Maybe low Nitrates and Phosphates aren't the problem.

[Nano sapiens]

So what was this thread about again?

 

Kat's part-ay thread?

 

There are many ways to skin a cat (sorry SPCA). As long as the system doesn't contain a biological 'ticking time bomb' that takes the aquarist by surprise ("You mean I wasn't supposed to stir my 5 year old DSB?"), then it's all good in the short term, at least.

 

Long term health and avoidance of the dreaded 'old tank syndrome' is very dependent on the regular removal of detritus. Some detritus is inevitable and natural, but a whole lot will eventually cause system failure as hyper-eutrophication sets in.

 

 

Right... so how would you test for organic phosphate?

 

 

 

You need special lab equipment. Inorganic phosphate is much simpler than organic phosphate which has many different forms.

[wombat]

So what was this thread about again?

 

I think it's about relaxing about the numbers our test kits read a bit. Chasing numbers so to speak.

[uglyfish]

You needs special lab equipment. Inorganic phosphate is much simpler than organic phosphate which has many different forms.

 

I know we're straying off topic (sorry flypenfly).

 

What "special lab equipment" is going to measure how much bound phosphate is in the system? You'd have to calculate how much phosphate is bound in all the plant, bacteria and animal matter in your tank... if phosphate is bound in a plant, how does the lab machine know it's there?

[wombat]

I need an education on the difference between organic and inorganic phosphate... I though organic phosphate was bound to a plant while inorganic phosphate was floating around waiting to be bound. So - the plant consumes inorganic phosphate and once consumed, it becomes organic phosphate... plants don't consume organic phosphate because organic phosphate is already tied up in another plant.

Snails eat the plants (organic phosphate) - plants take the inorganic phosphate floating in the water. That's why I thought we don't measure organic phosphate. Do I have this wrong?

 

Inorganic phosphate is what most of us think of when we think of phosphate. It's just a phosphorus atom with 4 oxygen atoms. It's what test kits measure. Organic phosphate is bound up in organic (carbon containing) molecules, like proteins, nucleic acids, ATP, etc. By "bound" it doesn't mean it isn't floating around in the water, just that it is part of a larger molecule.

 

The reason it might be interesting to know is that organic phosphate can be converted to inorganic. So the total amount of organic phosphate floating around in the water might be interesting to know. You could think of it as "potential" phosphate of the type that zooxanthellae and algae can use. It's trivia, mostly, but I'm a geek.

 

I know we're straying off topic (sorry flypenfly).

 

What "special lab equipment" is going to measure how much bound phosphate is in the system? You'd have to calculate how much phosphate is bound in all the plant, bacteria and animal matter in your tank... if phosphate is bound in a plant, how does the lab machine know it's there?

 

It's not measuring the amount of phosphate in the entire system, just how much is in the water. You take a water sample, heat it and digest it with acid, then measure the phosphate concentration the old fashioned way.

 

The healthiest reef system I've ever seen was in a protected area of Palawan, Philippines, in the late 1980's.

 

Where in Palawan? I was just in Coron, Busuanga in January.

[uglyfish]

The reason it might be interesting to know is that organic phosphate can be converted to inorganic. So the total amount of organic phosphate floating around in the water might be interesting to know. You could think of it as "potential" phosphate of the type that zooxanthellae and algae can use. It's trivia, mostly, but I'm a geek.

 

It's interesting because organic phosphate may be the reason why when high nutrient systems drop to low nutrient systems, they experience algae outbreaks that didn't occur at higher nutrient levels... maybe the phosphate was all bound. Dropping nutrients resulted in a die off - releasing new orthophosphates and creating a new algae bloom?

 

So I understand that organic phosphate just has a some carbon element and is stored in detritus, plankton, clays and larger molecules. Even if you were to measure the phosphate "potential" what good would it do without knowing how or when it would be converted to inorganic phosphate? Is the conversion predictable?

[Nano sapiens]

Where in Palawan? I was just in Coron, Busuanga in January.

 

Nice.

 

Around the El Nido area, but spent plenty of time snorkeling all over

[Nano sapiens]

It's interesting because organic phosphate may be the reason why when high nutrient systems drop to low nutrient systems, they experience algae outbreaks that didn't occur at higher nutrient levels... maybe the phosphate was all bound. Dropping nutrients resulted in a die off - releasing new orthophosphates and creating a new algae bloom?

 

 

If a typical nutrient rich system is change to ULNS, the multitudes of bacteria are going to attempt to survive by consuming whatever is on hand. Many molecules containing phosphate would be oxidized and I could imagine that this would create an excess of inorganic phosphate in the system which would fuel algae growth. The exact chemistry involved is a bit beyond my expertise.

[flypenfly]

So essentially, you can do ULNS long term but you'll have to have unnatural dull colored corals. Or you can do nutrient rich but don't try to go ULNS or you'll get massive nuisance algae from an eco rebalance... and keep up with deterius blow off.

