how much flow recomended for fowlr tank

[Ace25]

PAR stands for "photosynthetically available (or active) radiation. It is a measure that already accounts for wavelengths, so extra consideration of wavelengths serves no purpose. Other measures, like wattage, lux, and lumens account for all visible light, not the photosynthetic range. A broader range of wavelengths within photosynthetic range are optimal, since that allows the maximum amount of energy for the corals as possible (even though for chlorophyll, the greatest spikes are in the red and blue regions). They have lots of other accessory pigments that allow them to take advantage of this. This, of course, depends upon the coral, collection spot, etc., but by and large, this is the ideal. PAR only accounts for photosynthesis, not aesthetics, though. That is where some people may not like it, since it is not always pleasing to the eye. Overall, though, blue light isn't correlated to coral growth.

I believe you missed the point completely. I beg to differ on the bolded part above. PAR meter reads all wavelengths from 400-700. Actinic light only puts out 420 or 440nm area of light.. right? So under a meter the PAR reading is only reading that one wavelength to give you the number on the screen, where as with a daylight 10k bulb, it is putting out wavelengths ranging from 400-700nm, not just 420 or 440, so there is A LOT more wavelengths for the meter to take into account when it displays its reading. Unfortunately, on a daylight, again like I pointed out above, you have no idea with a PAR meter if your 10k bulb is putting out 5% 420/440nm wavelength and 95% 550-600nm, or 95% 420/440 and 5% 550-600nm.. so again, this is why I say a PAR reading on a daylight bulb by itself is just as meaningless as knowing the wattage of the bulb. To me, it has been proven without a doubt that the only light corals need to live and grow is the 440nm area of light. 500-600nm (Green-Yellow) actually does very little for coral growth but promotes algae growth the more light that falls in that area.. and then you get up into the 660-700nm (Red) area and that actually inhibits coral growth... but a PAR meter will read the 660-700nm and take that light into account when you get your PAR reading from a daylight bulb.

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2009/5/aafeature

Over 50% of zooxanthellae are reproducing (that is, in mitosis) at Hour 23 when maintained under 'pure' blue light for 12 hours. Lamps were off between Hours 12 and 24. After Wang et al., 2008.

Isn't A Large Dosage of Red Light Unnatural to Zooxanthellae?

Yes, in many cases. Since red light is rapidly absorbed by the water column, corals inhabiting depths of more than just a few meters do not receive a lot of red light. In aquaria, we desire some red light in order to observe the sometimes gaudy coloration of fishes and invertebrates. Obviously, many corals thrive in these conditions and it is difficult to state that small amounts of red light have any lasting, truly negative effects.
However, the evidence continues to mount that 'strong' red light can have detrimental effects, if even temporarily, on corals and other photosynthetic invertebrates. The effects of 'pure' blue, red, and infrared wavelengths have been examined individually and in combination. The results strongly suggest that 'pure' red light (at ~660 nm) can inhibit zooxanthellae reproduction rates.

 

[Amphiprion]

I believe you missed the point completely. I beg to differ on the bolded part above. PAR meter reads all wavelengths from 400-700. Actinic light only puts out 420 or 440nm area of light.. right? So under a meter the PAR reading is only reading that one wavelength to give you the number on the screen, where as with a daylight 10k bulb, it is putting out wavelengths ranging from 400-700nm, not just 420 or 440, so there is A LOT more wavelengths for the meter to take into account when it displays its reading. Unfortunately, on a daylight, again like I pointed out above, you have no idea with a PAR meter if your 10k bulb is putting out 5% 420/440nm wavelength and 95% 550-600nm, or 95% 420/440 and 5% 550-600nm.. so again, this is why I say a PAR reading on a daylight bulb by itself is just as meaningless as knowing the wattage of the bulb. To me, it has been proven without a doubt that the only light corals need to live and grow is the 440nm area of light. 500-600nm (Green-Yellow) actually does very little for coral growth but promotes algae growth the more light that falls in that area.. and then you get up into the 660-700nm (Red) area and that actually inhibits coral growth... but a PAR meter will read the 660-700nm and take that light into account when you get your PAR reading from a daylight bulb.

