Guess the Phosphate level

[FlyPenFly]

Thanks for the links, I could only read the abstract on the last one. It seems to indicate that it's through microbial activity when "fleshy" algae starts touching coral that causes harm?

[GroktheCube]

Originally Posted by Thales

There have been recent studies that show increased growth at higher phosphate levels - 'less dense' skeleton seems to be a result but that also seems to occur from increased growth and not necessarily from the calcification inhibition.

Interesting. I haven't heard anything along those lines before. I'll have to poke around a bit looking for specifics later.

I think it is a combination of coral cover, flow and herbivory. Though caulerpa doesn't seem to grow well in the sump - that could be issues of the temp difference between the sump and the DT as the sump is in the crawlspace under the house. At the same time it could easily be some unknown factor.

What herbivores do you employ beyond the rabbitfish and tang? My apologies if this was stated earlier in the thread and I missed it.

I'm curious because despite fairly low directly measurable nutrient levels, I've had some cyano here and there getting on my nerves for the past couple months. I stopped using bio pellets, which has helped a bit, but I'm now seeing a few patches of other pests like bryopsis popping up here and there. I'm trying to get a sense of how different people approach algae issues, as I feel like I may need to modify my approach.

I have some stubborn patches of bryopsis that I haven't yet smothered and that the rabbitfish weren't eating. I just removed the rabbitfish so we'll see if the yellow tang can keep up with the other algae. I have to clean my glass every 4 or 5 days.

Do you have any theories about why film algae growth is seemingly slow relative to the nutrient levels in your tank? There are always a large number of variables between one system and another, so I know it can be kinda tough to nail down.

[dvanacker]

Just for the sake of people thinking that you need high levels of phosphate to achieve healthy, growing and colorful SPS I've compiled a list of TOTM tanks and their listed PO4 levels. Could you imagine if all these guys posted a thread titled guess phosphate level?

DEC 2013 / PO4 0.01 - 0.03 ppm
http://reefkeeping.com/joomla/index....k-of-the-month

NOV 2013 / •Phosphate: 0.01 - 0.04
http://reefkeeping.com/joomla/index....k-of-the-month

OCT 2013 / •Phosphate: 0
http://reefkeeping.com/joomla/index....k-of-the-month

JUNE 2013 / •Phosphate: 0.03
http://reefkeeping.com/joomla/index....k-of-the-month

MAY 2013 / •Phosphate: 0-0.02 (Hanna)
http://reefkeeping.com/joomla/index....k-of-the-month

MARCH 2013 / •Phosphate: undetectable
http://reefkeeping.com/joomla/index....k-of-the-month

That was just last year. Those not listed didnt mention phosphate. I'll throw mine on the list too.

DEC 2012 / •Phosphate: 0 - 0.05 ppm
http://reefkeeping.com/joomla/index....k-of-the-month

Now couple that data with the fact that beautiful, natural stony reefs do not live in water with the kind of elevated PO4 and NO3 levels Thale is talking about, but in water with trace amounts, and we can easily see elevated levels of these nutrients are not needed.

I maybe could have come along with an argument that phosphate elveated into the 1ppm+ is not the devil we once thought and/or corals can adapt etc. but I have to stop the argument when people assume that elevated PO4 maybe good after seeing one decent tank (sorry Thale but all the TOTM tanks are nicer) with reported elevated PO4 levels.

[Ssteve]

I find it odd that it's seems to be a trend that people think there's a argument being made for high phosphates in this thread.

[Dukester]

Originally Posted by Ssteve

I find it odd that it's seems to be a trend that people think there's a argument being made for high phosphates in this thread.

i dont find it very odd at all, while the OP might not have said this directly, he has hinted over and over again that this is in fact his belief.

[FlyPenFly]

Another example of a high nutrient tank

http://www.ultimatereef.net/forums/s...d.php?t=555963

The full tank shot

http://www.ultimatereef.net/forums/s...1&postcount=49

[Thales]

That is all well and good, but no one is making the argument that elevated levels of phosphate are needed to achieve healthy levels of coral growth, color or anything else. Let me say that in a slightly different way. I AM CERTAINLY NOT MAKING THAT ARGUMENT, AND HAVE GONE OUT OF MY WAY TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.

