Guess the Phosphate level

[Thales]

You named a fish after me? I'm honored! It's like your tank is a special club or something. Then again, there's a lot of Marks in this hobby! Anyway, I wasn't asking in regards to linking bio-load to phosphate. I'm with you on the phosphate skepticism. I remember seeing an experiment where sections of actual reef were blocked off from algae grazers, and those areas were quickly overgrown with algae. With such clean natural water, the casual observer would think about rock-laden phosphates and detritus. And it also lends a lot to the absolute necessity of herbivores on a reef..... Anyway, I was curious about your fish in regards to grazers. But also would love a complete picture regarding sponge munchers and pod predators. If you think that would derail the thread, no worries. I'll hit you up via other channels.

I was just goofing Mark -
1 Yellow Tang, Zebrasoma flavescens
2 (pair) Mandarin dragonet, Synchiropus splendidus
1 Rhomboid wrasse, Cirrhilabrus rhomboidalis
1 Blotched Anthas, Holanthias borbonius
2 (pair) Marine Betta, Calloplesiops altevelis
1 blue striped pipefish, Doryrhamphus excisus
1 Multicolored Angel, Centropyge multicolor
1 Potters Angel,Centropyge potteri
1 Orchid Dottyback, Pseudochromis fridmani

I also removed last week
2 (pair) Acreichthys tomentosus because they were nibbling on everything
1 Yellow Blotch Rabbitfish, Siganus guttatus
1 Gold Spotted Rabbitfish, Siganus punctatus
because they were nibbling on stuff and didn't seem to be eating the bryopsis - they have been in the tank less than a year.

Some of the fish in the top list have been in the tank a long time 5+years, if not 8+ years.

There are some reports that indicate that the Centropyge have a hefty impact on algae.

There are lots of various pods (from 10 years of tank) and some snails - beats me what is in there.

 

[Thales]

May I suggest that "X" could be amino acids. I subscribe to the latter (i.e. "in the presence of "X", PO4 no longer causes problems") To quote Habib (of Salifert): "Amino acids fulfil many important functions . They stabilise the skeletal material avoiding the transformation into a totally different crystal structure, and they also decrease the negative effect of phosphate on coral growth"

I would love to see some evidence that supports those claims, and some evidence that shows that additional addition of amino acids (beyond what is added with food) is beneficial, and in what way, for a reef tank. A simple side by side with the only difference being an addition of amino acids to one tank would be a great start.

 

[Thales]

Couldn't agree more, Jordan..
What is a new reefer or even a seasoned reefer to take away from this thread?

Love it

Mostly, to be skeptical... Even of his thread..

Absolutely.

Thales' tank cannot be used as evidence of anything and especially cannot be used by a newbe as an example of how to keep his/her reef.

I am not sure of that. Why cannot it be used as evidence of anything? If anecdote is all we have, my tank and several more we point out in the upcoming article, are running higher than 'conventional' phosphate levels (where did that level come from BTW?) it seems that my tank is evidence of something.

A new tank (let's say less than 1 1/2 years old), I suspect would fail horribly if it had Thales' water chemistry..

Now that would be an interesting experiment. Before phosphate reducers, people used to recommend keeping the tank in the dark for a month or two after they cycle to prevent algae problems, and tanks seemed just fine. Perhaps 'maturity' is important, perhaps the rush to stock tanks is problematic in terms of overall tank yummyness.

This thread is for educational purposes and what it teaches is that there are many common practices in this hobby that generally get people closer to succes but sometimes (ok, Thales, perhaps even often) there are practices that produce good results that seem to go against conventional wisdom.
For a new reefer, conventional wisdom is the best there is at the moment and conventional wisdom suggests controlled levels of n and p produce better results than uncontrolled n and p..

But which conventional wisdom? Zeovit method? Balling method? Berlin method? ATS? The sps culture of RC? R2R? MR? A bottled solution? Lanthanum Chloride? The companies selling you the paraphernalia to keep n and p low?

In a mature system (I'd say 4-5 years old) when sponges, bacteria, microfauna and whatever else populates a system and it has established some sort of solid mini ecosystem, it seems that higher levels of n and p aren't as impacting on the health of the inhabitants.. Providing there is a multitude of algae grazers..

Might be. It seems to me that the biggest problem people see from high p is algae, so if you don't have algae problems, do you really need to worry about p? Maybe.

A new reefer or even an experienced one dealing with a set back must read this thread and many others as well as whatever research he/she cares to find and come up with a plan.. This plan will be based (more often than not) on conventional wisdom and even though some will disagree, more often than not conventional wisdom is more of a help than a hindrance...

