New member

[SLA10]

Just joined, got the itch to restart my nano after its been in storage for years.  Just recently got back to a point in life I have the time.  This is my 10g Nuvo fusion nano aio.  There's also a simple 10g which was originally meant to cycle some live rock in.  While I've had fish only tanks on/off since 80s.  This is my first jump into corals.  Tank is 9 months old, seasoned, coralline algae is starting, kind of ugly baby crap brown lol.  Just a bonded pair of clowns.  Wall hammer, frogspawn, octo spawn and various mushrooms.  Some xenia and a leather in the other tank.  Been pretty happy with the setup so far, all though mushrooms keep multiplying I may be in trouble, lol.

[Snow_Phoenix]

to NR. 

[sapling]

Nice corals, has my favorites; the rics and euphyllia. never get tired of them tbh.

are those 2-3 green centered mushrooms in the center of the tank rhodactis? I really like the look of them and other non ric mushrooms, but always strayed away from them in the end. I'm also wondering what the one in the top right is, 

welcome to the forum

[BadCrab]

3 hours ago, sapling said:

Nice corals, has my favorites; the rics and euphyllia. never get tired of them tbh.

are those 2-3 green centered mushrooms in the center of the tank rhodactis? I really like the look of them and other non ric mushrooms, but always strayed away from them in the end. I'm also wondering what the one in the top right is, 

welcome to the forum

 

OP can correct me, but I believe the top right and bottom right are both Ricordea yuma (as opposed to the more local Ricordea florida mid-tank to the right)
The fuzzy/hairy mushrooms are Rhodactis indosinensis.  They can be fast multipliers (pedal laceration and division,) and can out-competing other slower-growing corals for rock space.

Welcome to the Forum, SLA10!

[SLA10]

6 hours ago, sapling said:

Nice corals, has my favorites; the rics and euphyllia. never get tired of them tbh.

are those 2-3 green centered mushrooms in the center of the tank rhodactis? I really like the look of them and other non ric mushrooms, but always strayed away from them in the end. I'm also wondering what the one in the top right is, 

welcome to the forum

The purple, toxic green one is rhodactis I believe, was called hairy minecraft mushroom, sure that's not the real name.  Very bright toxic green body with purple polyps.  The orange and blue is ricordea Yuma, very Spiderman colors, it's left 3 or 4 chunks behind it as well as its clone in the bottom right, still on the frag.  The rhodactis have split twice and still can spread out to almost 5".

[SLA10]

There are also some blue ricordea, which don't stand out in blue light, under the octospawn and under the upper Yuma, which he is spreading out and covering lately.

[sapling]

I was thinking it was yuma but wasnt positive, yeah those are great, 

the bottom hammer looks really good, do you know offhand how many heads and the age of it? 

do the blue rics stand out in person with the actinics at all or no? they dont appear to fluoresce, 

[SLA10]

5 minutes ago, sapling said:

I was thinking it was yuma but wasnt positive, yeah those are great, 

the bottom hammer looks really good, do you know offhand how many heads and the age of it? 

do the blue rics stand out in person with the actinics at all or no? they dont appear to fluoresce, 

They flouresce under uv light, but they are easier to see in reel life, camera just doesn't pick them up well under blue light

[SLA10]

Wall hammer

[SLA10]

12 hours ago, sapling said:

Nice corals, has my favorites; the rics and euphyllia. never get tired of them tbh.

are those 2-3 green centered mushrooms in the center of the tank rhodactis? I really like the look of them and other non ric mushrooms, but always strayed away from them in the end. I'm also wondering what the one in the top right is, 

welcome to the forum

You can see the Yuma and Florida are now battling for the same spot, the Yuma split off a piece then left 2-3 more pieces behind as he climbed around to the blues spot.

[MLS_Reef]

6 hours ago, SLA10 said:

Wall hammer

That is a nice one!

