BB Tank: SPS grow fast, but have lost their color?

[TryTheChi]

Interesting thread.....

I'v had similar issues too on my tank run with BB, super low nurtients as a result of prodibio and T5 lighting. Adding more food and amino acids, and lowering the photoperiod didnt prevent some of the sps teetering on the edge of beaching.

I thought I'd try a dsb (against my 'better' judgement - as I had gone to great effort to get high flow arround the base, sypone detritus out daily etc) and the near bleaching 'starvation' has stopped and the effected acros are looking much heathier. ORP has also raised from arround 340 with BB to 450 with a 4 inch dsb and stayed there so far - not what I expected with my BB hat on...

JME

After much reading arround there seems to be more to the dsb/bb discussion than just which is more sustainable in terms of no3 and po4 control. The other factors which seem to have some degree of evidence behind them are the role of aragonite sandbeds in providing a steady flow of major an minor elements through disolution, and the dsb hosting bacterial guilds and zooplancton which act as sps nutrition if released into the water column.

Interested in any views on that....

Cheers


Simon

 

[DaddyJax]

Chip, just wondering why such a defense of bb? You are not using a BB but sound as if you are a huge advocate. I can respect the Devil's Advocate position as I use it frequently.

 

[Chip Douglas]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7246686#post7246686 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by DaddyJax
Chip, just wondering why such a defense of bb? You are not using a BB but sound as if you are a huge advocate. I can respect the Devil's Advocate position as I use it frequently.

When me and my brother set-up our 180, I didn't know anything about setting up a BB aquarium, or the potential benefits. Now that I've done so much reading about it, and asked so many questions, I am confident in defending it. We'd like our 180 to be BB, but with school and everything else, it's not in the cards right now. I will most likely give BB a shot if I do a new tank down the road because it just makes sense to me. I realize there will always be sandbed advocates and there will always be BB advocates, and I try to stay far away from the threads where they come together :lol: I'm not against either method, for the record, I just prefer BB based on what I've read. I've seen plenty of tanks using sandbeds that look great, and I've seen several great BB tanks too.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7246318#post7246318 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Travis Savant
Eh, what if I switched to T5s? 4x 24w bulbs. A Tek fixture. Would that be enough for the SPS?

I really don't know that much about T5. I like them, and I like the tanks I've seen that use T5, but I'm not sure I can answer that question (I'll give you my opinion though). Danano, a user here on the forums, uses T5 only on his beautiful SPS tank, try pm'ing him, he'd probably be able to answer that question.

In my opinion, 4x24w bulbs will not be sufficient. I believe most people keeping SPS under T5's are going with the HO (high output) T5's which are 54w. I know that Danano is using 9x54w HO T5's on his 110, which is 22" tall.

 

[shelburn61]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7246532#post7246532 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by TryTheChi
Interesting thread.....

I thought I'd try a dsb (against my 'better' judgement - as I had gone to great effort to get high flow arround the base, sypone detritus out daily etc) and the near bleaching 'starvation' has stopped and the effected acros are looking much heathier. ORP has also raised from arround 340 with BB to 450 with a 4 inch dsb and stayed there so far - not what I expected with my BB hat on...

How long since you added the sand? Did you change anything else? What kind of time frame did you see on the changes in orp, reverse of bleaching, etc.?

 

[dvanacker]

Chip the 24watt T5HO's are the 2 footers. 54watt T5HO's are the 4 footers.

 

[Chip Douglas]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7247756#post7247756 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by dvanacker
Chip the 24watt T5HO's are the 2 footers. 54watt T5HO's are the 4 footers.

Oh, okay. It'd still be best to contact someone with T5 experience, I'd hate to tell you that it would be plenty of light and have that not be true.

 

[onthefly]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7246256#post7246256 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Chip Douglas
You would get the same result by keeping the tank as a BB and cutting back your photoperiod.

ERRRRRRRR! Thanks for playing we have a lovely parting gift for you back stage.......

Once again......been there, done that.......DID NOT HELP! Tried over the course of 4-5 month lowering my photoperiod. From 10hr, to 8, to 7, to 6, to 5, and I ended with a 4hr photoperiod, which I kept for about a month.

Again, with the all the remedies mentioned: excessive feeding, raising the light, lowering the photoperiod, and $200 worth of zeo additives......I saw only "minor" improvements" (slight PE, small growth spurt, maybe some color changes) for about 4-7 days.....then a slow reversion back to the usual MO.

