the lighting. We still have to get the water make up right, the waste removal right, water volume. the list goes on.
As hobbyists all we can do is that. We can try with the rest of those parts of the equation and hope we do enough. A lot don't. But some do. To me those that do for now are giving the corals they have the light to make up for what we took away when we took those corals out of the ocean.

[ 01 May 2002, 22:11: Message edited by: DJ88 ]

[Aquattro]

Darren, for the most part, I agree with all the above.

As for Shane's lighting, I meant he isn't concerned with the latest and greatest bulbs the industry pushes on us. I myself have dual 400w over my 75g. And yes, my corals are nice. I realize that we need to compensate for lack of food with light; but how much is too much? Unfortunately, you or I don't know. Personally, I've gone along with the hype and decided I need 10k 400w bulbs. However, I have no real proof that this is in fact true. And I also believe that we need to please ourselves with the color. That's the point of having something to look at. I certainly wouldn't enjoy my tank as much with 4.3k bulbs. My point was the corals wouldn't care.

I also question whether we need to look for ways of providing additional food. Using DT's and other foodstuffs is a great start, but is there more we can do? With the skimmers available today, we can feed fairly heavy with a quick removal rate.
I realize that there is a boundry between ideal and practical. The trick is to try to achieve a balance between them. We all put a lot of energy into finding new and improved ways of doing things, but maybe we need to look in other directions than just lighting.

As it stands, I'm the last person to say this or that. I follow what others have been successful doing and hope for the best. I just find that the more I read about this, the more I think we are blinded somewhat by industry hype. On the other hand, the authors of these articles claiming light isn't that important, are they themselves using 400w bulbs...go figure.
I can't really ramble on any more than I have, but hopefully this thread generates food for thought and we try to look at the big picture, not just the pretty lights.

The End. tongue.gif

[DJ88]

I meant he isn't concerned with the latest and greatest bulbs the industry pushes on us <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Figured so. That 20KK he put on kinda throws that out the window tho.. ;) Still looks sharp. I myself like the 65KK. The cost of the 10KK and up isn't worth it to me. People say it looks yellow. Well I am happy as my clams.. ;)

My point was the corals wouldn't care <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As long as they are growing I don't think they could give a sh!t if you had only p!ss yellow bulbs on. They don't. I do like to see mine grow tho. Lets me know they are healthy enough to expand. They aren't sitting there just living. Know what I mean vern?

I also question whether we need to look for ways of providing additional food. Using DT's and other foodstuffs is a great start, but is there more we can do? With the skimmers available today, we can feed fairly heavy with a quick removal rate.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">While you were typing this I was feeding my tank. 15ml of DT's goes in every two days. Plus I am now feeding 60micron Golden pearls. So I know I am feeding more than most do. Especially since my tank is so small. But the tank handles it and the color/growth in my tank is getting worse. ;) I wouldn't be doing as much as I do if it wasn't for that skimmer tho. It sure takes the garbage out. It shuts itself off for about an hour when I feed so it isn't removing what I feed. Thank goodness. ;)

I am trying my best. With the three things I can really do. Food, light and water. I still wonder if it is enough tho.

Personally I don't see me using anything other than the 'sakis for now. Unless something comes out that really blows them away. Even then I am trying to see if there are others out there. I did find one. But it's cost is prohibitive for now.

I know where you are coming from. Hey, already your thread has people thinking. And it is a start. My money says that it is some hobbyiest that finds a new piece to the puzzle. All to often the "experts" get into one track. and can't see out of it. If questions weren't asked we wouldn't be where we are today.

I agree with you about the experts saying one thig and doing another. It seems to be a part of this hobby. Not all, but some. Which is a shame. Makes you wonder if what is being passed onto you is the truth or it is sponsors money speaking. ya get me?

To add to this.

I think food is the next area we need to cover. Something that is much closer to what is found in nature in the way of plankton et al. Hopefully it happens. I think we will find something soon. With the aquarium in Hawaii breeding flame angels you know something new is coming. Just how much is it going to cost? And is it somethign we can use as well. The way I lok at it is if they can make these breakthroughs to allow hard to raise in captivity to be reared how far off can food sources for corals be? These fish live in the reef and eat much of the same food as the corals in the same location.

[ 01 May 2002, 22:50: Message edited by: DJ88 ]

[Aquattro]

I get ya!
BTW, where did you get the golden pearls? All I use right now is DT's and new born cleaner shrimp.
I was actually thinking a refugium/shrimp farm might supply a fair amount of food for those with polyps big enough to grab them. Thoughts on that?

[DJ88]

I won a whole buch of them at the PSAS meeting a few weeks ago. I like the stuff.. one bag of 60micron will last years. I use the measuring spoon out of my salifert test kits to feed the tank. One and a half for now. And that is TONS. RIght after I started feeding that stuff I saw more algae on my glass. Which was then scraped off and fed the corals. smile.gif But it has calmed down.

I like the idea of the shrimp hatchery/refugium. I may throw some cleaner shrimp into my 30 fuge in this new tank. what a good idea.. mind if I try it? I know my tank goes into a feeding frenzy when they do spawn.

Tho I don't have any shrimp right now. Had to move them with the new dottyback. :eek: But I will get some soon. smile.gif great idea.

[ 01 May 2002, 22:55: Message edited by: DJ88 ]

[Aquattro]

I'll see if I can get some of those.

On the shrimp thing, I'm concerned that they all spawn on a timed cycle. Adam mentioned his were spawning...I came home and so were mine. Unless they spread out over the month, it would only be 1 or 2 treat nights a month! I'll research it a bit to see if they spawn any/all the time or only on the 30th of the month :D
If they spewed babies sporadically, it might make a great natural food source.