Learning/rebuilding from my epic fail
- Thread starter reefmutt
- Start date
biggles
Premium Member
Love the FTS Matt, it's going to look insane when the acros grow a bit more and the colors begin interacting greater. Can hardly spot that new piece of rock btw 
Your purple tang is very cool, what's that big white and yellow butterfly looking fish mate - that one looks awesome.
Have a great new year buddy
Your purple tang is very cool, what's that big white and yellow butterfly looking fish mate - that one looks awesome.
Have a great new year buddy
Myka
Reefing since '93
Happy new year Matt! Nice FTS! It's certainly full!
I totally agree with you on the NO3 and PO4 post, I understand that like elementary school. The point I was trying to make is that since there is nuisance algae brewing, the problem is greater than what your test kits tell you.
If it was me, I'd be experimenting with nighttime NO3 dosing at a level where by morning it is undetectable. Since Acros feed mainly at night and algae feeds mainly during the day, it may be of benefit. Probably not that magic you were talking about though.
I had a situation in my last SPS tank where I was working out of province a lot and had a tank sitter in. After a long winter out I came home to a GHA mess. There was 3" GHA growing out of the middle of 10"+ colonies. It was a BB tank and the water was undetectable nitrate and phosphate and the Acros appeared starved. I added a bunch of clean up crew (to transform the algae into waste so the skimmer could get it), did some manual weeding, and started feeding the corals at night. It turned around pretty fast.
I totally agree with you on the NO3 and PO4 post, I understand that like elementary school.
The point I was trying to make is that since there is nuisance algae brewing, the problem is greater than what your test kits tell you. If it was me, I'd be experimenting with nighttime NO3 dosing at a level where by morning it is undetectable. Since Acros feed mainly at night and algae feeds mainly during the day, it may be of benefit. Probably not that magic you were talking about though.
I had a situation in my last SPS tank where I was working out of province a lot and had a tank sitter in. After a long winter out I came home to a GHA mess. There was 3" GHA growing out of the middle of 10"+ colonies. It was a BB tank and the water was undetectable nitrate and phosphate and the Acros appeared starved. I added a bunch of clean up crew (to transform the algae into waste so the skimmer could get it), did some manual weeding, and started feeding the corals at night. It turned around pretty fast.
Last edited:
DiscusHeckel
Acropora Gardener
Happy new year Matt.
FTS looks awesome. Pyramid butterfly fish is my favourite. If I ever upgrade done day, it will be the first fish, which I will purchase. You must have been busy removing some Valonia. I cannot see many in the picture.
FTS looks awesome. Pyramid butterfly fish is my favourite. If I ever upgrade done day, it will be the first fish, which I will purchase. You must have been busy removing some Valonia. I cannot see many in the picture.
Hi Matt,
I'll try answer to all your question. You have anyway to well understand a couple of things. First and most important, my actual thoughts are just actual; it's probable in few days I'll do other observations and change the place to some of the pieces of this enormous puzzle.
Second, my thoughts are the product of 17 years of trial and observation of mine and many other tanks. When I try to explain a concept I have in mind so many facts that leaded to me there, but it could be hard for the reader to accept my statement because my explanation lacks of many points they are taken for granted to me.
--Briefly, what was the cause of almost losing your first tank? ( Optional. )
My previous tank was 150gal, 10x54w t5 with 11h full light, BK 200 SM, 3-5 tangs and some small fishes. I always have had 0 NO3 and 0,00 PO4 (I actually measure with the same tests and I think they are really reliable). I have always had good colors, not excellent, but too low growth for my feelings and moreover fluctuating growth and health. When the tank was about 5 years, I decided to try increasing nutrients to evaluate the difference, hoping to improve. I scale down to a smaller skimmer, I reduced the photoperiod and began to feed more, with frozen food. After a few days RTN/STN started on most of the SPS, even before inorganics became detectable. I have then fought for one year trying to understand what happened and try to recover, but invane.
I then started the new larger tank, with new live rocks (70kg in 350gal). What I have observed and experimented in this new tank is the sum of many previous observation which could't find a place.
--I'm not sure I understand why this is... I assume that this is the case because without algea, the bacteria has no competitors for nutrients and can grow unchecked?
I honestly don't know. I guess it's like You said.
--don't bacteria need these things as well? As well as iron, I guess
There are many types of bacteria. I can guarantee You that with zero NO3 (but with some PO4 and even adding iron) bacteria can bloom. When I see no algal growth (at least algal film on glasses), it seems to me that bacteria have no competion and can freely expand. Increasing inorganics (I'll define them later), allows algae to grow and outcompete bacteria. Bacterial overgrowth can kill corals.
--I don't understand this process.. How do bacteria get the advantage when n or p are zero.. Like you mention below, isn't this when the tank becomes 'limited' and we get either n or p rising out of control?
As I said I can't completely understand the process me too. I only guess algae outcompete bacteria, that I think aren't limited from the lack of INORGANIC N or P. They probably use organic matter. Organic matter I think is the main problem, as I'll explain. I think in my previous tank organic matter leaded to bacterial overgrowth killing the corals.
ok I really need a clinical explanation of the difference between organic and inorganic. Above you say that inorganic compounds are nitrate, phosphate and ammonia.. I thought that this is exactly what bacteria feed on and I also thought that a skimmer, by removing solid waste from the aquarium does indeed play a part in reducing n and p and ammonia by removing solids that would otherwise be broken down into said nutrients...
organic matter is the food you put in the tank. It is made by cells. These are then degraded by heterotrophic bacteria into smaller organic molecules until ammonia and phosphate. These two are the first inorganic forms. Here come autotrophic bacteria, with nitrogen cycle, oxidizing ammonia into nitrite and nitrate.
Algae use inorganics to grow up, using light and inorganic carbon (CO2/HCO3).
This is because increasing photoperiod (and/or light intensity) You'll find NO3-PO4 reducing: because algae will consume them. Algae can grow depending on inorganic concentration; it's anyway a dynamic phenomenon.
Fishes produce ammonia, also if You don't feed them directly.
So if You feed the tank, You are adding organic matter. If You add ammonia/nitrate and phosphate, You are just feeding the algae.
In nature, rains and river bring into the sea inorganic compounds. They stimulate algae (again, all kind of algae, from micro to macro) to grow and these feeds on all other superior organisms. Zooplancton don't grow up drinking just water.
-- interesting but I don't really understand this.. Yes there is much discussion about nutrient starved corals getting stressed by intense light (mostly when dealing with LEDs) but I don't think you are really taking about this..
-- I really don't see the causal relationship between large fish population, low light and high organics- are you saying that the corals will absorb more nutrients when light is more intense and longer photoperiod? What about all the other non photosynthetic organisms consuming n and p?
---- I really don't think I understand that statement... Unless you are referring to nutrient uptake by the corals..
It could be explained in previous answer, but let's go into details.
Fishes eat and then produce ammonia. Ammonia can be used directly from all photosynthetic organisms. It is the preferred and more quickly used nitrogen form, but nitrate too can be used. So, to resume, light is what mainly determines the use of inorganic nitrogen by photosynthetic organisms (algae). Simultaneously, autotrophic bacteria oxidize ammonia into nitrate. If there is low light and a great ammonia production, most of the ammonia will be transformed into nitrate, and if there is no balance between ammonia production by fishes and consumption by algae, nitrate will grow up indefinitely. If ammonia production is low and there is strong light, You will not even find nitrate (my previous tank; I constantly had bacterial film in fact).
