Have we been wrong in our understanding of PAR this whole time??

[Doctorgori]

I will use metal halides till I can’t find bulbs! I love them!

….told ya …also tellin your age LOL

Im from those days but the steam punk look of my light didn’t fit the decor LOL

 

[jda]

Blue light got popular somewhat because you did not have to have as much skill to do well... but mostly because vendors could sell ugly corals more easily. It was coral catfishing...

 

[BeanAnimal]

Metal Halide of almost any flavor is more pleasing to my eye, but I like the ramping LEDs provide and the difference in heat management. I would lean toward them growing coral better on average vs trying to get LEDs “right” both visually and for growth.

 

[MnFish1]

I apologise I totally missed this! I think, from the studies I've read, that we need to focus on the wavelengths of light that corals utilise most. There are studies out there that do look into this. Find the relevant par levels for the different corals with these wavelengths and go from there. I admit there is a ton of work to be done, but it is doable, and would likely result in a wider success across the hobby.

I think you have a problem in your idea. First - most coral tanks contain corals from different places in the world or different vendors. Second most coral tanks have multiple types (species) of coral that may all require different lighting wavelengths Third most tanks likely have coral collected from different depths. At some point, one needs to pick a light that is successful. Focusing on individual wavelengths for a tank (in which multiple species that may never be found in close proximity) seems to be an impossible task?

 

[MnFish1]

You'll find a lot dialling back blue if they're trying to hit a par goal but also have that natural daylight look. It's nearly impossible to have both. With my Mitras, if I want a maximum of 250 par then I can only run all channels at roughly 60% to achieve roughly 12k

Disagree with this.

 

[MnFish1]

Here is my normal contribution to this type of thread... nearly all corals that we have are collected on one breath in less than 3m of water. Most of them can grow at lower depths up to 15 or 20m, but not all of them. Many of them are taken at low tide in water were people can walk in the substrate around the rocks. All of the BS that some early LED manufacturers put out about corals being only from deep water where only blue light penetrates and all of that was just stupid - you need highly trained people with VERY expensive equipment to go below 100 feet and the collectors that do this want to catch fish that they can get $100+ for from a wholesaler instead of pennies or a buck - a single rare deepwater fish can be fetch a year's salary, or more.

You can go to the South Pacific an collect your own corals - there are many collectors who will let you do this (for a fee). You get a mask, snorkel, some cutters and a mesh bag (or something to put your corals in).

PAR has always sucked. Waves from about 350 to 850nm are important and all of them are in the depths where these corals thrive and certainly where they are collected.

The idea that blue lights penetrating 'deep waters' or 'where most coral was supposedly at that time was found) Actually started decades before when actinic bulbs were being used to supposedly produce this 'blue light' - and they were often used with metal halide fixtures. (Which makes no sense to me)

 

[MnFish1]

A bit of history and semi rant might be relevant here:

This whole “blue light” thing came about in the 90’s when a certain VERY renowned and respected Doctorate/hobbyist did a study on coral photosynthesis which (to some people) proclaimed once and for all that blue light was all that was needed PERIOD.

…..and coincidentally about that same time Radium’s came out and suddenly windex “Blue” was in and Iwasaki 6500ks were OUT…

…you couldn’t argue with the name dropping minions and/or breach the pseudo relationships/allegiances within the culture of the old newsgroups and bulletin boards… flame wars ensued and the name dropping blue light supporters won the day.About the only way to stop a Radium lover was to pry the burnt out light bulbs from their dead hands…
- I honestly believe the entire picture of coral biology isn’t 100% understood, I don’t think the final answer on their biological needs is in
-I think lighting spectrum application/ logic is misapplied and white light gets a bad rap for algae
-I think the insane photoshopped candy colors that corals are sold under has contributed to blue light’s popularity and lighting misinformation …
- white light AlWAYS contains blue or rathe I have no clue how to get white without it

The 'blue light' theory was going around in the 1970's,80's as well - which is why actinic bulbs started becoming popular

 

[areefer01]

The idea that blue lights penetrating 'deep waters' or 'where most coral was supposedly at that time was found) Actually started decades before when actinic bulbs were being used to supposedly produce this 'blue light' - and they were often used with metal halide fixtures. (Which makes no sense to me)

It could just be the look the hobbyist wanted at the time. Who knows. Personally speaking I preferred my dual 175W PFO ballast with urisho bulbs and a pair of 48" svho actinics.

Just as an aside most hobbyist are not trying to grow corals at the rate of a small business aquaculture facility. Again we are hit with marketing and social media with the potential side hustle but at the end of the day true hobbyist prefer growing larger colonies and maturity over time. Not I can clip 1/4", glue, wait a day, and sell for $150.00.

Just my opinion but then again maybe all the true hobbyist have left...

 

[Troylee]

@jda said it best! Coral catfishing! That’s what made blue lights so POPular.. lol.. I truly don’t believe corals grow better under just blues..

