4 - 8 - 4 - 8 Lighting Cycles

[Thales]

Do you have a link to this study? I suspect that the mention of 4 hours has more to do with photoinhibition, where after receiving a certain high amount of PAR over the course of the day the photosynthesis in the zooxanthellae shuts down. So the 4 hours thing is not a magic amount of time, it might have just been the time photoinhibition was reached under whatever intensity level was being studied. In a dimly lit tank you'd probably never reach photoinhibition even if you ran the lights all day.

Hiya Larry! There is this one. It was linked earler but may be buried. Based on motility, not photoinhibition. I am not aware of any other finished work in this area, but I would love to be wrong.

 

[ZoWhat]

What coral farms? I have no interest in doing some DEEP search to find out what 24 hour light schedule some random farm uses. Just come out and tell us who and what schedule, why the secrecy. We are all here to learn atleast I am.

Todd at Cherrycorals and WWC both wrote me back after i sent them a PM on succeeding at Zoa growth. Both separately said their zoas get blasted only 4hrs a day.

I did over a week ago found dual lighting schedule on some Indo coral farms but neglected to save where i found the info. It was buried. Ill try to rediscover what i found over the weekend

 

[ZoWhat]

 

[Larry L]

Hiya Larry! There is this one. It was linked earler but may be buried. Based on motility, not photoinhibition. I am not aware of any other finished work in this area, but I would love to be wrong.

Hiya Rich! I found that Yakobovich article earlier, it looked to me like it mainly was talking about how zooxanthelae have their own internal clock and that peak motility occurred about 4 hours after the lights came on, even if you shift that time around. The highlighted bit in the above post says that maybe algal cell division (which is not the same as coral growth) might be related to algal motility. I haven't seen anything that says that corals stop growing after 4 hours of light, or that they will grow faster if they get multiple 4 hour light periods in a day.

 

[Thales]

Hiya Rich! I found that Yakobovich article earlier, it looked to me like it mainly was talking about how zooxanthelae have their own internal clock and that peak motility occurred about 4 hours after the lights came on, even if you shift that time around. The highlighted bit in the above post says that maybe algal cell division (which is not the same as coral growth) might be related to algal motility. I haven't seen anything that says that corals stop growing after 4 hours of light, or that they will grow faster if they get multiple 4 hour light periods in a day.

I have seen nothing else either, but I didn't spend hours looking. @Dana Riddle might know more, this is more his bailiwick. Sounds like it could work, but the study might be a little tricky and the potential for skewed anecdote over data is legion. This is just the kind of thing that can 'jump the tracks' because it sounds plausible.

 

[Pancake]

I gotta admit I did not read any of the links or posts other than the op's 1st post detailing what the thread was about. In my opinion that odd light schedule would serve no purpose as far as faster growing, more colorful corals, healthier corals etc... if this was indeed something that actually made a difference then everyone including coral vendors would be running those lighting schedules. I'm gonna call this one a falsehood at best.;Yawn

I don’t know that we can make that kind of conclusion based on what the industry is currently doing. I don’t want to open up a can of worms, and it’s not my intention to be argumentative, but I think we reefers need to open our minds and really think logically about what is being presented to us. We can’t just accept status quo, just because that’s what everybody does. I’m sure we have all heard of the many silly things that early adopters were doing in the early stages of this hobby. I for one follow this half/half light schedule because it suits my life better. I haven’t seen any adverse affects yet but who knows what benefits I might be missing out on, but then again maybe I’m getting above average benefits from it also. Just saying keep our minds open.

 

[Thales]

Cool! We can tangent to reef reasoning as a tangent! Weaving quotes because I am tired from a minor surgery, please forgive if that makes anything read a snappy! I am smiling and enjoying possibility of this tangent

...but I think we reefers need to open our minds and really think logically about what is being presented to us.

Absolutely!

We can’t just accept status quo, just because that’s what everybody does./QUOTE]

Just to be sure, we also need to not just accept that which is presented to us. I think you and HB AL are expressing two sides of the same coin that sometimes forget about each other. Maybe this is obvious and I am being pedantic.

I'm sure we have all heard of the many silly things that early adopters were doing in the early stages of this hobby.

There are still silly things happening. For every thing that seemed silly but panned out, we can see dozens, or more, that didn't. I may be reading in here, and you may not be implying anything about success or failure of things, silly or not.

I for one follow this half/half light schedule because it suits my life better.

That is a great reason. Really the most important one IMO. Your tank is for you!

I haven’t seen any adverse affects yet but who knows what benefits I might be missing out on, but then again maybe I’m getting above average benefits from it also. Just saying keep our minds open.

