considering corals

[thor]

ok i just started a FOWLS and in a year or so i would like to add some corals iknow you need lots of lighting i have one flourescent and one half flourescent half actinic 03 blue is this enough?
also what are the basic things i need to know?
thanks a ton!

 

[josh]

Short answer on the lighting - No that's not enough.
Most corals need atleast 5 watts/gall. There are also other things to consider, such as water flow, temp ( 80 ), alk (3.2 meq ) calcium ( 450ppm ) salinity / S.G. ( atleast 35 ppm or aound 1.024- 1.026 ), you have to feed most coral with phytoplankton atleast 3 times a week and depending on which coral, you have to actually hand feed them. Not to scare you but that's just the tip on the iceberg. I have had a coral only tank for 5 years now and I am still learing things daily. Keep asking questions and buy a good coral reef book. Just do things slowly and you will be fine ! GOOD LUCK

 

[burnnspy]

Check out my Reef Basics page for info you may want to check out.
www.spyreef.homestead.com/home.html
BurnNSpy

 

[kelly]

Thor,
If you wish to have corals in that setup, you should have 1 Triton, and 1 Actinic 50/50 bulb. You can raise most soft corals, and a few hard corals in this lighting setup. Forget the WPG (watts per gallon) rule, it is total nonsense!!! I have had success in an 80 gallon with the above lighting. Better lighting would not hurt. VHO, PC and MH lighing is better, but not necessary.
Kelly

 

[josh]

Well, that's why we have a forum for these things. I would point out, the watt / gall rule is a rule for a good reason. It's not nonsence. The ratio is a comparison to the natural environment that the creature is from. Corals need to have light to propogate ect. Some might have limited success with low lights, but I would NOT advice it. That's my 2 cents, or rather 4 cents. Ragardless, keep asking questions to get everyone's viewpoint.

 

[kelly]

Josh,
If the WPG rule works, then do this, remove your lights and put on 2 150 incandescent lights, that would give you over 10 WPG on your tank. Use the lighting for 1 year, and then give the forum the results. You will see for yourself that WPG does not work.
There was a nice discussion on this topic a few weeks ago.
Kelly

 

[josh]

I see your point, I thought it was understood that the quality of the lights ( I. E. true acitinic and full spec daylight )is more important than total watts. I agree to a point that the total watts is contingent on the type of lights. So the watt/gall ratio is based on what, pc lights with both acitinic and full spec daylight? The ratio is just a rule of thumb that most people use to go on, however I agree . . the better, more full spec lights you have the less watts. I still have a problem with admitting that you can trade off total watts in such a case, the more light.. the better off the tank. Do you happen to have an idea of when that discussion was posted I would be interested in reading it, thanks for the info kelly

 

[jtoliver]

josh and kelly, you guys ought to go to garf.org and check out how this non profit organization into coral propagation lights their tanks. I do not do it this way myself, but it is very interesting.

 

[kelly]

jtoliver,
I light my tank the same way as they do. 2 Tritons, and one Actinic.
Kelly

 

[predator]

FU*@ the watts per gallon rule.There are to many other factors to consider.Those triton bulbs Kelly mentioned are great!!!Not that vho or mh is'nt great but those bulbs are only 40 watts and will keep most alive.

 

[predator]

I kept alot of corals healthy in a 30 using regular florecents.And if you add it up it wass only 2 wpg.I had that tank set up for 5 months.I recently switched to a 75 and 4 110 watt vho's and there working great .The light on my 30 was intense and concentrated.It's what works best for you.click here to see my reef

 

[josh]

Predator:
Ok I agree WPG is not the best, but try talking to a newbe about lumens, PAR, and PUR and see what kinda responce you get.