You should also stop assuming that TOTM are the end all and be all of reef keeping, or that other counter examples to your counter examples are non existent.

Originally Posted by dvanacker

Just for the sake of people thinking that you need high levels of phosphate to achieve healthy, growing and colorful SPS I've compiled a list of TOTM tanks and their listed PO4 levels. Could you imagine if all these guys posted a thread titled guess phosphate level?

DEC 2013 / PO4 0.01 - 0.03 ppm
http://reefkeeping.com/joomla/index....k-of-the-month

NOV 2013 / •Phosphate: 0.01 - 0.04
http://reefkeeping.com/joomla/index....k-of-the-month

OCT 2013 / •Phosphate: 0
http://reefkeeping.com/joomla/index....k-of-the-month

JUNE 2013 / •Phosphate: 0.03
http://reefkeeping.com/joomla/index....k-of-the-month

MAY 2013 / •Phosphate: 0-0.02 (Hanna)
http://reefkeeping.com/joomla/index....k-of-the-month

MARCH 2013 / •Phosphate: undetectable
http://reefkeeping.com/joomla/index....k-of-the-month

That was just last year. Those not listed didnt mention phosphate. I'll throw mine on the list too.

DEC 2012 / •Phosphate: 0 - 0.05 ppm
http://reefkeeping.com/joomla/index....k-of-the-month

Now couple that data with the fact that beautiful, natural stony reefs do not live in water with the kind of elevated PO4 and NO3 levels Thale is talking about, but in water with trace amounts, and we can easily see elevated levels of these nutrients are not needed.

I maybe could have come along with an argument that phosphate elveated into the 2ppm+ is not the devil we once thought and/or corals can adapt etc. but I have to stop the argument when people assume that elevated PO4 maybe good after seeing one decent tank (sorry Thale but all the TOTM tanks are nicer) with reported elevated PO4 levels.

[Thales]

Originally Posted by Dukester

i dont find it very odd at all, while the OP might not have said this directly, he has hinted over and over again that this is in fact his belief.

Please don't tell me 'what I really think' by saying I have hinted at what is "in fact" by belief - you are wrong. I understand that saying "we don't know" is harder than pretending to know things we don't, but stop assuming everyone is limited by this difficulty. Please, if you want to tilt at windmills and construct straw men, do it somewhere else.

[dvanacker]

Originally Posted by sahin
IF: High PO4 (such as 0.1-0.3ppm) gets you deep/strong SPS colours + possibility of nuisance algae; then I'd happily take that route and deal with a bit of algae and beef up my CUC.

Exactly, you have to have a lot of snails and then get coraline to go nuts to take over the rock. Hair/film algae isn't an issue, but some macro algae can be unsightly, so you need a plan for that.

Originally Posted by Dapg8gt

Awesome thread and tank =).

I have experienced sort of the same thing with my old 45g it was going on 13 years old simple but effective and p04 and n03 levels were high and colors/growth were great. Fast forward to my new technological marvel of a tank with all the expensive equipment and ways to completely control nutrients and my colors aren't bad But they Def aren't as good as before maybe just needs some time to mature.

I am focusing on raising my nitrates now as its running too clean under 5 and colors suffered after I dropped them. I think I'll play around loosely with the p04 also without getting out of hand and see if it plays into my color game. I did have algae issues in the old tank though. Not hair algae just the plague of bryopsis.

Are you in the Sf bay area? Good to see some more awesome tanks in this part of Cali=).I like the thread/conversation and I'm gonna follow along and also read the links posted earlier..

It's assumed by people when the argument is not made clear. Maybe this is not Thales fault but I decided to re-interate this message as it has been mixed IMO.

So the arugument is supposed to be "dont worry about phosphate too much" but as you can see people are worrying and I can already see talk of people trying to raise PO4 in other threads.

[Dukester]

Originally Posted by Thales

MODS - can you do something about this guy?

what exactly did i do? you wanted to start a discussion with a question.. all im doing is participating..

[FlyPenFly]

Let's not make this a religious debate.

[Thales]

Originally Posted by dvanacker

It's assumed by people when the argument is not made clear. Maybe this is not Thales fault but I decided to re-interate this message as it has been mixed IMO.

