the secret to colorful,healthy corals....obvious to some,elusive to many

[Chris155hp]

very interesting

 

[jerseyboy]

trying to learn and follow along here but you guys keep using these acronyms and I'm lost. what the heck is no3 po4

 

[kissman]

Nitrate & phosphate

 

[Chris155hp]

Following

 

[Reefin' Dude]

Yes the rocks covered in algae make a very good in-tank scrubber.

algae is a very poor nutrient export method. algae has to wait for free inorganic nutrients to become available from the bacteria. for this very reason algae would not make a good nutrient export method. makes more sense to go after the food for the bacteria, wouldn't it? that would be the waste organic material, or detritus.

Interestingly enough, my corals responded better to a phosphate level of .1 than 0. Algae growth is minimal, back wall has some whitening at the top, rocks are all clean. I think I have to clean the front glass once a month, all the while the phosphate levels are around .1. The last tissue necrosis event I had on one coral turned around and healed within 4-7 days, I even fed more Nutricell plankton.(not advertising, for reference; didn't want to say I just fed more)
All the while my nitrates are 1-10 ppm. The most active phosphate range I have found, not nearing zero, is .05, and then going up as far as .22. After I cleaned the biopellet reactor(biodigest used monthly;1ml), gac (cleaned not replaced), replaced Poly-Filter, skimmer mechanical filtration sponge I had the tissue necrosis event. PO4 went from .22 to .05 in 24 hours. The little area on the frag was a little smaller than a pencil eraser top. I saw .05 po4 and instead of thinking 'phosphates?! I need zero' I decided to feed more, sure enough it turned right around and stopped the rtn.

Just wanted to share where I'm at. My tank has always done ok, but pretty nonexistent growth. After ignoring the thought of "I need zero phosphates" all of my corals are growing better including the sps. In addition to this I've started using red sea color colors and reef energy. It's been interesting with the lack of the ABC foundation stuff (I use kalk atm) but I would have to say it's been fairly rewarding. No stress during an rtn event, hell yes.

We've all seen those tanks that have elevated phosphates and they look at least halfway nice. So maybe there's something else we need to be looking at as an identifier than phosphates? I've been pretty shocked..

if you feed the tank enough, than the amount of inorganic nutrients is less important. we are so concerned about phosphates that we do not feed our tanks. as long as the corals are in control of the nutrient flow, all is good. the testable levels of phosphates and nitrates can be ridiculously high.

What this may have been, is a giant reduction in microbe activity. Microbes/periphyton collects on all surfaces from day one, and starts a new few chain. Your polyps grew according to that food. Then the food was gone when you cleaned all those surfaces. Thus the reduction in phosphate may have just been a coincidence.

Remember that microbial food is invisible, and is what causes the huge swarms/schools of fish to stay nears corals/rocks on reefs even when they are being chased by predators.

it is just the opposite. the increase in microbial life has lowered the inorganic nutrient levels. they have to be feeding on something. an increase in biomass is an increase in total nutrients of a system. testable nutrients are only a very small part of the nutrient chain, and not a good indicator of where the system is trophic wise. the best indicator of that is the amount of "support" biomass. the more "support" biomass the more total nutrients in the system. every organism has P and N in them.

You'll have a year or so while the rocks absorb the phosphate.

As for the puffer, it's the large amounts of urea/ammonia/ammonium going to into the water which is probably causing the trouble. The same amount of nutrients, if supplied in coral food instead, would be much more welcomed

glad to see that you admit that phosphates attach to calcium carbonate. so what do you do with the LR after that year is done? is this not also occurring in the substrate?

so the urea/ammonia/ammonium is not good, but the poo itself for the rest of the organisms? i thought your ATS was designed to be waste organic material powered.

I meant that coral foods don't make the large amounts of urea that fish pee does. So for the same amount of coral food or fish food, the coral food will make less urea, because bacteria can't dissolve a chunk of food as fast as a fish.

so are we suppose to filter out the urea, but keep the poo? how does one go about this in order to grow an ATS? i think it is easier to just siphon out the poo, and the let the bacteria do its thing on the urea since it is already water borne.

rotting waste organic material will decompose into ammonia/ammonium. this is what helps to power your ATS. we are sill collecting poo in order to provide nutrients for an organism, that really does not do any good for us except let us know that we have a nutrient problem.