 

[jda]

Actinic use bounced when UVL/URI Super Actinic was put on tanks. This bulbs has lots of true UV and it showed colors in corals that nothing ever has and nothing really has since. For some reason, T5s cannot even do this because the tube size is too shallow, or something... I don't understand it, but it is real.

The UV light can get used for some energy and emit wavelengths in the visible range that might not otherwise happen. It also offers energy for corals to use that is more dense than visible light.

This was back when actinic had meaning and not blue or violet. LED companies jacked this all up by redefining terms or flat out lying about UV and stuff - 410nm diodes are not UV. Actinic was different than blue back then.

You cannot find anybody who every used UVL/URL Super Actinic that will tell you that they have ever seen anything else like them. Only people who look at the web, paper or the internet seem to think that they can do the same thing with other types of light. I wish that somebody could figure this out since I understand how VHO T12 retros are not really all that handy over most tanks.

 

[Troylee]

Actinic use bounced when UVL/URI Super Actinic was put on tanks. This bulbs has lots of true UV and it showed colors in corals that nothing ever has and nothing really has since. For some reason, T5s cannot even do this because the tube size is too shallow, or something... I don't understand it, but it is real.

The UV light can get used for some energy and emit wavelengths in the visible range that might not otherwise happen. It also offers energy for corals to use that is more dense than visible light.

This was back when actinic had meaning and not blue or violet. LED companies jacked this all up by redefining terms or flat out lying about UV and stuff - 410nm diodes are not UV. Actinic was different than blue back then.

You cannot find anybody who every used UVL/URL Super Actinic that will tell you that they have ever seen anything else like them. Only people who look at the web, paper or the internet seem to think that they can do the same thing with other types of light. I wish that somebody could figure this out since I understand how VHO T12 retros are not really all that handy over most tanks.

Those vho actinics were good for bringing out metallic looking “pearls” in corals like a pearlberry! I’ll never forget that look.. never seen it since.. I know exactly what you’re saying.

 

[njreefkeeper]

An interesting post and discussion, however this flies in the face of those who’ve grown their sticks MUCH faster under old school 6500k Iwasaki bulbs back in the day. In fact, Adam at Battle Corals (hope he chimes in) has stated that all things being equal, growth under his 6500k Iwasaki bulbs is much more vigorous. And the light guru (Sanjay Joshi) has all channels on his Radions cranked to 100% intensity and grows his sticks out of the water. In his own tests he’s stated that corals absorb light through the full spectrum.

Tough to gauge. It’s definitely harder to keep nuisance algae at bay with more white light, but all that indicates to me is that there’s more photosynthesis, which again is contradictory to this post.

 

[jda]

Dr. Joshi has constantly said that not all of his acropora grow at the same rate, he lost some and some grow just as fast. Below is a quote from one of his articles. I do not know anybody who has a requisite depth and breath of experience that has ever said that ALL sticks grow just as fast under LEDs than they did under MH... nobody. Some "corals" don't care and some do, but the nuance matters and just saying "corals" is not genuine, IMO.

There are still some corals where I am not seeing growth that comes even close to MH. Most noticeably A. Millepora and the green Bali Slimer. These are corals that grew as weeds under my MH, but grow significantly slower under my LEDs. It does not seem like an issue of light quantity, but I think the light quality plays a bigger role here. There is another odd observation I can make about coral growth under LEDs. I found that corals frags tend to develop a larger base encrustation with LEDs, wonder why?

 

[MnFish1]

It could just be the look the hobbyist wanted at the time. Who knows. Personally speaking I preferred my dual 175W PFO ballast with urisho bulbs and a pair of 48" svho actinics.

Just as an aside most hobbyist are not trying to grow corals at the rate of a small business aquaculture facility. Again we are hit with marketing and social media with the potential side hustle but at the end of the day true hobbyist prefer growing larger colonies and maturity over time. Not I can clip 1/4", glue, wait a day, and sell for $150.00.

Just my opinion but then again maybe all the true hobbyist have left...

I apologize - I don't understand what you're saying in the middle paragraph - completely agree otherwise.

 

[Doctorgori]

The 'blue light' theory was going around in the 1970's,80's as well - which is why actinic bulbs started becoming popular

correct and I totally forgot about that, I actually used to buy actinic VHO’s

It could just be the look the hobbyist wanted at the time. Who knows. Personally speaking I preferred my dual 175W PFO ballast with urisho bulbs and a pair of 48" svho actinics.

Just as an aside most hobbyist are not trying to grow corals at the rate of a small business aquaculture facility. Again we are hit with marketing and social media with the potential side hustle but at the end of the day true hobbyist prefer growing larger colonies and maturity over time. Not I can clip 1/4", glue, wait a day, and sell for $150.00.

Just my opinion but then again maybe all the true hobbyist have left...