-- ok I really need a clinical explanation of the difference between organic and inorganic. Above you say that inorganic compounds are nitrate, phosphate and ammonia.. I thought that this is exactly what bacteria feed on and I also thought that a skimmer, by removing solid waste from the aquarium does indeed play a part in reducing n and p and ammonia by removing solids that would otherwise be broken down into said nutrients...
Heterotrophic bacteria transform organic matter into ammonia, using organic carbon as fuel. Autotrophic bacteria oxidize ammonia into nitrate, using inorganic carbon (CO2/HCO3).
Heterotrophic bacteria occupying anoxic zones use nitrate to "breath", but believe me, this process is overvalued. Nitrate in our tanks doesn't get consumed in a consistent way by heterotrophic bacteria in the anoxic zones. Algae consume nitrate and all inorganic nitrogen via light.
About skimmer removing solid food and preventing nitrate formation. I thought the same thing, but experience and observation told me that's not exactly true. Adding a lot of food for long time didn't increased my nitrate (maybe in this case my skimmer was however enough to remove all the food). But my friend, with 550 gal tank, He removed the skimmer 8 months ago. He kept his 25 tangs feeding them as before. NO3 and PO4 remained exactly the same, I personally measured those values with my tests before and after. The tank completely changed. All got darker: corals, rocks, water. Corals are suffering and don't grow.
I guess lot of microalgae were growing from ammonia produced by decomposing organic matter, darkening the rocks and lot of organic compunds and phytoplancton colored the water.
Curiously, directly adding ammonia to water and cause nitrate to raise even to 5ppm, do not cause rocks to darken and water remains clear.
--ok, so fish poo is inorganic- solid stuff??
No, sorry. Fish poo You see is organic matter. Fish poo when they eat the organic highly nutrient food we give, is really high organic load. Fish poo from microalgae eating from rocks is "poor" poo. Poo is what is not absorbed from the organism, and fish are not so efficient in absorbing what they eat. What is absorbed is transformed into body mass and ammonia is produced by catabolism, and expelled into water from gills. So many not directly feeded fished produce mainly ammonia. Few excessively fed fished produce ton of organic matter and a small quantity of ammonia.
-yes, this seems to be conventional wisdom... Don't tell Richard Ross.. he'll make you guess his phosphate level!
-- my no3 is 6ppm (due to kno3 additions) and my po4 is .16 and my corals have NEVER looked better. Growth is increasing weekly as well.. I have about 25 fish in the tank and I feed them and I add coral foods as well.....
I don't know yet if it is better to have both nitrate and phosphate or just one of the two or what level. I'm trying and learn from my experience, first of all.
-- to me, I read above that you had extremely low nutrients and you attempted to aggressively lower them even more... Is this correct? Do you consider .2 ppm n and .02 ppm po4 to be high?
As above, I don't know if 0,2 NO3 and 0,02ppm is too low, or too high.
I read and see pictures of tank apparently with good colors and growth with lower or higher levels of one or both.
Read about Scotty Freddy's, Jason Angel, Krzysztof, Reefbum, Dvanacker, Jroover... I love the health and colors of Jason Angel SPS. He says to have 0 nitrate with salifert test, which is the one I use, and PO4 0,05 is the best for him.
Truth is yet to be completely understood, dear me!
-- so, you increased nutrient export dramatically but nutrients did not drop at all?
Exactly, inorganics didn't change minimally. I think organics are changing.
It is possible, algae (read mainly green hairy algae in this case) grow directly over decomposing organic matter, using ammonia produced by heterotrophic bacteria.
- so ultimately, in very basic unscientific terms, it seems to me that you are saying strip the water column of all nutrients and then blast the corals with large (controlled) doses of nitrates and phosphates on a periodic and irregular basis..
More or less is what I'm trying to do. Maybe it is happening something different from what I guess.
I think I'm trying to aggressively reduce organic matter, but never let inorganic get too low.
My experiment list is very long. I have to try before if there is the need for both nitrate and phopshate. Maybe it is better to add boluses of inorganics and let them lower before the next dose or maybe better to keep a constant right dose.
I hope I've answered at least to some of your question. Believe me, at this point it is very hard to find people to discuss this topics. Most of people are firmly convinced they are right undoubtedly and aren't prone to accept reality can be much more complex. Most of people are not interested to discover what influences what. The truth is that I know no person able to replicate his success on a second tank. It is hard to have feedbacks from other people. It is like to see the world from a small hole. You can see just some part and have to imagine the remaining. I've learnt to think that anything I've believed to be correct, can be completely wrong and vice versa.
Luca
I'll try answer to all your question. You have anyway to well understand a couple of things. First and most important, my actual thoughts are just actual; it's probable in few days I'll do other observations and change the place to some of the pieces of this enormous puzzle.
Second, my thoughts are the product of 17 years of trial and observation of mine and many other tanks. When I try to explain a concept I have in mind so many facts that leaded to me there, but it could be hard for the reader to accept my statement because my explanation lacks of many points they are taken for granted to me.
--Briefly, what was the cause of almost losing your first tank? ( Optional. )
My previous tank was 150gal, 10x54w t5 with 11h full light, BK 200 SM, 3-5 tangs and some small fishes. I always have had 0 NO3 and 0,00 PO4 (I actually measure with the same tests and I think they are really reliable). I have always had good colors, not excellent, but too low growth for my feelings and moreover fluctuating growth and health. When the tank was about 5 years, I decided to try increasing nutrients to evaluate the difference, hoping to improve. I scale down to a smaller skimmer, I reduced the photoperiod and began to feed more, with frozen food. After a few days RTN/STN started on most of the SPS, even before inorganics became detectable. I have then fought for one year trying to understand what happened and try to recover, but invane.
I then started the new larger tank, with new live rocks (70kg in 350gal). What I have observed and experimented in this new tank is the sum of many previous observation which could't find a place.
--I'm not sure I understand why this is... I assume that this is the case because without algea, the bacteria has no competitors for nutrients and can grow unchecked?
I honestly don't know. I guess it's like You said.
--don't bacteria need these things as well? As well as iron, I guess
There are many types of bacteria. I can guarantee You that with zero NO3 (but with some PO4 and even adding iron) bacteria can bloom. When I see no algal growth (at least algal film on glasses), it seems to me that bacteria have no competion and can freely expand. Increasing inorganics (I'll define them later), allows algae to grow and outcompete bacteria. Bacterial overgrowth can kill corals.
--I don't understand this process.. How do bacteria get the advantage when n or p are zero.. Like you mention below, isn't this when the tank becomes 'limited' and we get either n or p rising out of control?
As I said I can't completely understand the process me too. I only guess algae outcompete bacteria, that I think aren't limited from the lack of INORGANIC N or P. They probably use organic matter. Organic matter I think is the main problem, as I'll explain. I think in my previous tank organic matter leaded to bacterial overgrowth killing the corals.
ok I really need a clinical explanation of the difference between organic and inorganic. Above you say that inorganic compounds are nitrate, phosphate and ammonia.. I thought that this is exactly what bacteria feed on and I also thought that a skimmer, by removing solid waste from the aquarium does indeed play a part in reducing n and p and ammonia by removing solids that would otherwise be broken down into said nutrients...
organic matter is the food you put in the tank. It is made by cells. These are then degraded by heterotrophic bacteria into smaller organic molecules until ammonia and phosphate. These two are the first inorganic forms. Here come autotrophic bacteria, with nitrogen cycle, oxidizing ammonia into nitrite and nitrate.