---------------------------------

to break this down for those playing the home game:

different corals need different sources of P and N. some need inorganic (testable), others need organic (in food)[simplified, but good enough for this conversation]. if your goal is SPS, then nutrient export should be your primary goal, with a good amount of feeding. the corals need food, but there needs to be a strong way for waste organic material to be exported. siphon that poo, it is toxic for them. if your goal is softies, than there needs to be a good amount of available inorganic nutrients for it to feed. keep that poo, it is healthy for them.

here and here are some good threads to read through if one would like discussion on the topic.

G~

 

[Archgeek]

Informative read. Thanks

 

[spkennyva]

Wow, what a great thread! This has really opened my eyes to several things that I've been doing wrong.

 

[SantaMonica]

glad to see that you admit that phosphates attach to calcium carbonate

I'm one of the few who teaches that it does.

so what do you do with the LR after that year is done?

Well, the idea is to export enough so that the P in the water does not flow into the rocks, and thus does not fill up the rocks in a year or two. But since P is invisible, new reefers will think they have enough export when in fact it's the rocks that's doing the absorbing.

When the rocks fill up and algae problems begin, then you have to double or triple your export, to make up for the original weak export, and to start pulling P out of the rocks. Or, cook the rocks, and loose the year or two of hard-won periphyton growth (in addition to tearing up the tank).

is this not also occurring in the substrate?

Yes but I don't think it's nearly as much.

so the urea/ammonia/ammonium is not good, but the poo itself for the rest of the organisms?

Basically yes. Circulating poo particles is one of the largest parts of the plankton that feeds a lot of the reef/ocean. This video explains it pretty well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQaE0e0iD3s - Trophic Pyramids

so are we suppose to filter out the urea, but keep the poo?

That would be ideal.

how does one go about this in order to grow an ATS?

Algae does it by itself, by only consuming inorganic N and P. It does not consume organics (it actually makes organics, mostly glucose).

i think it is easier to just siphon out the poo

You can do that. But you need to feed more to make up for the food removed.

rotting waste organic material will decompose into ammonia/ammonium.

Yes, either by itself via microbes and bacteria, or via larger animals's digestion. The trick it to get it to the animals so they can digest it.

algae is a very poor nutrient export method.

Tell that to someone who's rocks are covered in algae and their tests measure zero

 

[drsalomon]

I thought fish release excess nitrogen as ammonia through their gills. Do they also release urea?

 

[SantaMonica]

Good question, I'm not a fish person.

 

[rgulrich]

Yep, they also release urea, and they aren't the only ones that do..

Ammonia and urea transporters in gills of fish and aquatic crustaceans
http://jeb.biologists.org/content/212/11/1716.long

And a little more reading which provides yet more insite:
Ammonia Excretion and Urea Handling by Fish Gills: Present Understanding and Future Research Challenges
http://legacy.wlu.ca/documents/3018...by_fish_gills._J._Exp._Zool._293,_284-301.pdf

Cheers,
Ray

 

[Reefin' Dude]

Well, the idea is to export enough so that the P in the water does not flow into the rocks, and thus does not fill up the rocks in a year or two. But since P is invisible, new reefers will think they have enough export when in fact it's the rocks that's doing the absorbing.

the P in the LR is not coming from the water column it is coming from the bacteria and the organisms in the LR itself. if the flow is not good enough, then the P in the LR will keep building up because the detritus will accumulate in the LR. the greater the flow, the better the LR will be at purging itself of P.

When the rocks fill up and algae problems begin, then you have to double or triple your export, to make up for the original weak export, and to start pulling P out of the rocks. Or, cook the rocks, and loose the year or two of hard-won periphyton growth (in addition to tearing up the tank).

LR will not fill up if there is enough flow and it is not sitting on a detritus filled substrate. if the detritus is siphoned out instead of allowed to accumulate, then there will not be any reason to double or triple export, it is exported from the beginning and not allowed to accumulate under the LR or in the substrate.

design the tank for detritus export, then all of these problems are avoided. last time i checked nobody is pulling out the natural reef shelf every X number of years to purge it. it seems to be doing just fine on its own.

