Interesting article made me think

[sephroth_r1]

Source: Marine Fish and Reef magazine. 2007 Annual. Article by Richard Harker.

 

"In 1995, I was on of the earliest hobbyists to experiment with this bulb [20,000k], and like others, I found my reef tank responded positively. The positive response however, was short-lived. After a few months, coral growth declined, and I was forced to switch back to the 6,500K bulbs I used before. ..."

 

Interesting, considering the fact that we are basing our lighting now, on the color temperature (kelvin) of bulbs. We base the ability to grow coral by both the intensity, and the temperature of the bulb. How is it reef's were successfully kept with a 6500K bulb, and now, it is only acceptable for refugium macro growth? Do we base it also on the aesthetics it gives our coral?

 

My assumption after reading this article is yes. Blue light wavelengths are among the most powerful, because of their long wavelength, which allow them to penetrate to deeper depths. This is where we find the more drab coloration of corals ranging from brown to other "cheap" corals sold within the hobby.

 

The most sought after corals are located within the range of surface to 10ft depth. Where all wavelengths of color tend to penetrate. So what use to a coral is a bulb in an almost mono-chromatic coloration. I would have to say, none, other than our aesthetics.

 

Wal-mart and other chain stores do the same thing. Next time your there, take a steak from their meat section, and hold it under the vegetable lighting. It will appear brown, or grey. They do this for the aesthetics of their products. The light they use dose not benefit the preservation of the cells within the meat either.

 

Now, a lot of you will say I am comparing apples to oranges. Which I can agree to, to an extent. If we really want our coral growth to take off, I suggest we research this next statement from Harker.

 

"The most striking corals - the ones that command the highest prices in the hobby - are the ones found in shallow waters perhaps no more than 3 to 5 feet deep. The light at this depth is little different from natural sunlight and is a low color temperature by hobby standards. If the goal is to recreate light similar to that found in a shallow natural reef, one should use some of the lowest-wave-length Kelvin lights sold in the hobby today."

 

This should also hint to the fact that re-creating as natural an environment as possible, would increase propagation of any coral found within that environment. So why propagate at 14,000k?

 

The final statement of this article I would like to discuss is that fact we lack another important factor of natural reefs. UV light. While it is easy to diffuse the light, and it is screened out by almost any translucent material, It still penetrates water up to (at maximum with pure water filtered to be only the molecules of H20) 12 feet. In saltwater, Roughly 10 feet.

 

"The one component of natural light we do not recreate very well is UV light. Sea water absorbs UV light fairly quickly, but UV light dose penetrate the first 10 feet or so of water, where the most colorful corals are found. Research has shown that the brightest pigments are used to shield corals from potentially damaging UV light, so we may need to supply a reef tank with some UV light to make the pigments as bright as possible."

 

This said, If we want the most striking coloration of our corals, we would need to find a safe way to add UV in, without its damaging radiation. The reptile market has found easy ways to do so, including mercury vapor bulbs, and even fluorescent light strips. My bearded dragon has one. It supplies the proper amount of UV rays to aid in the synthesizing of D3, and the absorption of the calcium gut-loaded into his diet, or added on by powders.

 

What would be the likely hood of taking one of those lights and placing it over a reef tank at a distance of 24-36 inches, and it making a noticeable impact (either good or bad) on corals. Considering my search did not yield much information, it is safe to assume, not many have tried such a thing. I have however noticed a spur of "Green-House" propagation areas. Where the tanks receive their light from the sun in a natural manner, and are supplemented on overcast days by metal-halide or PC's.

 

With these, I have yet to see any product that would bluntly put the coral produced ahead, or behind for that matter, coral produced within a controlled environment.

 

Remember, I posted this for discussion, so please read this and offer your ideas on the subject, or any of your findings. And if you are going to flame what I said, restrain from doing so. I am posting this for an adult discussion.

 

Sephroth

[Lingwendil]

Yeah, after digging through and reading a good number of older reefkeeping books at work, I'm kind of torn on how we do things these days. They almost always recommend the use of 5500k bulbs, and say that actinics give an eery "unnatural" appearence to the tank, and that their use should be limited.

 

For my 2.5G, I had great growth with a 6500k halde back in the day over monties, acros, and zoos, with no actinic at all.

 

On my 10G AGA hex, I was considering 14~20k halide, but may just do 6500k instead, just with a pair of actinics to "mellow the yellow" and pop the colors.

 

Yeah there's been research "proving" one thing or another, but there's always a counterpoint.