Algae use inorganics to grow up, using light and inorganic carbon (CO2/HCO3).
This is because increasing photoperiod (and/or light intensity) You'll find NO3-PO4 reducing: because algae will consume them. Algae can grow depending on inorganic concentration; it's anyway a dynamic phenomenon.
Fishes produce ammonia, also if You don't feed them directly.
So if You feed the tank, You are adding organic matter. If You add ammonia/nitrate and phosphate, You are just feeding the algae.
In nature, rains and river bring into the sea inorganic compounds. They stimulate algae (again, all kind of algae, from micro to macro) to grow and these feeds on all other superior organisms. Zooplancton don't grow up drinking just water.
-- interesting but I don't really understand this.. Yes there is much discussion about nutrient starved corals getting stressed by intense light (mostly when dealing with LEDs) but I don't think you are really taking about this..
-- I really don't see the causal relationship between large fish population, low light and high organics- are you saying that the corals will absorb more nutrients when light is more intense and longer photoperiod? What about all the other non photosynthetic organisms consuming n and p?
---- I really don't think I understand that statement... Unless you are referring to nutrient uptake by the corals..
It could be explained in previous answer, but let's go into details.
Fishes eat and then produce ammonia. Ammonia can be used directly from all photosynthetic organisms. It is the preferred and more quickly used nitrogen form, but nitrate too can be used. So, to resume, light is what mainly determines the use of inorganic nitrogen by photosynthetic organisms (algae). Simultaneously, autotrophic bacteria oxidize ammonia into nitrate. If there is low light and a great ammonia production, most of the ammonia will be transformed into nitrate, and if there is no balance between ammonia production by fishes and consumption by algae, nitrate will grow up indefinitely. If ammonia production is low and there is strong light, You will not even find nitrate (my previous tank; I constantly had bacterial film in fact).
-- ok I really need a clinical explanation of the difference between organic and inorganic. Above you say that inorganic compounds are nitrate, phosphate and ammonia.. I thought that this is exactly what bacteria feed on and I also thought that a skimmer, by removing solid waste from the aquarium does indeed play a part in reducing n and p and ammonia by removing solids that would otherwise be broken down into said nutrients...
Heterotrophic bacteria transform organic matter into ammonia, using organic carbon as fuel. Autotrophic bacteria oxidize ammonia into nitrate, using inorganic carbon (CO2/HCO3).
Heterotrophic bacteria occupying anoxic zones use nitrate to "breath", but believe me, this process is overvalued. Nitrate in our tanks doesn't get consumed in a consistent way by heterotrophic bacteria in the anoxic zones. Algae consume nitrate and all inorganic nitrogen via light.
About skimmer removing solid food and preventing nitrate formation. I thought the same thing, but experience and observation told me that's not exactly true. Adding a lot of food for long time didn't increased my nitrate (maybe in this case my skimmer was however enough to remove all the food). But my friend, with 550 gal tank, He removed the skimmer 8 months ago. He kept his 25 tangs feeding them as before. NO3 and PO4 remained exactly the same, I personally measured those values with my tests before and after. The tank completely changed. All got darker: corals, rocks, water. Corals are suffering and don't grow.
I guess lot of microalgae were growing from ammonia produced by decomposing organic matter, darkening the rocks and lot of organic compunds and phytoplancton colored the water.
Curiously, directly adding ammonia to water and cause nitrate to raise even to 5ppm, do not cause rocks to darken and water remains clear.
--ok, so fish poo is inorganic- solid stuff??
No, sorry. Fish poo You see is organic matter. Fish poo when they eat the organic highly nutrient food we give, is really high organic load. Fish poo from microalgae eating from rocks is "poor" poo. Poo is what is not absorbed from the organism, and fish are not so efficient in absorbing what they eat. What is absorbed is transformed into body mass and ammonia is produced by catabolism, and expelled into water from gills. So many not directly feeded fished produce mainly ammonia. Few excessively fed fished produce ton of organic matter and a small quantity of ammonia.
-yes, this seems to be conventional wisdom... Don't tell Richard Ross.. he'll make you guess his phosphate level!
-- my no3 is 6ppm (due to kno3 additions) and my po4 is .16 and my corals have NEVER looked better. Growth is increasing weekly as well.. I have about 25 fish in the tank and I feed them and I add coral foods as well.....
I don't know yet if it is better to have both nitrate and phosphate or just one of the two or what level. I'm trying and learn from my experience, first of all.
-- to me, I read above that you had extremely low nutrients and you attempted to aggressively lower them even more... Is this correct? Do you consider .2 ppm n and .02 ppm po4 to be high?
As above, I don't know if 0,2 NO3 and 0,02ppm is too low, or too high.
I read and see pictures of tank apparently with good colors and growth with lower or higher levels of one or both.
Read about Scotty Freddy's, Jason Angel, Krzysztof, Reefbum, Dvanacker, Jroover... I love the health and colors of Jason Angel SPS. He says to have 0 nitrate with salifert test, which is the one I use, and PO4 0,05 is the best for him.
Truth is yet to be completely understood, dear me!
-- so, you increased nutrient export dramatically but nutrients did not drop at all?
Exactly, inorganics didn't change minimally. I think organics are changing.
It is possible, algae (read mainly green hairy algae in this case) grow directly over decomposing organic matter, using ammonia produced by heterotrophic bacteria.
- so ultimately, in very basic unscientific terms, it seems to me that you are saying strip the water column of all nutrients and then blast the corals with large (controlled) doses of nitrates and phosphates on a periodic and irregular basis..
More or less is what I'm trying to do. Maybe it is happening something different from what I guess.
I think I'm trying to aggressively reduce organic matter, but never let inorganic get too low.
My experiment list is very long. I have to try before if there is the need for both nitrate and phopshate. Maybe it is better to add boluses of inorganics and let them lower before the next dose or maybe better to keep a constant right dose.
I hope I've answered at least to some of your question. Believe me, at this point it is very hard to find people to discuss this topics. Most of people are firmly convinced they are right undoubtedly and aren't prone to accept reality can be much more complex. Most of people are not interested to discover what influences what. The truth is that I know no person able to replicate his success on a second tank. It is hard to have feedbacks from other people. It is like to see the world from a small hole. You can see just some part and have to imagine the remaining. I've learnt to think that anything I've believed to be correct, can be completely wrong and vice versa.
Luca
myka, there are demonstrations that corals can't absorb nitrate. Corals can absorb ammonia and aspartic acid. Algae (zoox) can absorb ammonia/nitrate and then give it to coral (under the form of aminoacid too). It is not yet clear if algae can absorb inorganic nitrogen even in the night, but it is very probable. There is demonstration that with a light/dark cycle the continue absorb; but on prolonged dark (has been tested for 95h) they quit absorbing.
It seems both corals and algae can store nitrogen, that's why inorganic fluctations could be beneficial or the same than a constant higher level.
Luca
It seems both corals and algae can store nitrogen, that's why inorganic fluctations could be beneficial or the same than a constant higher level.
Luca
Wrangy
Acrotrooper
I have to say, as I always say, I absolutely love your tank Matt!! The scape is sweet as and the acro colour and health you get pumping is just bloody amazing
Reading through your thread always has great info and discussions in it as well which just makes it all the more fantastic!
All the best for the new year mate! To you and all your family
Reading through your thread always has great info and discussions in it as well which just makes it all the more fantastic!
All the best for the new year mate! To you and all your family
reefmutt
Active member
Thanks, Matt! That is if I'm not heading towards some terrible crash with the current nutrient situation!!!..