 

I'd rather do the latter.

[uglyfish]

The exact chemistry involved is a bit beyond my expertise.

 

That's OK. I can barely read... Interesting though, no?

 

 

So essentially, you can do ULNS long term but you'll have to have unnatural dull colored corals. Or you can do nutrient rich but don't try to go ULNS or you'll get massive nuisance algae from an eco rebalance... and keep up with deterius blow off.

 

I'd rather do the latter.

 

Good thread - lots of ways to achieve similar results.

[Nano sapiens]

So essentially, you can do ULNS long term but you'll have to have unnatural dull colored corals. Or you can do nutrient rich but don't try to go ULNS or you'll get massive nuisance algae from an eco rebalance... and keep up with deterius blow off.

 

I'd rather do the latter.

 

Healthy and colorful SPS corals can be achieved with ULNS, but it takes some precise knowledge, testing and attention to system cleanliness.

 

If a system goes from very nutrient rich to very nutrient poor there have been reports of algae issues initially, but once the system runs out of 'fuel' any algae blooms would have to diminish.

[wombat]

So essentially, you can do ULNS long term but you'll have to have unnatural dull colored corals.

 

I wouldn't say dull at all. Usually they are very pastel-y (not a word), bright, and full of color. But definitely unnatural. Google images for "Zeovit tank" and you'll get the idea.

 

I for one don't recommend any husbandry strategy over another. There are multiple ways to skin a cat and I always suggest people go with whatever works for them as long as it produces results they desire.

[Herptile]

Where in Palawan? I was just in Coron, Busuanga in January.

 

 

Around the El Nido area, but spent plenty of time snorkeling all over

 

You guys were here? You didn't even say hi.

 

I found out for myself that there may be something to this "water too nutrient poor" even for Acros. I always thought I had high nutrients and I siphoned a fair amount of detritus during large water changes. Then I lost the purple tips on one of the Acros . I tried smaller water changes (while still siphoning all the detritus I can) and the tips are slowly turning purple again. The Montipora digitata is still a little pale though. I don't have nuisance algae growth.

[Nano sapiens]

You guys were here? You didn't even say hi.

 

I found out for myself that there may be something to this "water too nutrient poor" even for Acros. I always thought I had high nutrients and I siphoned a fair amount of detritus during large water changes. Then I lost the purple tips on one of the Acros . I tried smaller water changes (while still siphoning all the detritus I can) and the tips are slowly turning purple again. The Montipora digitata is still a little pale though. I don't have nuisance algae growth.

 

Sorry, "Kumusta, ho?"

 

In your case it sounds like the larger water changes were removing too many nutrients all at once. By performing smaller water changes more nutrients are kept available for a longer time for the corals to utilize. I used to change 10%/week, but found that 5% twice a week produced less stress in the corals and better overall health.

 

I have a blue/purple polyp digitata that likes a good amount of nutrients. As I was experimenting with slowly increasing food inputs I could see a pronounced improvement in coloration in this coral. As I continued slowly increasing to about 20% more, growth literally exploded as it sent out 'digits' all over. Try gradually increasing your feeding and just keep an eye out for increased algae/cyano growth which will alert you if you are feeding too much and/or not exporting enough detritus.

[NanoPoseidon]

Funny story thats related... I am currently dealing with Very high PO4 2.5 ppm(when all the other #'s are in check) but with little detriment to everything in the tank. I dont have any fish, a small population of CUC, and probably 12-15 pieces of coral (softies, LPS, and even some SPS)(I rescued the SPS from a friends dieing tank with hopes of offloading them as soon as I could). However, I dont have an overwhelming algae problem (its not pristine but its not visibly a problem)and the SPS corals are recovering (gone from no polyp extension to very good pe and showing growth). I spot feed most of my coral 1- 2 times a week with 1/3 cube of mysis (probably where my PO4 problem is) and do 10-15% water change every week.

 

From everything I have learned in this hobby, its probably not sustainable but it is refreshing that even large problems can be managed for a longer time period then was expected. I guess my next step is to get a reactor going with GFO but then again I have to take into account what a radical change in my tank is going to do even though its supposed to be for the better.....

[Herptile]

Sorry, "Kumusta, ho?"

 

In your case it sounds like the larger water changes were removing too many nutrients all at once. By performing smaller water changes more nutrients are kept available for a longer time for the corals to utilize. I used to change 10%/week, but found that 5% twice a week produced less stress in the corals and better overall health.

 

I have a blue/purple polyp digitata that likes a good amount of nutrients. As I was experimenting with slowly increasing food inputs I could see a pronounced improvement in coloration in this coral. As I continued slowly increasing to about 20% more, growth literally exploded as it sent out 'digits' all over. Try gradually increasing your feeding and just keep an eye out for increased algae/cyano growth which will alert you if you are feeding too much and/or not exporting enough detritus.

