Nitrate Dosing

[tmz]

Sorry for your losses. Surprised teh PO4 didn't rise if you stopped gfo and other dosing and increased feeding. I'm out of ideas except for toxins. Maybe, the rock or substrate was previously exposed to copper.

 

[Spyderturbo007]

Can you post up a full tank shot and also one that shows the positioning of the lighting above the tank? If the parameters are fine and no harmful substance can be identified, it narrows it down to lighting or flow or oxygenation or a combination of these.

Absolutely. Hopefully this helps. I tried to lay the position of the worst performing corals. Well, at least the ones that are definitely dying. I suspect the others aren't too far behind.

So far, I've lost a Rainbow Montipora, Purple Stylophora, Orange Pavona, Clementine Zoas and a Chaos Favia. The all just slowly died.

I read thru the thread again to see what was providing the flow. I saw 2 mp10s and the return pump but didn't see the skimmer. I may have missed it, but do you run a skimmer? Also can you estimate the flow to the sump?

Edit: The FTS is for coral placement and to see how the flow occurs relative to the corals and structure.

Correct. The MP10s are set up to run Reef Crest during the daylight hours at a max flow of 65%. When the lights go out, the pumps run on Lagoon at a max flow of 35%.

The return pump is a Pond Mag Drive 7. It says it's rated for 700gph. The outlet goes through a check valve and then through about 5' of hose and up to the return line that runs up inside my overflow. I'm not sure how much of the flow is lost to head pressure and the use of the check valve.

I do have a skimmer. It is a Bubble Magus NAC3.5

I have to say, and I think I'm speaking for all on RC, that seeing a fellow hobbyist encounter problems when it's evident they're not being neglectful with their husbandry and who clearly are passionate about keeping a nice reef tank, it's distressful for us to read about this as well. We've all encountered problems along the way. So hang in there. You're not alone in dealing with issues that have plagued most all of us in one way or another.

Thanks for the kind words. I love my tank and all my animals and want nothing but the best for them. My wife calls them "The Fish Kids". :lmao:

Anyway, I've always approached this as a money is no object when it comes to the care of all my animals. From the little snails all the way up to my largest fish. I just wish I knew what was wrong.

A few weeks ago I dropped the intensity of the LEDs to 35% (down from 40%) hoping that might be a problem. I haven't dosed Nitrate since my initial addition, but have ramped up the feedings. The coral gets fed everyday with a combination of Phyto and either Reef Chili or Oyster Feast.

I also decided to lower the temperature by 1 degree (from 80 to 79). I doubt that's the problem, but I'm out of stuff to try.

 

[Bilk]

It's just my opinion, but I think you're cooking your corals. I have LEDs over my tank and I know they are powerful, even at lower intensity, can really damage a coral if placed too close. That light needs to be at least 8"-10" off of the surface of the water and maybe even higher.

Edit: I want to add - With the fixture that close to the surface and the corals, there is little chance the light is blended by the time it hits the corals. So one coral might be receiving a huge dose of only one color or a small fraction of the spectrum it needs for photosynthesis. With the light higher above the surface of the water, it will provide a more balanced spectrum when the light bends and refracts after hitting the surface of the water. Well this is just my opinion. I think the fixture is way too close to the surface and the corals and they're becoming photo inhibited then severely damaged and dying.

 

[Spyderturbo007]

Sorry for your losses. Surprised teh PO4 didn't rise if you stopped gfo and other dosing and increased feeding. I'm out of ideas except for toxins. Maybe, the rock or substrate was previously exposed to copper.

Would this show up using a Copper test kit? I've been running a PolyFilter for the last 2 weeks as instructed. How often are the PolyFilters supposed to be replaced?

It's just my opinion, but I think you're cooking your corals. I have LEDs over my tank and I know they are powerful, even at lower intensity, can really damage a coral if placed too close. That light needs to be at least 8"-10" off of the surface of the water and maybe even higher.

Edit: I want to add - With the fixture that close to the surface and the corals, there is little chance the light is blended by the time it hits the corals. So one coral might be receiving a huge dose of only one color or a small fraction of the spectrum it needs for photosynthesis. With the light higher above the surface of the water, it will provide a more balanced spectrum when the light bends and refracts after hitting the surface of the water. Well this is just my opinion. I think the fixture is way too close to the surface and the corals and they're becoming photo inhibited then severely damaged and dying.

My brother in law will be coming over tomorrow evening to help me hang the fixture. I turned it down to a max power of 30% over my lunch break this afternoon in hopes of preventing further damage.

What would be a recommended power setting once the fixture is hung?

Yorgos with Pacific Sun recommended that I start with a 3 hour sunrise, 4h of daylight at 40% and a 3 hour sunset. Do you think I should go back to that once the fixture is hung, or keep it where I have it now at 30%?

My assumption is that if it is the light causing the damage now, that high light kills much quicker than not enough light. Is that correct?

