UV supplementation

[lilrobb]

So after reading a LOT of claims that LED lights are not yet there to provide the same performance as MHs to T5s, I had to test it.

My tank is a 280 gallon (72x36x26), lit with a total of 945W of LED, of which a total of 77W are pure UV.

I am mainly keeping SPS, some LPS and even fewer zoas.

I recently (as in Tuesday night) acquired a load of corals in less than perfect condition - as of today (!!!) all are showing serious signs of improvement and look to be pulling through.

I also made a make-shift test, I purposely burnt a completely encrusted fragplug (some sort of green acro) with a q-tip and muriatic acid.
Those injuries have healed in under 2 weeks and coloration is back to normal.

Having said all that - I am a firm believer that IF LEDs are currently not up to par (pun intended), it is due to lack of adequate UV supplementation in the correct spectrum.

Anyone care to discuss?

 

[ripped tide]

I agree AND disagree. Yes, I think the uv is needed, but I think the growth of some of the corals is effected by the distribution of light. Beam vs broadcast

 

[reeferman]

good info and thanks for posting your findings

 

[ichthyoid]

If you are referring to the ~410 nM led's you have been using, they are technically 'actinic' but not UV.

UV is below 400 nM. So semantics are now satisfied.

As for the positive effect of these led's on coral, I believe they are helpful, dare I say necessary (?).

Per our prior discussions, most led's provide little or none of that 410 wavelength.

That said, there are other segments of the spectrum still lacking, IMO. That is why I feel led's are still not ready for prime time.

In the mean time, I suggest supplementing LED's with Fiji Purple and 'true actinic' (420 nM) purple T5's (or the 410 led chips). -JMHO

 

[snowmansnow]

If you aquired injured corals... And they are recovering in your tank it seems there are a lot of possibilities other than just lights .

I want led to work... I really do

 

[jmaneyapanda]

ichthyoid;789782 wrote: If you are referring to the ~410 nM led's you have been using, they are technically 'actinic' but not UV.

UV is below 400 nM. So semantics are now satisfied.

As for the positive effect of these led's on coral, I believe they are helpful, dare I say necessary (?).

Per our prior discussions, most led's provide little or none of that 410 wavelength.

That said, there are other segments of the spectrum still lacking, IMO. That is why I feel led's are still not ready for prime time.

In the mean time, I suggest supplementing LED's with Fiji Purple and 'true actinic' (420 nM) purple T5's (or the 410 led chips). -JMHO

Agreed. The most useful way to test this is to get a UVB meter and see what the fixture are making.