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2009/5/aafeature

You seem to be misunderstanding the article. Blue light is only very slightly more effective at zooxanthellae growth than mixed light in terms of efficiency (keep in mind that the "mixed" light is extremely oversimplified in the study). Beyond that, how many bulbs for reef aquaria do you know of that have large spikes in pure red? The study was using absolutes and not too many of them exist in most applications of lamps (minus LEDs).

In a nutshell, 'blue' light and a mixture of 'blue' 'red' and 'infrared' wavelengths were about the same in promotion of normal zooxanthellae reproduction (although the 'blue' light seems to be slightly more effective).

This sums everything up here. Beyond that, most lamps have lots of other spectra (study only used monochromatics), again, that are used by accessory pigments, making a broad spectrum lamp still ideal. Keep in mind that looking at the spectral characteristics of most broad spectrum lamps, they all have a large spike in blue spectra, with much lower red spectra than you'd expect--certainly not in the range indicated by the study (look at the spectral charts and you'll see). Take a cross section of sunlight on a shallow reef and you'll see similar or higher spikes in red spectra than you see with many lamps. In fact, that light combination in the study is similar to "plant-grow" tubes, something that we don't use in reef aquaria anyway. They naturally have very large spikes in red. All of this corresponds with measured growth rate increases associated with higher PAR lamps and differences observed when radically changing from higher to lower "kelvin" lamps.

Hope this clarifies things a bit more.

Edit: I don't want to derail this any further. If you want to discuss it, you are more than welcome to post and/or PM me.

 

[Ace25]

Just another example I have witnessed first hand.

XM 10k 250w MH bulb, overdriven with a PFO M80 balast. These are rough estimates just from visually obvserving through a spectrometer. New XM 10k = 50% "Blue", 25% Green, and 25% Red. 3 month old bulb = 35% blue, 35% green, 30% Red. 6 month old XM = 20% blue, 45% Green, 35% Red.

So.. same bulb, same ballast, only thing different is age. You can see the extreme spectral shift in the bulb as it ages. A new bulb is much better for coral growth than an older bulb because of the spectrum it puts out. At 6 months old, even though the PAR output is just about equal from the PAR output when it was new, the light spectrum has shifted so much that the corals are not only not growing any more, that are starting to look worse each day due to the far red/green shift and less "blue" light that the corals actually need.

So, how can a PAR reading on a "Daylight" bulb really mean anything without knowing other factors? A new XM 10k puts out almost 3000 PAR at the bulb, 6 month old XM puts out 2850 at the bulb.. very little difference in PAR output, but a world of difference in "quality" light output as far as the corals are concerned. There is a red shift in the bulbs over time.

 

[Amphiprion]

Just another example I have witnessed first hand.

XM 10k 250w MH bulb, overdriven with a PFO M80 balast. These are rough estimates just from visually obvserving through a spectrometer. New XM 10k = 50% "Blue", 25% Green, and 25% Red. 3 month old bulb = 35% blue, 35% green, 30% Red. 6 month old XM = 20% blue, 45% Green, 35% Red.

So.. same bulb, same ballast, only thing different is age. You can see the extreme spectral shift in the bulb as it ages. A new bulb is much better for coral growth than an older bulb because of the spectrum it puts out. At 6 months old, even though the PAR output is just about equal from the PAR output when it was new, the light spectrum has shifted so much that the corals are not only not growing any more, that are starting to look worse each day due to the far red/green shift and less "blue" light that the corals actually need.

So, how can a PAR reading on a "Daylight" bulb really mean anything without knowing other factors? A new XM 10k puts out almost 3000 PAR at the bulb, 6 month old XM puts out 2850 at the bulb.. very little difference in PAR output, but a world of difference in "quality" light output as far as the corals are concerned. There is a red shift in the bulbs over time.

That is the PAR difference at the bulb, but what about the rest of the tank? That can still translate into substantially less light after it travels through the water. And how can you quantitatively say that the spectrum makes a difference in your corals' growth when the PAR has shifted? Is it even universal across all corals? That is one of my major gripes with the study itself. It is far too narrow to be conclusive. There is also far too much evidence that shows that as long as light is within the usual ranges we encounter, that spectral qualities make that big of a difference, if at all. Most of the time, the decline in PAR just isn't worth the bluer coloration. Increases in growth after switching to blue bulbs are usually due to photoinhibition to begin with. Again, far too many factors to make such a definite conclusion--it just isn't getting anywhere.

