the secret to colorful,healthy corals....obvious to some,elusive to many

[tmz]

NOPOX is ethanol ( vodka) and acetic acid( vinegar) with about 2% methanol . The addition of the toxic methanol makes NOPOX unsuitable as a consumable alcohol for humans and avoids a spirit tax and other rules applying to alcohols for human consumption. The heterotrophic bacteria using the ethanol and acetate take up ammonia preferentially for nitrogen and assimilalte some NO3; some will degrade via anaer robic activity too. In addition to the organic C from the ethanol and acetic acid these bacteria need nitrogen and phosphate along with other major, minor and trace elements like potassium and iron. The cyclopeeze should help that; it should also help the corals.

[hkgar]

I dosed vinegar when I had a 90 gallon. I am not doing it now, but have considered it. I don't think my Nitrates - 3 and PO4 .03 are high enough to start up vinegar again. Could it be used to maintain current levels?

When PO4 get above .03 I start up my GFO for about 24 hours and it comes down. Last test after 24 hour GFO was .003.

I also run a algae turf scrubber.

[sensei]

Originally Posted by tmz

NOPOX is ethanol ( vodka) and acetic acid( vinegar) with about 2% methanol . The addition of the toxic methanol makes NOPOX unsuitable as a consumable alcohol for humans and avoids a spirit tax and other rules applying to alcohols for human consumption. The heterotrophic bacteria using the ethanol and acetate take up ammonia preferentially for nitrogen and assimilalte some NO3; some will degrade via anaer robic activity too. In addition to the organic C from the ethanol and acetic acid these bacteria need nitrogen and phosphate along with other major, minor and trace elements like potassium and iron. The cyclopeeze should help that; it should also help the corals.

Tom,
do you think that I should feed the cyclopeeze every day with the aminos or just keep the aminos daily and the cyclopeeze every other day?
thanks

[tmz]

I don't know, how much you need to feed and/ or how much amino acid if any you need to keep a reasonable level of nutrients for the live stock you have, I'd watch the PO4 and NO3 as indicators.

Yes , organic carbon dosing can be used to maintain levels and enable more feeding. With the light feeding you are doing you probably don't want it at this point. This thread may be of interest going froward:

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh...+carbon+dosing

[sensei]

Originally Posted by tmz

I don't know, how much you need to feed and/ or how much amino acid if any you need to keep a reasonable level of nutrients for the live stock you have, I'd watch the PO4 and NO3 as indicators.

Yes , organic carbon dosing can be used to maintain levels and enable more feeding. With the light feeding you are doing you probably don't want it at this point. This thread may be of interest going froward:

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh...+carbon+dosing

Thanks Tom,

how often do you think I should test for NO3 and PO4?
I ask because definitively I do not have enough nutrients now, and I will be dosing aminos and feeding, but I do not want to over do it and cause algae problem,

should I test every other day until I see that NO3 and PO4 are stable in a reasonable range (PO4 = 0.2-0.4 and NO3 = 0.25- 0.5)?
or should I give it more days between tests?

[SantaMonica]

Since I cannot get more fish in the tank for some time how do I keep the nutrients high for developing colorful healthy colors?

First thing is to recognize the difference between nutrients and food. For what we are doing, nutrients are Ammonia/Ammonium, Nitrite, Nitrate, and Phosphate. They are inorganic, and are the building block of food. But food is is combination of them, and is organic. You want high levels of food, and low levels of nutrients.

How much and what should I feed my tank? As mentioned before I have only 2 fish so they do not consume much food

Your feeding is limited only by your export (filtration). Natural reefs have huge amounts of food going in, and huge amounts of nutrients going out (by absorption from algae).

Will the ammonia spike that I had affect my sps corals?

Ammonia will kill anything and everything that you want to keep. Fortunately, ammonia is the favorite food of algae.

High nutrient import and export is the key

I agree. Like natural reefs, lakes, ponds, and even rivers, the amount of food particles is stagering. But of course the amount of nutrients are very low because they are being consumed by algae.

Regarding the high nutrient export, I guess you can achive it with the skimmer and the water changes

Unfortunately skimmers do not remove any nutrients. They only remove food particles. That's why they are "protein" skimmers.