In your examples no one is arguing the restatement that you have made; "you need high levels of phosphate to achieve healthy, growing and colorful SPS". I understand that this may be subtle, but no one is making the argument you are arguing against, and everyone that is saying stuff is qualifying it very well. Stop jumping to conclusions, it only takes time away from the real discussion.

So the arugument is supposed to be "dont worry about phosphate too much"

I am not making that argument.

but as you can see people are worrying and I can already see talk of people trying to raise PO4 in other threads.

I am not reading other threads. That said, if people have been trying to run zero phosphate and have had bad results, then raising it, and nitrate, is not a bad strategy, and is not one that hasn't been around for a long time.

I am all for cautioning people not to raise phosphate to crazy levels, and believe I have done a good job of making that point, over and over again. What is absolutely not needed, is you, or anyone, making up straw men arguments to try to make a point as it dumbs down the conversation.

[Thales]

________________________

[sirreal63]

Perhaps it would be a good moment for everyone to relax. Learning is gained from disagreement, never from agreement. I would absolutely hate to see this thread closed, it is a discussion that has been needed for years. If someone chooses to disagree, do so as an adult looking for answers because in the end we all stand to gain from the thought and experiences of each other.

[Thales]

Originally Posted by GroktheCube

What herbivores do you employ beyond the rabbitfish and tang? My apologies if this was stated earlier in the thread and I missed it.

No worries. Some various snails and a ton of micro herbivores.

I'm curious because despite fairly low directly measurable nutrient levels, I've had some cyano here and there getting on my nerves for the past couple months. I stopped using bio pellets, which has helped a bit, but

I am not sure I am convinced that nutrient levels in the water column have bearing on cyano. I think perhaps it is fueled more locally.

I'm now seeing a few patches of other pests like bryopsis popping up here and there. I'm trying to get a sense of how different people approach algae issues, as I feel like I may need to modify my approach.

Bryopsis sucks. Sometimes you can get rabbitfish to eat it, sometimes you can't. Sometimes I smother it by covering it with epoxy or superglue, and sometimes I 100% shade it.

Do you have any theories about why film algae growth is seemingly slow relative to the nutrient levels in your tank? There are always a large number of variables between one system and another, so I know it can be kinda tough to nail down.

Several, but no way to support them.

[FlyPenFly]

Have you tried Tech M magnesium for killing bryopsis? It worked pretty well for me.

What do you mean by micro herbivores? copepods and amphipods?

[dvanacker]

I am not reading other threads. That said, if people have been trying to run zero phosphate and have had bad results, then raising it, and nitrate, is not a bad strategy, and is not one that hasn't been around for a long time.

Like I said I can get on board with argument that mabye elevated levels of phosphate are not the devil we once thought but I can't stand behind this argument ^^ when so many beautiful SPS reefs report low levels of phosphate (0.00-.05ppm on hanna), including my own personal experience. I will admit I havent tested for PO4 in a long long time but when I did my tank was looking amazing and I usually got 0.00ppm. So if similarly if you can state having high PO4 is not a problem I can state that having low levels of PO4 is not a problem either. unless it is far lower than our standards test can even register.

IMO Raising NO3 and PO4 can help some systems that are to ULN (ultra low nutrient) but its not the elevated NO3 and PO4 that do it, its the increased food, biodiversity, bioload, bacteria etc. The slightly elevated NO3 and PO4 is a by product. Similarly if they just increased these things with good filtration they can also experience good results with out raising PO4 and NO3 such as tanks like the TOTM's I've reference.

What I would hate to see happen is people directly dosing PO4 and NO3 thinking this will help coral color, health etc. when that is the farthest stretch to this argument. If that was the case just turn off your skimmer and stop doing water changes.

[Allmost]

another aspect that hasnt been covered, is the management of detritus.

how do you manage that in your system thales ?

you run GAC and skimmer, so DOCs arent that high in your tank, right ?

how about detritus in rocks and sand and .... do they not play a role as well ?

ppl like to follow, specially someone with your name so pls let us know about those as well, and how you manage it. cause as of right now, ppl are seeing this thread as dont filter your SPS tank ... and you will be able to keep these animals alive and well [and colorfull] ...