 

[Bilk]

Well I have LEDs above my tank too. With T5 and even MH, there seems to be less issue with light placement above the tank because they've been used so much and there are less variations. That's my opinion based on prior experience. With LED there's a myriad of variables, from intensity to color spectrum. So I think this complicates the issue.

I purchased a quantum meter and asked for some help on where to start. I think you should keep the level of light where you have it and get the fixture higher. Then go from there. Hopefully you'll see some kind of positive sign that will tell you more on where to go from that point.

If it were me I'd go 12" or even a bit higher. You'l get more even light spread and diminish hot spots. I don't know anything about that fixture, but I'm sure you can search around the site or net for more info from users and maybe post that question in the equipment forum.

I know you said you were getting the same results with T5, but if they were as low to to water surface as the LED then you would probably experience the same results as you did sate you were. Melev Reef has some good info on just this subject. How there are a lot of fixtures hung at the wrong height over reefer's tanks. The meme is "lots of par", but there is a point where there's too much and it's probably not as high as we think for many of the corals we keep.

 

[Geeray]

Bro i agree with Bilk you light is way to close to the water. Any way you could borrow a Par meter?

 

[Spyderturbo007]

The light is now hung. I currently have it sitting 7" above the surface of the water. You think I should turn it back up to 40% where I initially started?

The fixture doesn't have any optics, so I'm hoping I don't have to go too much higher with the fixture since I'm getting significantly more light bleeding into the room obviously.

 

[Bilk]

My opinion is it needs to be higher - 12"-14". "Light bleed" or dead corals may be the choice here. I would not turn it up yet. I'd see if the corals can recover and then go from there. I'd also reduce the light cycle to no more than 8 hours for now. If you want to control the light spilling into the room, it may be necessary to construct a canopy or some other way of deflecting/preventing the light from spilling over the tank into the room. Since the fixture is suspended from the ceiling? you can make something lightweight. It could be supported by the tank edge and maybe even be made from some kind of fabric wrapped around and armature of some sort or another. JMO

 

[Ink]

Spyder, I don't know if it can help you, but I'll describe my personal view of nutrients balance. In my opinion corals like the longer light duration we can give provided that there is enough N and P. Light is very effective in reducing N and P, so if there is less N and P than how much light will consume, corals will starve. The longer the photoperiod, the faster will be nutrients reduction.
I talked about "light duration" because intensity is also important, but just enough to reach photosynthesis saturation point (about 200-300 mcmol). Exceeding in my opinion is less usefule.
Nevertheless corals can tolerate much less light (both duration and intensity) but need to find their food from other ways, I mean via eterotrophy. If You don't provide enough food via photosynthesis plus eterotrophy, corals will starve.

Your situation may be distant from any optimal equilibrium, because if You have much light, You don't have enough N and P; if You have few light, You don't compensate with feeding bacause You still have zero PO4.

Last but not least, the lower value between No3 and PO4 is the important one, being the limiting factor.

Very last, unfortunately tanks react very badly to sudden nutrient load change and often most of the corals could even die, especially if there already are other stressing situation.

Hope it can help You.

Luca

 

[Spyderturbo007]

I've moved the light up to about 11" off the surface of the water. I'm also feeding Oyster Feast and Phyto Feast at the rate of 1tps / day according to the instructions and have been since this thread started. I picked up a copper test on Sunday and there isn't any Copper in my system, so that can be ruled out.

Sunday's Test Results:

pH (Apex) = 8.05
Alkalinity (Hanna) = 8.23dKh
Calcium (Red Sea) = 420ppm
Nitrate (Red Sea) = 0.75ppm
Phosphate (Hanna) = 0.0ppm
Magnesium = Didn't get a chance to test

It appears, as always, that my test results are well within spec. The previous Alkalinity result was 7.67dKh and I suspect the increase was due to the large water change I did earlier in the week of ~20g. I'm not sure why it jumped, because I'm using Red Sea which is supposed to mix at 7.7dKh. That puzzles me a little....

Anyway, things seem about the same, but it's only been 3 days since I move the light up. The coral is still deteriorating. I guess only time will tell. :sad2:

 

[tmz]

Copper levels as low as 30 parts per billion can be toxic to invertebtates. These levels are not detectable on a hobby grade test kits or a a poly filter.
It looks very bright in there . I do not use leds for the main light source but I think lessening the intensity by moving them up is prudent.

 

[Spyderturbo007]

Copper levels as low as 30 parts per billion can be toxic to invertebtates. These levels are not detectable on a hobby grade test kits or a a poly filter.

Wouldn't that hurt my cleaner shrimp as well? We have an ICP at work, but that's way below my detection limits. Too bad we don't have an ICP-MS.

I guess I could send a sample out, but I don't know of any decent labs that I would trust.

As for the brightness, I think it's just my iPhone. It really doesn't look even close to that in person.