How much algae in the glass should I expect

Interestingly, most algae on the glass comes from ammonium/urea from the respiration of the animals, especially pee from the fish, because this ammonia goes directly into the water and it hits the glass before ever getting a chance to reach a filter. So with less fish feeding, there is much less algae on the glass.

when I came back from my trip 10 days later, the rocks were covered with green algae

Yes the algae are great for absorbing ammonia; it's what they love best.

The best way to feed is to have properly stocked fish, which provides a constant supply of nutrients for the corals

I might re-word that a bit to reduce possible confusion: "provides a constant supply of food particles". The waste from the fish is the "constant supply of food particles" for the corals. You of course are not trying to supply nutrients, aka Ammonia/Ammonium, Nitrite, Nitrate, and Phosphate.

Hey guys related to alk, how does one lower this? Especially with the salts that have alk so high it seems impossible to ever get it lowered

Interestingly, growing lots of algae/macros in your system, especially when they grow rapidly like they do when absorbing an ammonia spike, will suck up some alk. They do this to get carbon, when they cannot get it fast enough from dissolved CO2.

I have read that many have taken the GFO reactor out until they get and algae outbreak and they put it back again

First time I've heard that one. Sounds like putting in a heater without a thermostat, and removing it when it gets too hot

would dosing aminoacids be considered food?

Certainly. Any organic material (which are not Ammonia/Ammonium, Nitrite, Nitrate, and Phosphate) could be considered food.

how often do you think I should test for NO3 and PO4?

Once you know what to look for, you won't need to test much at all. The color/amount of alge on the glass; the thickness and type of periphyton on the rocks; the growth of coralline and stoney corals, are all indicators, and are actually more important that measurements.

[hkgar]

Would the algae that I get on my glass, and scrape every other day, be coming I have because I do not have sufficient rock? I seem to have a constant algae battle even with 0 po4 and 2 no3.

I have about a 175 gallon total system and about 105 lbs of live rock. Should I add another 50 lbs, even if it is in the sump?

[cham]

One of the best threads I've read on RC. I wished it had started many many years before it did, would have saved me thousands and a lot of frustration.

[horseplay]

Originally Posted by cham

One of the best threads I've read on RC. I wished it had started many many years before it did, would have saved me thousands and a lot of frustration.

+1. A lot of SPS keepers are pursuing the low nutrient level by not feeding, not knowing the difference between nutrient and food.

[hkgar]

I have been keeping ALK at about 8.0 dKh for my SPS tank.

I recently added about 60 lbs of Marco dry rock and would like to kick start some good Coraline Algae growth. Would it be ok to slowly raise ALK to about 9 or 9.5?

[karimwassef]

Hmmm... I may get flamed but I need to clarify something, if only to make sure my understanding aligns with what others experience ...

1. Natural reefs have high food content (organics) and low nutrient levels (inorganic).
2. To emulate this, I feed a lot, but then must also apply aggressive export mechanisms to remove excess organics and as much of the inorganic nutrients as possible (which I do).
3. Very low nutrient systems don't feed enough, so while they achieve low nutrients, they also starve their reef.
4. If it's possible to have a constant food supply while maintaining zero nutrients, that would be best for coral health and growth.

Some of the above may be repetitive but I want to be clear from different perspectives here.

The question: based on the above, why do some still believe that there is a threshold of nutrients (P, N) that must be maintained for color, growth and health? Isn't that contrary to the points above?

Is it just that small reefs cannot exercise sufficient export to really remove all nutrients, so the threshold is really a measure of food availability by proxy?

Just want to be clear...

[Nano sapiens]

Originally Posted by karimwassef

1. Natural reefs have high food content (organics) and low nutrient levels (inorganic).
2. To emulate this, I feed a lot, but then must also apply aggressive export mechanisms to remove excess organics and as much of the inorganic nutrients as possible (which I do).
3. Very low nutrient systems don't feed enough, so while they achieve low nutrients, they also starve their reef.
4. If it's possible to have a constant food supply while maintaining zero nutrients, that would be best for coral health and growth.