[SLA10]

On 5/9/2023 at 8:55 AM, BadCrab said:

 

OP can correct me, but I believe the top right and bottom right are both Ricordea yuma (as opposed to the more local Ricordea florida mid-tank to the right)
The fuzzy/hairy mushrooms are Rhodactis indosinensis.  They can be fast multipliers (pedal laceration and division,) and can out-competing other slower-growing corals for rock space.

Welcome to the Forum, SLA10!

Speaking of rhodactis, I have one that's been in the tank for 10 months, the pic is supposed to be the wysiwyg, I don't know what light they shot it under, but it has no red to it.  Anyways, as to your comment on growth of rhodies, it hasn't grown at all in 10 months, it is on the bottom of the tank, but should have plenty of light in a 10g cube.

[SLA10]

Current pick, little to no noticeable growth.

[mcarroll]

9 hours ago, SLA10 said:

the pic is supposed to be the wysiwyg, I don't know what light they shot it under, but it has no red to it.

LOL....I hear you.   You can see the red light source they used reflecting off the bottom edge of the whitish frag plug.  Marketing – go figure.  🤷‍♂️🤪

 

4 hours ago, SLA10 said:

In fairness to all parties, we could argue they had more of a "shallow water" light setup for their photo, whereas you photos appear to be lit more like "160 meters".  Or 20,000K.

 

These corals might be more likely to be from shallower zones (not sure) – if so, then a redder-light scheme would make some logical sense.  

 

As red as that marketing photo?  Not sure about that.  Something closer to 10,000K-12,000K though?

 

9 hours ago, SLA10 said:

Anyways, as to your comment on growth of rhodies, it hasn't grown at all in 10 months, it is on the bottom of the tank, but should have plenty of light in a 10g cube.

This kind of comment always makes me ask about nutrients and flow in the tank.  

 

A coral not growing is lacking in something.  Usually it's not light.  

 

Today's pumps are too soft, so it's possible it could be flow.  

 

Excessive filtration and tank cleanliness has been a fad for some time too, which can cause nutrient supply issues.

 

Just to name a couple of common possibilities.

 

Whatever the cause, sometimes these things don't affect all corals, or even affect only a single coral.

 

So if you're curious, you have to dig into the details.  🙂 

 

So what are your test numbers usually like for this tank?  Everything, but especially for NO3 and PO4?

 

How are you doing flow in the tank?  Does food tend to fall quickly or does it get blasted around the tank "forever"?

[SLA10]

24 minutes ago, mcarroll said:

LOL....I hear you.   You can see the red light source they used reflecting off the bottom edge of the whitish frag plug.  Marketing – go figure.  🤷‍♂️🤪

 

In fairness to all parties, we could argue they had more of a "shallow water" light setup for their photo, whereas you photos appear to be lit more like "160 meters".  Or 20,000K.

 

These corals might be more likely to be from shallower zones (not sure) – if so, then a redder-light scheme would make some logical sense.  

 

As red as that marketing photo?  Not sure about that.  Something closer to 10,000K-12,000K though?

 

This kind of comment always makes me ask about nutrients and flow in the tank.  

 

A coral not growing is lacking in something.  Usually it's not light.  

 

Today's pumps are too soft, so it's possible it could be flow.  

 

Excessive filtration and tank cleanliness has been a fad for some time too, which can cause nutrient supply issues.

 

Just to name a couple of common possibilities.

 

Whatever the cause, sometimes these things don't affect all corals, or even affect only a single coral.

 

So if you're curious, you have to dig into the details.  🙂 

 

So what are your test numbers usually like for this tank?  Everything, but especially for NO3 and PO4?

 

How are you doing flow in the tank?  Does food tend to fall quickly or does it get blasted around the tank "forever"?