[sephroth_r1]

Right, but I am perplexed now to say the least. I mean, if we blast with blue wavelengths of light, we are not giving the coral we keep what they need. So I am beginning to wonder if 14k or 20k bulbs are even worth it?

 

I understand that some bulbs listed as the above mentioned are far off from their actual spectral wavelength, and like when mixing red or blue paint, the only way to tell its purity is to see it. (I am a student at the Art Institute of Pittsburgh, so I have classes on light and stuff like that)

 

Realistically If we want maximum growth, I feel it is in our best interest (and the corals as well) to include the proper amount of UV radiation with a full range of the color spectrum from our lights we use. But that again comes to the question, How much is too little, and how much is too much?

 

But if we include a full wavelength of light, we risk things like cyno and hair algae, diatom blooms, and a much longer list of regular "Baddies" to the reef environment. Would this risk, with proper care of course, be worth testing growth with a UV light that uses a full spectrum coating?

 

Perhaps if some others are willing to take the challenge and see what happens, we can compare notes, and results. We should watch for things like color morph (which with the radiation of UV, would become a normal thing) growth, how hardy a coral becomes, or how much it deteriorates. Perhaps with the prop tank I have in the works, I will attempt it. But most certainly not at first.

 

I will keep this forum up, first with regular halides, for a control test of 3 months. After that I will switch to a mercury vapor bulb that includes a full spectrum of light and UV radiation, for 3 months as well (unless immediate deterioration is noticed). After I have collected that data, I will do a mixed test of MH and UV.

 

I will have to design and figure out how high the MercVap bulb should be from the tank. I will be stopping up at my LPS shortly, and I will drag out my old reptile magazines with light analysis of the bulbs currently available and post it here to compare notes with others.

 

Again, thank you for taking the time to read this, and if you have anything you would like to add (in an adult manner) please feel free to post.

 

Sephroth

[Ebn]

I think that to make this experiment worthwhile, you'll need multiple tanks set up at the same time. Otherwise, it's really gonna be hard to gauge growth rates since growth could be different for the stages (e.g. from going from frag to plating to colony).

[sephroth_r1]

Point taken. It will be a frag tank, so I am looking for initial growth at this time. Once I get my own house (I live in an apartment) I will setup multiple tubs. My whole plan is still in the making, and since I never ran anything like this before, I think I will be doing it on a small scale with fresh fragmented corals.

 

My reasons for doing fresh frags are:

1. Corals are damaged, They will show quickly if it is a positive/negative alternative
   
2. Small frags, I will be able to test multiple species
   
3. I'm a college kid, I don't have a lot of money
   

Like I said, this is a fresh idea, so it is defiantly in need of fine tuning.

 

Sephroth

[zachxlutz]

Good read, Tagging along. I'm anxious to see what others have to say... and what the research shows.

[sephroth_r1]

Well, I am in the middle of reviewing the recent findings of UVA-UVB. I will post my thoughts after this article, with an edit to this.

 

UV-A is active from 320-400 nm, where as UV-B is active from 280-320 nm in the spectral light chart (different on the chart shown, those readings are from my textbook from school). The interesting thing is from my first mentioned article is that zooxanthellae (contained within all coral that get their energy from light) has an absorption peak between 400 and 550 nm, and a second smaller peak between 650 and 700 nm. But I may be wrong in the fact my current understanding is they are on the same spectral chart. (the UV radiation and Color Temperature)

 

Correction to that last statement. They are on the same chart. Here is a actual visual for where it is.

 

 

But if this is indeed the case, a light heavy with UV-A would be ideal for encouraging coral growth, and health. As it is on the line of wavelengths for absorption. Which begin on the visible spectrum. Of course, the only way to tell for sure, would be to test this idea. Which the more I research, the more interesting it becomes.

 

With the effects of UVR (Ultraviolet radiation) mutations may occur. Such as color, shape, or over all makeup (In an extraordinarily rare case of course, the chances being about 1 in 10^49 I believe). Which makes for another interesting case.

 

Selective breeding May be possible! This could rocket the entire hobby in the same direction the reptile hobby has gone, with super morphs and such, produced in a controlled environment. Which means, Ultra-Rares of colors we may have never seen yet. To me, that is an exciting idea. If we can do that, perhaps we can draw more hobbyists into keeping reefs, and encourage propagation, along with bringing down the demand for wild harvested life. It makes logical sense, if you take a moment to think about it.

