My new 600 gallon reef
- Thread starter JohnL
- Start date
- Status
jnarowe
New member
good job Chuck. I think having the extra water on hand will help you out a lot. It's just nice to know you can do a very large water change should you run into a major problem, and with all those clams in one tank, at some point you could have a massive spawning event and need all that water.
Hey, first of all, i must say
W-O-W
one of the most amazing tanks i've EVER seen... amazing work, *applause*
second, I was wondering what exactly you feed your tangs. Because I have a blue tang, and it's not doing too hot. It's not really skinny or anything, but it's fins are torn up and it has scarring all over its face (i believe it had HLLE) it's doing well eating and stuff. I feed it dried seaweed from the clip almost everyday and it eats the brine shrimp and other meaty foods i feed my other fish, but I was just wondering if there's something better i could be feeding it.
thanks =oD
W-O-W
one of the most amazing tanks i've EVER seen... amazing work, *applause*
second, I was wondering what exactly you feed your tangs. Because I have a blue tang, and it's not doing too hot. It's not really skinny or anything, but it's fins are torn up and it has scarring all over its face (i believe it had HLLE) it's doing well eating and stuff. I feed it dried seaweed from the clip almost everyday and it eats the brine shrimp and other meaty foods i feed my other fish, but I was just wondering if there's something better i could be feeding it.
thanks =oD
hi guys, just thought I'd stir things up a bit, as this thread has gotten slow. Hope you dont mind Goodwin9. As you guys remember this thread and Goodwin9 was bombarded with negative comments from AP members for several pages. This morning I spent a few minutes debating on AP forums. You guys already know my opinion on nitrate levels. This is the exchange b/w myself and the owner/founder of the site on the topic of nitrates. You can see how a mature debate is completely impossible on AP forums. Aside from the forums I do enjoy the AP site though.
http://www.aquariumpros.ca/forums/showthread.php?t=29779
http://www.aquariumpros.ca/forums/showthread.php?t=29779
jnarowe
New member
well, I don't really think any of you are particularly "wrong", but based on my experience, combining sand sizes does not work well. The finer sand sifts down through the coarse sand anyway. About nitrates, I always want to test zero because I know that it's not really zero. If I test more than zero, I know I have an issue that needs to be dealt with, and anything over zero triggers my rapid response team. 
Case in point: Recently I dealt with a variety of issues that conspired to bring nitrates up to above zero. I had a snail die off due to a heat wave, I messed up my back and couldn't do any work on the tank, my RO/DI booster pump failed, and my multi-media reactor satrted to leak, taking my carbon, Ca, mechanical, and GFO oofline for nearly two weeks.
The result was elevated nitrates and a brown algae bloom that has so far claimed three beautiful 18+ month old coral colonies and I am guessing another 2 or 3 will bite it before it's all said and done. When you measure nitrates above zero, that's telling you something is amiss. And to be clear, one of the reasons why the scales tipped was that I had not been swapping out sand from my RDSB as I had originally planned to. This sand then reached a saturation point, and although I was monitoring water quality consistently, that didn't tell the story of what was brewing in the RDSB.
And BTW, drinking RO/DI water is not very healthy at all. Better than ingesting nitrates and phosphates, but it is essentially dead water with zero minerals. Our bodies need those minerals in suspension...
And I didn't find the arguement immature. Not like I have seen here on RC anyway!
Case in point: Recently I dealt with a variety of issues that conspired to bring nitrates up to above zero. I had a snail die off due to a heat wave, I messed up my back and couldn't do any work on the tank, my RO/DI booster pump failed, and my multi-media reactor satrted to leak, taking my carbon, Ca, mechanical, and GFO oofline for nearly two weeks.
The result was elevated nitrates and a brown algae bloom that has so far claimed three beautiful 18+ month old coral colonies and I am guessing another 2 or 3 will bite it before it's all said and done. When you measure nitrates above zero, that's telling you something is amiss. And to be clear, one of the reasons why the scales tipped was that I had not been swapping out sand from my RDSB as I had originally planned to. This sand then reached a saturation point, and although I was monitoring water quality consistently, that didn't tell the story of what was brewing in the RDSB.