 

"Ayos lang, salamat. Ikaw?" (I'm fine, thanks. You?)

 

That does make sense. I've been changing 2 gallons every week. Also, I didn't start siphoning detritus (except for what was in the HOB filter and fuge) until the tank was almost a year old. Then I read on here that detritus accumulation causes all sorts of problems in tanks that were fine for years and then inexplicably started having issues. So I started removing them from the tank itself in addition to what's in the HOB and fuge. Is it even possible to remove too much too fast and cause corals to go into low nutrient shock? Someone advised another person not to remove all the detritus at once. Maybe this is what he meant by that.

 

So you tried less water changes and increased feeding. Did you do both at the same time or try one method first?

 

From everything I have learned in this hobby, its probably not sustainable but it is refreshing that even large problems can be managed for a longer time period then was expected. I guess my next step is to get a reactor going with GFO but then again I have to take into account what a radical change in my tank is going to do even though its supposed to be for the better.....

 

I tried adding plain carbon and my birdsnest turned very pale (almost white) in a week.

[Nano sapiens]

Funny story thats related... I am currently dealing with Very high PO4 2.5 ppm(when all the other #'s are in check) but with little detriment to everything in the tank. I dont have any fish, a small population of CUC, and probably 12-15 pieces of coral (softies, LPS, and even some SPS)(I rescued the SPS from a friends dieing tank with hopes of offloading them as soon as I could). However, I dont have an overwhelming algae problem (its not pristine but its not visibly a problem)and the SPS corals are recovering (gone from no polyp extension to very good pe and showing growth). I spot feed most of my coral 1- 2 times a week with 1/3 cube of mysis (probably where my PO4 problem is) and do 10-15% water change every week.

 

From everything I have learned in this hobby, its probably not sustainable but it is refreshing that even large problems can be managed for a longer time period then was expected. I guess my next step is to get a reactor going with GFO but then again I have to take into account what a radical change in my tank is going to do even though its supposed to be for the better.....

 

From your banner it looks like your tank is nearly 3 months old. What type of test kit and have you had the result verified by a different kit?

 

If you have some type of calcareous sand bed and live rock the material would normally bind the PO4. If that sink is exhausted, then PO4 would show up in the water column. Algae would be utilizing it, but if you have an efficient algae eating CUC, then it may not be very noticeable. However, the phosphate in the consumed algae has to go somewhere so it ends up in the fecal pellets that are part of the detritus. If the detritus is not removed, then the PO4 can renter the water column via bacterial liberation.

 

GFO goes after the PO4 after it is in the water column and is expensive, detritus removal removes it before it becomes an issue and costs nothing. Your choice how you want to deal with it.

[Veng]

If my GFO overdose taught me anything, is that there is such a thing as too low of phosphates.

[Nano sapiens]

"Ayos lang, salamat. Ikaw?" (I'm fine, thanks. You?)

 

That does make sense. I've been changing 2 gallons every week. Also, I didn't start siphoning detritus (except for what was in the HOB filter and fuge) until the tank was almost a year old. Then I read on here that detritus accumulation causes all sorts of problems in tanks that were fine for years and then inexplicably started having issues. So I started removing them from the tank itself in addition to what's in the HOB and fuge. Is it even possible to remove too much too fast and cause corals to go into low nutrient shock? Someone advised another person not to remove all the detritus at once. Maybe this is what he meant by that.

 

So you tried less water changes and increased feeding. Did you do both at the same time or try one method first?

 

Yes, it is definitely possible to shock corals with rapid changes. They need to readjust like any animal and if the changes are too quick it can cause severe stress.

 

In a tank that has little to no sand bed detritus removal, it is wise to start vacuuming only small areas each time. If too much is disturbed at any one time all the released nutrients typically cause massive algae and cyano blooms.

 

I started the 5%/2x/week long before I started increasing the feedings. No parameters were changed during the experiment with increased feedings so I could be sure the changes were only caused by increased food input.

[NanoPoseidon]

 

From your banner it looks like your tank is nearly 3 months old. What type of test kit and have you had the result verified by a different kit?

 

If you have some type of calcareous sand bed and live rock the material would normally bind the PO4. If that sink is exhausted, then PO4 would show up in the water column. Algae would be utilizing it, but if you have an efficient algae eating CUC, then it may not be very noticeable. However, the phosphate in the consumed algae has to go somewhere so it ends up in the fecal pellets that are part of the detritus. If the detritus is not removed, then the PO4 can renter the water column via bacterial liberation.

 

GFO goes after the PO4 after it is in the water column and is expensive, detritus removal removes it before it becomes an issue and costs nothing. Your choice how you want to deal with it.

