"pastel" colors vs. deep dark coloring

[tacocat]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9140340#post9140340 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by JB NY
The reason I posted those two pictures, is that, IMO both show the lighter coloration we keep calling pastels. But I believe that the overall coloration of the coral should not be pale. You can, and should, have vivid coloration when looking at the coral. The key is to look at were the coloration is, as well as, where you do not have coloration. The two areas to look at are the corallites (especially the tips) and the coenosteum (the area in between the corallites). The coenosteum should be very pale (almost white), the corallites (mostly just the tip, but it depends on the species) however should have a very deep coloration and the color of the polyps, if the polyps are colored (most are), will have a deep coloration as well.

With the two shots, in the 2nd one is very obvious to see what I am writing about. The coenosteum is very prominent due to the spacing of the radial corallites. On the 1st, the coenosteum is not nearly as prominent due to the high density of radial corallites, so it gives the appearance of more color (or darker coloration). But both IMO exhibit the same traits that we are trying to achieve.

Hope that makes sense.

As a general rule true, but there are some corals (O-tort and green slimer) which don't exhibit these traits. I have seen these corals in "pale systems" and they are uniform in appearnce in them as well.

As a general rule of thumb, 20K XM bulbs and T-5s almost always produce "pale corals" to varying degrees of course.

Just a side question, but why are acros more in demand than the plating and convoluted types? Do you guys hold that the acros are better because they're more of a challenge? Or is it just the colors and variety?

Joe addressed all the salient points, but I would like to add that the encursting corals are harder to deal with over time, and the plating types tend to be light and flow blockers. Acros are more delicate, but much easier to deal with in mature tanks.

 

[JB NY]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9143421#post9143421 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by tacocat
but I would like to add that the encursting corals are harder to deal with over time

Man I HATE encrusting corals. They are impossible to get out of your tank without breaking eveything.

 

[tacocat]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9143501#post9143501 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by JB NY
Man I HATE encrusting corals. They are impossible to get out of your tank without breaking eveything.

Or pulling down your rockwork.

 

[zuzecawi]

Heh, thanks for the answers. I tend to not like the branching types, that was why I traded out/sold off most of my softies in the first place. It's also why I'm currently looking into getting Envision to build me a new tank, one that's deeper and more conducive to the montiporas and pavonas. Maybe I'll hit a point where fragging drives me crazy, I'm still at the stage where it's more fun to frag monti than it was to fish out all the dratted palyotoxin bearing stupid zooanthids. I'm VERY allergic to soft corals, I had to wear elbow length gloves to clean my aquarium before.
You know, back on the pastel kick, it's actually the creamy brown colored blue polyped montipora in my tank that fades before anything else, ORA blue Cali tort inclued, and I use that monti as my judge of water quality just as much as test kits. When the monti fades it's time to do a water change, even if I'm not seeing nitrates or anything else whacky on the tests. So much for monti cap being tough! Honestly though, I do know that the montis put up with more adverse conditions. So far I've been pretty happy with the few acros I have, I just don't... appreciate them as much as the plating types.
As far as encrusting corals, I do have a couple, one blue polyped purple monti, and one black monti, and I think they grow slow enough so far that I'm not too worried. Seems like they're pretty demanding though. The black monti does not like too much light, but it likes high flow, I have it with my gorgonians and it seems happy. The purple monti seems to be best up top in the sun.
I see mentioned 20K bulbs and T-5's causing paleness... is that together? Or either or? I don't agree with the 20K causing paleness, in my experience, if anything, when I had the 20K on my system, the corals immediately darkened and colored when brought in from other 10K and actinic systems. The 18K I have on now doesn't seem to have any impact on the colors of the corals, they're all just the same as before I switched. Then again, I might just be lucky.

Those of you with pastel corals, did they fade all at once, or over time?

 

[jpierson77]

Ok here are my pics, and the reason I originally posted this question.
Pic 1 Slimer right after purchase mid summer.

Pic 2 Slimer now

Pic 3 slimer w/ white balance on

Pic 4 orange cap

All pictures are taken with the same camera .

 

[jpierson77]

Double post

 

[Big E]

As a general rule true, but there are some corals (O-tort and green slimer) which don't exhibit these traits. I have seen these corals in "pale systems" and they are uniform in appearnce in them as well.