It depends on the conventional wisdom. Many of the reefers I know that have been in it a long time, that do service, don't seem to care about working n and p. They are still doing the same thing they have been doing for years with great success. Conventional wisdom is relative, and currently seems to span a great deal of different methodologies.
You larger point is something I completely agree with - someone looking for advice has to make some kind of decision about what to do, and on the internets that can be difficult because you can find support for any idea. I generally suggest that people look for images and video of tanks they like the look of and consider emulating that methodology.

Thales' tank I would argue is more of a hindrance than a help BUT I know Thales is not suggesting that people try to follow his numbers.... That's why this thread is here... To help people think for themselves and to gather up as much varying evidence that fits in with their individual reef keeping ideology and implement the practices he/she feels are best for them... If it doesn't work, they must go back the source of information and formulate a new plan based on what most people do to be successfull.. that's conventional wisdom.. Whether it's scientifically proven or anecdotal, trends in conventional wisdom seem to lead most (maybe only 51%) people to a higher degree of success.

Great!

I find that, although this thread is incredibly thought provoking- even eye opening, there is an element of futility to it.. Basically, no matter what you do, you are blind and may fail and you can't trust anything or any information..

Yes! I think the idea that was put out there when mini reefs hit the market was that reefing was easy, and that that attitude has led a lot of people into the hobby that shouldn't be in the hobby, as they kill things, get frustrated, and then quit.

But one has to trust the practices that lead the majority of people to some level of success and at the moment this comes from anecdotal evidence and not science..

I do question who the majority is, as what the majority does is dependent on which majority you look at.

Thanks for the post!

 

[Thales]

Well, I haven't really had a chance to peer in your sump and ponder, so Its hard to get specific.

If I were to make such a change, I would be curious to know how that might affect the sump. You are potentially leaving a bunch of snacks in that there sump. I'd be curious to know if anything showed up to dine or if the detritus just accumulates.

Looks like a bunch of mulm down there. Almost all the water from the overflows goes through the skimmer before hitting the sump proper. Sometimes I pretend that I am going to grow algae down there, but lately it doesn't seem to be growing well.

 

[dkeller_nc]

You larger point is something I completely agree with - someone looking for advice has to make some kind of decision about what to do, and on the internets that can be difficult because you can find support for any idea.

And, unfortunately, the very format leads to real problems for someone just starting out. Reef Central has made an excellent attempt to try to alleviate some of that with "stickies" at the top of the "New to the Hobby" forum, but unfortunately the information is still fragmented out by specific topic.

So a beginning reefer to some extent has to know what question to ask (or even to know that a question needs to be asked).

To me, this is where books come in. It really astounds me that many (typically younger, but not always) are perfectly willing to spend several thousand on a reef tank, but aren't in the least interested in buying and reading a $30 book on the subject. The advantage a book has over a forum or an internet search is that there is a table of contents, and if the author has done a reasonably good job, that table of contents contains a list of the basics of what a beginning reefer needs to know to get a decent start.

 

[AcroporAddict]

And, unfortunately, the very format leads to real problems for someone just starting out. Reef Central has made an excellent attempt to try to alleviate some of that with "stickies" at the top of the "New to the Hobby" forum, but unfortunately the information is still fragmented out by specific topic.

So a beginning reefer to some extent has to know what question to ask (or even to know that a question needs to be asked).

To me, this is where books come in. It really astounds me that many (typically younger, but not always) are perfectly willing to spend several thousand on a reef tank, but aren't in the least interested in buying and reading a $30 book on the subject. The advantage a book has over a forum or an internet search is that there is a table of contents, and if the author has done a reasonably good job, that table of contents contains a list of the basics of what a beginning reefer needs to know to get a decent start.

When I got into reefing around 2007 after 30+ years in the FW/FW planted tank hobby, I got involved in my local reef club and started reading up on websites like my local club's, Reef Central, and others. As my preferences in corals species developed (SPS), I basically didn't reinvent the wheel when I set up my system. I recreated the basic husbandry methods of those in my local club who had what I considered to be successful reef tanks, combined with reading tons of tank build threads, etc and seeing what their husbandry methods were as well.

The snake oil and latest fad trends are not limited to Reefs, with plenty being marketed in all areas of Aquarium keeping. Saw tons of them in the freshwater arena as well.

New or unproven methods will teach either what does or does not work, and that has value. Individual responsibility is to perform due diligence as best you can if you are thinking of trying something that has potentially negative or positive consequences for your reef.