Again, not sure if you are doing this, but I glean from that that it might feel like people are keeping their minds closed. I don't think they are, but the exciting part of the tangent to me is this part. Do people think that? I often see the pattern of

new idea
new idea questioned
it could be right
I don't see good support
why are you closed off to new ideas

and think that last move is unfair.


Thanks and likely this whole this is not only explained poorly, but not understandable!

 

[HB AL]

I don’t know that we can make that kind of conclusion based on what the industry is currently doing. I don’t want to open up a can of worms, and it’s not my intention to be argumentative, but I think we reefers need to open our minds and really think logically about what is being presented to us. We can’t just accept status quo, just because that’s what everybody does. I’m sure we have all heard of the many silly things that early adopters were doing in the early stages of this hobby. I for one follow this half/half light schedule because it suits my life better. I haven’t seen any adverse affects yet but who knows what benefits I might be missing out on, but then again maybe I’m getting above average benefits from it also. Just saying keep our minds open.

I'm really open minded and try to learn things everyday. I definently dont follow the norm on something's, for example I haven't done a water change going on 2.5 years and my tank is doing better than ever, I'm actually afraid to do one now. Controllers and dosers, dont have any. The light thing mentioned here is intriguing but without some definitive study proving it advantages I'm definetly not trying that as I'm happy with my 14 hour light schedule.

 

[Pancake]

I'm really open minded and try to learn things everyday. I definently dont follow the norm on something's, for example I haven't done a water change going on 2.5 years and my tank is doing better than ever, I'm actually afraid to do one now. Controllers and dosers, dont have any. The light thing mentioned here is intriguing but without some definitive study proving it advantages I'm definetly not trying that as I'm happy with my 14 hour light schedule.

I couldn’t agree with you more on the no water change. I don’t understand it at all. I feel like that’s one of the things that majority do but don’t seem to have evidence supporting it besides anecdotally saying that it makes their tank better. I want to know why it’s necessary when to me it seems like an inefficient way to export nutrients. how is that for a tangent. Lol!

 

[HB AL]

I couldn’t agree with you more on the no water change. I don’t understand it at all. I feel like that’s one of the things that majority do but don’t seem to have evidence supporting it besides anecdotally saying that it makes their tank better. I want to know why it’s necessary when to me it seems like an inefficient way to export nutrients. how is that for a tangent. Lol!

Ya my corals and fish would probably react negatively at this point.

 

[Saveafish]

This is along the lines of old days. VHO 10h, 2 hr before and 2 hr after the MH blast went. Giving the MH a 6 hr blast. Not much difference here.

 

[Saveafish]

You really want to play with lights. Go 8 on 8 off 8 on 8 off 8 on 8 off 8 on 8 off

 

[Thales]

I couldn’t agree with you more on the no water change. I don’t understand it at all. I feel like that’s one of the things that majority do but don’t seem to have evidence supporting it besides anecdotally saying that it makes their tank better. I want to know why it’s necessary when to me it seems like an inefficient way to export nutrients. how is that for a tangent. Lol!

It's a great one!

Do people really say it is necessary?
There is straightforward math about dilutions from different parameters by water change. I think there may even be data about it specific to reef tanks, though not sure where I am thinking that is from - TRA or some paper maybe. Maybe I'll check TRA tomorrow. It sure is a easy and inexpensive thing to do, as well as really easy to explain to a new reefer. And, there is only anecdote for not doing water changes.

I'm really open minded and try to learn things everyday. I definently dont follow the norm on something's, for example I haven't done a water change going on 2.5 years and my tank is doing better than ever, I'm actually afraid to do one now.

If you want to go real slow, like any water change. Not saying you should, and it can be argued either way), but I think it could be done safely. Ha, now I am remembering some reasoning for large water changes, but that may all be for emergent situations.

 

[Pancake]

It's a great one!

Do people really say it is necessary?
There is straightforward math about dilutions from different parameters by water change. I think there may even be data about it specific to reef tanks, though not sure where I am thinking that is from - TRA or some paper maybe. Maybe I'll check TRA tomorrow. It sure is a easy and inexpensive thing to do, as well as really easy to explain to a new reefer. And, there is only anecdote for not doing water changes.




If you want to go real slow, like any water change. Not saying you should, and it can be argued either way), but I think it could be done safely. Ha, now I am remembering some reasoning for large water changes, but that may all be for emergent situations.