I only mention it because the other dozen mushrooms grow like crazy, split, tear off pieces on rock etc... and grow fine.  The orange rhodi which was a small clone on a frag smaller than a pencil eraser, sits right next to it.  Once the original mushroom climbed up onto the rock work I moved the frag to the bottom so the clone could grow, it's now 2" across, meanwhile the rhodi in question has sat an inch away and not grown a bit.  Flow in the tank is pretty high, I have upgraded the aio pump which almost doubled the gph of the original pump from 100 to 200 gph with a rotating nozzle that distributes that pressure in a circular pattern across the front of the tank and added a 2nd power head in the bottom right corner under the rock that pulses 0 to 40% to create even more random current.  Flow is really good in the tank, tuna blue light is providing plenty of light for a 10g tank, it's one of those curious things, where everything in the tank is doing great, but one guy isn't growing.  I started with 2 Florida's, 2 yumas orange, 2 rhodis purple/green.  1 Yuma has covered 1 florida and has shrank, other florida is great, yumas have generated 6 new mushrooms thru splits and tears, all are growing well.  Rhodis have split twice each and are growing well, but that one mushroom, while apparently fine, just has not grown, while a small clone beside it is 2" across now.  I've considered moving it higher in the tank but real estate is getting scarce, and light shouldn't be the issue, if coralline algae is growing on the bottom of the tank, and another rhodi an inch away has gone from 1/4 inch to 2 " its hard to figure out.

[mcarroll]

Are you testing your water?

 

What have the numbers been like?  Especially NO3 and PO4?

 

Also, you have to realize that flow is not uniform throughout the tank.  Every surface flow hits, divides the energy and direction of the flow....creating what I like to call a "flow shadow" behind the surface that was hit.  

 

Because of flow effects like this, it's perfectly possible for your other mushroom 1" away to be getting acceptable flow and this mushroom is getting less.

 

Because they are not the same mushroom, it's also possible that one has greater tolerance to the flow/nutrient/light situation than the other.

 

If you think light and flow are good "overall" then I agree on moving this coral to a different location, but more than anything else try to get it into stronger flow.

 

(If your dissolved nutrient levels are near-zero, this is likely also part of the problem.   Flow and nutrient concentration both figure into nutrient accessibility when you're a coral.)

[SLA10]

No flow shadows on anything in the front of the tank, I have a rotary nozzle that sweeps the entire front glass in a circular pattern, and it's easy to see that oscillating flow wash over the wall hammer and the 2 frags, the octospawn is in the highest flow as it's the first to catch the upswell from the wave maker pulsing under the rock. 

The lowest flow in the tank is the upper right corner as it sits under the discharge of the pump and on top of the WaveMaker, so it's just washed in return flow of the tank.  Everything else has nice movement and is easy to see everything move to the flow of the tank. 

The octospawn is splitting as it's produced a big bubble from its center.  Now as to my parameters, my phosphate I would say runs about .1 and my nitrates usually are unmeasurable at least by the api test kit I use.  I'm not dosing, I don't expect significant growth in the euphyllia, just good health. 

 

I will say that the rhodie in question has started to open up more in the last month or so, so it may be a matter of just taking longer to adapt to a new environment.  I feed once a day, lightly.

To be honest I did move a few of the mushrooms to the 2nd tank, at one point, but I don't think the lighting was adequate and they started loosing color, so I moved them back, and the small rhodie was one of them.

[mcarroll]

16 hours ago, SLA10 said:

To be honest I did move a few of the mushrooms to the 2nd tank, at one point, but I don't think the lighting was adequate and they started loosing color, so I moved them back, and the small rhodie was one of them.

Moving like that can be stressful, so I agree this is probably a factor.  But...  

 

If it's still the only one out of this group that's not really growing, then waiting is probably the way to go, but it's also possible that a little nitrate supplmentation, or even target feeding just this guy, might help the situation along.  (Only if he's a reliable eater.)  

 

Alternately, if you can reduce or eliminate any mechanical filtration and tank cleaning for a while that might also do the trick.

 

Corals tolerate low NO3 conditions really well, generally speaking.

 

But if this coral is having more trouble growing than the others, then I think it's safe at this point (not lights, not flow) to point at the tank's 0.00 ppm NO3 as the reason for his "lack of progress".  

