birth of 2 builds totaling 30k gallons

[dave.m]

But are the 15 to 20k bulbs out there really doing it right??

In my personal opinion, no. The bulb manufacturers are trying to deliver more blue with what the physical medium is capable of. Does this match nature? No, but it is close. But do you really want natural light? In nature everything tends to disappear into shades of bluish grey as a form of camouflage. IIRC Dana Riddle wrote a column in Advanced Aquarist about this topic not too long ago.

The thing with aquariums is that, to be honest, we do not want to see corals and fish in their naturally lit environment. The various colours they have evolved into are designed to disappear from view into various shades of blue-grey in nature. We want those colours to really pop in our aquariums. That's what attracted us to them in the first place.

Do you want your corals to glow under UV like dayglow posters? Then you need to add a UV element to your lighting. (Personally I don't care for this freakish look at all. I hope it is just a dopey fad, like grow lights once were to the freshwater aquarium hobby.) Do you want to satisfy as many different types of photosynthetic invertebrates as possible? Then pile on the blue light. (Personally I think this looks bizarre, as our lights do not contain the full spectrum of shades of blue.) Do you want to simulate a shallower water environment? Then you need to add warmer colours to your lighting palette, like 6500-10000° K bulbs. (You should note, however, that recent discoveries on the reef show that corals are genetically attuned to stop growing under red light in order to avoid being overly exposed at high tide.)

I think reef aquarium lighting is still very much a matter of personal taste. As long as you are at least meeting the basic requirements of your pets the rest is up to you.

Originally Posted by sniceley

Ever notice how Xenia pulses faster the brighter the light.

There was an article on this recently. Tests proved that xenias pulse more when there is insufficient water movement around them to meet their respiratory needs. As you noted, excess oxygen production from too much light might have something to do with this, but it is the rate of water change, not the rate of light, that drives the pulsing.

Dave.M

[sniceley]

If flow is held constant then wouldn't the only change in water exchange be from pulsing? I would love to read the article about this, do you remember where it was from?

Topics like this really interest me and I wish more current research focused on topics like this. I would have loved to research coral pigmentation rates based on spectrum changes or xenia pulsing rates based on light intensity, unfortunately not very much funding out there for these topics, so I had to find something more marketable for my dissertation research.

[dave.m]

Well, I would tell you, but RC does not permit mention of the existence of an article called pulsing-xenia-mystery-solved on a certain site that sounds a bit like beefrilders.com. There is similar info in the blogs on Advanced Aquarist.

Dave.M

[sniceley]

Thanks. Had a full time faculty appointment for the first half of the summer and haven't been keeping up with either lately. Looks like I have some reading to catch up on.

[dave.m]

OMG! Who can keep up these days? No worries!

Dave.M

[hedgedrew]

Thank you all for those answers and insights. We are going to learn that the key is some ratio we don't know about today. That is the light to nutrient ratio. Whereby there is an acceptable light par and spectrum combo and nutrient balance we need to keep. Too much and corals get sunburnt and too colorful sort of. And then zooanth. Just give up and release and get stn event. Or opposite where nutrients change for better or worse up or down relative to light we give. I think some as myself maybe over lighting ie 8. 400 w halides 2 in each reflector plus tons of supplements. I have seen successful sps tanks run just with the supplements I use. If nutrients shift down and there is little they can also stn out or be pale as seen in many members on forum that have 0 nitrate and phosphate. I don't know what the propwr ratio is. But suffice it to say the standard out there in aquariums ie. 03 phosphate and less than 5 but some trace amount of nitrate... may not be the proper standard for a tank who's lighting and par is significantly above average. more work needs to be done. But I think I'm on to something. Yes there are acceptable ranges of par and spectrum and acceptable nutrient ranges. But very little studies on the relationships of each other!! For me, when I get stn it will either come from bottom up as described by many. Could be pests or flow issues. By the way the flow on these reefs is nuts!!! Can't control your body from massive movement. And the way flow interacts with light and nutrients. So maybe a 3 prong ratio!!! sometimes I'm convinced the zooanth just gave up from too much work. Ie the coral will have massive color and be in the tank for year plus. And then boom!! Gone. Changes in nutrients relative? Yes of course the dreaded alkalinity swings. But maybe too much par in uv or 450 relative for the amount of nutrients. Anyway that's where I stand. For me I'm going to come home and reintroduce my 10k bulbs with radiums but drop down to 250 watts on each bulb or at least one. Not sure which yet.