The unproven methods I have tried successfully (mostly pest eradication) all came as a result of anecdotal observation by adopters, and were tried by me because reefers I trusted used them successfully as well. Whereas some may be cautious and not try something unless it has been scientifically proven or verified, their choice may mean continually dealing with an ongoing pest for an extended period of time. An adopter of an anecdotal method might nuke his reef, or he may take care of a pest in a short period of time, not have to deal with it any more, and can move on to other things. Your reef, your time, your choice.

I found the most effective chemical method of nuisance anemone/polyp/coral control I have ever used in an obscure web page reference from 2002 about 5 years ago, and it has been widely adopted by my local reef club, one of the largest in the country. Had I not been willing to try it myself, and others in my local club not trusted me and my anecdotal experience using it enough to try it themselves, no one in my club would have derived the benefits from it these last 5 years.

You have to use what you have available, and you need to cautiously filter what there is available regarding husbandry methods.

 

[johnike]

One of the best threads I've ever run across.

~Sent from my high Nitrate/Phosphate, well water, Berlin Method, colorful SPS, w/ancient DSB system~

 

[reefmutt]

thales, what i should have said is that your tank can't be used as evidence of anything any more than any other one tank can..

i don't know this but i think that there is a preponderance of successful reefs using methods (whether they be zeo, dsb or clay-boa- whatever that is..) which control nutrients and have success….. perhaps i am perpetuating the lie!!

conventional wisdom does indeed span many methodologies but what many/most of these methodologies have in common is having some control of pollution (n and p, organics)
thales, you don't seem to really try to control them at all… i think your tank goes against conventional wisdom… a convention of nutrient control which has produced more successful tanks than the convention of letting nutrients go willy nilly has..
Am i perpetuating the lie again??

i go back to my point of a new reefer, a new reefer has to get to know his/her reef… at least have an understanding of pollution control, amongst other extremely important parameters. Once they observe the relationships between energy in and energy out, they will be much better armed with knowledge, which will allow them to tweak their reefs the way they want to.

"Yes! I think the idea that was put out there when mini reefs hit the market was that reefing was easy, and that that attitude has led a lot of people into the hobby that shouldn't be in the hobby, as they kill things, get frustrated, and then quit."

i agree with this, completely but on some levels your tank, this thread runs the risk of perpetuating this.. hopefully, by now anybody reading this thread won't fall prey to tunnel vision reef keeping.

when you say,
'I generally suggest that people look for images and video of tanks they like the look of and consider emulating that methodology.'
what is the methodology that you use? would you suggest people follow your methodology?

im not trying to be argumentative.. well i guess I am, but not in a disrespectful way.. it just seems that this statement sort of goes against the spirit of this thread, yet i would agree with it except where it comes to emulating your tank

clearly, you are doing something as right as any other successful reef keeper.. not sure what, though!

I certainly look forward to reading your article.. and thank you for this thread!

 

[dkeller_nc]

You have to use what you have available, and you need to cautiously filter what there is available regarding husbandry methods.

Your careful approach to research is commendable, and perhaps obviates the need to consult the common reef references. Unfortunately, that careful approach and joining a reef club to gain knowledge from more experienced folks doesn't seem to be the norm.

 

[DiscusHeckel]

I would love to see some evidence that supports those claims, and some evidence that shows that additional addition of amino acids (beyond what is added with food) is beneficial, and in what way, for a reef tank. A simple side by side with the only difference being an addition of amino acids to one tank would be a great start.

This is the best I can offer you to the best of my knowledge. As I am not a marine biologist I am unable to set up and carry out the kind of controlled experiment you require. Sorry...

The evidence presented in this scientific article is good enough for me to dose amino acids in addition to my heavy feeding I do three times a day. Anecdotally (sorry I know this is not good enough), my corals react positively to amino acid dosing.

Moreover, I will approach Habib if I can get hold of him (he is one of the sponsors of a UK forum to which I am subscribed) to back up his claims.

By the way, this is a great thread for which I thank you.

:beer:

 

[Thales]

thales, what i should have said is that your tank can't be used as evidence of anything any more than any other one tank can..

Gotcha!

i don't know this but i think that there is a preponderance of successful reefs using methods (whether they be zeo, dsb or clay-boa- whatever that is..) which control nutrients and have success….. perhaps i am perpetuating the lie!!

I don't know if it is a lie or not. Part of the problem that I may be expressing is that there are some (many?) proponents of the different methodologies that are adamant that their way is the right way.

conventional wisdom does indeed span many methodologies but what many/most of these methodologies have in common is having some control of pollution (n and p, organics)

You bet. Nutrient control is pretty central to almost all methodologies - I actually can't think of one that doesn't - and I think the confusion comes when nutrient control becomes chasing numbers.

thales, you don't seem to really try to control them at all… i think your tank goes against conventional wisdom… a convention of nutrient control which has produced more successful tanks than the convention of letting nutrients go willy nilly has..