 

Acquiring N via eating, internal manufacture and whatever dissolved sources ARE available in the water (probably minute levels of ammonia, urea, etc) are keeping him looking happy, but also acting as a limit on his overall progress due to lack of quantity.

 

Since things in general are going well, you have optimal conditions for deciding what to do (or not).  Slow growth isn't necessarily a bad thing.  🙂 

[SLA10]

2 hours ago, mcarroll said:

Moving like that can be stressful, so I agree this is probably a factor.  But...  

 

If it's still the only one out of this group that's not really growing, then waiting is probably the way to go, but it's also possible that a little nitrate supplmentation, or even target feeding just this guy, might help the situation along.  (Only if he's a reliable eater.)  

 

Alternately, if you can reduce or eliminate any mechanical filtration and tank cleaning for a while that might also do the trick.

 

Corals tolerate low NO3 conditions really well, generally speaking.

 

But if this coral is having more trouble growing than the others, then I think it's safe at this point (not lights, not flow) to point at the tank's 0.00 ppm NO3 as the reason for his "lack of progress".  

 

Acquiring N via eating, internal manufacture and whatever dissolved sources ARE available in the water (probably minute levels of ammonia, urea, etc) are keeping him looking happy, but also acting as a limit on his overall progress due to lack of quantity.

 

Since things in general are going well, you have optimal conditions for deciding what to do (or not).  Slow growth isn't necessarily a bad thing.  🙂 

I do drop a bit of shrimp down on the purple/green rhodis as they are the only ones outside of maybe the octospawn that will close up and consume food.  I don't use reef roids or anything like that, there's a line you have to walk with nitrogen, if I increase measurable nitrates, I'm going to drive phosphates into the algae range, I would like to run a refugium, so I didn't have to worry about phosphates, or run chemipure blue or other phosphate remover.  But it's a simple 10g nano, and I'm pretty happy with were I'm at right now.  

I went thru an algae stage at about 6 mo, I dropped % of lighting and dropped to about 8 hrs a day of lighting and removed as much as I could and the problem went away, I have corraline growing, I'll keep an eye on the mushroom, it has started to fill out more over the last month, tendrils more visible along its outer edge.  If anything else in the tank were having issues I might start off increasing feedings, and adding a phosphate remover.  But I appreciate your feedback, I'll keep it in mind if things don't change.

[mcarroll]

1 hour ago, SLA10 said:

if I increase measurable nitrates, I'm going to drive phosphates into the algae range,

This is a myth.  Lots of folks have been fearful of nutrients as a result.

 

CUC are what keeps algae down – in the wild and in our tanks.  

 

Keep in mind that algae like GHA (only one example) can thrive at all nutrient levels....high or low.  Thanks to how they grow and the nature of a reef, GHA usually has plenty of access to phosphate, even when levels register 0.00 pmm on your test kit.  And there are far more forms of N circulating in your tank than what registers on a NO3 test kit.  So you effectively cannot starve algae.  Not without harming your corals and possible invoking something like dino's that favors the low-nutrient environment even more.

 

IMO the reason you haven't seen coral issues is because you allow that 0.05 ppm PO4 to be there.  That's the minimum +0.02 ppm for cushion.  Higher than 0.05 ppm would be just be more cushion for coral growth, etc....no net effect on algae growth.

 

There are lots of examples of algae blooming both ways, high and low.....although these days it's much more common for new tanks to be run down to 0 ppm "by force" and high nutrient conditions are relatively rare.

 

The affect algae (and its allies) has on nutrients in most cases is to use up 100% of the dissolved nutrient supply...making life more difficult for their competitors....corals included.  It's a good strategy that works well for them!

 

This is why you see coral problems with tanks that have large algae blooms AND 0 ppm on their N and P tests.   Typically newer tanks. 

 

Whereas a mature tank (no algae blooms) that registers 0 ppm for N and P is likely to have no coral problems at all.

