Confused about Light Settings - RB PhotonV2 48"

[Fishfinder]

@Velcro mind sharing what your alk was at that time?

 

[AngryOwl]

@AngryOwl check out what Velcro posted above. He was running crazy high light. But his nutrients matched.

I personally can't get above 60% without problems

Yea and that is what is confusing about this topic. Some can run high light and some can't. I know the nutrients play a big role. However, in my case... this system was running lower nutrients NO3 and PO4 about 1-2 months ago but I was still seeing a fade in coloration in the corals the same as now. I would say the only number I'm concerned with is PO4.

 

[Velcro]

@Velcro mind sharing what your alk was at that time?

Can’t say for sure, but likely in the 7-8 range.

 

[AngryOwl]

Any suggestions here? New nutrients were posted, updated lighting spectrums. There is a gyre 250 on the far right of the tank running at 30% wave mode and a pp8 on the back left pointing at the left rockwork running the lowest setting on wave mode. This has helped stop the gyre effect from coming back super fast across the bottom of the tank and destroying my eupyhilla. I don't think flow is an issue but I'm aware people usually have more... which is strange because they have eupyhilla but they don't look like they get wiped around...

 

[Fishfinder]

How high is your light hung ?

 

[AngryOwl]

How high is your light hung ?

Photon - 11 inches
T5 - 15 inches

 

[Velcro]

I'd look for someone with a par meter. How old is the tank? Dry or live rock?

 

[AngryOwl]

I'd look for someone with a par meter. How old is the tank? Dry or love rock?

I have a Seneye I could use. On my previous schedule with all lights on their max per my schedule it was 350 at the top of the scape.
9 months, dry cured pukani.

I don't mean to sound rude guys but I took alot of time to post this stuff in my original thread. If I missed something let me know!

 

[Fishfinder]

I would recommend increasin your intensity, but i find it odd that the corals on the sand bed were doing better. Was that when your nitrate was 1? Now that it is 20 I would think an increase would be helpful. This is the biggest isssue I'm having; and what just killed my acros.... keeping N and P stable.

 

[AngryOwl]

I would recommend increasin your intensity, but i find it odd that the corals on the sand bed were doing better. Was that when your nitrate was 1? Now that it is 20 I would think an increase would be helpful. This is the biggest isssue I'm having; and what just killed my acros.... keeping N and P stable.

Hmm, yea that makes sense but I attributed the corals deaths on me raising the lights. Its possible when it was on the sand the nitrates were in the 1ppm range. But I don't test it often enough to know.

At this point if i were to do nothing regarding nutrient levels I have two experiments going on...

The first is the reefbreeders spectrum to see if that specific coral makes a recovery.

The second is the group of new corals on the sand in the front of the tank... which I presume gets more of the T5 spread.

Best case scenario the tester coral gets its color back and new frags stay the same. Then we know it was a led spectrum and intensity issue.

Worst case the tester stays the same (or worse) and new corals fade... then we know we have most likely a nutrient issue. This is assuming the spectrum at the front of the tank is good.

Does this make sense?

 

[Fishfinder]

This does make sense. I'm following what your saying. I would say keep your lights the same, possibly increase intensity but at the same ratios. Don't change the spectrum. I think it will help.


I'll give you my scenario... I regularly monitor nutrients. I've been running 5ppm N and .06P. All good, getting the growth I showed you. I got a little lax, it was always the same tired of wasting tests. I trimmed my cheato, added a double dose of carbon (for a clam issue), reduced feeding (girlfriend always feeds less when I'm gone). 2 days later acros look bad, I think it's just an off day. 1 week later pale and skin is peeling off, alk consumption was down. I checked my nutrients didn't even get a color change for N or P. 0 and 0

Keep your nutrients stable. It will help dial in your light intensity.

 

[AngryOwl]

Dang, seems like a lot happened fast and all at once! I've been considering swapping out my homemade scrubber for a Santa Monica. But in the meantime I might just start doing more water changes. Either way I'd like to eliminate lighting as a factor.

 

[Big E]

Just finished testing and changing the light settings.
Tested Alk, NO3, and phosphorus
Alk - 9.5
NO3 - 20ppm
Phosphorus - 178ppb = .54 ppm PO4 (phosphate)

Posting pictures below now.

