So do we want nutrients or not?

[Allmost]

I am not sure how Randy checks his phosphates, but .005ppm is way finer resolution than most hobbyists are able to calculate. .005ppm is too low for my tastes, but to each their own. Many zeo tank are kept somewhere between .02-.04 so that is what I shoot for (not trying to start a zeo arguement :debi

That is just False info

maybe you are forgetting one zero though. 0.002-0.004 makes more sense.

 

[Allmost]

Probably mine. I will try to make it better. I blame that dam copperband butterfly, he is always screwing up my tank and getting me bad publicity :dance:

Who's tank? Mine?

Which ever of you is named Paul

to the first Paul, please dont get us wrong, your LPS and softies and other life are super, but SPS, not so much. I am sure you can agree to that as well

Matt, its nothing personal

 

[jcdeng]

Nothing

lol that is an very accurate depiction of the sea bed around us here in NY.

 

[Arkayology]

That is just False info

maybe you are forgetting one zero though. 0.002-0.004 makes more sense.

Most measure to the hundredth. I think my .02-.04 is within the accepted range of many hobbyists keeping SPS.

http://www.zeovit.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24653

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2116704

 

[Paul B]

I am sure you can agree to that as well

Of course, my tank is just what I want it to be, nothing more.

lol that is an very accurate depiction of the sea bed around us here in NY.

It should be, the water and many of the rocks and creatures comes from here. :uhoh3:
It's just a simple tank for a simple guy :lol2:

 

[Allmost]

Most measure to the hundredth. I think my .02-.04 is within the accepted range of many hobbyists keeping SPS.

http://www.zeovit.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24653

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2116704

okay

 

[Arkayology]

I feel sorry I quoted you lol

but okay

Just sayin :lol:

 

[Allmost]

well "friendly discussions" here turn into "religion wars" faster than one would think, so Im just gonna say okay and move on.

 

[Arkayology]

well "friendly discussions" here turn into "religion wars" faster than one would think, so Im just gonna say okay and move on.

Ha, ya I've noticed that. I don't participate in that sorta thing. I was just giving my .02 for the OP. They can choose which way that want to go based on their research. I do like your tank btw, so whatever you are doing it is working.

 

[Drae]

Even with PO4 and NO3 @ 0 ( undetectable I should say) couldn't you just feed more with a quality coral food?

 

[Arkayology]

Even with PO4 and NO3 @ 0 ( undetectable I should say) couldn't you just feed more with a quality coral food?

You could, but how long the food would stick around and how much it effected the water quality would be based on your filtration methods. I think this is what many to do help their corals in systems that are too clean other than changing their filtration to be less rigorous.

 

[Drae]

You could, but how long the food would stick around and how much it effected the water quality would be based on your filtration methods. I think this is what many to do help their corals in systems that are too clean other than changing their filtration to be less rigorous.

Yes because I would rather have the ability to vigorously remove waste with my filtration. Plus who wants to do weekly water changes? I prefer 14 to 21 days before a water change. I think any nutrient level ( under problematic levels of course) is okay. It's very hard to keep a certain amount of phosphate and nitrate in a tank but very easy to keep them undetectable. Jmo

 

[GreshamH]

Ammonia, nitrites, nitrates and bacteria are part of the cycle dealing with fish poop decaying food and decaying /dead life whether fish or fauna. I don't think corals of any type benefit from either of the 4. Well maybe bacteria as it keeps the others levels low. Nutrients are food like phytoplankton, cyclopleez and fish food , or minerals like calcium, magnesium and other trace elements. Sps and all corals need nutrients but don't like high levels of ammonia nitrates other nitrites. Some soft corals like "dirty water" not for the higher nitrates but for the extra food in the system they can feed on. Thats what creates high levels is extra food that is not consumed.

Bacterioplankton is a food for many corals, very beneficial in feeding them.

 

[franklypre]

If you plan to eliminate N&P to a point where it's in the thousandths range you are really going to run into hard times keeping coral happy and th e tank stable. Just do your best to keep it stable, blast them with light, and keep good flow, it's not rocket science.

 

[Arkayology]

if you plan to eliminate n&p to a point where it's in the thousandths range you are really going to run into hard times keeping coral happy and th e tank stable. Just do your best to keep it stable, blast them with light, and keep good flow, it's not rocket science.

+1

 

[Pallobi]

if you plan to eliminate n&p to a point where it's in the thousandths range you are really going to run into hard times keeping coral happy and th e tank stable. Just do your best to keep it stable, blast them with light, and keep good flow, it's not rocket science.

+2

 

[Allmost]

the main problem with these threads, is that ppl do not understand bacterioplankton ...

many here think that Bacterioplankton, or Carbon dosing, means Stripping the water from nutrients ... and getting NO NO3 and PO4 ... well that is not the case, nor the Idea !