 

Don't hesitate to allow higher nutrient levels for your corals.   Increase your CUC if you see algae growth.  (And be mindful to remove large growths before they become established.....large growth are almost always a sign that your CUC can't keep up, so add a few more herbivores.)

 

1 hour ago, SLA10 said:

I went thru an algae stage at about 6 mo, I dropped % of lighting and dropped to about 8 hrs a day of lighting and removed as much as I could and the problem went away,

Minor correction:  You lowered light levels slowing algae growth to the point that your CUC could keep up.  At the (minor) risk of pi**ing off your corals in the process.  

 

It worked out and the tank looks great IMO, so all is well.  But a better approach would have been adding a few more snails.  Even one more might have made the difference, depending on the snail you picked and the growth at the time.  Then, no changes for your corals to adapt to.....just MDK for the algae.  Perfect.

 

Let go of the idea that a refugium or phosphate remover is a panacea for algae.  Both have their merits and uses, but neither relate strongly to algae control...and in fact might relate in the wrong direction sometimes (as a cause).  Both have caused plenty of problems (at least disappointment) when misapplied for algae control.  👍

 

The only reason that initial algae bloom usually happens is because of the lack of CUC, lack of periphyton (aka biodiversity) that's inherent to dead/clean rock, and master spike of ammonia that usually comes along with the fish and inverts when they are added too many/too quickly for the bacterial ammonia processors to deal with it.  Once your tank matures, as long as you maintain good stability (no power outages, big moves, etc) then those conditions are unlikely to repeat.   Your CUC that handled the initial bloom should be more than adequate to handle things post-bloom.

 

Last, corals are generally more reliable at using dissolved nutrients than eating even though in some ways they prefer eating.  If this shroom is a good eater and you know it, then more feedings should be a winning strategy for getting him to perk up.  👍

[Rukia]

Super cool! I’m in a similar boat: Wanting to restart my 10g nano as well. Yours looks positively amazing!! 

[banasophia]

Whoa. This thread was going along so good until we got into all the unsolicited advice and interrogation and acting like it’s a big problem if one type of mushroom is growing slowly in a tank where it’s noted that all the other types are growing particularly well. 
 

What are all these walls of text?

 

@SLA10, your tank looks great, and I loved all the pics… if you are enjoying this discussion, my apologies for stepping in and by all means carry on, but if not you do not have any obligation to defend yourself or respond to all of this. 
 

@mcarroll what is your problem dude? Chill out. This is insane. Your tanks are not even good… why don’t you go better your own tanks instead of doing this? It’s TOO much. 

[SLA10]

9 hours ago, banasophia said:

Whoa. This thread was going along so good until we got into all the unsolicited advice and interrogation and acting like it’s a big problem if one type of mushroom is growing slowly in a tank where it’s noted that all the other types are growing particularly well. 
 

What are all these walls of text?

 

@SLA10, your tank looks great, and I loved all the pics… if you are enjoying this discussion, my apologies for stepping in and by all means carry on, but if not you do not have any obligation to defend yourself or respond to all of this. 
 

@mcarroll what is your problem dude? Chill out. This is insane. Your tanks are not even good… why don’t you go better your own tanks instead of doing this? It’s TOO much. 

I'm fine, don't mind hearing other opinions.  Welcome the feedback.  Thnx for the compliment!

[TheKleinReef]

On 5/12/2023 at 2:03 PM, mcarroll said:

This is a myth.  Lots of folks have been fearful of nutrients as a result.

 

CUC are what keeps algae down – in the wild and in our tanks.  

Oh my wrong. 
lolllllll

 

 

OP. This guys advice is the same for every single possible problem, btw. He does it to seem “helpful” but it’s just a lot of his own reefing philosophy that he makes sound like legit advice. 

[TheKleinReef]

OP. Ask mccarrol to share a pic of his tank 🙂 

 

9 hours ago, SLA10 said:

I'm fine, don't mind hearing other opinions.  Welcome the feedback.  Thnx for the compliment!