I'm hoping that I can resolve to save some money and not buy so much coral this year....... We'll see how that goes...
There really is no more room in the tank.. If all of these frags doubled in size, they would ALL be touching already.. I will have to remove and rearrange to get a final position for all the corals I want to grow out to some semblance of maturity..Thank you sir!
Thank you Daniel! All the best!
Thanks, Andrew! As Bulent mentions down the road.. Or above, now.. It is a pyramid butterfly. A planctivore that is completely reef save. They are also a schooling fish, so you can keep a group, apparently.. I have never actually done this though.Love the FTS Matt, it's going to look insane when the acros grow a bit more and the colors begin interacting greater. Can hardly spot that new piece of rock btw
Your purple tang is very cool, what's that big white and yellow butterfly looking fish mate - that one looks awesome.
Have a great new year buddy
Yes.. A new rock..
how else do you expect me to make room for new frags!?!Happy new year Matt! Nice FTS! It's certainly full!
I totally agree with you on the NO3 and PO4 post, I understand that like elementary school.
If it was me, I'd be experimenting with nighttime NO3 dosing at a level where by morning it is undetectable. Since Acros feed mainly at night and algae feeds mainly during the day, it may be of benefit. Probably not that magic you were talking about though.
I had a situation in my last SPS tank where I was working out of province a lot and had a tank sitter in. After a long winter out I came home to a GHA mess. There was 3" GHA growing out of the middle of 10"+ colonies. It was a BB tank and the water was undetectable nitrate and phosphate and the Acros appeared starved. I added a bunch of clean up crew (to transform the algae into waste so the skimmer could get it), did some manual weeding, and started feeding the corals at night. It turned around pretty fast.
Mindy, I am quite sure you are clear in the concept and I knew what you were trying to say.. I just wanted it to be clear..
The nighttime addition thing is what 'the farm' does out in Australia. It's an interesting concept..
Thanks, Bulent, that is one of the benefits of the fts. It's from far enough away that you don't see the little blemishes... I have not removed and valonia and it is quite there, still..
All the best this year!
reefmutt
Active member
I have to say, as I always say, I absolutely love your tank Matt!! The scape is sweet as and the acro colour and health you get pumping is just bloody amazing
Reading through your thread always has great info and discussions in it as well which just makes it all the more fantastic!
All the best for the new year mate! To you and all your family
Dom, thank you for the kind words! Very nice. I can only hope that this thread is helpful and informative as well as cool to look at! Just like Playboy magazine
All the best to you and yours as well!
reefmutt
Active member
LUCA!!
I am very impressed and appreciative of the novel you wrote to me in response to my questions..
I have tried to summarize what I have learned and then will discuss a bit more.. Please feel free to correct any errors... What I have written below is my understanding and NOT FACTUAL.
Nutrient pathways.
So the ancient question, 'What came first, the chicken or the egg?' Could be asked of organic nutrients and inorganic nutrients, it seems....
I guess a basic distinction between organic and inorganic nutrients would be: inorganic nutrients you can actually see: foods, poo, dead animals or plant matter and inorganic nutrients are nutrients you can't see: ammonia, nitrate phosphate..
Not sure where amino acids would go but I would assume they would be classified as organic? Even though they can't be seen...
Organic nutrients are what feed the larger organisms like fish and to a certain degree, corals- what they physically catch with their polyps.
These organic nutrients are removed via skimming, microorganism consumption and manual removal via siphoning and/or waterchanges and/or mechanical filtration.
Organic nutrients are partially reduced by the fish, and other omnivorous animals as they eat food and then poo it out.. AND to a small degree completely converted (removed) by corals when they trap food particles, digest them and use the resulting inorganic nutrients to feed themselves and the zoox living in their tissue.
Organic nutrients that don't get removed via mechanical removal, skimming or wcs or by smaller animals consuming it, gets further reduced and by heterotrophic Bacteria.. Into ammonia and phosphate. Then, autotrophic bacteria break down the ammonia to nitrite and nitrate and phosphate in their inorganic forms.
And then denitrifying bacteria (as well as algea and zoox in coral) will reduce nitrate even further.. (Not sure if denitrifying bacteria are hetero or autotrophic, but I assume autotrophic since heterotrophic bacteria seem to deal with organic and autotrophic bacteria seem to deal with inorganic nutrients)
Although, only larger animals and smaller omnivores (worms, tiny crustaceans etc) seem to consume organic nutrients, there is a LOT of competition within the reef for the inorganic nutrients.. Bacteria, coral and algae are all in fierce competition for ammonia, nitrite, nitrate and phosphate and/or phosphorus.
The trick is getting the nutrition to the corals and not to the algea..
All the tanks you mention and many more that you don't, have very similar characteristics: very low inorganic nutrients- n and p readings but I'm not sure what the organic nutrient input is like on all of of them.. It probably differs
If we look at the ocean as a model. It too has very low inorganic numbers but by contrast, there is an abundance of organic matter getting to the corals all the time.. They are trapping food in large amounts..
This seems to go against what happened in your first tank.. You had low inorganic nutrients and did not add very much organics, but when you did, your tank did not do well..
My current tank has both high inorganic nutrients (relatively speaking) AND a pretty high input of organic nutrients...
Makes me worry that I am on the road to disaster!!!
Clearly I am feeding the algea in my tank as much as the corals but at the same time, the recent additions of inorganic nutrients - the kno3- has actually arrested the growth of the cyano bacteria but has had the opposite effect on the algea.. And perhaps NO beneficial effect on my corals.. They have been doing nicely regardless of nutrient levels, lately...
Perhaps, the adding of kno3 and the reduction of the cyano speaks to your discussion of bacteria vs algea when adding inorganic nutrients..
There is much more that you discussed in your excellent posts above and much of it is theoretical, anecdotal, your own experience and not really fully explainable..
I would like to somehow get my tank closer to a natural seawater model without starving he corals in the process.....
I am curious.. If my tank was your tank: Lots of nuisance algea and very vibrant and growing corals.. A dsb. Cheato fuge and no Carbon dosing but adding some kno3 to keep no3 elevated.. N: 6ppm po4: .17.. High organic input and wet skimming.. What would be your next step?
I don't want to reduce my organic inputs but I want to lower my inorganic nutrients..
I must say since I haven't seen a reduction in po4 from adding kno3 OR any real benefit from the extra n.. I may back off on the kno3 additions.. At least until po4 comes down one way or another...
Luca, thanks again for the large amount of organic input you have added to my thread!
I expect my thread will only become more colorful and more robust!
I am very impressed and appreciative of the novel you wrote to me in response to my questions..
I have tried to summarize what I have learned and then will discuss a bit more.. Please feel free to correct any errors... What I have written below is my understanding and NOT FACTUAL.
Nutrient pathways.
So the ancient question, 'What came first, the chicken or the egg?' Could be asked of organic nutrients and inorganic nutrients, it seems....
I guess a basic distinction between organic and inorganic nutrients would be: inorganic nutrients you can actually see: foods, poo, dead animals or plant matter and inorganic nutrients are nutrients you can't see: ammonia, nitrate phosphate..
Not sure where amino acids would go but I would assume they would be classified as organic? Even though they can't be seen...
Organic nutrients are what feed the larger organisms like fish and to a certain degree, corals- what they physically catch with their polyps.
These organic nutrients are removed via skimming, microorganism consumption and manual removal via siphoning and/or waterchanges and/or mechanical filtration.