[sirreal63]

Ssteve, sometimes perceptions get clouded. I will never claim to have the answers, I am neither right or wrong but I do have my own experiences as well as the collective knowledge and experience of lots of other people who have shared their methods, successes and failures on the net.

Rich, I apologize if my own interjections are counter to what you are trying to demonstrate.

Perhaps we sometimes really can't see the forest for the trees. Corals are living animals with nutritional requirements for health. They have the ability to consume food (nutrients) and perhaps the ability to not consume them if they are getting their nutritional requirement elsewhere. Even if the reefs have very low levels of water borne nutrients like nitrates and phosphates, the available nutrient source of live prey is abundant. Live prey contains nitrates and phosphates, which all living animals require. So how does this impact what happens in our tanks? Every creature has a preferred food source, just as we may have a ribeye in front of us and a can of Ensure. Most will choose to eat the steak and not drink the Ensure. However if the steak isn't available we will drink the Ensure before we starve. Having higher po4 and no3 doesn't automatically guarantee the coral must consume or absorb it. If it is the only available food source it certainly can and will, perhaps why we see corals turn brown?

If we try to run the same no3 and po4 level of the reefs we must ensure that we are also providing enough nutritional food for our livestock. We do this with food we add but this is difficult as the corals may not be able to consume what we offer, or some will and some won't. Zooxanthellae is not always enough to supply all of the nutritional requirements for our corals and the Zoox also require nutrients to stay alive and multiply. All of the entities in our tanks require food.

If we are providing enough food, either live planktonic foods in our tanks (from good live rock, planktonic life forms will also reproduce given proper nutrition) or additions of prepared food that our corals are capable of consuming then the health of the coral is assured. Most people do not provide this environment. Most people, because of being mislead into thinking that the natural environment is nutrient poor, will in turn starve the life in their tanks. You can see this daily on RC or any forum you choose, "why are my corals so pale?" is a thread that pops up weekly. In an attempt to keep algae in check people resort to severe nutrient removal and inadequate feedings, thinking this is the right way, when it may actually be the wrong way.

When looking at TOTM's or any successful tank, you will note that almost all of them are established and mature tanks. We have often tossed around the term "established, mature tank". This implies that the tank has had enough time to mature, the life in the tank is healthy, reproducing and the higher life forms are dominant and the lower life forms in check but still healthy and reproducing, this in turn helps feed the higher life forms. A tank without a large pod, sponge and microfauna population is riding on the edge.

Many of us have run our tanks with higher than "accepted" no3 and po4 levels without hair algae taking over the tank. If water borne no3 and po4 are the only food in your tank that is feeding all of the life, the tank is not one I would consider healthy. Feeding the tank is just as important as feeding the fish, not everything eats fish poo. Having higher that natural reef levels of no3 and po4 does not mean the tank will suffer, it can but that is not an absolute.

[sirreal63]

We often reach conclusions in this hobby without enough data. A simple exercise shows how we may have been incorrect.

2+2 does not always equal 4 if we assume that 2 was 2 and not 2.9, if we didn't know about that .9 then our assumption was incorrect from a lack of data. If we are led to believe that 2 is always 2 without realizing that the source that told us 2 was 2 didn't realize that there was also a .9 in there then the misconception grows. The same thing happens in this hobby, we have perceptions based on incomplete data and what we think is happening isn't happening at all or the degree of change isn't seen.

2+2=4, 4+2=6, 6+2=8, 8+2=10
2.9+2.9=5.8, 5.8+2.9=8.7, 8.7+2.9=11.6, 11.6+2.9=14.5

With the same number of additions we now have a difference of 4.5 and instead of 10 the reality is it should have been 14.5. The same things happens in this hobby, we have built upon incomplete data and reached a conclusion that isn't correct. We are able to make 10 work with problems encountered and adjustments being made and if someone points out that 10 should actually have been 14.5 we have to re-align our thinking to see where we erred. If we refuse to see that 2 should have been 2.9 then we may always encounter problems and have to make adjustments.

My whole point here is to not assume that what we think we know is correct, the chances are great that they are not correct. We should always examine what we are doing and why we are doing it and ask ourselves if it is really the best way.