Yes but I don't think it's nearly as much.

you are correct, it is not nearly as much, it is significantly more! this is why there is a growing biomass in the substrate. this is why after a very short period of time when you stir up a substrate there is detritus. this can occur even in an empty tank without and feeding. the bacteria are utilizing the P attached to the calcium carbonate.

Basically yes. Circulating poo particles is one of the largest parts of the plankton that feeds a lot of the reef/ocean. This video explains it pretty well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQaE0e0iD3s - Trophic Pyramids

that video is fantastic. gives some great numbers to play with. i would suggest anybody just zoom to the 6:30 mark, that is where things get good. what it boils down to, is it take 10X more calories to feed the next lower link in the chain. meaning that if the coral needs (completely random numbers here) 10 calories a day, then if we are trying to feed the coral only from the food web in the tank, than the tank will need 100calories of food coming supplying that lower link. and so on. why not just feed the coral the 10calories it needs? if we have 10 corals, then that is 100calories needed for the corals, and 1000 calories necessary to feed the support organisms, and so on.

of course that is the organisms, not the poo. the poo needs to be broken down (10%), then can feed the plankton (10%), then can feed the corals (10%).

"so are we suppose to filter out the urea, but keep the poo?"

That would be ideal.

but the urea is feedig bacteria, which is another part of the 10% necessary to feed the next link.

Algae does it by itself, by only consuming inorganic N and P. It does not consume organics (it actually makes organics, mostly glucose).

yet another 10%. the algae has to wait for the poo to decay, releasing inorganic nutrients for the algae. so removing the algae is only removing 10% of the calories. that leaves 90% still flopping around in the system. why using algae as a nutrient export model does not work. it has to wait for the nutrients to become available. it can not utilize it directly from the waste organic material. just siphon it away, and skip all of the calorie pyramid.

"i think it is easier to just siphon out the poo"

You can do that. But you need to feed more to make up for the food removed.

actually just the opposite. you are only feeding your must have organism what it needs. you are not feeding the links below the must have organism, which require 10X more resources per link as shown in the video. you are actually feeding significantly more than is required to keep the must have organisms if one is feeding the must have organisms by feeding the support organisms.

"rotting waste organic material will decompose into ammonia/ammonium."

Yes, either by itself via microbes and bacteria, or via larger animals's digestion. The trick it to get it to the animals so they can digest it.

still adding more and more 10% here. there will need to be 10% more poo to feed that organism, that is going to convert the poo to more poo in their digestive track. remove the poo, then this removes that organism from the system. another drop in total nutrients of the system.

"algae is a very poor nutrient export method."

Tell that to someone who's rocks are covered in algae and their tests measure zero

i do every time.

as explained earlier in this post using the video. algae is not able to go after the source of the P, it has to wait for the P to become inorganic AND in solution. the bacteria in the rocks are having a field day and the algae on the LR is reaping the benefits. if the flow was strong enough to get the detritus out of the LR, then it will not be covered in algae.

the test measure zero because they are not testing the water that is between the bacteria in the LR and the algae. of course the water would test zero, the algae is using it all up before it can get into the water column. this is why testing for inorganic compounds does not give a good indicator of nutrient levels of a system, yet looking at the total biomass does. as shown in the video. the more biomass, the more total nutrients in the system. the more calories necessary for supporting all of that biomass.

Great Video, thanks for linking it.

G~

 

[PhaneSoul]

Well, the idea is to export enough so that the P in the water does not flow into the rocks, and thus does not fill up the rocks in a year or two. But since P is invisible, new reefers will think they have enough export when in fact it's the rocks that's doing the absorbing.

When the rocks fill up and algae problems begin, then you have to double or triple your export, to make up for the original weak export, and to start pulling P out of the rocks. Or, cook the rocks, and loose the year or two of hard-won periphyton growth (in addition to tearing up the tank).

the P in the LR is not coming from the water column it is coming from the bacteria and the organisms in the LR itself. if the flow is not good enough, then the P in the LR will keep building up because the detritus will accumulate in the LR. the greater the flow, the better the LR will be at purging itself of P.