Although I've been pretty pessimistic these days regarding reefing......The addition of sand is beginning to restore some of excitment for the hobby.

 

[Chip Douglas]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7248214#post7248214 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by onthefly
ERRRRRRRR! Thanks for playing we have a lovely parting gift for you back stage.......

Once again......been there, done that.......DID NOT HELP! Tried over the course of 4-5 month lowering my photoperiod. From 10hr, to 8, to 7, to 6, to 5, and I ended with a 4hr photoperiod, which I kept for about a month.

Again, with the all the remedies mentioned: excessive feeding, raising the light, lowering the photoperiod, and $200 worth of zeo additives......I saw only "minor" improvements" (slight PE, small growth spurt, maybe some color changes) for about 4-7 days.....then a slow reversion back to the usual MO.

Although I've been pretty pessimistic these days regarding reefing......The addition of sand is beginning to restore some of excitment for the hobby.

Just because it didn't work for you doesn't mean that it won't work for someone else. It seems to be a fairly agreed upon method when it comes to BB tanks, usually because when maintained properly you have such clear water quality the lighting becomes too intense.

A lot of other factors could've contributed to your corals not recovering even when you reduced your photoperiod, especially since you saw improvement and then things started to go downhill again. In my opinion, 4-7 days is not nearly enough time to decide whether or not a reduced photoperiod is helping or not. When things started to look rough again, did you test for any other factors, or did you assume it was the lighting? I noticed you also have a 20 gallon, is water temperature ever an issue when running your halide? what about salinity, are you able to keep it stable? I remember when I had a 30 gallon reef with a 250w 10k DE over it, I had to monitor salinity all the time, because evaporation can raise the salinity of a tank that size pretty fast.

Cutting our MH's back from 9 hours a day to 7 has made some great improvements in coral color, and has maintained it for a few weeks now. We may even go down to 6 hours a day.

 

[shelburn61]

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

Chip,
The guy already said he didn't want a reduced photoperiod. It seems a little strange that you are contradicting others' firsthand experience without having any of your own. You may have read a lot on BB, but there is a TON of bad or incomplete information on these boards.

 

[shelburn61]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7248214#post7248214 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by onthefly
ERRRRRRRR! Thanks for playing we have a lovely parting gift for you back stage.......

Once again......been there, done that.......DID NOT HELP! Tried over the course of 4-5 month lowering my photoperiod. From 10hr, to 8, to 7, to 6, to 5, and I ended with a 4hr photoperiod, which I kept for about a month.

Again, with the all the remedies mentioned: excessive feeding, raising the light, lowering the photoperiod, and $200 worth of zeo additives......I saw only "minor" improvements" (slight PE, small growth spurt, maybe some color changes) for about 4-7 days.....then a slow reversion back to the usual MO.

Although I've been pretty pessimistic these days regarding reefing......The addition of sand is beginning to restore some of excitment for the hobby.

How do you explain the improvement from sand other that increased nutrients in the water? There is nothing magical about sand other than its ability to trap detritus.

Turning down your skimmer, no water changes, and increased feeding would have had similar effects. Using zeo was just counteracting any effects your excessive feeding would have had anyway. The reason things reverted back was because you hadn't permanently changed the environment. The nutrient-poor situation just came back when you quit importing or resumed exporting organics

 

[Chip Douglas]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7249614#post7249614 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by shelburn61
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

Chip,
The guy already said he didn't want a reduced photoperiod. It seems a little strange that you are contradicting others' firsthand experience without having any of your own. You may have read a lot on BB, but there is a TON of bad or incomplete information on these boards.

I'm just trying to show people that a lot of other factors are involved in why SPS might do this, including photoperiod. I trust my sources for information very much and my sources certainly aren't limited to RC alone.

I'm just offering my opinion, and he's free to choose which path he takes. I would just personally like to see him try a couple more things before dumping a sandbed back into the tank. Over the years we've had DSB tanks, SSB tanks, and when I worked for a LFS we had BB 75's where the SPS were kept. I've seen them all and they all have their pros and cons, in the end you just have to decide which works best for you. If I do another tank someday I'm definitely going to give BB a shot for myself.

I don't want this to turn into a BB vs Sandbed debate, so I'll leave it alone from here. There are so many methods to try that can produce a successful reef, and what works for one person won't always work for another.