Idea is to LOCK UP the free nutrients, into biomass of bacteria, so corals are not in water with high N and P to make them grow more zoox, but at the same time, have alot of food available, in form of bacteria which is their preferred food.

now this Bacteria population, needs to be kept in check, and also we need tomake them happy, by feeding them N and P and of course, Carbon the nutrient profile of such bacteria, is what our corals will eat.

Testing for N and P in a bacterioplankton system, will just show how well we are converting free nutrients into bacteria ... it doesnt mean we are stripping water.

 

[Rwpdunne]

the main problem with these threads, is that ppl do not understand bacterioplankton ...

many here think that Bacterioplankton, or Carbon dosing, means Stripping the water from nutrients ... and getting NO NO3 and PO4 ... well that is not the case, nor the Idea !

Idea is to LOCK UP the free nutrients, into biomass of bacteria, so corals are not in water with high N and P to make them grow more zoox, but at the same time, have alot of food available, in form of bacteria which is their preferred food.

now this Bacteria population, needs to be kept in check, and also we need tomake them happy, by feeding them N and P and of course, Carbon the nutrient profile of such bacteria, is what our corals will eat.

Testing for N and P in a bacterioplankton system, will just show how well we are converting free nutrients into bacteria ... it doesnt mean we are stripping water.

+1 good point

 

[dkeller_nc]

what? Randy Farley Holmes has statistics that put them a lot lower than your suggestions. In this article http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...issues/2004-05/rhf/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca He has seawater as containing NO3 as Variable (typically below 0.1 ppm) and PO4 as 0.005 ppm . Sounds pretty low to me.

While Randy's numbers are accurate, for a reef tank it may be missing the point. It would be nice to totally replicate a natural environment, but if you've ever been both day and night diving on a tropical reef, you know that this is not possible.

Specifically, while the actual water on a tropical reef may be very low in mineralized nutrients, there is a huge amount of plankton in the water every night, to the point where it can sometimes be difficult to see your dive buddies except for their lights.

This plankton is in all kinds of sizes, and all sorts of animals and plants, from single-celled organisms to 1/8" medusa, isopods, crustaceans and fish larvae. And it is typically present during most of the dark hours.

It's an often-repeated misconception that coral's preferred food is bacteria. This assertion isn't well supported by scientific publications, and also doesn't make sense when one considers the anatomy of most corals that we keep. The all have polyps, with visible tentacles. Nature doesn't waste energy on making anatomy that isn't well suited to the task at hand, and these tentacles are documented to be extremely efficient at capturing multi-celled, eukaryotic organisms. Bacteria, not so much.

That doesn't mean that coral won't ingest single-celled organisms, but their anatomy isn't ideal for the purpose. Sponges, tunicates, and mollusks on the other hand, are perfectly designed for this task.

However, in reef tank husbandry we can't fill the water during all of the dark hours with a large variety of plankton. Ergo, exactly duplicating the nutrient desert around a coral reef but also leaving out much of the nutrition available to corals in the wild doesn't make much sense.

And antectdotal evidence supports this idea - you can push mineralized nutrient levels to nearly zero, not feed the corals with some sort of zooplankton and/or phytoplankton substitute, and have the coral suffer bleaching, pale colors and STN.

 

[dvanacker]

While Randy's numbers are accurate, for a reef tank it may be missing the point. It would be nice to totally replicate a natural environment, but if you've ever been both day and night diving on a tropical reef, you know that this is not possible.

Specifically, while the actual water on a tropical reef may be very low in mineralized nutrients, there is a huge amount of plankton in the water every night, to the point where it can sometimes be difficult to see your dive buddies except for their lights.

This plankton is in all kinds of sizes, and all sorts of animals and plants, from single-celled organisms to 1/8" medusa, isopods, crustaceans and fish larvae. And it is typically present during most of the dark hours.

It's an often-repeated misconception that coral's preferred food is bacteria. This assertion isn't well supported by scientific publications, and also doesn't make sense when one considers the anatomy of most corals that we keep. The all have polyps, with visible tentacles. Nature doesn't waste energy on making anatomy that isn't well suited to the task at hand, and these tentacles are documented to be extremely efficient at capturing multi-celled, eukaryotic organisms. Bacteria, not so much.

That doesn't mean that coral won't ingest single-celled organisms, but their anatomy isn't ideal for the purpose. Sponges, tunicates, and mollusks on the other hand, are perfectly designed for this task.

However, in reef tank husbandry we can't fill the water during all of the dark hours with a large variety of plankton. Ergo, exactly duplicating the nutrient desert around a coral reef but also leaving out much of the nutrition available to corals in the wild doesn't make much sense.

And antectdotal evidence supports this idea - you can push mineralized nutrient levels to nearly zero, not feed the corals with some sort of zooplankton and/or phytoplankton substitute, and have the coral suffer bleaching, pale colors and STN.

I agree. I never said we should strive for natural seawater parameters? The amount of food on the reef and the ability of the ocean to process nutrients can not be duplicated in an aquarium.

For SPS less than 8ppm NO3 and less than .08ppm PO4 is good. Better to be a little lower than these numbers IMO but thats not bad.