 

When a new rare color pops up on the market, it has been wild harvested. What is the difference between the wild harvested and the ones we grow out our selfs? Other than the fact the WH (wild harvest) is in an extraordinarily stable environment, It is bombarded with radiation from UVR to even radiation penetrating the atmosphere from space. Of course, there are no caustic chemicals added in, like are (UNFORTUNATELY) in the ocean. Some of those may contribute, but that I doubt very highly. I assume that the color morphs are merely based on the fact of the corals exposure to UVR and other forms of radiation within our atmosphere and from without it as well.

 

So having said all of that, This experiment makes more and more sense to put into action. It has not been done before, so I have nothing else to base any findings on. Which for someone who has never done anything like this, Will make it extraordinarily difficult. Hopefully, I can find something that will help all of us out, and the life we keep.

 

Keep the comments coming! You guys are making me look in multiple directions, which is great! Thanks!

[rickjg]

As I recall from the “old days” when MH was 1st being used on reef tanks with no UV protection, the corals would often get what was referred to as “oxygen poisoning” in their cells, with die off on the upper areas most exposed to the UV rays. I’m just going off the top of my head here, trying to remember stuff I read in FAMA way back when.

 

I’ve read on many posts & articles that SPS corals have better overall growth when lit by MH lighting lower than 10K, but IMO most reefers use the higher K lighting because it “looks” closer to what is expected of an underwater reef view. Maybe a mix of 6.5K & 14K (or 20K) would be the best of both worlds.

 

-Rick

[sephroth_r1]

Right, but MH unprotected has dangerous levels of UVR coming out of it, it is even dangerous to the surrounding area, not just the lit area. What I mean is a controlled amount of UVR, using bulbs with a controlled output (IE Reptile bulbs).

 

I see what you are saying with the mixture, But even with that, it would be an over-saturation of blue. The whole idea in my theory is to create as close to natural as possible and find the results from said idea. In the same respect tho, it would balance out somewhat. Your end result of that (If my guess is right) would be somewhere within the range of 12620k range, which is still above the 10000k mark. That of course is assuming the light would balance to an average between the two.

 

Thank you for your input tho!

[Mr. Fosi]

Realistically If we want maximum growth, I feel it is in our best interest (and the corals as well) to include the proper amount of UV radiation with a full range of the color spectrum from our lights we use.

 

Realistically, if we want maximum growth, we would use sunlight. Of course, the spectral components, intensity & duration of sunlight at 40, 26, 30N (Pittsburgh) is quite different than that at 7, 7N (The Marshall Isalnds).

 

Not everyone wants max growth, people with small tanks don't want to be forced to frag every other week, not to mention the need for massive dosing or waterchanges to keep up with demands of a reef in maximal growth.

 

From what I have read/learned UV (A or isn't likely to help growth as much as it will hinder it. As you quoted in your first post, it is useful to the marine aquarist insofar as it prompts corals to create & maintain colorful accessory pigments.

 

Perhaps if some others are willing to take the challenge and see what happens, we can compare notes, and results. We should watch for things like color morph (which with the radiation of UV, would become a normal thing) growth, how hardy a coral becomes, or how much it deteriorates.

 

I don't mean to disparige this idea, but coral health and color are determined by more than just the quality of light. For a useful comparison to be made, there would have to be a tremendous amount of control exercised across the comparison tanks for light, temp, water parameters, salt mix, dosing (if any), flow regime & feeding

 

Also, how are you going to quantify "gorwth" & "color"? You will have to have some sort of reference for comparing colors since they can't be compared in situ due to the fact that different lights will look different to your eyes. You'll also have to come up with some meaningful way to represent any differences. "This looks better than that" is subject to opinion, no? I am leaving out concerns about quantifying gorwth for the sake of brevity.

 

I think making comparisons across lamp types/manufacturers is a great idea in theory, but the devil is in the details, so to speak.

 

Don't think that some people aren't already selecting corals based on color morph, or creating color morphs by shuffling the resource deck. Where do you think the pop-culture-style "hot item" corals come from? Some are first generation wild collected, others are not.

 

Selective breeding would be another issue alltogether since the level of control that you can exert over coral spawnings is pretty minimal. How would you select in and out-crossers in corals? How would you control the matings?

 

Tagging along.

[sephroth_r1]

Hey Fosi! Glad to see some interest from you!

 

Not everyone wants max growth, people with small tanks don't want to be forced to frag every other week, not to mention the need for massive dosing or waterchanges to keep up with demands of a reef in maximal growth.