Good luck, I hope you're able to get everything back on track!

 

[Travis Savant]

Chip, the reason why it seams that I don't "care" to try other methods, is because OTF's set up is damn dear the same as mine to a tee. I figure, why try methods when some one else with the exact same system dried over the course of 4-5 months and saw little to no results, but found that adding sand was the ONLY thing that brought his tank back from the brink of destruction?

 

[madmac]

Travis, I was just looking at your pics again, the 1st page ones. I'm wondering if the live rocks look as if they lack on coraline algae. I know those pics don't represent the whole tank,... it looks kinda like something is amiss there. Maybe there's a short on some minerals that should be looked into. :?

I think the rocks in tank does paint a picture, and yours clearly shows a lack of algae, indicating probably zero nutrients, that however shouldn't stop coraline from showing up. Maybe the rocks too should be looked at, i.e. where did you get them from?

I'm throwing some probable cause to the equation, before you go with sand. If anything, this the best time to figure it out.

 

[G-money]

Why are some of us able to keep colorful corals growing long-term with a BB approach? I'm going on 2 years since I ditched the sandbed and couldn't be happier. Sand or lack of sand does not = success. It's not the deal maker/breaker.

IMO, you just have way too much light blasting your corals for the system they are in.

 

[MiddletonMark]

Agree with G-money.

It's hard not to note that all these problem BB tanks are quite small in size [under 30g]. Can't help but think that 250w bulbs on smaller tanks has something to do with it. While decreasing photoperiod is one thing ... have any of you thought about running 150/175's?

While folks tell me my experience growing Acropora under 175's is impossible ... it's hard to get beyond the fact that you're using similar lights to folks with 24" deep tanks. Playing with photoperiod does little do decrease the excess intensity, IMO.

In addition - it's hard not to wonder [IMO] about whether the small water volume, limited places for nutrients to build could not be kept `too sterile'. Just my opinion - but while I've seen some of what is discussed here - the standard suggested solutions [and time] seemed to do the trick. Then again, I've got 3x the rock [to trap nutrients, be it in limited fashion] and perhaps there's a difference between BB nano's and BB larger tanks.

 

[Wiskey]

I wanted to mention this. When I first went BB everything bleached, so I dropped my photopeiod to almost nothing, raised my bulbs, started getting issues of STN, no coraline algae, poor PE, I started feeding more, my acros started to brown back out and coraline started to grow. I then started upping the photoperiod back up, with each 15 min bump my alk, CA demand went up, color got better and began to go up.

I am now at 9 hours photoperiod, and am currently dropping the lights back down becuse of one acro that was STN ing at the base a bit (due to lack of light I beleive). I will be happy to get my light back up to 22,000 or so LUX (up from my current 10,000).

I think my problems, and probably yours, are due to new tank instability, and insifficant import of food. I took to feeding my fish 3-4 times what I used to, and I doubled my Bio Load, plus I turn off my return pump (so nothing gets skimmed out) for 30 min after I feed. The corals seem to love it.

HTH,
Whiskey

 

[G-money]

Another thing to think about is that lots of people make this switch and expect a transition as if the envirnonment the corals have "grown into" hasn't been altered. Meaning, lots of these corals have adapted to life in a higher nutrient (overall dirtier)system. There is definitely going to be stress incolved in such a transition. People seem to expect the quick ticket to a better tank. When they have to actually watch this transition, panic and regret seem to ensue. I'm sorry, but a stable SPS tank doesn't happen in a few months. I'd say it took a good solid year for mine to take off again.

Even though I'm more than happy now, I did immediately lose a few odd frags and smaller colonies when I went from sand to no sand. I never once thought that it had anything to do with the lack of sand itself. These things take time. Coincidence or not, I've also noticed a higher success rate with wild specimens since going BB.

 

[Wiskey]

I've also noticed a higher success rate with wild specimens since going BB.

You are not the only person I have seen say that.

Whiskey

 

[TryTheChi]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7247252#post7247252 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by shelburn61
How long since you added the sand? Did you change anything else? What kind of time frame did you see on the changes in orp, reverse of bleaching, etc.?

Its a month now - and the only other thing I chabged about a week ago was to add a little Iron supplement, but this was after I noticed the bleaching tendany reducing.