[hedgedrew]

Snicely. We need to talk after my vacation is over. I'm actually meeting Justin from Bermuda on my way back in lax airport. Tried going but flight was too delayed and didn't have layover time like I thought.

[sniceley]

Real research needs to be done. You may be on to something but we will never know until thorough scientific experiments are done and results are published.

One of the issues we all run into in this hobby is that so much of what we hear and read is anecdotal evidence that gets a foothold and is later accepted as fact. My background makes me biased some here, but unless well controlled experiments are done to determine all of these relationships we will all be just taking shits in the dark.

I am sure there are multiple answers as well depending on your question. What maximizes growth or coloration for each species will likely be different. The reason why you have issues with zooanthids may be because the conditions you provide for the sps are fine for a short term, but eventually the zooanthids are missing something for so long that they can't survive any more.

The eventual answer may be more of a biotope idea for reef tanks. Keeping corals from similar habitats together because they all thrive under similar conditions. So many of our "reef" corals don't actually live on reefs much in the wild. Many of the clams, leathers, zooanthids, and other soft corals are from shallow lagoons and other near shore areas where nutrient levels are higher and water is less clear. This is the reason many of the soft corals prefer relatively dim lighting, the high nutrient and sediment levels decrease light exposure.

[SantaMonica]

You are right that a light vs. nutrient vs. flow combination can have a large effect. See the attached pic. The "burn" spot in the middle is from light which is too strong *relative* to the amount of nutrients in the water *relative* to the amount of flow (delivery) of those nutrients to the algae. The algae does not have enough nutrients per the amount of light, so a bald spot is formed where the light is shining in the middle.

Having seen thousands of algae scrubber growth patterns since 2008, one pattern never changes: If you take the example algal growth in the pic and you increase flow while changing nothing else, the bald spot will fill in because more of the nutrients in the water will be delivered to the growth *relative* to the amount of light. The algae will now have enough nutrients per the amount of light.

Or, if you instead reduce the amount of light, the bald spot will still fill in. The algae now will have enough nutrients per the amount of light.

Or, interestingly, if you *increase* the amount of nutrients in the water while holding the flow and light constant, the bald spot will still fill in, because again, the algae will now have enough nutrients per the amount of light.

I'm sure the zoox operate in a similar way, since they too use the same photosystem that macroalgae do.

[hedgedrew]

Yes. All true.!!

[007Bond]

Originally Posted by SantaMonica

You are right that a light vs. nutrient vs. flow combination can have a large effect. See the attached pic. The "burn" spot in the middle is from light which is too strong *relative* to the amount of nutrients in the water *relative* to the amount of flow (delivery) of those nutrients to the algae. The algae does not have enough nutrients per the amount of light, so a bald spot is formed where the light is shining in the middle.

Having seen thousands of algae scrubber growth patterns since 2008, one pattern never changes: If you take the example algal growth in the pic and you increase flow while changing nothing else, the bald spot will fill in because more of the nutrients in the water will be delivered to the growth *relative* to the amount of light. The algae will now have enough nutrients per the amount of light.

Or, if you instead reduce the amount of light, the bald spot will still fill in. The algae now will have enough nutrients per the amount of light.

Or, interestingly, if you *increase* the amount of nutrients in the water while holding the flow and light constant, the bald spot will still fill in, because again, the algae will now have enough nutrients per the amount of light.

I'm sure the zoox operate in a similar way, since they too use the same photosystem that macroalgae do.

Wow,...interesting!....nice food for thought one might never correlate. Thanks,---Rick

[hedgedrew]

Hey rick. How's everything.

[hedgedrew]

Santa monica. Been thinking about your example. Have seen Los this vacation. Have seen the same corals at 1ft of water ie hycanthus table do almost equally well as I saw it down 40 feet. How can that be? Light is way different. I saw the same coral literally on foot or less from each other on a dive. Same depth. One was brown zooanth and other purpled up. Obviously it's same light. So what could account? The nicer the coral reef I saw the more crazy flow and runn off it had from ocean. In other words, this flow thing is probably understated in out tanks. We can not produce flow that jolts our bodies and sets us racing down a stream like I experienced. Maybe it's this flow that carries nutrients and oxygenate, cleans whatever. So more I think about my experiences the more important I think that 3 prong part of ratio is even more important.

