Anthony...did you say this?

[SeanT]

Here is a supposed question posed to you and your answer.
It has been posted here on RC by someone stating that mh on a tank is overkill. I would greatly ppreciate your input.
Thank you.

"Dear Consortium, I have a 55 gallon reef tank with standard type wooden canopy up top. Drilled into lid of canopy I have two 96 watt PC bulbs with reflector. I also have a 250 watt Iwasaki Metal Halide bulb mounted in-between the PC bulbs on a model base fixture and bracket."

Here is your answer

Trying to make lava? Or are you simply are that rare aquarists exclusively keeping shallow water Porites and Goniastrea species to need this much light on such shallow water? Sheesh, bud... this is dangerous from several different perspectives not the least of which is photo-inhibition of most of your corals by the time they are a year old if they even live that long under these lights
--Anthony Calfo


So...is this wrong, taken out of context, or correct?

 

[Crevalle]

Hi Anthony,
When I told this reader what you had said about potential overkill using too much MH on a tank, she didn't believe me. So, I copied and pasted the script from the Wetwebmedia MH#2 page. I agree with what you said, as many other experts have told me the same thing. Sorry to bother you with something this trivial.

Sam
Minneapolis, MN

 

[Anthony Calfo]

Cheers all

Sean... the quote is correct and quite true/convicted of my sentiment for that particular query and for many tanks at large (thanks Sam for the follow-up). It must be taken in context though, mate... unless you are advocating 250 watt MH and higher for tanks with less than 18 actual inches of water regardless of what cnidarians are kept inside. In which case I'd say you own a ligting company

Please keep in mind too, the very generalized nature of me/us/anyone sharing advice and opinions in the limited and abbreviated context of a text message/Internet (re: inferences of history of tank, husbandry, likely preferences of an aquarist... much gesswork).

The gist of it is that most aquarists in the trade are not advanced sps/clam keepers. The reef trade en toto makes up literally single digit percentages of the industry... and shallow water reefs even less (a fraction of a single percent). The number of folks that want a marine aquarium with mixed invertebrates , live rock and fishes is high within those numbers... but there are far more people keeping corallimorphs, common Alcyoniid leathers, and fleshy deep(er) water LPS among them that can and likely will suffer under high wattage halides in small home aquaria.

So... if I get the notion that an aquarist asking for lighting recommendations has a generalized or non-specific prefernce... I'll err on the safe side (and really more natural and appropriate lighting). Under-lit corals can easily be compensated for with extra feeding... but over-illumination cannot make up for a lack of feeding. There really is such a thing as too much light in many cases! In this case... banks of 250, 400 or 1000 watt over a 55 gall is too much.

Heehee.. its really ironic/funny sometimes. Over at WetWebMedia we get a wider range/diversity of aquarists/interests (many newbies and low light reefers) and I get slammed for preaching the use of halides ad naseum (as being the best overall lighting/ "bang for your bucK"). Over here at RC, the lava making sps keepers slam me from steering the nano-tank owners away from a 400 watt MH pendant. I can't win

Ok... so whaddya say fellas? Am I off the hook?

Kind regards to all,

Anthony

 

[SeanT]

Possibly.
However, in the case of an SPS/Clam dominated tank surely you must agree that anything less than metal halide is a fruitless effort (barring someone stacking a multitude of VHO lighting in their hood).

 

[Skipper]

Sean: I know of at least one coral farmer that uses VHO (not to the extreme you described either) without metal halides. The depth of his tanks is quite shallow, however, being only about 12-14" deep. SPS can do quite well under these conditions. Of course, a lot depends on the species of SPS, too. Typically, and as an example, Montipora digitata doesn't need the high intensity of halides.

 

[Anthony Calfo]

Sean,

You simply need more perspective/experience with other technologies and applications, mate.

Inverse compact lamps with the Japanese, T-5s with staggering results over time in Europe... hmmmm.. how about a skylight or a greenhouse

There really is so much more to lighting than our little hobby/world. Its truly a wonderful thing.

I'm honestly hesitant to even chat much more about this with a superlative blanket statement like "fruitless effort" without any qualifications. You do realize that you are trying to hold me to an absolute (and double) standard (your passion for MH as a must), that you would not indulge me (my concession that MH is not necessary). Not fair bubba

Its really a moot point without discussing water depth, distance of lamp from water, etc.

If it pleases you... I can honestly say that I recommend MH to more aquarists than any other techology commonly available at present. I sincerely believe, to speak generically, that it is the best all around value for aquaria over 24" deep regarding quality of light with better bulbs (Ushio, AB, Iwasaki) and lamp life.

MH is one of the best "bangs for your buck"... and you can quote me on that

BTW... thanks Skipper for the insight. True indeed... many corals farmers use other forms of lighting. Heehee... newbie reeferes (less than 5 years, say ) need to realize that the hobby got where it is today thought the 80s and 90s on 40 watt fluorescents largely!

kind regards to all,

Anthony