Organic nutrients are partially reduced by the fish, and other omnivorous animals as they eat food and then poo it out.. AND to a small degree completely converted (removed) by corals when they trap food particles, digest them and use the resulting inorganic nutrients to feed themselves and the zoox living in their tissue.
Organic nutrients that don't get removed via mechanical removal, skimming or wcs or by smaller animals consuming it, gets further reduced and by heterotrophic Bacteria.. Into ammonia and phosphate. Then, autotrophic bacteria break down the ammonia to nitrite and nitrate and phosphate in their inorganic forms.
And then denitrifying bacteria (as well as algea and zoox in coral) will reduce nitrate even further.. (Not sure if denitrifying bacteria are hetero or autotrophic, but I assume autotrophic since heterotrophic bacteria seem to deal with organic and autotrophic bacteria seem to deal with inorganic nutrients)
Although, only larger animals and smaller omnivores (worms, tiny crustaceans etc) seem to consume organic nutrients, there is a LOT of competition within the reef for the inorganic nutrients.. Bacteria, coral and algae are all in fierce competition for ammonia, nitrite, nitrate and phosphate and/or phosphorus.
The trick is getting the nutrition to the corals and not to the algea..
All the tanks you mention and many more that you don't, have very similar characteristics: very low inorganic nutrients- n and p readings but I'm not sure what the organic nutrient input is like on all of of them.. It probably differs
If we look at the ocean as a model. It too has very low inorganic numbers but by contrast, there is an abundance of organic matter getting to the corals all the time.. They are trapping food in large amounts..
This seems to go against what happened in your first tank.. You had low inorganic nutrients and did not add very much organics, but when you did, your tank did not do well..
My current tank has both high inorganic nutrients (relatively speaking) AND a pretty high input of organic nutrients...
Makes me worry that I am on the road to disaster!!!
Clearly I am feeding the algea in my tank as much as the corals but at the same time, the recent additions of inorganic nutrients - the kno3- has actually arrested the growth of the cyano bacteria but has had the opposite effect on the algea.. And perhaps NO beneficial effect on my corals.. They have been doing nicely regardless of nutrient levels, lately...
Perhaps, the adding of kno3 and the reduction of the cyano speaks to your discussion of bacteria vs algea when adding inorganic nutrients..
There is much more that you discussed in your excellent posts above and much of it is theoretical, anecdotal, your own experience and not really fully explainable..
I would like to somehow get my tank closer to a natural seawater model without starving he corals in the process.....
I am curious.. If my tank was your tank: Lots of nuisance algea and very vibrant and growing corals.. A dsb. Cheato fuge and no Carbon dosing but adding some kno3 to keep no3 elevated.. N: 6ppm po4: .17.. High organic input and wet skimming.. What would be your next step?
I don't want to reduce my organic inputs but I want to lower my inorganic nutrients..
I must say since I haven't seen a reduction in po4 from adding kno3 OR any real benefit from the extra n.. I may back off on the kno3 additions.. At least until po4 comes down one way or another...
Luca, thanks again for the large amount of organic input you have added to my thread!
I expect my thread will only become more colorful and more robust!
Wrangy
Acrotrooper
Your thread is like a playboy magazine, I hurriedly scroll and drool my way through all of the pictures then get to the end and remember that I need to go back and read all the content as well :lolspin: Definitely love it though!Dom, thank you for the kind words! Very nice. I can only hope that this thread is helpful and informative as well as cool to look at! Just like Playboy magazine
All the best to you and yours as well!
LUCA!!
I am very impressed and appreciative of the novel you wrote to me in response to my questions..
I have tried to summarize what I have learned and then will discuss a bit more.. Please feel free to correct any errors... What I have written below is my understanding and NOT FACTUAL.
Nutrient pathways.
So the ancient question, 'What came first, the chicken or the egg?' Could be asked of organic nutrients and inorganic nutrients, it seems....
I guess a basic distinction between organic and inorganic nutrients would be: inorganic (incorrect; ORGANIC) nutrients you can actually see: foods, poo, dead animals or plant matter and inorganic (correct) nutrients are nutrients you can't see: ammonia, nitrate phosphate..
Not sure where amino acids would go but I would assume they would be classified as organic? Even though they can't be seen... yes they are organic. They are one of the most simple form of organic.
Organic nutrients are what feed the larger organisms like fish and to a certain degree, corals- what they physically catch with their polyps.
These organic nutrients are removed via skimming, microorganism consumption and manual removal via siphoning and/or waterchanges and/or mechanical filtration. yes, probably.
Organic nutrients are partially reduced by the fish, and other omnivorous animals as they eat food and then poo it out.. AND to a small degree completely converted (removed) by corals when they trap food particles, digest them and use the resulting inorganic nutrients to feed themselves and the zoox living in their tissue.
Organic nutrients that don't get removed via mechanical removal, skimming or wcs or by smaller animals consuming it, gets further reduced and by heterotrophic Bacteria.. Into ammonia and phosphate. Then, autotrophic bacteria break down the ammonia to nitrite and nitrate and phosphate in their inorganic forms.
And then denitrifying bacteria (as well as algea and zoox in coral) will reduce nitrate even further.. (Not sure if denitrifying bacteria are hetero or autotrophic, but I assume autotrophic since heterotrophic bacteria seem to deal with organic and autotrophic bacteria seem to deal with inorganic nutrients)
denitrifying bacteria are heterotrophic. Heterotrophic bacteria lives everywhere, also where oxygen is absent, differently from autotrophic ones, which depend on oxygen. Heterotrophic ones who lives where oxygen is absent can't use that to breath, but are able to use nitrate. It is like if You could be able to breath methane. This doesn't mean they create new individuals, they simply live breathing nitrate. This reaction is however insignificant in the balance between production and consumption of nitrate, because nitrate consumer such as photosynthetic organisms are much faster at consuming it. That's why changing light intensity and duration is more effective on changing nitrate concentration.
Although, only larger animals and smaller omnivores (worms, tiny crustaceans etc) seem to consume organic nutrients, there is a LOT of competition within the reef for the inorganic nutrients.. sincerely, I don't know. There could be many explanation coming to my mind and surely many others I don't even think. I only know from my experience that a rapid increase in organic load harms corals. Addition of inorganic N and P, doesn't harm corals. Absence of algal growth is associated to bacterial film and blooms, harming corals. Presence of algal growth prevents bacterial growth (meaning coral-harmful ones). Bacteria, coral and algae are all in fierce competition for ammonia, nitrite, nitrate and phosphate and/or phosphorus.
The trick is getting the nutrition to the corals and not to the algea.. Again. I don't know what is better. Actually it seems to me It is better to feed algae, not coral. Science tells us algae inside the corals leak even 99% of their synthate to coral. Maybe a "normal and well balanced" algal growth into the whole tank can feed the zooplancton that feed corals, in addition to zoox synthate. In presence of algae growth (read micro algae), instead of bacterial film, It seems to me to see many more micro shrimps and copepods. When I had bacterial overgrowth, the tank seemed to be sterile.
All the tanks you mention and many more that you don't, have very similar characteristics: very low inorganic nutrients- n and p readings I don't think so. Some of them have very low N and P (krzysztof), some low balanced values (Scotty freddy, 0,2ppm nitrate, 0,02ppm PO4 using GFO). Some have high P and low N (Jason angel has zero nitrate and He says PO4 is best at 0,05ppm). Some of them have high N and low P (Reefbum had 2-5ppm NO3 and 0,02-0,03 PO4 using GFO). And moreover, it is impossible to determine if they giva a large or small amount of organic food. What is large to You, could be small to me. but I'm not sure what the organic nutrient input is like on all of of them.. It probably differs exactly
If we look at the ocean as a model. It too has very low inorganic numbers but by contrast, there is an abundance of organic matter getting to the corals all the time.. They are trapping food in large amounts.. more or less... that's what should be in a perfect and pristine reef. I don't think it magically started in the same way. There should have been a progressive change to that state. That state has low measurable inorganic nutrients simply because there a large and very effective farm using them. So there is probably an immense flow of inorganic N and P, that is immediately used.