 

I agree with you completely. I am merely looking at this from the point of view of propagation. And mostly, after the article I read, I want to see if there are a difference of results. UV-A&B are however essential to the growth of many living organisms. If we (humans as a species) went our lives without going outside to collect the amount of radiation, we would suffer deficiencies of some vitamins (calcium being one). So, my thought is (remember, I am only speculating) If it is an essential part, propagators may be missing a lot. Which could mean increased production, and decreased demand for wild harvest.

 

I don't mean to disparige this idea, but coral health and color are determined by more than just the quality of light. For a useful comparison to be made, there would have to be a tremendous amount of control exercised across the comparison tanks for light, temp, water parameters, salt mix, dosing (if any), flow regime & feeding

 

I guess my best answer for that would be as follows. I don't have the technology to maintain perfect parameters. I wish I did, but I do not. That said, I would be looking at this from a purely hobbiest point of view. I by no means intend to make a scientist out of myself. Call it my little obsession, being an art student, and constantly wondering what makes light so significant in our lives and the lives of other beings. Corals probably captivate me the most, because they lack sight.

 

 

Also, how are you going to quantify "growth" & "color"? You will have to have some sort of reference for comparing colors since they can't be compared in situ due to the fact that different lights will look different to your eyes. You'll also have to come up with some meaningful way to represent any differences. "This looks better than that" is subject to opinion, no? I am leaving out concerns about quantifying growth for the sake of brevity.

 

Actually, There is a German color theorist who devised a book only avalible in printers format that has a world wide accepted "true" color. He is the only one to have had this done, and all printers (graphic design, multimedia, any other art career you can think of) go by. Of course, not everyone has access to this book, so even using that, would be null. (its a 1200 dollar book, one of my professors has it.) But you point is taken again. Everyone sees colors slightly differently, which is something I cannot deny. But then again, a comparison should be made somewhere. PrismaColor charting is perhaps the best way for me to log the color comparisons. With a the most vast library of registered (and accepted) color (I believe the number is somewhere around... 500, I didn't get tested on that) that would be THE best and most comprehensive way to log color, and change. Of course the argument then becomes "shades" of a color. The human eye can only comprehend about 27 shades from pure white to black.

 

Selective breeding would be another issue alltogether since the level of control that you can exert over coral spawnings is pretty minimal. How would you select in and out-crossers in corals? How would you control the matings?

 

How do you control a set of bearded dragons who have roughly 60-80 offspring? You house the family you want to mate together. Also, you cannot control how the traits are past along, its all selective placement, and luck, mixed in with a bit of radiation from the sun/atmosphere. Of course with corals, this would mean a whole extra setup just to house 2 different colors of say Zoanthids together in hopes of cross pollination. While seemly feesable, after some thought while watching myth busters, protein skimmers along with filters and many other variables, would make this a nil attempt. That does not mean it isn't possible, just that my thought is the chances are slim, with the tech we use to keep the water clean. Perhaps if a system was big enough (or even small enough) it would be a plausible idea. Mating would be like placing two dragons together, Wait. I couldn't think of another way to do it.

 

Don't think that some people aren't already selecting corals based on color morph, or creating color morphs by shuffling the resource deck. Where do you think the pop-culture-style "hot item" corals come from? Some are first generation wild collected, others are not.

 

Zoanthids are THE best representation of this fact. But the fact that someday it may be possible in a controlled environment entices me to look into it myself!

 

Even if I end up failing in my initial thoughts, It will still yield, albeit a personal level, information that might someday help somewhere else, or someone else. Who knows? Like I said, I am not looking to become a scientist, I just want to learn something more/new about something that I cant find anything on.

 

And thank again Fosi for your thoughts! Anymore are defiantly appreciated!

 

Sephroth

[zachxlutz]

You should start this tread over in RC too, they have lots of super experienced reefers over there who might also have some pertinent information on this subject. If you do start it over there too, you should post up a link. I'd like to see this subject brought up to a wider, broader audience.

[supahtim]

i like this

 

what kind of equipment do you plan on using if you follow through with it? would you mind posting a list please?

 

you should keep it here, cuz we're cooler. and i'll never be able to find it on RC as their search never works for me. lol

 

Tim

[Mr. Fosi]

I am merely looking at this from the point of view of propagation. And mostly, after the article I read, I want to see if there are a difference of results.

 

It'll be interesting to see what you find, even if it isn't possible to interperet results outside of your setup.

 

UV-A&B... If it is an essential part, propagators may be missing a lot. Which could mean increased production, and decreased demand for wild harvest.