Some of the above may be repetitive but I want to be clear from different perspectives here.

The question: based on the above, why do some still believe that there is a threshold of nutrients (P, N) that must be maintained for color, growth and health? Isn't that contrary to the points above?

Is it just that small reefs cannot exercise sufficient export to really remove all nutrients, so the threshold is really a measure of food availability by proxy?

Corals are mixotrophic, so they can utilize many different nutrition sources including both organic and inorganic nutrients. Those that keep their tanks with somewhat higher than NSW levels of PO4 and NO3 are providing more abundant inorganic resources than the organisms would typically encounter on an oceanic reef. This is often done due to the realization that providing as much organic nutrition as encountered on a natural reef in a reef aquarium, while still retaining the very low inorganic levels found on the reef, is very difficult.

As far as small 'nano' reefs are concerned, nutrient export is not so difficult (in some ways easier since the smaller live rock pieces can be moved more easily to facilitate detritus removal). However, the smaller water volume in relation to the biomass means that the water can acquire elevated levels of some substances more quickly than a larger system (and conversely, can also see faster bioassimilation of some elements that can then become depleted). Hence the recommendation for more frequent water changes than typically suggested for a large system to keep element levels in relative balance. One can feed such a small system a surprising amount of food and still maintain low NO3 and PO4 levels, but only when maintenance techniques are effective and performed consistently.

[CStrickland]

Originally Posted by karimwassef

Is it just that small reefs cannot exercise sufficient export to really remove all nutrients, so the threshold is really a measure of food availability by proxy?

That's pretty much how I take it, well put.
Like, people have noticed that .02 ppm nitrates and .003ppm phos are where they see the happiest tank because the systems that result in those numbers are the ones that have achieved the right balance of import of food to export of food and nutrients. Underfed bb's, tanks that add too much food, tanks that don't remove enough food or enough nutrients, each can be out of balance and wind up with numbers that aren't in the preferred range. But what we observe is not the issue itself, so you can get in trouble chasing those numbers.

The trick is what the test numbers mean, so you can fix it. I think proxy is a good way to think about it. As in, if your tank is dirty and you underfeed you don't have a "nitrate problem." Rather, you have an export problem with a nitrate symptom.

PS I read "small reefs" to mean our tanks, like smaller than the ocean

[karimwassef]

Originally Posted by CStrickland

That's pretty much how I take it, well put.
Like, people have noticed that .02 ppm nitrates and .003ppm phos are where they see the happiest tank because the systems that result in those numbers are the ones that have achieved the right balance of import of food to export of food and nutrients. Underfed bb's, tanks that add too much food, tanks that don't remove enough food or enough nutrients, each can be out of balance and wind up with numbers that aren't in the preferred range. But what we observe is not the issue itself, so you can get in trouble chasing those numbers.

The trick is what the test numbers mean, so you can fix it. I think proxy is a good way to think about it. As in, if your tank is dirty and you underfeed you don't have a "nitrate problem." Rather, you have an export problem with a nitrate symptom.

PS I read "small reefs" to mean our tanks, like smaller than the ocean

Thanks. Yes I meant small as in our home aquariums compared to the ocean or systems that have access to a flow of NSW. Maybe I should have called them "captive reefs"

[karimwassef]

Originally Posted by Nano sapiens

Corals are mixotrophic, so they can utilize many different nutrition sources including both organic and inorganic nutrients. Those that keep their tanks with somewhat higher than NSW levels of PO4 and NO3 are providing more abundant inorganic resources than the organisms would typically encounter on an oceanic reef. This is often done due to the realization that providing as much organic nutrition as encountered on a natural reef in a reef aquarium, while still retaining the very low inorganic levels found on the reef, is very difficult.

As far as small 'nano' reefs are concerned, nutrient export is not so difficult (in some ways easier since the smaller live rock pieces can be moved more easily to facilitate detritus removal). However, the smaller water volume in relation to the biomass means that the water can acquire elevated levels of some substances more quickly than a larger system (and conversely, can also see faster bioassimilation of some elements that can then become depleted). Hence the recommendation for more frequent water changes than typically suggested for a large system to keep element levels in relative balance. One can feed such a small system a surprising amount of food and still maintain low NO3 and PO4 levels, but only when maintenance techniques are effective and performed consistently.