And again. What do You think it happens to the organic food You add to your water? That's not living animals feeding corals as in the oceans; and the ones that are not prayed can escape and reproduce and reproduce again. The ones you put in your water are dead animals. They immediately decompose. Bacteria decompose those animals. Bacteria overgrow if there is a large amount of organic dead matter.
This seems to go against what happened in your first tank.. You had low inorganic nutrients and did not add very much organics no, I added a large amount of organic dead matter, but when you did, your tank did not do well..
My current tank has both high inorganic nutrients (relatively speaking) AND a pretty high input of organic nutrients...
Makes me worry that I am on the road to disaster!!! Maybe... You are safe until bacteria take advantage.
Clearly I am feeding the algea in my tank as much as the corals but at the same time, the recent additions of inorganic nutrients - the kno3- has actually arrested the growth of the cyano bacteria but has had the opposite effect on the algea.. And perhaps NO beneficial effect on my corals.. They have been doing nicely regardless of nutrient levels, lately...
Perhaps, the adding of kno3 and the reduction of the cyano speaks to your discussion of bacteria vs algea when adding inorganic nutrients..
pay attention adding KNO3. K will raise up... I prefer to use NaNO3, Na has practically no impact on total Na.
There is much more that you discussed in your excellent posts above and much of it is theoretical, anecdotal, your own experience and not really fully explainable..
I would like to somehow get my tank closer to a natural seawater model without starving he corals in the process.....
I am curious.. If my tank was your tank: Lots of nuisance algea and very vibrant and growing corals.. A dsb. Cheato fuge and no Carbon dosing but adding some kno3 to keep no3 elevated.. N: 6ppm po4: .17.. High organic input and wet skimming.. What would be your next step?
I don't want to reduce my organic inputs but I want to lower my inorganic nutrients..
I must say since I haven't seen a reduction in po4 from adding kno3 OR any real benefit from the extra n.. I may back off on the kno3 additions.. At least until po4 comes down one way or another...
As You should have understood, I still am in an experimental phase. I have some certainties, but many others need confirmation.
I have made many other observations, one of them for instance, is that in presence of "excess" of N, algae have a greener color. In presence of "excess" of P, algae have a brown color. I don't know yet what this means. I have tried one state (N higher) and I am starting with the other one (P higher). We'll see.
If You ask me what I would do to reduce inorganics in your case, I would say quit or reduce adding KNO3. Increase the light. Your inorganics will reduce. You must anyway prevent NO3 falling at zero. If NO3 get zero before PO4 have come to your preferred level, You will need to add NO3. And as I said, I don't like adding a large amount of organics, but this doesn't mean it is correct instead. In my experience (17 years), large quinck increase in organics harms corals and easily lead to bacterial overgrowth. Glasses have to get dirty and need to be cleaned after some days (3-5). If glasses get dirty in 1-2 days, or even few hours, bacteria are overgrowing. Polyp expansion is a guarantee of health. A coral with good polyp expansion but without growth, in my mind is a healthy coral lacking something. A coral without PE is a suffering coral.
Finally, stability is the basis of everything. Corals have to spend energy to grow and reproduce, not to adapt to continuos changes. Water change is a big chemical change. It is needed to match temperature, salinity and kh, and possibly ph. So choose a salt having the kh You want to have in you tank. Warm new saltwater to the same temp of your tank. Try to perform the change in the moment of the day the tank has a ph similar to the one of the new water (You will see large or small changes in your tank ph when you perform the change, if You have a probe testing it).
And keep in mind You are talking with a person whose tank has never had a high growth rate. I have tried both high and low organic load in the past. It is the first time I try with high inorganic N and P and all their combinations.
Luca, thanks again for the large amount of organic input you have added to my thread!
I expect my thread will only become more colorful and more robust!
Last edited:
reefmutt
Active member
Luca, thanks again for such a detailed response.
Before I forget to ask.. Do you have a build thread for your current tank? I'd love to see it.
There is so much information here, it is hard to take it all in..
I'm glad to have the organic and inorganic info simplified as well as the auto and heterotrophic bacterial activities.
It is just so hard to really say what works for sure and what doesn't, aside from the basics..
The chemical interactions between fish, coral, algea, bacteria and nutrients is an infinite conundrum wrapped in an enigma!
Like you mention, it is nearly impossible to replicate identical situations in two different reefs by doing the exact same thing to both..
Mother Nature is a fickle and tricky thing..
One thing we never discussed throughout this whole thing is the basic adaptability of corals..
You mentioned a large group of tanks that have shown such great success and each is slightly different and each tank arrived at the point following different paths of nutrient input and output, husbandry, lighting, system design and equipment.. The corals liked all the scenarios or they adapted and thrived to each scenario..
Clearly, there seems to be a sweet spot in husbandry to make them happy and the spot seems to be somewhere between 0 and just a bit of inorganic nutrients and fish in the system, so inputs or organic nutrients..
When I started my tank back up just over a year ago, I was using aio pellets. I had slow growing, pale corals.. As my system has matured (more fish, more food, more corals) it has changed for the better and 3 months ago, I removed the pellets, added a dsb and cheato fuge. I also added more fish along the way and feed them moderately well, as well as adding some coral foods. This past three months, I have had more problems with algea than I ever had BUT at the same time I am getting colours I have never experienced before and now growth is really beginning as well..
I have high organic input and high inorganic levels in the water..
When my no3 got below 1ppm, I raised my no3 to see if it would help lower po4- it has not.
I thought it wasn't doing anything but I just took some new photos today and the coral are looking fantastic (knock on wood)
My system is atypical at the moment.. I'm not sure it is catastrophic, however.
My system has responded well to both organic and inorganic inputs.. HOWEVER, they were never raised rapidly.. I have made sure to keep nutrient swings as slow as possible (and not always succeeded..)
I have used kno3 in the past and know that it can raise k levels but I also know that the amount I am using at the moment, will not raise it too high..
If I need to use more, I will begin adding cano3 along with the kno3. Again, the amount of calcium in the cano3 is so small that it does not dramatically effect my ca levels..
If I did not have algea problems in my tank, I would not change a thing because the corals are thriving right now, but if I don't address the algae issues, I will have problems..
I think I am going to lower my inorganic numbers but not by reducing my kno3 additions.. Or by increasing lighting because I am not able to increase my lighting.. I am going to continue with my feeding as usual but I will begin small vinegar doses daily and test regularly. I want to continue the kno3 dosing so that the vinegar will pull my po4 down while keeping some n in the system..
I feel that algea is currently out competing bacteria in my system. I want to add the vinegar to jump start the bacteria and prompt them to consume the n and p faster than the algea..
I feel that my organic inputs should are beneficial to the corals and should stay constant while my inorganics need to come down..
I have to upload a few new shots and then I will post them.. Article time is over, now it's time for some Acro porn..
Before I forget to ask.. Do you have a build thread for your current tank? I'd love to see it.
There is so much information here, it is hard to take it all in..