I am trying to control them, just not obsessing about it. I have a decent skimmer, usually there is some kind of macro algae growing in the sump, a bunch of live rock, and I usually dose Kalk, and a RDSB - all of those are at least partially for nutrient control. I stopped working on trying to knock the phosphate down for a few reasons 1- I am a lazy. 2 - It was expensive and a pain in the butt having to change GFO so often. 3 - the more I researched phosphate I couldn't find super convincing support for the problems that 'high' phosphate was supposed to incur (I didn't have an algae problem and the 'brittleness' reported in that pocci study didn't seem to have a practical impact). As I got more lazy about trying to deal with the phosphate, I noticed no real difference in the corals. IMO, phosphate is really the only thing 'out of whack' in my system.

Am i perpetuating the lie again??

Dunno, I am not really sure what you think the lie is.

i go back to my point of a new reefer, a new reefer has to get to know his/her reef… at least have an understanding of pollution control, amongst other extremely important parameters. Once they observe the relationships between energy in and energy out, they will be much better armed with knowledge, which will allow them to tweak their reefs the way they want to.

You bet. I suggest that new reefers read everything, and find a mentor or to to discuss stuff. I also suggest they start with a reasonable sized tank and only cultured animals to learn on. They have to develop a plan that makes sense to them then see how it works in reality.

"Yes! I think the idea that was put out there when mini reefs hit the market was that reefing was easy, and that that attitude has led a lot of people into the hobby that shouldn't be in the hobby, as they kill things, get frustrated, and then quit."

i agree with this, completely but on some levels your tank, this thread runs the risk of perpetuating this.. hopefully, by now anybody reading this thread won't fall prey to tunnel vision reef keeping.

Yeah, I don't know what to do about that. Usually, that kind of thinking comes from wanting to skip steps, and I don't know what to do to address that issue except hope. In the meantime, I try not to hide the idea that what we do can be complicated. I think more knowledge is better than less, even if it seems more confusing. I think reefkeeping at this point is as much an art as a science, and that there are therefore esoteric subtitles that may not be easy to get our minds around.

when you say,
'I generally suggest that people look for images and video of tanks they like the look of and consider emulating that methodology.'
what is the methodology that you use?

A straight forward system and benign neglect. Simple skimming, live rock for ammonia processing, RDSB for NNR, Ca Reactor (which I think of more as an alkalinity reactor) and not to mess with it too much. Lots of flow and 'good' lighting. Feed a lot. Not sure what we would call that.

would you suggest people follow your methodology?

Sure - if they want a tank that looks like mine and they get a good understanding of how and why I am doing what I am doing. Before they do, I would like them to read all the stuff I have written about the tank, the disasters, and even check the original build thread that got deleted by accident on another forum but was put back together from caches on my site. I would also suggest that they read Charles and Julians books.

im not trying to be argumentative.. well i guess I am, but not in a disrespectful way..

I gotcha! You don't seem abrasive so it feels like we are just talking, which is great.

it just seems that this statement sort of goes against the spirit of this thread, yet i would agree with it except where it comes to emulating your tank
clearly, you are doing something as right as any other successful reef keeper.. not sure what, though!

That is the interesting part. Maybe phosphate isn't the boogyman. When Julian was over we were talking about whether the tank would be better with lower phosphate, and how we could possibly determine that. For me, if it is expensive and time consuming, it doesn't seem worth the effort to change what is working. I am considering some kind of ATS and have been talking with Morgan from Inland aquatics, we'll see how that pans out.

I certainly look forward to reading your article.. and thank you for this thread!

Thanks and thanks for your input!

 

[Thales]

I found the most effective chemical method of nuisance anemone/polyp/coral control I have ever used in an obscure web page reference from 2002 about 5 years ago, and it has been widely adopted by my local reef club, one of the largest in the country.

Right on. Which method is that?

 

[Thales]

This is the best I can offer you to the best of my knowledge.

Good stuff - though it seems to be about corals making amino acids, not adding them into the water for corals to uptake.

As I am not a marine biologist I am unable to set up and carry out the kind of controlled experiment you require. Sorry...

Sure you can. Get two tanks, set them up as identically as possible, add frags. Give the frags time to recover. Keep the methodology the same for both tanks, but start adding some commercial amino supplement to one of them. The hard part will be figuring out a way to quantify or even tell if there are differences between the two tanks or not.
The above is the first simple experiment, and I understand that even that takes time and money. This simple side by side trial may or may not give direction for further experiments.
You don't have to be a marine biologist to do science!