Hmmm... Ok. So that line of thinking says that inorganic nutrients are good and necessary. That contradicts what I was thinking. I realize that corals farm symbiotic zooxanthelle in their tissue to convert light into usable carbohydrates and in the process, they need access to C, N and P, but I thought the levels necessary here were very very low?

[Big E]

It's not always in the numbers...........yes. it's good to be in a range, but it's no where near as narrow as some state. This range varies from tank to tank.

This range also applies the Cal & alk levels. You have to know your own system.

I'll give a very simple example that usually clears up some of this----

A 100g tank with .03 PO4 and .2 NO3 with two fish has pale corals......that same 100g system with those same exact readings and ten fish has thriving colors and growth.

Another comment................most people do it backwards. They force the system into that tight number target and can't understand why their acros aren't thriving. This is usually accomplished with all kinds of additives, chemicals, ect. This type of reefing becomes a dogmatic goal and tunnel vision usually ending up in a mess.

It's much easier to get in a wider range and let things settle......this takes patience and observation along with testing. When everything is thriving is when you take your more rigid numbers to target and keep for the future........those will be more written in stone for your set up.

[markalot]

I love this thread, every few months more great discussion.

My current observations with nutrients seems to confirm that every tank is different.

In my smaller tank, was a 29 now 40, I had very pale corals so I started dosing nitrate without changing anything else (my nitrate was 0) and the coral colors exploded and now I have better colors on acros in there, under LED, than I do in my 150 under T5's. I've tried to mimic the same numbers for PO4 and NO3 in my larger tank and the results are not the same.

I'm missing something, mis-measuring something, or something else ...

[Yarm79]

What are you using to add the nitrate?

[00101]

I'm sorry if its been asked before, but I haven't read through the thread in a while, but with elevated inorganics, how is algae kept under control? Large CUC and frequent cleaning?

[mathman7728]

yeah, how do you dose nitrates?

[malira]

Originally Posted by mathman7728

yeah, how do you dose nitrates?

A lot of us use spectracide stump remover.

2 tbs desolved into 12 Oz of rodi water.
10 ml brings 80 gallons up 1.5 ppm.

There are great threads on *********.
The other big reef keeping site. Reaftooreaf.

[AugustWest]

Any info on the amount of sodium nitrate ( food grade from Amazon.com) to use in place of the potassium nitrate?

[00101]

Originally Posted by AugustWest

Any info on the amount of sodium nitrate ( food grade from Amazon.com) to use in place of the potassium nitrate?

Almost exactly the same. Which way are you measuring? Grams per liter? Its going to take a touch of math, but anyway NaNO3 is 85g/mol and KNO3 is 101g/mol give or take. So for every 101g of KNO3 you were using you only need 85g of NaNO3. So say you were using 50 grams of KNO3 in some amount of water, you would use about 42.5g NaNO3 in the same amount of water.

[sensei]

I am interested to know if any of you having an sps dominated tank run algae scrubber?

I ask because some time ago most of my sps frags lost their color a few weeks after being in my tank. my parameters were: KH = 7.45, Mag 1300, Cal 440, NO3=2,PO4 =0 (hanna). Then, I removed GFO and PO4 climbed to 0.06 and during this time sps started gaining color, I could see improvements in color every two days but after a couple of days PO4 climbed to 0.12- 0.14 so I thought if would be a good idea to add an algae scrubber to control PO4 naturally with scrubber because filtration is done by algae rather than mechanical media.
After installing algae scrubber PO4 measured cero when I tested 10 days after scrubber started. now it has been 20 days of having the algae scrubber in the tank with PO4 =0 (hanna) and I believe some of the sps have lost some color. I have made no other changes.
please let me know your experiences.
thanks

[markalot]

I don't run a scrubber but the answer seems obvious. No matter how you remove it very low PO4 is not good. Can you adjust the scrubber so you achieve some kind of elevated PO4 reading?