It's likely a combination of problems are causing issues.
First off......you aren't going to get good growth, especially with frags at P04 of .54. Your nitrates should be worked down as well. Those two numbers together are way off from the bulk of successful Sps systems. Ignore the outlier tanks that are going good with these elevated type levels and get your nutrients in line.

Ballpark range--
P04 .02-.12
N03- .25-5.0 ..........due to accuracy of tests up to 10ppm is ok.
Have a ratio between the two where the NO3 is the higher 50-200x. 100x is a good median range.
-------------------------------------
Lighting-- your T5s are doing nothing that high above the surface. Get them about 6-9"

Some of those frags in the before pic look shutdown and stressed from the start.

 

[Fishfinder]

Big E would know. His stuff is on point. I have a couple pieces @Big E you still shipping stuff?

 

[AngryOwl]

Lighting-- your T5s are doing nothing that high above the surface. Get them about 6-9"

Some of those frags in the before pic look shutdown and stressed from the start.

I'm pretty close to pulling the trigger and switching to a 6 Bulb T5 fixture(running 4 ATI Blue+, 1 True Actinic and 1 Aquablue special) with 2 ReefBrite strips, 1 Blue XHO in the front and maybe 1 Tech White in the back to get a lighter blue color when viewing the tank.... If I went that route I would be able to lower the fixture. Currently the way I have the fixtures mounted is not conducive of lowering them.

Now I'm not trying to argue and I appreciate your statements, but the only thing that has me questioning them is that frag that fell to the sand was in the front of the tank and started doing great again. Surely the T5's were doing something considering they're in the front of the tank. This would also conclude that the coral prefers lower light.

So when I get home today I will do three par tests....
1) All lights at their max scheduled power... the point of this test to understand just the par output at various points.
2) Just the LED light at max scheduled power.... the point of this test is to understand the spectrum.
3) Just the T5 lights on... the point of this test is to understand the PAR output from the fixtures at their current height. I am not concerned with spectrum from T5 as they're tested by manufactures and have proven results.

I would add also that if the test coral on the rock stays in its current condition and the new corals stay in the current condition (which is awesome) then we can assume the LED is the problem.

Big E would know. His stuff is on point. I have a couple pieces @Big E you still shipping stuff?

The thing is that everyone seems to have some different version of supporting evidence or experience. As I've been saying, some people blast their corals and run low nutrient.... some blast and run high nutrient. Some low light, low nutrient, and etc.

Some people say high Nitrate is bad, some say good. Some say high phosphates bad, some don't care.

I guess my point is that the more research I do on these things the more I get confused. People arguing down the the scientific biology of the corals and how they intake spectrum and how they use Nitrates and Phosphates. But then also how those in excess or deficient values starts to effect the coral biological process (photosynthesis).

The only thing I can see people agree on (somewhat) is high phosphates cause corals to brown. But no one can agree on what high phosphates are.

Anyways if you're confused reading this, then welcome to my head, its great. I'd love to see some more studies of things like this to prove what everyone is saying.

 

[DSC reef]

Its a point of trying to find what works for your tank, there's no magical number or fix. Change things slowly and stick with the change long enough to see if it works for your system. It takes time to find the sweet spot in ones tank.

 

[Fishfinder]

I would add also that if the test coral on the rock stays in its current condition and the new corals stay in the current condition (which is awesome) then we can assume the LED is the problem.

I don't know if that would be an accurate statement. Others can chime in but I think that your reef breeders would easily overpower 1 or 2 T5s anywhere in the tank

 

[AngryOwl]

Its a point of trying to find what works for your tank, there's no magical number or fix. Change things slowly and stick with the change long enough to see if it works for your system. It takes time to find the sweet spot in ones tank.

A very true good piece of advice. It's extremely difficult to see someone else's successful tank and not attempt to replicate everything!

 

[AngryOwl]

I don't know if that would be an accurate statement. Others can chime in but I think that your reef breeders would easily overpower 1 or 2 T5s anywhere in the tank

You're saying that you think the spread of the LED would also have just as much of an impact at that point in the tank as the T5's (if not more)? I suppose I cannot argue with that and say the LED has "no" effect on the front of the tank. I am assuming based on the placement. The coral is directly under the LED right now and directly under the T5's in the front.

 

[Fishfinder]

I would think so. Just measure the par of the front coral with the T5 off and then again with it on.