Old photo

[MM WI]

All of this recent blogging inspired me to pull out some of my old photos, Excuse the poor quality of the old photo, I just scanned this pic a few minutes ago, this carpet was the first one I kept when I was a teenager, I had it for several years before selling it back to one of the local stores. The lighting was two 60W HO philups actinics and four standard 40 Watt bulbs, a mix of sylvania daylight and ge chroma 50s and 60s. There were no bulbs manufactured for tanks at the time. In fact the bulbs you buy today were inspired by the qualities of the bulbs I mention here. When I encourge people to buy clams and anemones for their CF and T5 bulbs it is the experience with the early years of the hobby that allow me say this. You don't need MH bulbs for most of the animals that people are discourged from adding to their tanks. In most cases water chemistry is much more important. In fact the picturre from these old tanks show multiple tridacna and anemones. It was not the rare one that survied most of the clams survied for years and some doubled or trippled in size. Anemones were a bit more hit or miss, much like today some lived for years and some never adapted to the tank. So in short people were able to keep these animals long before MH became the standard. Don't be discourged from trying these animals with your CF or T5 systems if you have the prerequisite experience with water parameters.

- Mark

 

[davocean]

Way back when, I too had some success w/ nems under "what we had at the time" lighting LOL
I think poor lighting may have just provided dirty water that enabled them to "survive".
Both my LTA and sebae started under weak light, and they survived, but both were high on rocks ( both known sand dwellers by the way) reaching/stretching for every bit of light possible.
As soon as I upped to good lighting, both went straight down to sand bed where they should have always been, and both colored up so well it was obvious I wasn't doing them justice under weak lighting.
Please don't adcocate doing the same, we've come a long way in this hobby, and we shouldn't ignore advice/exp from people that really know what they are doing.

 

[MM WI]

Point being that if it worked then, it certainly should work now under t5 and cf, in fact some of these animals do better under t5 and cf. - mark

 

[davocean]

T5's are fine for most nems/situations, CF maybe for BTA's since they are less light needy, but I'd hate to see someone think it's cool to put any nem under regular phillips flourescent lights, or even Cf or PC for very light needy nems.
I do agree MH is not a "must" even for heavy light needy nems, I just hope people research the needs for individual species.

 

[MM WI]

The carpet in that picture had a sting so strong that if you touched it the tenticles ripped off of the animal when you removed your hands. When the HO actinics came on the tenticles danced for about the first the first half hour. The saddles were so deep that the huge saddleback clown could disappear completely at times. It was nearly 18 inches across when it was sold before I went off to college. I do not believe it could have been heathier. It was my experience with this clown/anemone that has inspired me to always keep a large carpet anemone in one of my reef tanks. So these lights did not just work they worked well, keeping these animals heathy requires factors that are more difficult than just buying the lastest lighting system. I doubt that even today many tanks have the support crew of living critters that this tank from the very early 80s had, It would be more thoughtful to ask questions about what else allowed this tank to function than to question the obvious health of the animal. - Mark

 

[Slakker]

I think the point that davocean was trying to make is that situations like this are the exception to the rule.

You're absolutely right though, there are a lot of things that are important in keeping an anemone, lighting is just one in a complicated equation...

But it's not the early 80's, and there is technology that is more suitable for their long term health. I don't see why there's a problem with suggesting that people take advantage of that.

 

[davocean]

I'm not questioning the health of the animal, and I hope you don't think I'm just flaming on you, I'd just hate to see people coming into the hobby seeing this as the perfect example/setting for delicate species.
Like I said your success could have been similar to mine, poor lighting promoting algaes that dirtied the water providing nutrients that sustained them.
While the carpet in pic seems healthy, the nem next to it(I don't advise diff species of nems touching either) maybe a sebae?
It appears to be bleached, not healthy.
It's difficult as it is to keep healthy nems, I don't advocate "the bare minimum requirements"
I'm not saying you have to buy the latest thing in lighting either, but technology and modern practices aren't a bad thing either.
There are many ways to keep these animals responsibly and keep a budget as well.
After being on here for some time, and sharing/reading exp from many other nem keepers, it's a bummer to see someone w/ the "just go for it see what happens" attitude/advice having it followed by someones heartbreak story a month later.