As a general rule of thumb, 20K XM bulbs and T-5s almost always produce "pale corals" to varying degrees of course

My expereices have been contrary to what you mentioned. I've seen slimers that were bright vibrant flourescent green turn into pale yelllowish color in pastel systems. Dark blue torts with light blue hues & loss of vividness.

I've run XM 20k's for 3 years & have never had the pale colors. I think it goes back to what Joe mentioned............how clear(nutrient poor) the water is combined with light intensity dictates pastel or dark & it's a sliding scale based on these two varaibles.

 

[ReeferAl]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9127452#post9127452 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by antonsemrad
Do organic p04's inhibit growth? Before they break down into inorganic that is.

"organic pO4's" really isn't correct. There is inorganic phosphorus (PO4) and there is organic phosphorus, which is NOT PO4. Any organic molecule having phosphorus in it is organic phosphorus (not organic phosphate). It becomes inorganic phosphorus/phosphate when it breaks down chemically. (Technically many forms of organic phosphorus contain "phosphate radicals" bound to them, which are fairly easily split off into inorganic phosphate, but they don't "act like" PO4 while they are bound). More than anyone really wanted to know...
Allen

 

[ReeferAl]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9129229#post9129229 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by stony_corals
Why wouldn't they? They are phosphates none the less.

No they aren't. See my previous post. They wouldn't act like PO4 because they aren't PO4. Phosphate (PO4) can get into the calcium carbonate crystal lattice and stop the process of calcium carbonate deposition. It "poisons" the crystal formation. Organic phosphates are large molecules that aren't able to do that, even if they "wanted to".
Allen

 

[MiddletonMark]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9114149#post9114149 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Flint&Eric
Stony- It is very accurate to say that many systems such as mine are N limited.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9114255#post9114255 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Leonardo's Reef
I think an N limited tank can be possible if you (over)skim wet, have a BB tank, and use GAC (binds organic compounds). This together with the addition of C can create an overall limitation of N.

Not to jump backward too many pages - but don't zeovit/vodka and other Carbon-adding systems work on the fact our tanks are C-limited?

Is it really possible for the tank to go from C limitation to N limitiation back to C limitation for the next daily carbon addition?

IMO - this is assuming an absolute lack of nutrient available - something that would probably be problematic/fatal for our livestock if truly limited or going to `zero available'.

Can our tanks be limited by both daily?

IMO, it raises enough issues to make me consider food as the important change vs. N compounds.

 

[glassbox-design]

Not to jump backward too many pages - but don't zeovit/vodka and other Carbon-adding systems work on the fact our tanks are C-limited?

Is it really possible for the tank to go from C limitation to N limitiation back to C limitation for the next daily carbon addition?

IMO - this is assuming an absolute lack of nutrient available - something that would probably be problematic/fatal for our livestock if truly limited or going to `zero available'.

Can our tanks be limited by both daily?

IMO, it raises enough issues to make me consider food as the important change vs. N compounds.

Zeovit and other systems do address C limitation...just based off the growth i think it's safe to say they address N limitation too.

I am not sure what you mean...but C and N limitation isnt really a true "cycle". Sure the levels adjust per dosing because we can have a constant drip... but with these systems it is to maintain the cnp ratio for optimal bac growth. Zeovit systems are very low nutrient, but with the addition of bacs, aminos, etc. it allows the corals to feed.

IMO, yes our tanks can be limited by both daily.

eric

 

[ReeferAl]

A system may be carbon limited for 1 type of organism, such as those bacteria that can't assimilate bicarbonate, but nitrogen limited for those that can use bicarbonate, such as algae/zooxanthallae.

Allen

 

[ReeferAl]

A system may be carbon limited for 1 type of organism, such as those bacteria that can't assimilate bicarbonate, but nitrogen limited for those that can use bicarbonate, such as algae/zooxanthallae or corals.

Allen

 

[antonsemrad]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9147985#post9147985 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ReeferAl
"organic pO4's" really isn't correct. There is inorganic phosphorus (PO4) and there is organic phosphorus, which is NOT PO4. Any organic molecule having phosphorus in it is organic phosphorus (not organic phosphate). It becomes inorganic phosphorus/phosphate when it breaks down chemically. (Technically many forms of organic phosphorus contain "phosphate radicals" bound to them, which are fairly easily split off into inorganic phosphate, but they don't "act like" PO4 while they are bound). More than anyone really wanted to know...
Allen

Well I wanted to know! lol
Thankyou for clearing that up for me.