The evidence presented in this scientific article is good enough for me to dose amino acids in addition to my heavy feeding I do three times a day.

I might have missed it, but the paper didn't seem to say anything about dosing amino acids, so I don't know if dosing amino acids to the water column actually is helpful or not.

Anecdotally (sorry I know this is not good enough), my corals react positively to amino acid dosing.

Just stating that it is anecdote makes the anecdote more powerful. So - how are you determining positive reaction? How do you know it is the amino acid additions that are making that reaction and not the food you are feeding?

Moreover, I will approach Habib if I can get hold of him (he is one of the sponsors of a UK forum to which I am subscribed) to back up his claims.

That would be great. Tell him I say hi. I haven't talked to him since there was a rumor that he as dead.

By the way, this is a great thread for which I thank you.

:beer:

Thanks and thanks for participating.

 

[AcroporAddict]

Your careful approach to research is commendable, and perhaps obviates the need to consult the common reef references. Unfortunately, that careful approach and joining a reef club to gain knowledge from more experienced folks doesn't seem to be the norm.

Sorry if my post came across as disagreement to your original one stating the need for book reference. I totally agree with that as well. A good library of marine/reef reference books is a great resource for anyone. I still own my Martin Moe and Stephen Spotte books.

My post was meant to be supplemental to yours.

 

[Lubeck]

Here is a theory.... I believe the answer is the maturity of the tank. Are there any elevated PO tanks out there (over 0.08) that are younger than 2 years that have no sps coloration issues or algae issues?

I think mature tanks, greater than 3 years is why Thales can have the levels he has. (not the only reason buy a main contributing factor....)

I would be interested in seeing when this article comes out if there is a pattern with all the tanks that have elevated levels and if they are matured tanks.


I will also say that it doesn't mean that keeping these levels would be "best practice" but that the mature reef may tolerate the changes and adapt to them more readily.

 

[drdoolittle]

Nice tank Rich! Was this the same tank that had an alk overdose a few years ago?

 

[Ink]

Maturity?

My 120 gal SPS tank is 4 years old and has always hap PO4 0,00. Results: inconstant growth and colors. Some corals with good growth/scarce color, some good col/gro, some scarce col/gro, some good col/scarce grow.
Now I've decided finally to increase my organic level. Well algae are growing... colors are awful, at least...
It takes much time to reach a new stability.

Nobody talked about light intensity and duration. It's striclty linked to inorganic level. My tank has been lit with 12h per day with full light (10 x 54w T5). After have spent some time looking on beautiful tanks here on RC whose history is well documented and proved excellent results during time, I've decided to reduce light to 6h full light and 12h with 2 blue+ tubes.
IMO that's a fundamental step. I think light has main role in deplet organic nutrients. You all focused on PO4 alone. They're only one result of many factors. Not the main factor driving a tank. All IMO.

Anyway, this is a fantastic thread, but I think it's not so easy to emulate good looking tank. I tried doing it since long time, but not all fundamental factors are well stressed.

 

[Ink]

Sorry, but my message results even to me quite cryptic because of my awful english...
I meant that looking and reading about good looking tank and also talking to their owners, makes difficult to find and emulate all the fundamental factors that lead to similar results.
Maybe You do everything but one thing and Your tank don't thrive because of that lack or that factor that You missed.
BTW I'm according to Thales that trying and making your own experience is the right way.

 

[Thales]

Nice tank Rich! Was this the same tank that had an alk overdose a few years ago?

Kinda. Kalk overdose - One in 2009, and one in 2011. Both kalk overdoses, but for different reasons.

http://packedhead.net/2009/epic-fail-–-the-anatomy-of-a-disaster/

http://packedhead.net/2011/p237/

So really, all the SPS growth in my tank is from 2011 and newer.

 

[dkeller_nc]

Sorry if my post came across as disagreement to your original one stating the need for book reference. I totally agree with that as well. A good library of marine/reef reference books is a great resource for anyone. I still own my Martin Moe and Stephen Spotte books.

My post was meant to be supplemental to yours.

Actually, your approach is preferable in my mind (join a local reefing club!). This really ought to be standard advice in the "New to the Hobby" forum, with "get some reference books and read them" as a second choice, "get your advice by posting questions on RC" as a third choice, and "get your advice from your LFS and wing it" as a distant fourth choice. I spend a lot of time in the New to the Hobby section, and unfortunately, it seems like #4 is the preferred route.