And BTW, drinking RO/DI water is not very healthy at all. Better than ingesting nitrates and phosphates, but it is essentially dead water with zero minerals. Our bodies need those minerals in suspension...
And I didn't find the arguement immature. Not like I have seen here on RC anyway!
I think a rapid spike in nitrates is hazardous, and I agree that it can mean something is amiss. But I believe maintaining slightly elevated nitrates in a steady equilibrium is not harmful and possibly beneficial.
We know that the water around reefs are extremely nutrient poor. So it is natural to think that this is the proper environment for reef creatures. But you have to question why are the nutrient levels so low? Is it b/c thats the environment the reef life needs to survive? Or is it b/c the abundance of life, and the competition for nutrients b/w creatures leaves the water nutrient poor? I remember an ecology class in university discussing the rainforests of South America and how the soil is extremely low in nutrients. The competition between rainforest organisms is so fierce that within a short period of time, any dying organism is quickly recycled into new biomass. This tells me that the growth of the rainforest is limited by the availability of nutrients. It is then logical to think that if you added fertilizer to the rainforest soil, the plant life will grow faster and larger. Perhaps this can be applied to the coral reef too. I believe we limit the growth of our livestock by maintaining the nutrients at undetectable levels. There are definately ranges of each nutrient levels that can be tolerated and not harmful to reef creatures. I think slightly elevated nutrients allow us to actually increase the health of our livestock to that beyond what is seen in the ocean. Much of the research indicates an increase in coral growth with increased nitrate levels.
Oh and thanks Jnarowe for the mature response, it would be nice to continue this discussion with you folks here in this thread
We know that the water around reefs are extremely nutrient poor. So it is natural to think that this is the proper environment for reef creatures. But you have to question why are the nutrient levels so low? Is it b/c thats the environment the reef life needs to survive? Or is it b/c the abundance of life, and the competition for nutrients b/w creatures leaves the water nutrient poor? I remember an ecology class in university discussing the rainforests of South America and how the soil is extremely low in nutrients. The competition between rainforest organisms is so fierce that within a short period of time, any dying organism is quickly recycled into new biomass. This tells me that the growth of the rainforest is limited by the availability of nutrients. It is then logical to think that if you added fertilizer to the rainforest soil, the plant life will grow faster and larger. Perhaps this can be applied to the coral reef too. I believe we limit the growth of our livestock by maintaining the nutrients at undetectable levels. There are definately ranges of each nutrient levels that can be tolerated and not harmful to reef creatures. I think slightly elevated nutrients allow us to actually increase the health of our livestock to that beyond what is seen in the ocean. Much of the research indicates an increase in coral growth with increased nitrate levels.
Oh and thanks Jnarowe for the mature response, it would be nice to continue this discussion with you folks here in this thread
I also think we rely on photosynthesis to feed our corals too much. I think the whole train of thought is backwards. I believe the symbiosis with zooanthelae is an adaptation to the limited availability of food (nutrients) in the waters around the reefs. The corals evolved this to survive in nutrient poor environments. I think the corals prefer to feed directly from the water column rather than manufacturing carbohydrates from photosynthesis. With the availability of coral foods these days I think we can reduce the amount of lighting we have over our reeftanks. I believe it has been shown that waterflow is more important than lighting to coral health. I think this is directly related to the ability of the corals to feed from the watercolumn if the waterflow is increased. What are your guys thoughts on this?
Last edited:
jnarowe
New member
well, the problem with limiting photosynthesis is that it is the various strains of zooanthelae that color the corals. That's why reefers want low nutrient levels. Otherwise their corals would all be brown. So while you may be correct regarding their adaptation to low ambient nutrients, it is what it is.
In a natural reef, the level of nutrients is kept near zero by growth of organisms. In a captive reef, we have a much different situation whereas increases in nutrients cannot be absorbed at the same rate as within natural reefs because we just don't have the biomass.
And still nagging me about your discussion over there, is the whole deal with measuring nitrates. Our tests simply cannot measure it at a level that is useful IMO. Once I have a nitrate level above zero (or 1+/- x%), my animals are unable to ramp up processing. Any result on a nitrate test tells me that my system nutirents are trending up. Once you get above 10ppm, it takes a lot of work to get it back down to zero.