LR will not fill up if there is enough flow and it is not sitting on a detritus filled substrate. if the detritus is siphoned out instead of allowed to accumulate, then there will not be any reason to double or triple export, it is exported from the beginning and not allowed to accumulate under the LR or in the substrate.

design the tank for detritus export, then all of these problems are avoided. last time i checked nobody is pulling out the natural reef shelf every X number of years to purge it. it seems to be doing just fine on its own.

you are correct, it is not nearly as much, it is significantly more! this is why there is a growing biomass in the substrate. this is why after a very short period of time when you stir up a substrate there is detritus. this can occur even in an empty tank without and feeding. the bacteria are utilizing the P attached to the calcium carbonate.


G~

just wanted to clarify for those that don't know.
calcium carbonate can bind with phosphate. bacteria can liberate (separate, unbind, whatever) phosphate from the calcium carbonate structure. they then use this phosphate and incorporate it into their biomass. bacteria also die. this is where some of that detritus from the rock is coming from, the dead bacteria still have phos bound within it, remove that stuff or provide the flow to blow it away and your removing phosphate from the calcium carbonate. its the same with the substrate only the detritus only has one way to go, down.

Might be a new talking point, but anything im about to say besides the bacteria liberating phosphate is speculation based off what ive read, just trying to connect the dots.

My recent readings lead me to kindve draw a diagram of the different ways phosphates are moving about whithin the bacterial biomass.

Once the bacteria liberate phosphates from the calcium carbonate structure they are then considered inorganic phos. this inorganic phos is floating around the enzyme that encases the bacterial biomass (EEBB). bacteria are then free to use this P. in the ATP process P is loaded and unloaded, P is always in motion, going from organic to inorganic P between the EEBB and bound with the bacteria all the time. The more iP within the bacterial enzyme the more bacterial biomass there is allowed to be.

With an influx of P (lets say a phos filled rock added to a healthy, low nutrient system), maybe that new frag you just got
the bacterial biomass will start liberating P from the structure at a rate faster then they can procreate. so the inorganic level within the EEBB goes higher. more total P for the bacteria, the more bacteria that can grow. I have also read a few things (back when I wasn't saving bookmarks sadly so I cannot provide a link.. but you ATS people might be able to provide something here, I santa monica I think you might have showed it to me, something about surface algae layer on the rocks, bacteria surface film that contained detritus among other things) that state algae can pull the iP from the EEBB. Its excess iP for the bacteria so there is no fight for it. Due to saturation, or 'leaching', the higher iP within the EEBB the more iP that's allowed to leach into the water column where we can test for it.

That is my explaination for algae growing on rock that apparently has no detritus settling on it and how P gets from bound to the LR past the bacteria and shows as iP in the water column, such as in the case of cooking rock.

 

[rgulrich]

And that sounds like the foundation for a decent research paper, too. Provide the hypothesis, and take us down the path. I for one would be interested in reading it.
Cheers,
Ray

 

[SantaMonica]

The best weekends I've every had were going through ReefBase.org and other sites, finding papers to read on these subjects. I guess for reefers, it's a "good thing" that climate change is making these papers more common and important. The new papers are harder to follow, however; I like the papers from the 1960's, which are before tracers and other difficult things for non-biologists. Interestingly, LA Fishguys has an old 1998 Macna video of Walter Adey that is going to be posted soon, and Adey talks for an hour about just this stuff.

last time i checked nobody is pulling out the natural reef shelf every X number of years to purge it. it seems to be doing just fine on its own.

With no water changes, correct. Only algal filtration.

And real reefs recycle (re-circulate) almost all nutrients; there is very little "natural water change".

why not just feed the coral the 10calories it needs?

Because you can't. That's how biology works. Most organisms only take about 10% of the nutrients from the food eaten, and pass the the rest. I recommend "Introduction To Marine Biology" by Turner-Small, as a great biology first-year book to learn these types of things.

 

[Reefin' Dude]

The best weekends I've every had were going through ReefBase.org and other sites, finding papers to read on these subjects. I guess for reefers, it's a "good thing" that climate change is making these papers more common and important. The new papers are harder to follow, however; I like the papers from the 1960's, which are before tracers and other difficult things for non-biologists. Interestingly, LA Fishguys has an old 1998 Macna video of Walter Adey that is going to be posted soon, and Adey talks for an hour about just this stuff.

there is a reason why you need to go back that far, because it isn't correct. the new stuff is, and that is why i have been posting only current peer reviewed papers. i will post links to articles about the affects and causes of eutrophication on coral reefs. it looks a lot like what is going on in those systems that were designed for nutrient accumulation instead of nutrient export.