The ORP went up fairly quickly ie next day to arround 400 and further to 450 over the subsequent week. Initially I thought it maybe the dsb covering some detritus and isolating it from the main body of water temporarily.

The coloring up happened arround a week later and progressively strengthened for a further couple of weeks.

The acro in the centre of the attaced pic was white along the tops and sides of the branches - with the tips being brownish. Others were effected too - but that was the reference coral for me.

Obviously some people can keep sps real nice with BB, so I'm not saying anything other than this is my experience.

However IMO SB look more natural than BB so I'm pleased that the change worked as hoped - and a further benefit is my better half can have her gang of yellow headed jawfish

I am looking very closely into the effect of bacteria on coral nutrion so thing may improve even further with time - but looking 5-6 years down the line old tank syndrome may or may not be a risk - so I intend to replace the top 1.5 - 2 inches every year or so.

Again - JME

Cheers
Simon

 

[mntl]

I usually try to stay out of the dsb BB things but I run (and have run for quite awhile) small SPS only nano's. To give you an idea my display is a 20"/20"/12"deep BB nano with 1/2" of starboard, 10gal sump. My lighting is a single 175w iwasaki aqua2 14k in a luminarc mini, bulb is 7" off the water, run on a ice-cap ballast. My salinity/calc/temp(cooling and heating) is all digitally monitored and controlled, salinity is checked via refractometer, temp is controlled by a ranco and numbers are backed by a pinpoint digital meters. My parameters are stable, they have not changed in over a year, and the usually measured levels (phos/nitr/trit/amo) are undetectable via salifert.

My lighting is fairly intense, things that are newly added will almost 100% of the time lighten and bleach if I do not start them off on the bottom for atleast a month or two. If I start up higher (even half way, and remeber this tank is only 12" deep) they will first color up and grow quickly, overtime they will lighten and continue to grow, they will slowly loose polyp extension and eventually the tissue will seem to dissapear over the course of a few months (massive thinning not recession). It is the light, and the lack of a continual food source in the tank. With small tanks, whenever we feed, the water is filtered through completely (assuming you have your equipement running efficiently) within an extremely short period of time. So the only suspended matter in the tank is predominately snail poop, which is very large compared to what would actually be able to be consumed by these sps. So they are low on a decent food source. Then we blast them with a ton of light and they slooooowly thin and deterierate (sp?). I have tried running lights for longer/shorter periods and raising/lowering the bulb. But I have found that there are many successful people (JBNY clkwrk etc) that have corals under more intense light than mine and just as close or closer to the bulb with darker/richer coloration. They also have much higher biolodes per gallon (nano's tend to be VERY sparse, a couple of damsels can hardly create a continual eat-poop cycle) we dont have fish eating and pooping all day, there is not enough on our rocks (assuming yours are clean) and we do not feed tiny amounts 30 times a day (as grazing fish in a large well-established tank get) we just give huge imputs a couple times a day and it goes down to nothing within an hour then the fish poop a couple of times and that is skimmed uot before it even breaks down out of a clump. Any substantial population of critters are not able to grow due to this low-food/high-predation atmosphere (I know, I am sure you see pods, I have quite a few, but it is still a dismal amount-per surface area compared to a well established large system).

I currently am very satisfied with my colors and growth, but I now keep all of my acros in the lower portion of the tank, my rockwork is set-up to allow a large portion of the water colmumn to flow uninterrupted (it is very low, with tons of space aaround and inbetween) and the rocks have just as much flow under them as above them, but flow is not harsh or direct. I focus more on even light spread than intensity (this is the hardest thing in a small tank, especially with a single MH, T-5 or 2x small MH would be ideal. I have found that frozen/chopped/blended food is superior to flake/fish kibble, in terms of acro coloration and polyp extension (cant tell you why?, maybe because it is messier ?)

Would sand fix your problems? Doubt it, it may be providing that missing link/food source, but for how long? can you control the food source if it makes too much or stops? after a couple of years with it my last tank that had it was successful, my BB tanks are more ideal for sps only though imo. It is hard to get a sand bed to perform it's duties for an extended period of time with such a small amount of sand and such a small food-chain with such high predation and unstead inputs-outputs of food. Unless you are willing to put a 6" bed in a nano . Look ahead years not months and focus more on finding the "what to feed" answer. I would also lower the light, more even spread/less intensity.

just my .02c (maybe even .05c)
sorry so long.

-John