 

[Ace25]

Yes, I agree, study eas EXTREMELY narrow. I give you that. Still, that study only helps confirm what I have thought for nearly a decade about lighting a reef tank.

Another example.. I got tired of XM bulbs.. look good at first but quickly turn "yellow" to the eye and corals start looking bad, ie, less polyp extension, less growth, less coloring.. I replace the XM10k with a Phoenix 14k, obviously much more blue in that bulb, and after just a few days under the 14k light my corals start to grow like weeds (exageration, but after 3 months of 0 growth at all under a 10k bulb, then seeing 1/4" growth on ALL my acroporas in the first 7 days under the 14k bulb, sure helps me be a believer that the blue spectrum is the most important spectrum. On my XM, while the PAR was about double of that of the 14k bulb, the blue coming out of the 14k bulb actually makes up around 3/4 of the total light coming from the bulb, were as with the XM towards the 6 month mark was only putting out 20% of the light in the blue spectrum. Even though the tank looks "dimmer" to me under 14k vs 10k, the corals are growing MUCH more than they ever did under 10k. I would get a good 1 month of good growth using a XM 10k.. seemed to work really well at first, but then after only a month of use the growth really starts to slow down, till you reach 4-5 months where coral growth completely stops. Again, overly simplified statement.. "Coral" is being used as a very general term and obviously each coral has its own specific needs.. but the visual observations tell me what I am saying is true. This isn't something I read in a book, or some forumla I learned in school, this is me with my own PAR meter and spectrometer looking at my own tank/lights for hours on end. I have learned to trust my eyes more than any book.. many may disagree with that, but I have found that to be my only reliable way to get real information, even though it may not be the most "scientific" of methods.

 

[Amphiprion]

I understand and I am the same way--except I see the biology backing up what I actually see. The thing I don't think you can rule out more likely factors, namely photoinhibition, which is very common with high PAR lamps. I think the reduction in PAR may have been the more beneficial move. It is easy for the corals to reach saturation under the high PAR lamps and also much easier to inhibit and bleach. This is why many seem to get the sudden boosts of growth that you mention when switching to similar kelvin, dimmer bulbs and reducing photoperiod (but that is another discussion altogether).

Edit: I guess what I should be saying is that if you are happy with any changes another bulb has given you, then that is what counts. If everything looks better, does better, etc. and you like the bluer tint, then all the better--that is what counts.

 

[gorfre]

That sounds to me like something more serious is going on. Even though your phosphates test at zero, you may have a phosphate factory going on somewhere and they are simply bound up in the algae so you dont see it.

What I have done recently to solve my hair algae issue is:

1) I moved so i had the luxury of 'rinsing' all my rocks. By that I mean, I thoroughly shook them in the tank before I removed them removing any detritus.

2) I Removed all the old shells from dead snails and so forth from the sand bed and thoroughly rinsed them, dried them (for a few days) and put them back in the tank.

3) I turned off one bank of lights (i have 8 t5 ho's) and reduced the daily light cycle.

4) increased the light cycle on my refugium (with Chaeto)

5) I used a siphon hose with one end into a net over the sump and sucked out and disposed of any hair algae for a couple weeks every day. This was a lot easier than changing the water everyday.

6) I finished that all up with package of Phos-ban in order to clean out the phosphates in the system under the assumption I've gotten rid of whatever was producing them at this point.

So far it's working great, in just 24 hours I've seen a drastic reduction. I use RO/DI water that is 0ppm (and we have some the cleanest tap water in the US here form Lake Tahoe).

thanks
now you can see why i'm so frustrated. i also use phos ban even if i test 0
and no change. just recently i left the tank dark for 3 days with no food at all. turned lights on last night and things looked like it was clearing up now today , although nothing else has changed, i see red slime starting again.
seems like nothing i do will correct this.
i spent 1000's in the process of others telling what i need to correct this.
someone out there must be able to tell what i'm doing wrong.
i should also tell you that all the live stock is doing very well with no loss of any creature.could this cause any of the problem. the ballast i use for my 250 w halide is just a comercial lighting ballast.i didn't buy an electronic ballast.