I'm glad to have the organic and inorganic info simplified as well as the auto and heterotrophic bacterial activities.
It is just so hard to really say what works for sure and what doesn't, aside from the basics..
The chemical interactions between fish, coral, algea, bacteria and nutrients is an infinite conundrum wrapped in an enigma!
Like you mention, it is nearly impossible to replicate identical situations in two different reefs by doing the exact same thing to both..
Mother Nature is a fickle and tricky thing..
One thing we never discussed throughout this whole thing is the basic adaptability of corals..
You mentioned a large group of tanks that have shown such great success and each is slightly different and each tank arrived at the point following different paths of nutrient input and output, husbandry, lighting, system design and equipment.. The corals liked all the scenarios or they adapted and thrived to each scenario..
Clearly, there seems to be a sweet spot in husbandry to make them happy and the spot seems to be somewhere between 0 and just a bit of inorganic nutrients and fish in the system, so inputs or organic nutrients..
When I started my tank back up just over a year ago, I was using aio pellets. I had slow growing, pale corals.. As my system has matured (more fish, more food, more corals) it has changed for the better and 3 months ago, I removed the pellets, added a dsb and cheato fuge. I also added more fish along the way and feed them moderately well, as well as adding some coral foods. This past three months, I have had more problems with algea than I ever had BUT at the same time I am getting colours I have never experienced before and now growth is really beginning as well..
I have high organic input and high inorganic levels in the water..
When my no3 got below 1ppm, I raised my no3 to see if it would help lower po4- it has not.
I thought it wasn't doing anything but I just took some new photos today and the coral are looking fantastic (knock on wood)
My system is atypical at the moment.. I'm not sure it is catastrophic, however.
My system has responded well to both organic and inorganic inputs.. HOWEVER, they were never raised rapidly.. I have made sure to keep nutrient swings as slow as possible (and not always succeeded..)
I have used kno3 in the past and know that it can raise k levels but I also know that the amount I am using at the moment, will not raise it too high..
If I need to use more, I will begin adding cano3 along with the kno3. Again, the amount of calcium in the cano3 is so small that it does not dramatically effect my ca levels..
If I did not have algea problems in my tank, I would not change a thing because the corals are thriving right now, but if I don't address the algae issues, I will have problems..
I think I am going to lower my inorganic numbers but not by reducing my kno3 additions.. Or by increasing lighting because I am not able to increase my lighting.. I am going to continue with my feeding as usual but I will begin small vinegar doses daily and test regularly. I want to continue the kno3 dosing so that the vinegar will pull my po4 down while keeping some n in the system..
I feel that algea is currently out competing bacteria in my system. I want to add the vinegar to jump start the bacteria and prompt them to consume the n and p faster than the algea..
I feel that my organic inputs should are beneficial to the corals and should stay constant while my inorganics need to come down..
I have to upload a few new shots and then I will post them.. Article time is over, now it's time for some Acro porn..
Matt,
I think there is a common thing to all successful tank. A thing we can't measure. The most important one. N and P flow. When we perform a test, we only detect the stocks. What determines what can grow is the flow. What counts is the correct ratio of N and P entering the tank. I talked many times to all those people I listed and many others. I guess they don't have a minimal idea because they succeed. I simply guess they accidentally found the right recipe to feed their specific tank. The demonstration is that I don't know one person who has been able to replicate his success.
Now let's pass to more theoretic things...
There is a major error in what I've written in previous messages.
Heterotrophic bacteria consume ammonia, not organic N. This has a fundamental importance, as I'll try to explain.
It is my thought that algae, once have put roots (as most of terrestrial plant do) do not need so much phosphate as corals and bacteria. Or they are just able to extract P precipitated on the rocks, differently from bacteria and corals. Anyway, algae mostly need nitrogen to grow, once they are present.
I have some spot of hairy algae me too, and I was trying in vain (till now) to get rid of them.
I said heterotrophic bacteria use ammonia. Algae can use both ammonia and nitrate. Autotrophic bacteria, the ones of the nitrogen cycle, can use ammonia and nitrite. Only algae can use nitrate, every kind of algae, zoox too.
My tank has very low po4. This means that heterotrophic bacteria are limited. It doesn't mean bacteria can't grow, but just their grow is limited. Algae are not limited. Algae are in advantage. Algae thrive.
Every time I added ammonia and phosphate or nitrate and phosphate, I was feeding bacteria, algae and corals. That's why I was seeing corals growing better, but get darken. And algae were doing the same, they improved their growth, becoming more green and resistent (they got harden to be pulled off; I also noticed fishes had harder time to eat them). So I wasn't changing the balance. I added food for everybody, not only for algae competitors.
Moreover and mostly important for You, ammonia feed corals, bacteria and algae. But nitrate just feed algae. That's what You are doing. You are giving algae an advantage.
In the last few days I added phosphate only (not ammonia or nitrate). I added about 0,15ppm per day. In one day only my NO3 lowered from 1ppm to 0,2ppm. Algal film that before was brilliant green, turned brownish and glasses are getting dirty faster (bacteria are reproducing). Some STN appeared on a few corals.
What happened? I gave heterotrophic bacteria what they were lacking (P) and they competed with algae, quickly lowering N. Bacteria compete with algae for ammonia.
I have a lot of carbon. I would say a bomb ready to explode. Only one ingredient was lacking. And I added it.
All this to say a few things.
Redfield ratio is what drive the balance among species in seawater.
You are adding nitrate. And You have phosphate in abundance. You are feeding algae and no one others that can compete with them.
Do You want to keep sufficient N? do it in the natural way: fishes. Herbivore fishes (or herbivore organisms in general). They fight algae and they produce ammonia, which can feed bacteria too (both heterotrophic and autotrophic). There will be competition against algae on more sides.
In my case I removed "the bomb". I removed biopellet and quit adding acetic acid. I'll go on adding PO4 in smaller doses. I need to make bacteria outcompete algae, but slowly. Doing it faster, would cause ammonia flow (not the nitrate stock) to be insufficient to corals (ammonia would get completely consumed by bacteria, becoming insufficient for corals and causing STN, and in worst case RTN).
As I said in my first message, my thoughts are fruit of my observations, which are updated everyday by what happens in my tank. They continuously evolve. This can cause problems to me and to people trying to follow my thoughts. I feel this field is very entangling and is mostly what pushes me forward in this hobby, but I don't want to cause any damage to other people. That's why I rarely express my thoughts.
Luca
I think there is a common thing to all successful tank. A thing we can't measure. The most important one. N and P flow. When we perform a test, we only detect the stocks. What determines what can grow is the flow. What counts is the correct ratio of N and P entering the tank. I talked many times to all those people I listed and many others. I guess they don't have a minimal idea because they succeed. I simply guess they accidentally found the right recipe to feed their specific tank. The demonstration is that I don't know one person who has been able to replicate his success.
Now let's pass to more theoretic things...
There is a major error in what I've written in previous messages.
Heterotrophic bacteria consume ammonia, not organic N. This has a fundamental importance, as I'll try to explain.
It is my thought that algae, once have put roots (as most of terrestrial plant do) do not need so much phosphate as corals and bacteria. Or they are just able to extract P precipitated on the rocks, differently from bacteria and corals. Anyway, algae mostly need nitrogen to grow, once they are present.
I have some spot of hairy algae me too, and I was trying in vain (till now) to get rid of them.
I said heterotrophic bacteria use ammonia. Algae can use both ammonia and nitrate. Autotrophic bacteria, the ones of the nitrogen cycle, can use ammonia and nitrite. Only algae can use nitrate, every kind of algae, zoox too.