[hedgedrew]

The nicest reefs I saw this vacation were in the lagoons, shallow. Where the water run off was so insane as you would try to stop yourself, you could not and get banged up on reef. Current like that.!! Sorry vortechs. We can not provide body jolting current. So as we create bulbs that can light reefs equal in par to sunlight at least close under water., and we understand chemistry that most reefs operate at, to me at least the part we maybe failing at at least relatively is water movement. Of the violent type.!!

[hedgedrew]

One last thought and I promise I'm done. Just remembering why I close down or choke off water ferom closed loop and turn down vortechs instead of running them full open. Its 3 fold. One, when we feed we want food in fish mouths. Not blown all over and in our filter bags. Ok. Easy enough. Turn down flows before feedings. 2. Our sand kicks up and moves all over. I've had this issue plenty. Sand bed gets washed in the back of tank and get bald spots in tough flow areas as well as sand storms that we hate for viewing. 3.direct blasts of pressure current can and does kill coral also. The currents are different in nature than power heads and direct massive exposure also is an issue. In the wild one day it's calm, one day winds make visibility impossible it's so bad the current. I guess we could do daily changes in current in our tank I'm not sure who does. Anyway food for thought.

[SantaMonica]

Well you could always do a surge bucket; you'd have the room for it too. Maybe a 500 gallon dump every minute, with alternating buckets, instead of powerheads.

And of course you could to bare bottom to solve the sand problem. Or, since yours will be so big front-to-back, have sand only in a section near the front which would not be affected by the flow.

[dave.m]

Or layer the sand, lighter stuff underneath for the benefit of an active benthic community, but covered up by a larger sized sand or gravel or small boulders to maintain the sandbed under heavy currents.

Sand gets shifted around the reef all the time. It's what buries/uncovers lost shipwrecks. It's only our personal aesthetics that tells us the sand bed is not supposed to move around. And then we get a pair of diamond sand-sifter gobies...

Dave.M

[007Bond]

Originally Posted by hedgedrew

Hey rick. How's everything.

Doing well,...although Tahaa sounds outstanding. Looks like your expanding on some of your thinking. For me seems like every time I think I have my ducks in a roll,...I read another RC thread and I'm backing up again. One of Lee Iacocca main complaints about Ford was indecision. lol

I see NYAquatic got some cool fish in.

Have fun!

[hedgedrew]

I'll have to check out ny aquatic. Don't really ever use that site or even get alerted. How do you know. Website?? Also on subject of new tank I'm not worried at all I'll have all the flow planned this time I need. Several 10s and 5 hp pumps with massive closed loops. The surge thing is not really an option for me as its tight enough above as it is. I only have 3 foot max above me. That's without lights. And have to maintain cat walk so I can get in and out and air tanks etc. Was just thinking about exiting set up and flow. The sand thing Dave about putting heavier stuff on top is good idea. Just a little unsightly relative to that nice crystal fine sand. But something I'm willing to give shot. Thanks.

[albano]

Originally Posted by hedgedrew

I'll have to check out ny aquatic. Don't really ever use that site or even get alerted. How do you know. Website??

Didn't you get your Peppermint and Narcosis from Michael at NY Aquatic?

[hedgedrew]

Just narcosis. And I went there. Not even sure who told me it was there. Contacted him good old fashioned way. I just went to his site.

[hedgedrew]

That's the famous fish that died in the water drip bucket before it was in tank. Maybe hit his head?? Maybe. Not sure.

[albano]

Originally Posted by hedgedrew

Just narcosis. And I went there. Not even sure who told me it was there.

Probably Ted told you about it

[hedgedrew]

I like that diamond flasher on his site but all my flashers all end up jumping!! Its hard with sps and no cover

[007Bond]

I get email notices once a month or whenever he sends them out. I'm signed up. His latest had some interesting things. Think you have most already,...Gem, Bandit, ect.---Rick