I test PO4 with a Hanna checker.... And your assumptions are most likely correct. I have done little to remove detritus from the sand bed. My cleanup crew is fairly small (2 turbos, 4 nerites, 2 astrea, 2 red banded, and about 6 blue legs). I assume that the detritus in the sand bed is binding the PO4. Your instructions are interesting pertaining to vaccuuming small quantities multiple time..... Do think this will reduce any stress on the livestock as well as bring down my PO4 content at a slower pace in order to allow for adjustment?

[Herptile]

Yes, it is definitely possible to shock corals with rapid changes. They need to readjust like any animal and if the changes are too quick it can cause severe stress.

 

In a tank that has little to no sand bed detritus removal, it is wise to start vacuuming only small areas each time. If too much is disturbed at any one time all the released nutrients typically cause massive algae and cyano blooms.

 

I started the 5%/2x/week long before I started increasing the feedings. No parameters were changed during the experiment with increased feedings so I could be sure the changes were only caused by increased food input.

 

Thank you. Maybe I've been conditioned with those fish magazines from 5-10 years ago that basically implied you can never change too much water, you have to have a protein skimmer or don't bother setting up a tank at all, tanks with sumps are superior, etc. I think I'll also try what flypenfly wants to do and not go ULNS and based on what you said.

[Nano sapiens]

I test PO4 with a Hanna checker.... And your assumptions are most likely correct. I have done little to remove detritus from the sand bed. My cleanup crew is fairly small (2 turbos, 4 nerites, 2 astrea, 2 red banded, and about 6 blue legs). I assume that the detritus in the sand bed is binding the PO4. Your instructions are interesting pertaining to vaccuuming small quantities multiple time..... Do think this will reduce any stress on the livestock as well as bring down my PO4 content at a slower pace in order to allow for adjustment?

 

Yours is the second post I've seen recently with very high PO4 readings using a Hanna checker, but no major algae blooms or issues. I still suggest a second test with a typical PO4 test kit to make sure there really is such high PO4 and not something odd with a specific batch of Hanna reagents.

 

The binding of phosphate to the calcareous substances is a natural chemical process. Think of the sand bed and live rock having an affinity for phosphate. Detritus contains various forms of phosphate that can and do become liberated by bacterial action, so it's not a 'binder' in the same sense.

 

Definitely take it slow. There is no set pattern to vacuuming frequency or amount of detritus removed since each tank is different and the goals of the each aquarist may also be different. You can start by vacuuming ~1/8 of the SB every week with the WC. If you see a brown algae coating or some cyano develop on the SB just keep up the routine and it will subside once the nutrients are sufficiently reduced. Turkey basting the LR will dislodge a lot of detritus and I do this every few days as well. There are other places where detritus hangs out such as under the base LR and sump, but you may not want to be this thorough unless you are trying for a ULNS type system where larger nutrient inputs are required to keep the corals colorful and growing.

 

And you will also likely notice that nitrate will be very low or undetectable since the SB and LR nitrifying and denitrifying bacteria will be able to function very effectively.

[Nano sapiens]

Thank you. Maybe I've been conditioned with those fish magazines from 5-10 years ago that basically implied you can never change too much water, you have to have a protein skimmer or don't bother setting up a tank at all, tanks with sumps are superior, etc. I think I'll also try what flypenfly wants to do and not go ULNS and based on what you said.

 

I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from running a 'ULNS' system since I know it can work very well. My filterless/skimmerless tank, via aggressive detritus removal and frequent WCs, achieves a near ULNS condition and it's a joy to work with. Where people get tripped up is in the mistaken belief that ULNS refers to the system as a whole. ULNS really refers only to the condition of the water which is 'Ultra Low Nutrient' (sometimes referred to as 'oligotrophic'). A system like this needs to be heavily fed to provide the food corals need, just as what we find in nature on a off-shore coral reef. The system as a whole relies on a good amount of food inputs to be successful, just not nutrients dissolved in the water column. This can be a fantastic system for SPS corals with astounding growth rates when the corals are fed optimally and lighting is excellent.

 

The phrase I like to use is simply "Balance inputs with exports at the level that is best for the organisms". You can run a more nutrient rich system with less detritus removal just fine (which is more like an 'inshore reef' or a 'lagoon' environment) and should require less food input to keep the corals healthy since they'll derive some nutrition from the dissolved nutrients circulating in the water. However, what you want to avoid at all costs is increasing nutrient loading in the system which over time would lead to uncontrollable nuisance algae growth, old tank syndrome and inevitably a 'crash'.

[Herptile]

Pretty good advice right there. Thanks!

[wombat]

Agreed!

[Spirofucci]

Love the discussion on the thread! Mental reef sex!

 

Having said that, I think this is the perfect thread to remember that there is probably so much more going on in our little reef tanks that we do not understand yet...... than things/processes that we do understand.