 

[bertoni]

The exact toxicity limits for various invertebrate species seems to differ. At some point, the cleaner shrimp likely would die.

 

[Spyderturbo007]

She's been around since I set up the tank about 18 months ago and has eggs all the time, so I suspect she is doing well.

Is there a community recommended laboratory I could send a sample to for a copper test? It's the only thing I can't do in my lab here because we don't have the right equipment.

 

[bertoni]

There's nothing that's cheap. ENC Labs will run tests, but it's expensive.

 

[tmz]

I'd probably settle for the ployfilter and cuprisorb and use the cleaner shrimp and snails like canaries in a mine.
Copper toxicity may be time limited as free copper binds to organics ,depends on a lot of variables .Not sure that's your issue in any case,jsut something to think about.





N
ot

 

[danil]

Spyder, I don't know if it can help you, but I'll describe my personal view of nutrients balance. In my opinion corals like the longer light duration we can give provided that there is enough N and P. Light is very effective in reducing N and P, so if there is less N and P than how much light will consume, corals will starve. The longer the photoperiod, the faster will be nutrients reduction.
I talked about "light duration" because intensity is also important, but just enough to reach photosynthesis saturation point (about 200-300 mcmol). Exceeding in my opinion is less usefule.
Nevertheless corals can tolerate much less light (both duration and intensity) but need to find their food from other ways, I mean via eterotrophy. If You don't provide enough food via photosynthesis plus eterotrophy, corals will starve.

Your situation may be distant from any optimal equilibrium, because if You have much light, You don't have enough N and P; if You have few light, You don't compensate with feeding bacause You still have zero PO4.

Last but not least, the lower value between No3 and PO4 is the important one, being the limiting factor.

Very last, unfortunately tanks react very badly to sudden nutrient load change and often most of the corals could even die, especially if there already are other stressing situation.

Hope it can help You.

Luca

+1. I would bump up feeding and reduce nutrient export until you can detect some level of phosphate or will noticed algae grow. If you can borrow nice live rock from someone - do it too. Get more fish or bigger one.
Unfortunately you might lose some corals during transition... they hate changes but I think youк tank is unbalanced and too clean. Let algae grow a little. CC will keep it mowed.

 

[Ink]

Another datum, but w/o scientific support. It is supposed that some micronutrients could allow the growth of pathogenic organisms, while lack of same nutrients could limit their growth. This hypothesis derives from the observation that in some natural reefs, nutrients increase caused death of all corals, while in other reefs didn't cause any apparent damage.

I can then show You some practical examples. I have a friend with a tank very similar to mine and we manage them exactly the same way. We both had nutrients too low with starving corals. We both increased feeding, but I also made large consecutive water chages with royal nature salt, that my friend didn't do.
Soon after increasing food, even before I detected NO3 and PO4, most of my corals started to die, while my friend's ones improved significantly. 3 months has passed and the situation improved only minimally; It's curious how in the beginning, even with PO4 and NO3 still zero, caulerpa exploded in my tank; now, after 3 months and with NO3 1ppm and PO4 0,04ppm, caulerpa has spontaneously quitted growing. I strongly suspect that the presence of micronutrients in addition to large water changes with a rich salt fueled pathogens, while now with time passing, these nutrients have been consumed (I stopped WC) and algae/pathogens can't grow anymore.
I can also say that in America, most of the reefers use instant ocean salt, a well known "poor" salt, while in Italy, nobody uses that because thinks it lacks many important elements.
Please look also in the thread about high phosphate ("guess my phosphate level" should title), how is it possible to have such an enormous level of inorganic nutrients w/o algae growth?

All this to say, that if this theory is correct, nutrients increase in presence of adequate micronutrients, or even worse add water changes with rich salt to nutrients increase could lead to a disaster, as I did.

Luca

 

[Bilk]

Spyder I think you're on the right path now. LED aren't plug and play and even though they may not look bright in the tank, they are powerful. It's why you cannot go by the appearance of the illumination in the tank, especially if there's a lot of blue spectrum.

I had similar issues with some corals losing color, thinking then, they just need more light. So I turned them up. I found that to be the wrong move and they browned and lost color. Once I was able to measure the par values in the tank I could see they were receiving too much light. Those that paled/browned are now starting to recover since lowering the intensity and raising the fixtures higher. I know you don't want to incur the expense of a meter, so you'll have to go a step at a time.

Feed the corals as you're doing now and keep the illumination where it is. Hopefully you'll see some improvement. Maybe get another coral that's healthy and monitor it along with the corals you have already. Then go from there. I wouldn't lower the fixture any more. Maybe in a few weeks you can bring up the intensity a few percent and see if that has any positive effect.

Good luck!

 

[bertoni]

I disagree that Instance Ocean is a poor salt product. Lots of people run very beautiful tanks with it. I'm not aware of any important elements that it lacks.