 

You're not talking about larger prop firms like Foster & Smith or Dr. Mac, right? Dr. Mac uses greenhouses with supplimental MH & I would be shocked if Foster & Smith didn't do the same thing.

 

Hobbyists, of course, are a different story (unless you are talking about The Propogator).

 

... I would be looking at this from a purely hobbiest point of view. I by no means intend to make a scientist out of myself.

 

Aww... Why not? We're really nice people.

 

PrismaColor charting is perhaps the best way for me to log the color comparisons.

 

I'll be very interested to see what you find.

 

How do you control a set of bearded dragons who have roughly 60-80 offspring? ... Of course with corals, this would mean a whole extra setup just to house 2 different colors of say Zoanthids together in hopes of cross pollination.

 

Breeding reptiles is one thing & corals another. I'll be interested to see more of your thinking regarding this once you have done some more reading on coral spawning.

 

Also, don't fall into the trap of thinking about coral sex like plant sex. Corals do not "pollinate", though there may be some human perceved similarities, the processes are very different.

 

... protein skimmers along with filters and many other variables, would make this a nil attempt. That does not mean it isn't possible, just that my thought is the chances are slim,

 

Yep, but the use of skimmers & filters is not a must if you choose the right corals to use in this little study.

 

Like I said, I am not looking to become a scientist, I just want to learn something more/new about something that I cant find anything on.

 

Which is what sets you apart from many of the people who post on this site. You are thinking forward toward new understanding & many others simply stagnate upon what has been done in the past without any desire for an increased understanding of their little biome.

[sephroth_r1]

Hobbyists, of course, are a different story (unless you are talking about The Propogator).

 

You aint kidding about that one, haha. Right now I am sitting in my computer literacy class over at the art institute, because I obviously have no clue how to use a computer (Stupid test out I didn't have a chance to take)

 

I will have a somewhat representable list sometime tonight. I have a phone meeting with the GPPS (greater pittsburgh paranormal society) about the effects of IR and cameras. So sometime after that, I will have something down as an edit to this post.

 

Thanks for the encouragement, and the broad thoughts, its all helping me very much!

 

<<BIG UNFORTUNATE NOTE>>

 

Today, the locks on my truck decided to freeze, currently, my truck is on southside, without me. I am going to have to spend money on that, and not this research. It is not at an end however. I will continue when I am not in a depressed mood, and have money to continue further.

 

Until then, I will continue my reading, and posting those findings, seeing if I can link anything through that.

 

Keep the comments coming tho! And sincerely, thank you to all of you for your input this far. Fosi, your words of encouragement mean a lot! Again, Thank you!

[Lingwendil]

After digging through an ESU catalog at work, I found some tantalizing information... Coralife(ESU) make 65w Square-pin REPTILE PC bulbs. I think popping one of these in a fixture over a 15G would be an interesting experiment. Maybe some shallow water type of biotope setup would be a good way to test, maybe a pair of 15G tanks, sharing a common sump, but each with separate lights, each with 2 x 65w, one tank with a pair of reptile, and the other with an Actinic and a 10,000k. I may have to set up an experiment in the fish-room at work!

[HecticDialectics]

<<BIG UNFORTUNATE NOTE>>

 

Today, the locks on my truck decided to freeze, currently, my truck is on southside, without me. I am going to have to spend money on that, and not this research. It is not at an end however. I will continue when I am not in a depressed mood, and have money to continue further.

 

Off-topic but try a lighter. The lock on my apt mailbox froze up one time... couldn't get the key into it at all. A minute after the fire treatment, it slid right in and opened.

 

 

 

On-topic... I thought it was pretty common knowledge that 6500k will give better growth than 10k and 14-20k is better for color?

 

Random color mutations with damage by uv rays seems a touch far-fetched. It's worth a shot, but I saw some tv show talking about how scientists get gene mutations from plants, and it takes several hundred thousand+ tries to get anything 'useful'. If you could target the color gene, then it'd be a lot easier. Otherwise, it's a matter of crazy probability which gene gets messed up and how.

[sephroth_r1]

I finally got my truck unlocked, and I'm working on the 15gal prop tank for the time being, I'm suddenly overloaded with work... Bleh. But money is indeed money.

 

This is going to be put off for some time until I have a basement again, and have more money. I would like to do more elaborate setups with larger specimens, to get better results.

 

Like I said, I will still be doing as much reading as I can and posting my findings here. I just gotta find the time to read