|
Since
the advent of keeping marine animals the progress for the most
part has been slow and steady. However during the last two decades
the advances in both technology and husbandry have occurred at a
very rapid pace. Many hobbyists have contributed to these advances
and these achievements have occurred for the most part either as
the result of trial and error or as an attempt to replicate the
processes and conditions that exist on the reef. As a result anecdotal reports of what does and does not work
have been a significant factor in determining the state of the
hobby.
In
science, one of the means for proving that something works is by
replicating it. Unfortunately, in this hobby much time and effort
has been wasted trying to replicate conditions or methodologies
that ultimately proved to produce inadequate results when
implemented over the long term.
For the most part the parameters and conditions of a
significant number of successful systems have not been pooled in
one place to demonstrate what does and does not work. In addition
the factors that are crucial to optimize such things as growth,
coloration, polyp extension, reproduction,
etc., have also not been looked at in terms of what is
working in a large number of captive systems.
The
genesis for my new book Ultra Marine Aquariums was the result of my travels around the U.S.,
Canada and Europe where I was fortunate enough to see many
impressive tanks using a multitude of systems. While viewing these
tanks, it was readily apparent that one of the biggest factors
behind the success of these tanks was how conscientious each owner
was. This almost fanatical attention to detail allowed the owners
to describe the equipment used, the inhabitants and the parameters
of the water without having to look at any log or record of what
they had or were doing. The level of success achieved in these
tanks was not accomplished immediately, but for the most part was
the result of long learning process. In this book, I have
attempted to not only show what each owner is doing, but also to
give a general idea of what might be considered optimal
parameters. In addition I tried to show ans many different systems
and methodologies as possible. As a result, what I hope to do is
to allow the reader to be able to achieve the same level of
success as these tank owners without having to go through all of
the trial and error.
In
addition to looking beautiful, each of the tanks chosen for this
book had something unique about them. This could be the manner in
which they were filtered or lighted or even how water motion was
supplied. Their choice of corals or fish also played a role in
their selection. The last factor involved in the choices was that
the tank had to be enjoyable to look at. While the health of the
fish and corals as well as the aquascaping plan were important,
the tanks chosen also had to have the ability to captivate the
viewer for a long period of time. The sense of awe produced by
each of these tanks was one of the key reasons for their
selection.
During
the compilation of this book, I attempted to compile and average
much of the data from 50 very successful tanks.
While the methodologies on these systems varied, the level
of success did not. Much of this success is no doubt due to the
conscientious nature of these hobbyists as well as their attention
to detail and their willingness to spend a lot of time to make
their tanks successful. This aspect of their success will be
difficult to replicate. While those aspects of success are
difficult to quantify, many of the parameters within their tanks
can be measured. In addition the photographs of each tank along
with the water parameters and methodologies employed provide
enough data so that just about all of these tanks can be
replicated. These photographs also demonstrate the level of
success that is now achievable using standard methodologies. There
will no longer be theoretical explanations as to what factors are
necessary in order for a tank to be successful. In addition, just
how successful a tank is can be quickly seen, so there can be
little dispute of what is working and what is not.
Initially
this book was going to be a picture book, however when we realized
how much data from great tanks we had available we decided to
organize it and include it as well. Below is what some of this
pooled data reveals about these tanks and what factors may be
critical for success. Some of these factors are straightforward,
while others are a little startling.
The
tanks chosen ranged in size from 40 gallons to over 20,000
gallons. Throwing out the outliers the average size is 260
gallons. While this is slightly larger than the tanks of most
hobbyists it now a much more common size than was the case as
little as ten years ago. The newest of these tanks is slightly
over one year old and the oldest tanks have been up and running
for over twelve years. Many of these tanks are newer and bigger
editions of earlier tanks. This is due to a number of factors
including the fish and corals outgrowing the previous tanks,
consolidation of several smaller tanks or moving by the tank’s
owner. Unfortunately,
it should also be noted that eleven of these tanks are no longer
set up in the configuration shown here. This is due to such things
as hurricanes, time constraints, and life changes.
Tanks
housing SPS corals predominantly were in 56% of the tanks, 24% of
the tanks housed mostly soft and large polyped stony corals and
18% of the tanks have a relatively equal number of soft and sps
corals. One tank (2%) housed fish only and live rock. In terms of
filtration or the general methodology, 42, (84%) of the tanks use
a protein skimmer as their primary means of filtration and would
be classified as “Berlin” in their general approach.