Yes, I get the impression that people talk about or recommend routine water changes as a formula for success to the point that it seems like it’s the norm. Do you disagree? Certainly water dilution makes sense, but is it efficient and should it be priority? I might be missing something here and perhaps my example can reveal my faulty reasoning or false assumptions. My main purpose here isn’t to propose or advocate a certain theory but rather to question common convention because It doesn’t make sense to me. If you pulled out 5 gallons of water from your dt and you compared this with a 2 day old filter sock that you wash in 5 gallons of rodi water, which would you say is the dirtier water or put another way the more efficient nutrient export? Food for thought.
I get it. Water changes work. We know this because we know people that do water changes as their primary nutrient export and we know some of these people don’t use mechanical filtration and have thriving systems. But my question is do we do water changes because we doubt that mechanical filtration can’t remove some waste that water changes can? Like microscopic waste that can only be removed by water changes and not through mechanical means? My logic tells me that If I put in 0 tds water, salt, fish, corals and food then the tank contains only those things assuming no leeching from equipment. Would it be false assumption to say that everything in the tank is pretty much biodegradable? Is it false to assume that removing waste before it decomposes is much easier and thereby efficient then removing the waste after it decomposes?
Now, going back to the idea that mechanical filtration is more efficient then water changes. If you disagree I would like to know why you think so. Everytime I see how dirty the sock is or I pull out a cup full of black skimate it makes me happy because that’s what is being removed from the tank.
For those that agree, here is why I think you would choose mechanical filtration over water change. Wouldn’t it be easier and more efficient to wash filter socks instead of doing water changes? You would save on salt and dosing. Also I hear veterans say that stability is key yet water changes are by nature destabilizing your tank, yet I don’t hear a lot about people who try to remedy that aspect of water changes by predosing to match parameters with their dt. It’s ironic to me because its the same veterans that tell you stability is key yet they recommend water changes which is probably the biggest swing that the tank experiences. Perhaps it’s minutia and I’m focusing on the wrong things, because for whatever reason I never hear anyone worrying too much about this type of instability. It seems its just a fact of life. the questions I ask are rhetorical to me, but they may not be for you, I just want to know what is so special about water changes that has the majority of the people opting for it as opposed to not doing water changes and using mechanical filtration like filter sock or skimmers exclusively. I’m not opposed to water changes, I just find that removing water that has not been processed and concentrated first is inefficient especially if there are ways to remove the waste without removing water with great parameters. I won’t add any of my anecdotal experiences here since there are plenty for not doing water changes. Lol

 

[ZoWhat]

OP here...

I orginally posted this as an "awareness " post for those who like to try new things after i stumbled across a few forum posts and then a couple of research studies and then a couple of web articles generally stating one might be able to get two growing cycles inside 24hrs.

Im.open minded and started 2weeks ago changing to 6on 6off 6on 6off. No issue with fish. They seem normally happy swimmimg about during the 6ON times. No reports on coral growth bc its only been 2 weeks.

I feel now the post turned from "hey lets look outside the box"..... to me having to DEFEND many aspects of a two light cycle day. Ppl wanting published papers from well known Marine Biologist Organizations.

Bottomline line is I'm NOT telling nor even shouting for ppl to go to a two light cycle day. The way you wanna run your tank is your own biz and really no concern of mine.

If you feel a 2 light cycle is B~S and im full of B~S, im not out to win you over. Its all 'whatever' brothers.... lol

Im trying the 6-6-6-6 cycles for 6 months to see if i can get my zoas/palys dominated tank to grow MORE polyps than ever before. I think its worth a shot.

If youre skeptical then stay-put on your Husbandry. Im not trying to influence anyone.

.

 

[sde1500]

Do a deep Google search and you'll find certain coral farms do in fact have two lighting schedules within 24hrs.

But you've made your mind up. Its cool. Keep on keeping on your methodology

Im merely presenting some research i stumbled across and giving it a go for my own Husbandry. and not asking the whole industry to flip upside down changing to two lighting cycles

Have you though? You’ve told us what you read, but I didn’t see it provided. Not saying I doubt you read it, but scientific papers can certainly be misunderstood. It’s an interesting concept but I’m sure some would like to read what you have read. And if you’ve found a farm, why not share, not tell others to google it?

 

[Larry L]

I feel now the post turned from "hey lets look outside the box"..... to me having to DEFEND many aspects of a two light cycle day. Ppl wanting published papers from well known Marine Biologist Organizations.

FWIW I wasn't asking you to defend anything, other than what you posted yourself. I would love to see a breakthrough in coral growth and maybe a split light cycle is one way to do it. You originally posted that you had seen writing about coral growth stopping after fours, but didn't provide any links, so I asked if you could provide any. You posted pictures of data about weights of newly-released planula over time, and then later edited the picture to get rid of the caption and other graphs that showed the timescale was actually days and not hours, and probably unrelated to anything in this thread. I'm just trying to figure out where to get more real info on this subject.