 

[ToeJam]

thanks
i have about 100 crabs 50 snails and only use ro/di water tested to 0 tds
also i don't have any filter per say. i had a canister filter and was instructed to remove it. i have a 40 gal sump with my protien skimmer heaters and return pump in it. i only have a bag of charcoal in the sump.
i've been at this for about 1 year and can't get my rock to grow coraline algae. my rock goes from hair to red slime. when i get the hair starting to go the next day i can see the red slime starting. i keep doing what people sugest but nothing works. i know it must be something i'm doing or not doing. the lastest advise has lead me here and to ask this question.
see i was advised to use 2 tunze type power heads each at about 1800 gph
but also $249 ea.so i asked first this time before i throw away $500 and see no improvement.
i've been wanting to add some soft corals but i feel if i can't clear up this algae i will never keep the corals alive.it's very frustrating.

So its only growing on the hair algae after it appears. The not so great thing about hair algae is it can trap detritus in it like a net. Then cyano grows like wild on it.

have you considered two Korilia #4's instead? Flow amount is good but positioning is just as important. So dont fall into the GPH trap in thinking.
Well placed PH's can make a difference.

Hair algae is a pain...I go as far as removing the infected rock entirely. Place it in the sump till it dies off. Month+ in the sump I put it back in the display...so far so good. When I get pissed off I would go as far as boiling up water and scrubbing it off with the water.


Still with using proper water ...I assume weekly water changes and keeping nitrates below 20 and if possible below 10....and phosphates at 0. The only thing that comes to mind is detritus is settling on your rocks ...which is the food source for the hair algae....then gets stuck to the hair...even more...and cyano takes over.

Flow sounds like a direction you may have to go... It wouldn't hurt to wash your rocks off in siphoned out tank water in buckets... have you done that yet? You will be forced to aquascape again...but remember to not do too much at one time...

Last time I read from AMP you can release some nasty stuff under rocks that sit on the substrate...so clean off the ones not on the substrate...that would be a good start...

Get us some pics... and what kind of test kit are you using? how old is it?

What if your tests are not good? =)

PS: coraline algae grows like wild for me... C-Balance is a great product for dosing your tank to keep Calc and Alk in check and other trace elements. It encourages coraline growth to.

 

[ToeJam]

thanks
now you can see why i'm so frustrated. i also use phos ban even if i test 0
and no change. just recently i left the tank dark for 3 days with no food at all. turned lights on last night and things looked like it was clearing up now today , although nothing else has changed, i see red slime starting again.
seems like nothing i do will correct this.
i spent 1000's in the process of others telling what i need to correct this.
someone out there must be able to tell what i'm doing wrong.
i should also tell you that all the live stock is doing very well with no loss of any creature.could this cause any of the problem. the ballast i use for my 250 w halide is just a comercial lighting ballast.i didn't buy an electronic ballast.

OK now I am needing more info;

Tank size?
What exactly is your lighting? 250w Halide commercial or for marine? Ballasts I don't know a lot about minus the ones i have.

Please list your equipment all of it k. Test kits you are using...
What do you feed and how often do you feed..how much do you feed.

 

[gorfre]

a kind of test kit are you using? how old is it?

What if your tests are not good? =)

thanks
i'm using a seachem master kit and it's about 3 months old.
this is a 5 test type and all tests indicate in the right margins.
this brings me back to my posted question of how much flow needed.
when my local fish guy tested himself i think the only other thing that could be wrong was flow. he said marine tanks should have 30x to 50x of flow. and mine with 2 #2 korilas is only 21x. dead spots formed from not enough will start cyano to take over and spread.
so my first thought was he just wanted to make a sale.
the hair algae is going away. i'm picking off as much as i can and it seems to be dying off. but i don't know, i need help. as well i didn't know i could clean the rock. i thought brushing off the rock would a bad thing.
in the past i've heard a lot of bad advice.