 

[antonsemrad]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9094293#post9094293 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by antonsemrad
I think that the golden/brown zooxanthellae are responsible for the darker pigments. This speaks to the paradox of contemporary methods of keeping stoney corals IMO.

It has been our goal for a long time to keep tank water low in dissoved nutrients like on natural coral reefs. Corals have adapted to survive in this environment with lots of mouths for eating, and the zooxanthellae recycle the coral poo, turning it into carbohydrates/sugar that the coral then makes mucus with. In an aquarium though, its not always the same. If there are excess dissolved nutrients in the water column, the zooxanthellae get to eat, but the coral eats less. That can throw the symbiosis out of balance, causing slower growth, and poor health. However, nowadays folks are keeping dissoved nutrients much lower than before, but may or may not be providing enough nutrients in the form of prey capture. If there is less food for the coral, then there is in turn less coral poo that feed the zooxanthellae. They in turn die and/or are expelled.

I have never seen a real reef, but from the pictures and moves that I have seen, there has not been any 'pastel' colored corals, and likewise there has always been crap (aggregates/detritus) floating all over the place. That leads me to believe that 'light/pastel' corals are in fact malnourished. Now don't get me wrong, zeo tanks, and rainbow colored 'sps' reef tanks can be quite a sight to behold, and it sure does seem like the corals can adapt and grow quite well in this environment, so I can sure see why this is the goal of many hobbyists. But that does not nessesarly mean that the coral is in a 'natural' state, or that the coral is 'healthy'.

When the subject of malnourished/bleached corals comes up in this forum the conventional wisdom is But I am not convinced that this is the best answer. I have no doubt that it works, but that does not mean that its the best method.

First of all, more fish will result in more dissolved nitrogen (ammonia) in the water column. Often the tanks with these issues are already lacking sand, and/or algae, and, we are using less live rock than we did before. It seems to me that these are best lines of defence in combating this unwanted byproduct. In the past, I have suggested the intermentant use of the protein skimmer, but that idea was dissmissed because of concern for ammonia, and oxygen. But that for some reason dosn't apply for adding fish.
Second, digestion comes at an energy cost to the coral, so one might perhaps consider the nutrient profile of the food that the coral is eating. Take flakefood for example, who knows whats in it to begin with, then its dried, stored for god knows how long, fed to the fish, digested, and then the coral eats it. Better than nothing, but why not feed gut loaded zooplanton to the fish? Why not just feed it to the coral? If you like to use seafood, why use the fish to make it small enough for the coral to eat? Wouldn't a kitchen appliance work just as well?

Anton

I now think that the advice that I gave in the above post was, ignorant, misguided, and poor advice.

Add a fish or 5 and increase the feedings to once a day at least.

That, may indeed be the best way.

I don't know why I didn't realize this before, it was staring me right in the face the whole time.

What you guys are doing, is limiting phosphate, not nitrogen. As far as I can tell, the BB's method for limiting nitrogen is still not clearly defined. Organic carbon may be the answer, but it is still new, and somewhat risky. Some people are using RDSB's, but its detritus rotting in the sand that reduces the nitrate, and that is clearly at odds with the p04 limiting approach.

I am not sure how much phosphate zooxanthellae need to grow, but it can't be much. If their growth is limited in this way, organic nitrogen is relatively harmless. That is why you guys get away with having so many fish.

Because nitrate is avalible, once the smallest amount of phosphate hits the water column, zooxanthellae populations explode, overwhelming the corals. I think this happening is what gave birth to terms like 'nutrient bomb', 'brownout', and the fear surrounding brown corals. It is also why any uneaten food (detritus) must be removed before it rots, liquids from blended seafood must be rinsed away, phosphate binders are so usefull, and protien skimmers must not be turned off!

DaddyJax is right!

When did fish excrement get labeled as nutritionally void? My understanding was quite the opposite. It is a broken down and separated carbon and protein source that turned into P04 only after it broke down in the sand or anywhere else it lands and doesn't get consumed. Also I believe that what you put in the fish is going to come out. Pellets and flake are things that I never use. I am confident that most if not all of them are fillers and crap. I like the idea of puree mush and using good fresh seafood. I also agree that corals can and do consume zooplankton and pods, but they also consume detritus as well. Pods are a reefers best friend and we will try to produce as many as possible so that they keep our systems clean.