 

[Thales]

Yes, I get the impression that people talk about or recommend routine water changes as a formula for success to the point that it seems like it’s the norm. Do you disagree?

I think so. There is certainly a strong school of thought that water changes aren't necessary. I do think that water changes are popular because of the reasons I stated before - they are easy, they are cheap, they are easy to explain and understand, and they have an effect.

Certainly water dilution makes sense, but is it efficient and should it be priority?

It depends. There are lots of factors that go into efficient and priority. Ones persons efficient is another PITA.

I might be missing something here and perhaps my example can reveal my faulty reasoning or false assumptions. My main purpose here isn’t to propose or advocate a certain theory but rather to question common convention because It doesn’t make sense to me. If you pulled out 5 gallons of water from your dt and you compared this with a 2 day old filter sock that you wash in 5 gallons of rodi water, which would you say is the dirtier water or put another way the more efficient nutrient export? Food for thought.

I would never let a filter sock run two days without rinsing it, but I don't use filter socks as a part of ongoing husbandry in any of the systems I run. I don't use them because I think they trap food that my animals would otherwise consume, and that food rots in the sock until it gets cleaned. I spend a lot of money for that food - why remove it so quickly? I also think cleaning socks is a pain, and that most people end up cleaning them weekly if at all.

I get it. Water changes work. We know this because we know people that do water changes as their primary nutrient export and we know some of these people don’t use mechanical filtration and have thriving systems. But my question is do we do water changes because we doubt that mechanical filtration can’t remove some waste that water changes can?

I don't think so. I think people do them for the reasons I stated above.

Like microscopic waste that can only be removed by water changes and not through mechanical means?

I don't think that is something that people say.

[/quote]My logic tells me that If I put in 0 tds water, salt, fish, corals and food then the tank contains only those things assuming no leeching from equipment. Would it be false assumption to say that everything in the tank is pretty much biodegradable? Is it false to assume that removing waste before it decomposes is much easier and thereby efficient then removing the waste after it decomposes?[/quote]

There are different schools of thought on all of that, and they all have logic behind them, but not much in the sense of 'settled science'. What started this tangent, I think, was the idea that anecdote support the idea of water changes, but it is also the case that what you are advocating is also anecdote.

Now, going back to the idea that mechanical filtration is more efficient then water changes. If you disagree I would like to know why you think so. Everytime I see how dirty the sock is or I pull out a cup full of black skimate it makes me happy because that’s what is being removed from the tank.

More efficiency of mechanical filtration isn't necessarily what is desired. You filter out good things along with the bad - plankton, pods, food, eggs, etc, and some people think those things are important. Some people find mechanical filtration really important. IME, most mechanical filtration is a maintenance chore that brings little improvement for a lot of work - and water use. Mostly people stop doing chore which is the worst of all worlds. There are a million ways to skin a reef. If I needed mechanical filtration I would use a roller mat because it doesn't need daily work.

For those that agree, here is why I think you would choose mechanical filtration over water change. Wouldn’t it be easier and more efficient to wash filter socks instead of doing water changes?

I certainly don't think so. I would rather look at my animals while letting the ATO do its thing than rinse socks daily. And the ATO is really an experiment, if it wasn't so easy - every 4 months or so I get a water delivery and then the ATO does its thing - I might stop it as well. It may be easier for you, which is great, and which is also anecdote.

You would save on salt and dosing.

Sure, but you also spend on socks and water and time cleaning them.

Also I hear veterans say that stability is key yet water changes are by nature destabilizing your tank,

It depends how you do them, how often you do them, and the percentage you do. You can certainly do destabilizing water changes and you can certainly do water changes that keep stability.

yet I don’t hear a lot about people who try to remedy that aspect of water changes by predosing to match parameters with their dt.

Some people do that, i think most people don't bother because it seems unnecessary and because once you start using a brand of saltwater, the system is 'used' to it and the parameters are close.

It’s ironic to me because its the same veterans that tell you stability is key yet they recommend water changes which is probably the biggest swing that the tank experiences. Perhaps it’s minutia and I’m focusing on the wrong things, because for whatever reason I never hear anyone worrying too much about this type of instability. It seems its just a fact of life.

I think that is true, and that the destabilizing effect of water changes is usually minor and easily mitigated by various ways to do the water change. 10 liters a day on my 1500 liter system just isn't going to impact much. Even a 25% water change isn't IME. Though, it would be interesting to get actual data, but don't think we ever will.

the questions I ask are rhetorical to me, but they may not be for you, I just want to know what is so special about water changes that has the majority of the people opting for it as opposed to not doing water changes and using mechanical filtration like filter sock or skimmers exclusively.