 

[MM WI]

Scientific observation requires adding animals to the system and observing what parameters impact health. Many are not prone to this as conclusions are reached too quickly. The attempt must be made though. An aquarist who understands scientific method will make better conclusions that one who reads antidotal observation and participates in group think in a forum. I do not advocate underlighting an animal. I simply suggest that the lighting requirements are exagerated and that there are many ways to achieve the end and I am certainly not suggesting going back to 40W 48 inch bulbs. This is simply a vehicle to make a point. People need to have the courge to put these animals under their t5 and cf fixtures. They may find that more Watts are needed but they will not find that these lights are not capable.

Most of the recent photos I have posted are under 400 Watts of spiral household 65K with vho actinic. It works, and it works well. This has been proven by years of success as the norm not the exception. You will see me switch lighting when something comes out that produce the right spectrum with more efficiency. MH wastes too much energy as heat and requires costly balasts. It will be replaced someday by something better.

Oh, and I should admit that my photo and initial statements are bait. I know my comments are incomplete. I toss out a little controversy and see where it leads. So far not where I had hoped.

If you have a system that works it should be shared so that others can learn from it. The mistake is moving to consesus and fashion so quickly as their are many ways to achieve an end. Inovation requires this. Thats right my spiral bulbs from Walmart are inovation.

- Mark

 

[Slakker]

So ~15 (correct me if I'm wrong, last time I purchased these bulbs the highest wattage available was 26) household compact fluorescent bulbs light your tank? That's a really cool idea. I do think that halides will someday be replaced...perhaps when LED technology becomes more viable/affordable.

I'm curious as to whether 400 watts of household CF actually puts out a higher PAR value than a 400 watt Halide, or even 2x175w halides.

 

[davocean]

I guess I'm not treating my tank as a scientific observation/experiment, and I've been keeping SW tanks for about 25yrs now, and back when used regular growlights because I can admit there weren't many choices, and I CAN ADMIT, I JUST DIDN'T KNOW BETTER AT THE TIME.
Today is a different story, we have this site and a wealth of knowledge from scientists, marine biologists, lighting experts and so on, why not use this info?
Again, T5's are great, not saying MH is a must, but Walmart bulbs being innovational?
That's just plain silly, and you just forfeited ANY credibility you may have had coming in even w/ a blank/clean slate on this site IMO.
Now you're just giving bad advice.

 

[MM WI]

16x26W + the actinics, higher W is available but too much $$$. Not sure about PAR, I know that when I visit people with MH some tanks look bright by comparison, and others not so much. I would think that properly installed they are brighter but not by a huge amount. I have had a couple of corals that only do well under the MH in my frag tank but most do fine in either. Color changes when moved between tanks with some looking better with the halides and some looking better under the CFs. Not sure if calling these CF is correct but that has been my practice.

- Mark

 

[davocean]

You really should read up on PAR value.

 

[phender]

I too am an oldtimer. I agree that lighting is not the only factor when keeping anemones, but it is a major factor. I kept a sebae anemone (H. crispa) for over 13 years under 4- 30 watt normal fluorescents in a 40 gal. breeder. It grew to 20" across. I had a 20" haddoni carpet for 7-8 years in a 55 gal tank under 5-40 watt fluorescents, before I sold it. I also had a 5" haddoni in a 30 gal tall under 4-15 watt bulbs for over 5 years. It can be done, but why?
I can tell you in absolute terms that every lighting upgrade I have ever done has improved the health of my anemones. Even replacing old light bulbs and cleaning splash guards improve the anemone's health.

Congratulations on being successful with the CFs, I have been too, but most of the people asking if they can keep anemones don't have your experience and encouraging them to house anemones in under lit tanks may not be a great idea. I usually tell people that if their lighting is good enough to keep LPS in their tank then you have enough to keep BTAs, haddoni and sebaes. If its good enough to keep SPS then you probably have enough to keep ritteris and giganteas as long as you can provide for their other needs as well.
On a seperate note:
Your tank may look brighter than some MH tanks because our eyes detect light from 6500K lamps better than 20000K or even 10000K lamps. (our eyes don't see blue as well as the other colors) So, even though the energy getting to the corals is the same, 400 watts of 6500K will always "look" brighter than 400 watts of 20000K.