 

[shelburn61]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9143421#post9143421 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by tacocat
As a general rule true, but there are some corals (O-tort and green slimer) which don't exhibit these traits. I have seen these corals in "pale systems" and they are uniform in appearnce in them as well.

I bought my slimer as a small colony and within a few weeks of acclimation (on the bottom) it lost the deep emerald green. I have a lot of trouble maintaining greens in general.
Notice the pink cap as well.

Although my display is BB, I run a 6" sandbed in the refugium. If we are assuming N limitation is a contributing factor, would removing the sandbed help bring the C-N-P ratio more in line?

The pics are overexposed, but represent the colors fairly well:

 

[Ventralis321]

Ok heres my situation. I currently have a 75gal mixed reef. I use a deep sand bed. It has been running for 3-4 years. My acros used to have lots of deep colors. Back then i had more fish and fed heavily. Only problem is my Po4 climbed over time and i had to find a way to remove it.

My question is how do i maintain my deep sand bed from accumulating too much organics and Po4 with keeping my nutrients to levels my corals were doing best at. I try and vacuum the sand once in a while and then add critters back to the sand but don't know if thats really a good idea or not. Seems to work a couple of my corals seemed to get some color back but not like before. I remember using Sea chem Reef plus before too and i know thats supposed to have amino acids in it.

I never used to touch my DSB before and got some excellent colors. My guess is that you're supposed to have some nutrients in the sand but not an excessive amount which inevitably will occur overtime.

Please share DSB experiences and maintenance. Advice on keeping the sand from compacting and other ways to export the Organics trapped in the sand.

 

[stony_corals]

Ventralis, I've only used sand beds that were a max 3-4" w/o and plenum, and 4" with a plenum. I've not had PO4 issues with either setups and I've have multiple setups. Part of the problem with the 'nutrient sink' argument about sand seems a bit flawed. That is that these nutrients are leached back into the water column. This could be happening, but I've never had an issue with PO4 in these systems. Plus, bacteria and microorganisms use the O (oxygen) from NO3 and from PO4 for respiration. Now the remaining N as N2 does escape, but P is not a gas and remains. I don't think the P cycle is well understood in the context of our systems. But I do use protein skimmers which can take out a lot of PO4... I am assuming you have a properly sized skimmer?!?

It's difficult to say if/why PO4 is leached back into the water column. I'm not sold on the idea that it actually happens. I know that several people have had 'crashes' due the 'nutrient sink'.

 

[Ventralis321]

Interesting point stony. Actually my skimmer is oversized for my tank due to my tank load. Lots of fish and corals and rock. Its just funny that when i was feeding heavily i was getting deeper colors. But the problem i was concerned about was the nutrient sink crash.

I bought a salifert Po4 test kit and found my phosphates were through the roof well according to the instructions. So I bought some rowaphos and lowered the Po4 reading to almost 0. This seemed to affect my corals but i'm not 100% sure. It didn't happen overnight. It seemed to have maybe made the color of my corals lightened. But there could be many factors involved too. I was vacuuming my sand bed around that time. I was feeding less food to the fish. So i can't really pinpoint it.

Back to my sand bed. When I stir the sand in places that i don't normally touch, brown detritus comes flying out. It seems those areas are nutrient sinks and the detritus layers and layers on top of each other and creates a thick sludge area. Should i be vacuuming these portions once in a while. Because i have been removing them and notice my tanks water to be a little clearer. But it also sets back my tank back somewhat. I notice it takes longer for my water to clear up during feedings a few days after i clean my sand bed. I'm guessing i'm removing good bacteria as well. It usually corrects itself within a week to a month depending on how much i took out of the sand.

So to clear some things up. Were my Po4 levels creating good colors in my Acro's? Or was it the heavy feedings to my fish? or was it the sludge in my sand bed? Also like you said Stony would my tank crash eventually if i don't keep the nutrient sinks clean?

 

[sprite]

my bb tank is 7 months old and when i started adding frags they would turn pastel colored...so i did some reading and came to the conclusion my tank was nutrient starved... i feed cyclopeze 2-3 times a day and dt o-eggs everyother night and skim heavy, my frags went from pastel to deep dark colors especially my tort and tricolor, a browny i got from lfs turned a flourescent green and my monti digita is a deep orange color...i run gfo 24/7 and have t5ho...my skimmer is a octopus 110 rated for 150 and i run it on a 29 with 2 mj mods pointed at each other