Soon I plan on adding leathers and possibly soft corals to my 75 gallon tank. I was wonder on what is the wattage per gallon needed. I dont have a super strong Lighting it's a Coralife Deluxe (PC) thats 260 watts when they all are on is this good enough for leathers and possibly softies.

Robert Kunz

How deep is your tank? WPG isn't really a good way to guage lighting, as the depth of the tank, intensity of the lighting, spectrum and type of light all play a major role in wheather any given lighting is adequate for keeping a particular coral. Regardles of volume, the deeper the tank is, the more light you'll need, and of the correct spectrum. What bulbs are in your fixture currently?

It is 20 inches deep.

2 65 watt True Actinic 03 Blue

2 65 watt 10,000K White

Thanks for the fast response.

You should be able to get by. I'd try to keep the leathers up closer to the light, depending on what exactly you want to keep.

You'd be in much better shape if you swaped one of those actinics out for another 10K. Actinincs are aestheticaly pleasing, and can help with the coloration of your corals, but it's pretty much useless as far as photosynthesis goes.

Alright swap one of the actinics for a 10K and that will do for leathers will it work on low lighting anemones like a green bubble tip or something

I'd feel better about a BTA if you swaped both actinics for daylight's, but someone else may have some practical experience.

Alright thanks for everything

You were a big help

it should be ok for a BTA Rose or Green, however supplemental feeding will probably be required.
on a side note, check out the lighting podcasts and the anemone podcast, those should help answer most of your questions

those podcast are pretty good too.......whats that....i didn't write them, oh dang!:rotfl:

You'd be in much better shape if you swaped one of those actinics out for another 10K. Actinincs are aestheticaly pleasing, and can help with the coloration of your corals, but it's pretty much useless as far as photosynthesis goes.

Hi all,

I was reading this thread and the above statement caught my attention. I was always under the impression that Actinic Lighting was very much a part of coral photosynthesis. So I started to do a little online research to find out what others thought. Of coarse, just like anything else online, when you ask a question, you get answers supporting and rejecting any and all theories. Here is a summary of what I have “learned”.

Argument that Actinic03 Lighting is of no or little use for Coral Photosynthesis.

I found much information supporting this statement. It is widely believed that the actinic03 spectrum is the wavelength that reaches depths in the open ocean and is used in coral photosynthesis. What we see as white light is in fact full spectrum lighting, which includes light waves in the 380-490nm wavelength. In fact, 6700K “daylight” bulbs provide a light spectrum with peaks in the actinic spectrum and would provide corals with the most optimal spread of useable light energy for photosynthesis’s. I do not think that it is a coincidence that lighting in this K temperature most simulates the natural mid day sunlight spectrum. However, there are 2 issues with using 6700K bulbs as the sole light source. First, as we all know, this light temperature produces a “yellow/green” look to the tank that is not visually appealing. Second, full spectrum “daylight” lighting contains the longer red and infrared lighting. This particular portion of the light spectrum is easily absorbed into saltwater and could raise water temperatures.

Argument that Actinic03 Lighting is beneficial for Coral Photosynthesis.

So, if 6700K lighting is not visually appealing, you can supplement with Actinic lighting. But it still may be not appealing to run a 6700, so the 10000K white light is used. The advantage of the 10000K bulb is that is that the spectrum that composes the 10K bulb is lower in infrared energy, which is why is it considered a “cooler” light. The reduction of infrared can help control water temperatures. The problem with the 10K bulb is that the spectrum is not super efficient in the actinic range, so supplementing with Actinic03 can boost the amount of usable light energy in your system. The odd thing is, Actinic03 lighting does not have a spectrum peak in the actinic range.

How does this all relate to WPG. Well, it doesn’t. I personally have been successfully at keeping a BTA under approx 3.51 wpg in a 37g , 20” tall tank lit by 1 x 65w PC lighting, PC and 1 x 65w Actinic lighting. In my new system, I have 2 65w dual daylight 6700K/10000K and 2 65x dual actinic 420nm/460nm lighting, producing approx 4.33wpg. This tank is also only 17” tall, so the tank appears to be more brightly lit.

In my opinion, I think that the 10k/actinic light provide the best combination of light energy and aesthetics. Things may be different for systems lit with MH, as I only have PC lighting in my system.

Please let me know if anyone as any opinions? I am curious as to what more expereinced reffers have come up with?

Thanks

Excelent post John, and I agree for the most part. It seems I mis-spoke in my original post. What I meant was that running 4 10K bulbs would provide more PAR and PUR than 2 10Ks and 2 actinics.

The folks at WWM generaly agree that actinic lighting is mostly for the benefit of the tank owner, and of lesser benefir to the corals.

ActinicFAQs (http://www.wetwebmedia.com/marine/setup/lighting/actinicfaqs.htm)

Aditionaly, this article by Sanjay Joshi seems to shed some light (pun definitely intended) on higher temperature/actinic bulbs and coral coloration, by hypothesizing coral coloration (irridescence, in particuler) may be the result of UV blocking pigmentation, which would be more intense the closer you get to UV. It also hase some good information on the wavelengths mose efficiently absorbed by zooxanthellae for photosynthesys.

Aquarium Frontiers On-Line: Feature (http://www.personal.psu.edu/sbj4/aquarium/articles/Photosynthesis.htm)

[QUOTE=Phurst;59004]Excelent post John, and I agree for the most part. It seems I mis-spoke in my original post. What I meant was that running 4 10K bulbs would provide more PAR and PUR than 2 10Ks and 2 actinics.

The folks at WWM generaly agree that actinic lighting is mostly for the benefit of the tank owner, and of lesser benefir to the corals.

QUOTE]

Yeah,

That makes most sence to me as well, especially after learning that the actinic lighting deosn't really produce a light spectrum in the actinic range effectively. So, to provide maximum PAR and PUR, the use of 10K "daylight" lighting is best, but may not be as visually appealing. Acticincs can help by providing addional PAR to the aquarium and provide a visual appeal. It seems to be the decision of the individual reefer as to what type of compromise you may want to make, maxim light output of max visual appeal.

Another interisting notion about Actinic lighting that I read was about "photoshock" ie using actinics to simulate a dawn/dusk effect. In essence, the arguement was that while to the human eye, and not looking at the light under water, the "intensity or brightness" of Actinic lighting to corals/fish is the same as the full daylight lights. So running a set up with the dawn/dusk is also more for the veiwer rather then the consumer....

By the way, what if WWM?

Laters
John

Wet Web Media (www.wetwebmedia.com). A fantastic resource if you haven't checked them out yet.

I had a BTA in my tank under 2x65 watt 50/50 PC's. Its foot was about midway up in my 20" tall tank. My clown feeds it and I give it a chunk of something once a week or so.

Thanks John this really helped me out. you answered some questions I didn't even know I had.

Thanks John this really helped me out. you answered some questions I didn't even know I had.


Cool! Glad to help!

I actually learned a lot in this thread as well.

John