 

[MM WI]

Well Davo, If you used grow lights 25 years ago you did not do your research. There were publications and people breaking new ground and bulbs with an established track record. So you were either experimenting or poorly informed. This is not something to be ashamed of but a bit of humility maybe would help.

What happens now is trends form and get repeated in these forums and become fashion or dogma. If my display tank is cheaper to run and keeps a larger variety of animals healthy it is inovative. A scientist keeps an open and skeptical mind. You may have a nice tank, I hope you do anyway, but don't kid yourself. I can read between the lines here.

From what I read here most of you are not keeping anemones or other animals alive as long as I do. This puts part of the debate here to rest anyway. Not all of it of course at least part of it.

- Mark

 

[MM WI]

phender, I guess the why is that new people have limitations with money and need to get experiecne. I often give them a couple of sps frags if they are afraid to buy them because of what they read. How many times someone comes over with t5s or cf that do not want to try sps because they were told it is not enought light. The zoanthids and other softies are a good learning step but the curve is faster if they also have a sps or two to learn from. My display tank helps to show them that it can be done. - Mark

 

[Slakker]

In my opinion these "trends" are not fashion, nor are they dogma. Certain types of lighting are more effective than others. The data is out there in the form of PAR readings.

Granted, I'm not sure anyone has tested your particular setup, so it may be far and away better than anything anyone else is using. I don't know how big your tank is, but if it could be lit by a single halide bulb I don't see how 400 watts of household bulbs is any cheaper than a 400 watt halide. I'm not an electrical engineer by any means, but my primitive understanding of how the electric bill works makes me think that a watt is a watt, and they cost just about the same no matter what uses them up.

Without doing the tests I don't know for sure, but in my mind it's highly possible that 2x175w halides could have a higher PAR value than your 400 watts of household bulbs, and with less energy consumption.

 

[MM WI]

Slakker, a bulb that puts out more heat is converting more of your Wattage into heat and less into light. Watts are a measure of work. A CF puts out less heat and more light per watt and a LED even more light with even less heat. With the price of energy what it is, more and more efficient designs should be somewhere on the horizon. I use halides on some tanks but there is much about them I do not like. In my opinion the t5 may be the best compromise we have now, what is most interesting about my experiment is no balast. I am always looking for cheaper, more efficient, less work. I am impressed by the tanks that run all of the latest equipment but not by the complexity and the expense. We will someday evolve to techniques that not only work better but are simplier and less expensive. - Mark

 

[Slakker]

I have to respectfully disagree, similar wattages of compact fluorescent vs. metal halide comparisons in PAR value show that halides put out substantially more light.

IME, compact fluorescent bulbs waste quite a bit of energy in heat. The difference is that the heat from the CF bulb is generated over the surface area of a much larger bulb, while a Halide's heat is all generated on a central point. This makes the halide substantially hotter, but doesn't necessarily mean that it's less efficient.

To take it further, with a CF bulb (especially those spirals) you're losing a lot of intensity back into the bulb itself. The bulbs are doubled back on each other, or spiraled around each other, and so the light has to either reflect back off of the bulb, or go through it, in order to reach your tank. The more times the light has to "bounce" to get to the water, the less energy it has after surface refraction takes its toll, and that means less PAR for your corals.

 

[davocean]

Dude, I already admitted what I knew and used 25yrs ago is nothing compared to what we use or do today, thus admitting my lesson in humility.
Are you able to set your ego aside to do the same?
The more I learn, the more I realize how much there is to learn.
This is what I've kept the last 5 1/2 yrs, creeping up on what could be called long term success IMO.
Let's see if you can read between these lines;

you

give

bad

advice

 

[MM WI]

davo, looks great congradulations on a bueatiful display tank, I assume those twin giants are dual LTAs. very nice. - Mark