I do not disagree with your assertions about nitrates being useful within a natural reef, or even ours, but I cannot let them get above zero or I will run into a problem. If I could meaure nitrate at a level of less than 1ppm, then that would be interesting to see for sure.
Without enough flow, corals will suffer. No doubt about that. In fact, since my Vortechs are over-heating, I have to run them at 50 - 60% which is far below the needs of my reef, and the result is, when there is an issue, the scales are tipped much more easily.
In a natural reef, the level of nutrients is kept near zero by growth of organisms. In a captive reef, we have a much different situation whereas increases in nutrients cannot be absorbed at the same rate as within natural reefs because we just don't have the biomass.
And still nagging me about your discussion over there, is the whole deal with measuring nitrates. Our tests simply cannot measure it at a level that is useful IMO. Once I have a nitrate level above zero (or 1+/- x%), my animals are unable to ramp up processing. Any result on a nitrate test tells me that my system nutirents are trending up. Once you get above 10ppm, it takes a lot of work to get it back down to zero.
I do not disagree with your assertions about nitrates being useful within a natural reef, or even ours, but I cannot let them get above zero or I will run into a problem. If I could meaure nitrate at a level of less than 1ppm, then that would be interesting to see for sure.
Without enough flow, corals will suffer. No doubt about that. In fact, since my Vortechs are over-heating, I have to run them at 50 - 60% which is far below the needs of my reef, and the result is, when there is an issue, the scales are tipped much more easily.
I remember an article about coral color, and contrary to popular belief it had less to do with nutrient levels, and more to do with the type of lighting. I'll have to find it when I have time. I also remember an article about a hawaiian reef off the coast of Kona where the nutrient levels, including nitrates, were highly elevated, yet the corals still displayed vibrant colours. I'll have to find that one too.
You're probably correct about the measured nitrates still being high relative to reef water. But I think the corals can acclimate to levels less than 20ppm. I think this is why aquacultured corals are hardier then wild caught. It just has to be done slowly.
I think though in order for our tanks to benefit from slightly elevated nutrients, we have to make sure our tanks can supply all the necessary nutrients required for growth and health. If one nutrient is limited, then growth is limited to the availability of that nutrient, and the rest become excess and possibly harmfull. If all the necessary nutrients are available, then I think we can greatly enhance the growth of our livestock. I think this is how the italian reefers have been able to get incredible growth from feeding papone. Their essential elements, especially Mg seem to be elevated aswell.
You're probably correct about the measured nitrates still being high relative to reef water. But I think the corals can acclimate to levels less than 20ppm. I think this is why aquacultured corals are hardier then wild caught. It just has to be done slowly.
I think though in order for our tanks to benefit from slightly elevated nutrients, we have to make sure our tanks can supply all the necessary nutrients required for growth and health. If one nutrient is limited, then growth is limited to the availability of that nutrient, and the rest become excess and possibly harmfull. If all the necessary nutrients are available, then I think we can greatly enhance the growth of our livestock. I think this is how the italian reefers have been able to get incredible growth from feeding papone. Their essential elements, especially Mg seem to be elevated aswell.
jnarowe
New member
The only issue I have with that is that we only test for a few nutrients. We have no idea what our micro-nutrient levels are at, nor how to boost them, other than buying some crap that says it will do so.
My Mg has never been below 1450ppm and I never boost it. But that is just one small part of the equation. I just don't have enough bio-chemical info. to be messing around with elevated nutrients.
My Mg has never been below 1450ppm and I never boost it. But that is just one small part of the equation. I just don't have enough bio-chemical info. to be messing around with elevated nutrients.
I do find this an educational discussion on zero point nitrates. As with any substance, a little may be ok, but out of balance, even oxygen is bad. As for the twenty ppm nitrate range, I suspect it would be ok. Safe drinking water is allowed up to 10 ppm in Ontario, so I suspect that there is a safety factor built in there. Not to say that humans and marine fish will react the same way, but I suspect it's tolerable. Keep the intelligent discussion flowing gentlemen. It's always good to learn things.