Like I said, I had a 72” fixture with 3x GE 175W 5000K “ Sunlight” err sunthin like that along with 72” VHO Actintics, wanna say URI maybe and a IceCap 660 … corals grew

Those vho actinics were good for bringing out metallic looking “pearls” in corals like a pearlberry! I’ll never forget that look.. never seen it since.. I know exactly what you’re saying.

yup I know also

An interesting post and discussion, however this flies in the face of those who’ve grown their sticks MUCH faster under old school 6500k Iwasaki bulbs back in the day. In fact, Adam at Battle Corals (hope he chimes in) has stated that all things being equal, growth under his 6500k Iwasaki bulbs is much more vigorous. And the light guru (Sanjay Joshi) has all channels on his Radions cranked to 100% intensity and grows his sticks out of the water. In his own tests he’s stated that corals absorb light through the full spectrum.

Tough to gauge. It’s definitely harder to keep nuisance algae at bay with more white light, but all that indicates to me is that there’s more photosynthesis, which again is contradictory to this post.

don’t bring this up in the wrong circles, I know lol
Anyway, I didn’t want to put a name on it so as not to even soil a reputable person in this lower level discussion but he had a following/ groupie clique that IMO sorta took his views/ papers/ writings or whatever waaaaay outta scope ….IMVHO

 

[MnFish1]

Dr. Joshi has constantly said that not all of his acropora grow at the same rate, he lost some and some grow just as fast. Below is a quote from one of his articles. I do not know anybody who has a requisite depth and breath of experience that has ever said that ALL sticks grow just as fast under LEDs than they did under MH... nobody. Some "corals" don't care and some do, but the nuance matters and just saying "corals" is not genuine, IMO.

This is a good point. If you look at (nearly) all long-term aquaria posts here - it becomes clear that - the things that succeed in the provided conditions survived - and produced a nice looking thank - they outgrew other coral etc. which when dead - was removed or made rubble.

The truth (IMO) is that there are many successful tanks - which have matured after killing multiple previous additions using LED's Using Halide and using fluorescent tubes.

Whether we want to pretend (not you JDA - I mean reefers in general) (EDIT - the post was cut off) - I just wonder why there is such a debate about this topic

 

[Doctorgori]

Dr. Joshi has constantly said that not all of his acropora grow at the same rate, he lost some and some grow just as fast. Below is a quote from one of his articles. I do not know anybody who has a requisite depth and breath of experience that has ever said that ALL sticks grow just as fast under LEDs than they did under MH... nobody. Some "corals" don't care and some do, but the nuance matters and just saying "corals" is not genuine, IMO.

semi related: I’ve broken frags on plugs and observed more than a few in sort of a perpetual “encrusting mode”…. Many a acro frag stayed this way until I lost patients

anyway I think part of the growth pattern is potentially tied to water depth or shadow and therefore light wavelength …
…maybe the nefarious useless red peak plays a part?

 

[Troylee]

semi related: I’ve broken frags on plugs and observed more than a few in sort of a perpetual “encrusting mode”…. Many a acro frag stayed this way until I lost patients

anyway I think part of the growth pattern is potentially tied to water depth or shadow and therefore light wavelength …
…maybe the nefarious useless red peak plays a part?

I feel like flow plays the biggest role in basing and then lighting.. I’ve tested my theory and it seems higher flow they base out more “to be more stable?” Idk and lower flow with the same piece I fragged will not base out as much.. I’ve also seen some corals not base at all and just reach for the stars “trying to get more light?” Idk haha.. they both play a major role in acros at least, and we all know that!

 

[BeanAnimal]

Actinic use bounced when UVL/URI Super Actinic was put on tanks.

Yep - these were magic.

This bulbs has lots of true UV and it showed colors in corals that nothing ever has and nothing really has since. For some reason, T5s cannot even do this because the tube size is too shallow, or something... I don't understand it, but it is real.

I think it is far simpler than that, the T5 bulb is 1/5 of the surface area of the T12, and therefore has 1/5 of the UV emitting phosphor for the same amount of luminous flux. The T5 is 2" shorter as well. The T5 may be more efficient in flux/watt but overall still puts out less light per linear foot than the T12, with the T12 VHO consuming 110W and the T5 VHO consuming 85W. The T12 is ~80 l/w - so 8800l and the T5 is 99l/2 so 8415l. The T12 has more linear surface aimed directly at the water than the T5 as well. But you can stack more T5s side by side than T12s... (to lazy to do arc maths) but say 3x T5s = 1 T12 with regard to the linear surface area facing the water.

I could be wrong too... but I would guess that you would need ~4x T5 Super Actinic T5s to get the same Super Actinic effect that would get with 1 T12 super actinic...

Thus - those running 1 or 2 T5 UVL SAs don't see what they used to when running a single T12 SA, let alone 2!

 

[HudsonReefer2.0]

the problem began when they discovered Radiums grew and showed off corals like a mutha… from then
on once the performance was proven, nostalgia set in and like Betamax lovers these old foggies won’t let MH die …

heck some of them still are mining junk yards and 2nd hand stores for bulbs and parts (you can tell a Radium addict by the fan noise they emit)

Didn’t have the radium’s but loved my pheonix 14k