[miggs76]

What I am getting out of this thread is not to obsess about getting your numbers at zero. For me, that obsession lasted a full year and all it did was get me pale SPS corals. My nitrates are now detectable and my phosphate is about .09 or .1 and my tank has never looked better. When getting advice from people 95% of them said get your nitrates and phosphates at 0. I unfortunately listened to that advice and was too stubborn to take a minority viewpoint. I finally did listen and got both numbers raised. For ME, it worked. I can't say it will work for everyone, but anytime I see a tank with low growth/low colors and they tell me "I don't understand what's going on my numbers are great" I simply let them know they may not want to "chase" numbers.

[mess7777]

I still think this is a great thread reminding that virtually all evidence we have is anecdotal, including the OPs nice looking tank with elevated phosphates.

That said, I have to also weigh in the fact that dvanaker has one of the best tanks I have ever seen, so there is something to be said for his methodology. The correlation between N, P, and feeding a lot may have merit but no one knows for sure.

I would love to have a formula for success that if I did 'x' I would get 'y', but I can tell you from experience that this just doesn't exist. I know people like the OP who are completely unconventional with spectacular results, and others that have pristine systems and fight with getting colors. I don't want to spend all the hours tinkering with my tank and learning it's every nook and cranny, I want to listen to some music and enjoy the corals, fish, and the mini ecosystem in my living room.

I believe the intent of this post is simply to remind us all that we need to consider the fact that every successful tank is an individual success, so don't take what works for 1 as bible for the other.

A good example is that if I post on the forum here should I get fine sand or crushed coral, I'll get a ton of posts telling me crushed coral is a nitrate factory. However, when I see many very successful tanks they use crushed coral and things look great.

Take everything with a grain of salt, am I on the right path OP?

[Thales]

Originally Posted by FlyPenFly

Have you tried Tech M magnesium for killing bryopsis? It worked pretty well for me.

I tried that and was pretty careful about keeping track a couple of years ago. There was no effect on the bryopsis. I felt uncomfortable (for no real reason) at raising my Mg above 1650, so I stopped.

What do you mean by micro herbivores? copepods and amphipods?

Yep.

[FlyPenFly]

Interesting, I was able to wipe out my bryopsis at 1500 kent M but it took a month or so and I had to keep dosing Kent M and not my usual BRS.

[Thales]

Originally Posted by dvanacker

Like I said I can get on board with argument that mabye elevated levels of phosphate are not the devil we once thought

That is all I am saying.

but I can't stand behind this argument ^^ when so many beautiful SPS reefs report low levels of phosphate (0.00-.05ppm on hanna), including my own personal experience.

Ok. At the same time, there are so many other beautiful SPS reefs that report not low levels of phosphate. There are a million ways to have a nice reef. I have no problem with people running their reef any way they see fit - the results will stand for themselves - but it gets weird when people start saying the methodology they like is the 'right' methodology if the wide range of evidence doesn't support that idea.

I will admit I havent tested for PO4 in a long long time but when I did my tank was looking amazing and I usually got 0.00ppm. So if similarly if you can state having high PO4 is not a problem I can state that having low levels of PO4 is not a problem either. unless it is far lower than our standards test can even register.

I don't believe I have ever said flatly that having high phosphate is not a problem. I believe I have gone out of my way to say exactly not that with lots of qualifiers. I also don't believe I have said much of anything about the utility of low phosphate levels. My main thesis is that we don't know because we have so many examples both ways. BTW, our standard tests suck at measuring really low levels of phosphate.

IMO Raising NO3 and PO4 can help some systems that are to ULN (ultra low nutrient) but its not the elevated NO3 and PO4 that do it, its the increased food, biodiversity, bioload, bacteria etc.

Could be. Could also be something else.

The slightly elevated NO3 and PO4 is a by product.

I don't that that should be stated as fact.

Similarly if they just increased these things with good filtration they can also experience good results with out raising PO4 and NO3 such as tanks like the TOTM's I've reference.

Again, maybe or maybe not.

What I would hate to see happen is people directly dosing PO4 and NO3 thinking this will help coral color, health etc. when that is the farthest stretch to this argument.

You bet. I haven't even said much at all about the effect of phosphate and nitrate on coral color.