"last time i checked nobody is pulling out the natural reef shelf every X number of years to purge it. it seems to be doing just fine on its own."

With no water changes, correct. Only algal filtration.

And real reefs recycle (re-circulate) almost all nutrients; there is very little "natural water change".

some would argue that in nature there is a water change going on continuously. there is very little chance that an organism on the reef is going to be seeing the same bit of H2O again. you know with all of those tides and stuff.

the outer reefs to hold onto some resources very tightly, but they still need some new resources. no organism, or symbiotic relationship is 100% efficient. even it if were, there would not be any increase in growth. new resources are necessary.

Because you can't. That's how biology works. Most organisms only take about 10% of the nutrients from the food eaten, and pass the the rest. I recommend "Introduction To Marine Biology" by Turner-Small, as a great biology first-year book to learn these types of things.

but we do every day. we ourselves only eat what we need (i try anyway, i seem to keep gaining in mass around the mid area though). we feed our other pets just what they need. we are providing just the calories and resources they need. we are not collecting our poo, spreading it out on the floor, then waiting for the vermin, insects, and fungus to do their thing, then feeding off of the them. we could wait another step and get some predators in there if we would like some bigger food.

biology works the same whether it is in our tanks, in the oceans or in the forests. organisms tank in what they can, and expel what they do not need.

corals do the same thing. they take in what they can (plankton, i will post articles on the importance of feeding corals, when i get to work). they produce waste, which provides resources for the zoax. the zoax then in turn provides other resources back to the coral. the rest, if not needed is expelled. the process starts somewhere. there still needs to be resources coming into the coral to provide growth for the coral and the zoax.

G~

 

[Reefin' Dude]

links.

Eutrophication & Coral Reefs

The effects of eutrophication-related alterations to coral reef communities on agents and rates of bioerosion (Reunion Island, Indian Ocean)

Eutrophication and coral reefs—some examples in the Great Barrier Reef lagoon

Eutrophication and Changes in Algal Growth on Coral Reefs

Aquarium Corals: Zooplankton Feeding by Corals Underestimated

Feeding a Coral Reef Aquarium

Feeding the Reef Aquarium, A New Paradigm

Small polyps do capture zooplankton

could not find a thread on RC about the Smithsonian tank crash.

Smithsonian Tank Crash

G~

 

[Triggerfish]

Now I think I have find a solution.
The secret is balance. Once your tank achieved the right balance everything will thrive.

Well..yes of course that would make sense.. however, how one achieves that with their particular setup will vary. light loads ,heavy loads will determine what method(s) may be utilized to achieve such said balance.
Perhaps it's safe to presume no two tanks are exactly identical, therefore what methods balance one tank may not yield similar results with another.

Guidelines are used to attempt and resemble closely 'similiar' setups.
Many variables are interwined within one's enclosed system that even then there's no 'guarantee' any one method will alone be able to achieve desired results.
I'm just now making myself aware of high PO4 in my system that my scrubber cannot handle alone. So GFO will be attempted to get parameters closer to what 'may' yield better results.

 

[Aquarist007]

I've battled an algae outbreak for six months on a 39 gal that I maintain. I am convinced now that the rock is saturated with phosphates.
Can rock absorb phosphates deep into its pores?
If so I am assuming that I can't cook the live rock(acid then chlorine baths) as I have done when I have been convinced that the phosphates are mainly bound up on the rock surfaces?
So should I replace this rock entirely?

 

[JPMagyar]

I've battled an algae outbreak for six months on a 39 gal that I maintain. I am convinced now that the rock is saturated with phosphates.
Can rock absorb phosphates deep into its pores?
If so I am assuming that I can't cook the live rock(acid then chlorine baths) as I have done when I have been convinced that the phosphates are mainly bound up on the rock surfaces?
So should I replace this rock entirely?

IF, and thats a big if, If the rock had phosphates it would have a limit as to how much it would excrete until it reached equilibrium and it begs the question as to why suddenly it switched from adsorbing to leaching and why then it would persist in leaching.

My daughter has a 36 Nuvo and it has fabulous corals and my tank isn't too shabby either. I think if you have an algae problem it's no different than any other algae problem. You need to find a balance. Either you have too much input, not enough biology, or not enough export.

It's not the rocks, or so that's what I think