Interestingly 17 (40%), of these tanks also utilize a refugium of
some type in their system either in their sump or as a separate
unit. This is a dramatic change in philosophy in that up until a
few years ago very few tanks utilized this approach. Utilizing
algae or some other “natural” approach for filtration was used
in 8 (16%) of the tanks. This
move toward more natural methodologies was also in evidence by the
low number of bare-bottomed tanks. Only 10% of the tanks used no
substrate, which further illustrates the move to more natural
means for nutrient export through the use of bacteria and
microfauna. In terms
of additional filtration 74% of the systems utilized carbon to
some extent to remove excess nutrients at least for part of the
month. This was done in order to provide for maximum light
penetration and was done in both Berlin and natural based systems.
The use of water changes for export of nutrients was also done in
a large majority of tanks with 92% of the tanks having water
regularly changed in them. The percentage of water changed in
these tanks ranged from 1 to 57% each month, with the average
being 17%. This high percentage of water changes differs from the
many anecdotal reports of never having to do water changes
expressed by some hobbyists. The results shown in these tanks
clearly illustrate the beneficial effect of performing this task.
Curiously the average amount of water changed is not as great as
might be expected. This is probably due to the meticulous care
given to the tanks in so many regards that really large water
changes are not necessary.
The
overall amount of technology employed on these tanks varies as
much as one can imagine. Several systems employ multiple monitors
and computers to keep track and control the tank’s conditions
while one system is so in balance that the only technology
employed is a powerhead and timers for the lights. No skimmer,
overflow, sump, etc. are employed making this one of the most
elegant systems in existence. Even in this balanced system regular
water testing is employed, so despite little technology being used
assessing proper water chemistry is still done.
Since
the optimum way to light a tank in terms of spectrum, intensity,
duration, etc. has stirred so much debate, the way these tanks are
lighted proved quite interesting. As noted above, 33 of the 50
tanks and a total of 42 of the 50 tanks house at least some sps
corals. Since many factors that can determine exactly how much
light is striking a tank and corals including which reflector is
used, the bulb’s height above the water, the depth of the tank,
etc. it is very difficult to come up with a perfect measure of
light. So below are the generalities about the lighting used on
these tanks.
Of
the 42 tanks housing SPS corals, 8 tanks use metal halide lamps
exclusively and 5 use fluorescent lamps exclusively. Of these one
used 6500K bulbs exclusively, 2 tanks used 10K bulbs exclusively
and 1 tank used 20K bulbs exclusively with the remainder using
mixed metal halide combinations. The tanks lit by fluorescent
lamps still managed to get over 5 watts per gallon on average on
them, which may help to account for their success. It is also
interesting to note how few tanks use 6500K bulbs exclusively for
lighting despite reports that these bulbs produce maximum PAR and
accentuate growth in SPS corals.
The
remaining tanks use a combination of metal halide lamps and
fluorescents to illuminate the tanks 29, (69%). For the tanks
illuminated with a combination of metal halides and fluorescent
lamps, 14 use 6500K lamps with Actinics, 12 use 10K lamps with
Actinics and 2 use 20K lamps with either Actinics or daylight
tubes. In addition 1 tank uses a combination of different metal
halides along with fluorescent lamps.
This
wide variety of lighting used is probably due to the difference in
coral coloration that results when different bulbs are used with
different corals in different water conditions. In addition,
different lighting combinations produce different lighting that
appeals to different hobbyists. A more surprising result from this
survey was how much light some of these tanks have over them. The
conventional wisdom is that 4-5 watts of light per gallon will
produce optimum coloration and growth. Some of these tanks use 8
or even 10 watts of light per gallon for illumination, which is
significantly more light than had traditionally been recommended.
Throwing out the 20,000 gallon mixed tank that only has .9 watts
of light per gallon the average amount of light on the sps tanks
is 6.45 watts per gallon. The amount of light ranges from 1.9 to
21 watts of light per gallon. The higher than expected average
shows that more light is probably better. Once slowly acclimated
to this lighting regimen, the growth and coloration of some of
these corals is significantly better than is generally seen.
Therefore, the amount of light necessary to optimize sps
coloration may need to be rethought.
One
other factor about the lighting employed that should not be
overlooked is the photoperiod of the lights. `There has been some
debate as to not only how much light is needed, but also what is
the optimum time that this amount of light needs to be present.
The photoperiod for these tanks has a second component in that
since many of these tanks employ actinics with the halides, there
is a total photoperiod as well as a maximum intensity photoperiod.
The total photoperiods ranged from 8 to 14 hours with an average
of 9.8 hours. The maximum intensity photoperiod ranged from 1.5 to
10 hours. This measure provides another aspect of lighting that
should be more thoroughly evaluated.
|