Dewey
Dewey
Ya your right about that jnarowe, we really dont know everything biochemically thats going on in our tanks. I suspect there are lots of dissolved organic and inorganic nutrients that are harmful in elevated levels. I think this is why we cant, as of yet, totally eliminate the water change. I think measuring nitrates has been used as a test of water quality, not because nitrates are harmful themselves, but because other dissolved substances elevate at the same time. Since we're not aware of exactly what they are, we use nitrates as the standard. I think over the years, aquarists have mistaken nitrates as the problem and not the other dissolved substances that are truly toxic at high levels.
The logical way to reduce nitrates is to limit feeding, skim more efficiently, employ a deep sand bed, use denitrators, etc. But perhaps the nitrates build because some nutrient is lacking and thus limiting the uptake of nitrate by the reeflife. Perhaps adding supplements eg. essential elements, sources of carbon(ethanol) etc, will spark growth, and in turn actually decrease nitrate levels. I believe this occurs unknowingly by some aquarists who seem to have special tanks that are highly fed, underskimmed, highly stocked, yet maintain low water parameters.
Dewey58. That is exactly my point. You're right on the money. With everything there is an acceptable range which will not cause harm. That was the point I was making on the other site. We're not abusing ourselves by drinking the tap water, ideally zero nitrates would be best, but 10 is ok, and perhaps adds some sort of nutrition. It's my opinion that the nitrate range in aquariums is more relaxed then most believe. I personally have seen increased growth, and color of both my fish and corals with the addition of coral food, and resultant elevation in nitrate levels. I also find my clams are thriving with the increased feedings.
I used to keep my nitrates at zero, and my coral growth was moderate. After increasing my feedings, my coral growth has accelerated.
The logical way to reduce nitrates is to limit feeding, skim more efficiently, employ a deep sand bed, use denitrators, etc. But perhaps the nitrates build because some nutrient is lacking and thus limiting the uptake of nitrate by the reeflife. Perhaps adding supplements eg. essential elements, sources of carbon(ethanol) etc, will spark growth, and in turn actually decrease nitrate levels. I believe this occurs unknowingly by some aquarists who seem to have special tanks that are highly fed, underskimmed, highly stocked, yet maintain low water parameters.
Dewey58. That is exactly my point. You're right on the money. With everything there is an acceptable range which will not cause harm. That was the point I was making on the other site. We're not abusing ourselves by drinking the tap water, ideally zero nitrates would be best, but 10 is ok, and perhaps adds some sort of nutrition. It's my opinion that the nitrate range in aquariums is more relaxed then most believe. I personally have seen increased growth, and color of both my fish and corals with the addition of coral food, and resultant elevation in nitrate levels. I also find my clams are thriving with the increased feedings.
I used to keep my nitrates at zero, and my coral growth was moderate. After increasing my feedings, my coral growth has accelerated.
Here is the link to the article I mentioned previously. read the section on nitrates, and the section below it titled Aquarium Mythology.
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2007/2/aafeature#h12
It basically states that in lab tests nitrates have been able to inhibit fluorescing proteins of zooanthelae. But in the aquarium, just because the nitrates are elevated in the water column, doesnt mean they're elevated within the cell membranes of the zooanthelae, and thus doesnt affect coral colouration. It goes on to discuss a reef in Kona with elevated nutrients yet vivid coral colouration.
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2007/2/aafeature#h12
It basically states that in lab tests nitrates have been able to inhibit fluorescing proteins of zooanthelae. But in the aquarium, just because the nitrates are elevated in the water column, doesnt mean they're elevated within the cell membranes of the zooanthelae, and thus doesnt affect coral colouration. It goes on to discuss a reef in Kona with elevated nutrients yet vivid coral colouration.
jnarowe
New member
well we know that nitrate is a key element in cellular growth since that's what we use to fertilize our plants. And I would assume that carbon dosing ie: sugar, alcohol, et. al. provides at least some of those lacking elements that drive growth. Since we are a carbon based planet, that only seems reasonable.
I have a brown algae outbreak right now and I am sugar dosing and watching the algae get eaten by some sort of bacteria. But I don't limit feeding. I do skim hard, and use a variety of methods to maintain water quality, but I also know successful reefers that do not skim or do water changes at all.