My tank has very low po4. This means that heterotrophic bacteria are limited. It doesn't mean bacteria can't grow, but just their grow is limited. Algae are not limited. Algae are in advantage. Algae thrive.
Every time I added ammonia and phosphate or nitrate and phosphate, I was feeding bacteria, algae and corals. That's why I was seeing corals growing better, but get darken. And algae were doing the same, they improved their growth, becoming more green and resistent (they got harden to be pulled off; I also noticed fishes had harder time to eat them). So I wasn't changing the balance. I added food for everybody, not only for algae competitors.
Moreover and mostly important for You, ammonia feed corals, bacteria and algae. But nitrate just feed algae. That's what You are doing. You are giving algae an advantage.
In the last few days I added phosphate only (not ammonia or nitrate). I added about 0,15ppm per day. In one day only my NO3 lowered from 1ppm to 0,2ppm. Algal film that before was brilliant green, turned brownish and glasses are getting dirty faster (bacteria are reproducing). Some STN appeared on a few corals.
What happened? I gave heterotrophic bacteria what they were lacking (P) and they competed with algae, quickly lowering N. Bacteria compete with algae for ammonia.
I have a lot of carbon. I would say a bomb ready to explode. Only one ingredient was lacking. And I added it.
All this to say a few things.
Redfield ratio is what drive the balance among species in seawater.
You are adding nitrate. And You have phosphate in abundance. You are feeding algae and no one others that can compete with them.
Do You want to keep sufficient N? do it in the natural way: fishes. Herbivore fishes (or herbivore organisms in general). They fight algae and they produce ammonia, which can feed bacteria too (both heterotrophic and autotrophic). There will be competition against algae on more sides.
In my case I removed "the bomb". I removed biopellet and quit adding acetic acid. I'll go on adding PO4 in smaller doses. I need to make bacteria outcompete algae, but slowly. Doing it faster, would cause ammonia flow (not the nitrate stock) to be insufficient to corals (ammonia would get completely consumed by bacteria, becoming insufficient for corals and causing STN, and in worst case RTN).
As I said in my first message, my thoughts are fruit of my observations, which are updated everyday by what happens in my tank. They continuously evolve. This can cause problems to me and to people trying to follow my thoughts. I feel this field is very entangling and is mostly what pushes me forward in this hobby, but I don't want to cause any damage to other people. That's why I rarely express my thoughts.
Luca
reefmutt
Active member
"Moreover and mostly important for You, ammonia feed corals, bacteria and algae. But nitrate just feed algae. That's what You are doing. You are giving algae an advantage.
In the last few days I added phosphate only (not ammonia or nitrate). I added about 0,15ppm per day. In one day only my NO3 lowered from 1ppm to 0,2ppm. Algal film that before was brilliant green, turned brownish and glasses are getting dirty faster (bacteria are reproducing). Some STN appeared on a few corals.
What happened? I gave heterotrophic bacteria what they were lacking (P) and they competed with algae, quickly lowering N. Bacteria compete with algae for ammonia.
I have a lot of carbon. I would say a bomb ready to explode. Only one ingredient was lacking. And I added it."
Luca, my system, when left alone becomes n limited.. I can't really add any more fish.. Maybe a few
I am adding n to keep my system from having even higher po4.. Perhaps more than I need to add.. But I am only shooting for around 4ppm.
I think that saying that adding n is only feeding algea is a flawed theory. I think it's well established that many organism, including corals, and bacteria consume a lot of n.
Whenever I have had 0 nitrate and uncontrolled po4, n has consistently reduced po4..
Unfortunately, there really are no guaranteed bubble algea eaters or I would have one in my tank already..
I believe that if the nutrient pathways change slowly enough, the corals will not be stressed, I think that they can adapt to the changes.. They must be made slowly..
I think that adding too much po4 to your tank is what caused the problems, not the po4 itself.. Same for your first system with your attempts to add organics to help the corals..
"In my case I removed "the bomb". I removed biopellet and quit adding acetic acid. I'll go on adding PO4 in smaller doses. I need to make bacteria outcompete algae, but slowly. Doing it faster, would cause ammonia flow (not the nitrate stock) to be insufficient to corals (ammonia would get completely consumed by bacteria, becoming insufficient for corals and causing STN, and in worst case RTN)."
Clearly, you have come to realize that things must happen slowly.. And that making too many changes at once can also cause problems..
It is very possible that rapid, large changes cause the nutrient pathways to develop differently than when changes happen more slowly..
And one reef's 'bomb' may be another reef's savior.. Sometimes, probably often, the only way to know is to make incremental changes and find out..
Adding any organic or inorganic material to a reef tank will feed both the organisms you want to feed as well as the ones you don't want to feed..
I'm going with the belief that my system has been pretty stable for quite some time.
I believe that making the move of adding a very small amount of daily vinegar (acetic acid) will shift nutrients lower while adding the kno3 will keep n stable as p falls....
The only way to find out is to try it very slowly..
Ok I gotta post some pics..
In the last few days I added phosphate only (not ammonia or nitrate). I added about 0,15ppm per day. In one day only my NO3 lowered from 1ppm to 0,2ppm. Algal film that before was brilliant green, turned brownish and glasses are getting dirty faster (bacteria are reproducing). Some STN appeared on a few corals.
What happened? I gave heterotrophic bacteria what they were lacking (P) and they competed with algae, quickly lowering N. Bacteria compete with algae for ammonia.
I have a lot of carbon. I would say a bomb ready to explode. Only one ingredient was lacking. And I added it."
Luca, my system, when left alone becomes n limited.. I can't really add any more fish.. Maybe a few
I am adding n to keep my system from having even higher po4.. Perhaps more than I need to add.. But I am only shooting for around 4ppm.
I think that saying that adding n is only feeding algea is a flawed theory. I think it's well established that many organism, including corals, and bacteria consume a lot of n.
Whenever I have had 0 nitrate and uncontrolled po4, n has consistently reduced po4..
Unfortunately, there really are no guaranteed bubble algea eaters or I would have one in my tank already..
I believe that if the nutrient pathways change slowly enough, the corals will not be stressed, I think that they can adapt to the changes.. They must be made slowly..
I think that adding too much po4 to your tank is what caused the problems, not the po4 itself.. Same for your first system with your attempts to add organics to help the corals..
"In my case I removed "the bomb". I removed biopellet and quit adding acetic acid. I'll go on adding PO4 in smaller doses. I need to make bacteria outcompete algae, but slowly. Doing it faster, would cause ammonia flow (not the nitrate stock) to be insufficient to corals (ammonia would get completely consumed by bacteria, becoming insufficient for corals and causing STN, and in worst case RTN)."
Clearly, you have come to realize that things must happen slowly.. And that making too many changes at once can also cause problems..
It is very possible that rapid, large changes cause the nutrient pathways to develop differently than when changes happen more slowly..
And one reef's 'bomb' may be another reef's savior.. Sometimes, probably often, the only way to know is to make incremental changes and find out..
Adding any organic or inorganic material to a reef tank will feed both the organisms you want to feed as well as the ones you don't want to feed..
I'm going with the belief that my system has been pretty stable for quite some time.
I believe that making the move of adding a very small amount of daily vinegar (acetic acid) will shift nutrients lower while adding the kno3 will keep n stable as p falls....
The only way to find out is to try it very slowly..
Ok I gotta post some pics..
DiscusHeckel
Acropora Gardener
They all look sexy to me.