I think I have addressed that above.

I’m not opposed to water changes, I just find that removing water that has not been processed and concentrated first is inefficient especially if there are ways to remove the waste without removing water with great parameters. I won’t add any of my anecdotal experiences here since there are plenty for not doing water changes. Lol

 

[Thales]

I feel now the post turned from "hey lets look outside the box"..... to me having to DEFEND many aspects of a two light cycle day. Ppl wanting published papers from well known Marine Biologist Organizations.

I can see how it felt that way, but i don't think that is what was happening. People are just looking for evidence.

 

[Pancake]

I think so. There is certainly a strong school of thought that water changes aren't necessary. I do think that water changes are popular because of the reasons I stated before - they are easy, they are cheap, they are easy to explain and understand, and they have an effect.



It depends. There are lots of factors that go into efficient and priority. Ones persons efficient is another PITA.



I would never let a filter sock run two days without rinsing it, but I don't use filter socks as a part of ongoing husbandry in any of the systems I run. I don't use them because I think they trap food that my animals would otherwise consume, and that food rots in the sock until it gets cleaned. I spend a lot of money for that food - why remove it so quickly? I also think cleaning socks is a pain, and that most people end up cleaning them weekly if at all.



I don't think so. I think people do them for the reasons I stated above.



I don't think that is something that people say.

My logic tells me that If I put in 0 tds water, salt, fish, corals and food then the tank contains only those things assuming no leeching from equipment. Would it be false assumption to say that everything in the tank is pretty much biodegradable? Is it false to assume that removing waste before it decomposes is much easier and thereby efficient then removing the waste after it decomposes?[/quote]

There are different schools of thought on all of that, and they all have logic behind them, but not much in the sense of 'settled science'. What started this tangent, I think, was the idea that anecdote support the idea of water changes, but it is also the case that what you are advocating is also anecdote.



More efficiency of mechanical filtration isn't necessarily what is desired. You filter out good things along with the bad - plankton, pods, food, eggs, etc, and some people think those things are important. Some people find mechanical filtration really important. IME, most mechanical filtration is a maintenance chore that brings little improvement for a lot of work - and water use. Mostly people stop doing chore which is the worst of all worlds. There are a million ways to skin a reef. If I needed mechanical filtration I would use a roller mat because it doesn't need daily work.



I certainly don't think so. I would rather look at my animals while letting the ATO do its thing than rinse socks daily. And the ATO is really an experiment, if it wasn't so easy - every 4 months or so I get a water delivery and then the ATO does its thing - I might stop it as well. It may be easier for you, which is great, and which is also anecdote.



Sure, but you also spend on socks and water and time cleaning them.



It depends how you do them, how often you do them, and the percentage you do. You can certainly do destabilizing water changes and you can certainly do water changes that keep stability.



Some people do that, i think most people don't bother because it seems unnecessary and because once you start using a brand of saltwater, the system is 'used' to it and the parameters are close.



I think that is true, and that the destabilizing effect of water changes is usually minor and easily mitigated by various ways to do the water change. 10 liters a day on my 1500 liter system just isn't going to impact much. Even a 25% water change isn't IME. Though, it would be interesting to get actual data, but don't think we ever will.



I think I have addressed that above.




[/QUOTE]
Thanks Thales, I appreciate you and everyone here taking the time to share in the perspectives. One part i think that I need to clarify which for me is the linchpin to my inquiry is the filter sock. For me, the question of weather the filter sock is more efficient than water change and to what degree is what has me convinced that it should be the prevalent choice. In your response I understood you to mean that if you ran filter socks you would change it daily, but I think that’s missing my point. Even if you were to change your sock daily or wait 10 days to change the sock, my point is that the export would be far greater (I’m guessing exponentially greater) then water change. You can wash the sock daily in the same 5 gallons of water for 10 days or wash the 10 day old sock in the 5 gallon and the results would be much more waste export then 5 gallons of water change is my point. I’m not trying to sway anyone to do anything as I do not have any motive to do so economically or otherwise so please view this as an honest inquiry into the way we think about things in our hobby. So if we agree that filter sock or other mechanical filters can export sufficient waste to sustain a thriving reef then the next question would be it’s efficacy compared to water change. If we can agree that it’s more efficient then water change by a significant amount then my next question would be to analyze the monetary cost and time/effort required compared to water change. That’s something like you said Thales is different for everyone and must be a personal choice.