I have a brown algae outbreak right now and I am sugar dosing and watching the algae get eaten by some sort of bacteria. But I don't limit feeding. I do skim hard, and use a variety of methods to maintain water quality, but I also know successful reefers that do not skim or do water changes at all.
ya thats what bothers me. How can others be so successful with such inconventional systems. There's gotta be other factors at work. I know a guy, his tank must be 60 gallons at most, no skimmer, no sump, no refugium, 8-10 large fish, several soft and LPS corals, 1 sps, lots of waterflow, no water changes, deep sand bed, heavy flakefood feeder and yet a healthy tank.
Its more than just "this is the way you do it and thats it". Most aquarists just regurgitate what they've been told, without giving it some thought. Traditional methods sometimes have to be re-examined as we develop technologically and increase our knowledge of the hobby.
I used to think conventionally, just believed everything I read or was told. I kept my water parameters in check, my reef system worked and I thought it was fine. It wasnt til I bought 2 suncoral colonies and started to feed it cyclopeeze daily. What shocked me was not the suncoral growth, but rather the rest of the photosynthetic corals accelerated their growth and appeared to be thriving. My clam mantles projected further. I started to think maybe in my attempt to lower nutrients I was actually starving my livestock of something essential. When I added the cyclopeeze, i must have added something valuable, and sparked the growth. I now feed the corals everyday. To combat phosphate levels which inhibits calcification, I run 1 liter of rowaphos in my lifeguard tower filters. So far the growth and colours have been amazing. This is evident in the pics I posted earlier on in this thread.
This lead me to think that perhaps the corals prefer being fed rather than relying on photosynthesis. I studied evolutionary biology in undergraduate university, and one thing I learned is organisms don't evolve traits unless there is a competetive advantage that makes the organism more competetive and successfull at reproducing. The symbiosis with zooanthelae must have come later in evolution. The original coral ancestors would have been filter feeders. they became more successfull in low nutrient environments by becoming photosynthetic. When reefkeeping started we did not have access to the coral foods we have today, so aquarists relied on the ability of corals to photosynthesize food to keep them. Thats when all the rules for reefkeeping were developed from eg, high light, low nutrients, high waterflow. Now with the access to qualtiy coral foods, and other supplements perhaps we can turn down the lights. Maybe we should reassess our rules. perhaps its not as cut and dry as some aquarits say. Anyways, I know I've repeated myself, but its mature discussion like this that is lacking on the other site, which is why I brought it over here. What are your thoughts on these subjects goodwin9. Since its your thread and I'm hogging it.
Its more than just "this is the way you do it and thats it". Most aquarists just regurgitate what they've been told, without giving it some thought. Traditional methods sometimes have to be re-examined as we develop technologically and increase our knowledge of the hobby.
I used to think conventionally, just believed everything I read or was told. I kept my water parameters in check, my reef system worked and I thought it was fine. It wasnt til I bought 2 suncoral colonies and started to feed it cyclopeeze daily. What shocked me was not the suncoral growth, but rather the rest of the photosynthetic corals accelerated their growth and appeared to be thriving. My clam mantles projected further. I started to think maybe in my attempt to lower nutrients I was actually starving my livestock of something essential. When I added the cyclopeeze, i must have added something valuable, and sparked the growth. I now feed the corals everyday. To combat phosphate levels which inhibits calcification, I run 1 liter of rowaphos in my lifeguard tower filters. So far the growth and colours have been amazing. This is evident in the pics I posted earlier on in this thread.
This lead me to think that perhaps the corals prefer being fed rather than relying on photosynthesis. I studied evolutionary biology in undergraduate university, and one thing I learned is organisms don't evolve traits unless there is a competetive advantage that makes the organism more competetive and successfull at reproducing. The symbiosis with zooanthelae must have come later in evolution. The original coral ancestors would have been filter feeders. they became more successfull in low nutrient environments by becoming photosynthetic. When reefkeeping started we did not have access to the coral foods we have today, so aquarists relied on the ability of corals to photosynthesize food to keep them. Thats when all the rules for reefkeeping were developed from eg, high light, low nutrients, high waterflow. Now with the access to qualtiy coral foods, and other supplements perhaps we can turn down the lights. Maybe we should reassess our rules. perhaps its not as cut and dry as some aquarits say. Anyways, I know I've repeated myself, but its mature discussion like this that is lacking on the other site, which is why I brought it over here. What are your thoughts on these subjects goodwin9. Since its your thread and I'm hogging it.
- Status
