Trying something new...SPS coloration

pascal32

New member
[Caveat] I have no idea what I am chemically getting into with this, it should be a learning experience. If you can help me understand the chemical side of this I would appreciate it :)

Over the last few years I've tried to be methodical in keeping water levels clean. For the most part i feel that my tank has been very successful and that the basic parameters have been kept stable. LPS have flourished, and SPS have grown in great amounts.

unfortunately in the last 8 months I have had a loss of colors with select SPS and LPS & Zoanthids have stopped growing. Some SPS are so pail its hard to remember how colorful they were, others look the same. I believe the reduction in color started about when I put the new XP3000 skimmer in, and moved to Rox.8 Carbon. I had always fed VERY little and had a low fish load.

I suspect the tank is low on inorganic nutrients, at the fault of myself for not feeding and introducing Nitrogen via food. so I'm going to try and raise slowly the introduction of nutrients in the tank and start carbon dosing to sustain higher feedings. Maybe even add some fish (more poo!). I expect this to have some lows including a probably algae breakout, nothing we cant work through.

In no way am I trying to "dirty" the water - I would like to maintain the low parameters, albeit a touch more phosphate and nitrate - the idea is to introduce more into the tank and create an environment which processes the introduced nutrients.

why
Nothing more than observing gorgeous SPS systems which seem to have high fish loads and heavy feeding. One tank that really knocked me over is Toms (TMZ) - the colors of the SPS, quantity of fish, and quantity of feeding. that compared to my daily spectrum pellets and occasional mysis.

Amino Acids
Going on the [probably unlikely] thought that i might be low on Nitrogen, as a stop measure to help the SPS which are pale I'm starting amino acid dosing with Brightwells CoralAmino. Why? because my tank is looking like a Zeovit tank these days which is not my cup of tea. I've read the varied opinions on the company and amino acid dosing in general - this is a temporary to hopefully put some colors back into the SPS. Once the feeding is fully established the food should provide sufficient Nitrogen and amino acids.

Goal:
increased feeding while maintaining PO4 < .04 and NO3 < 1-2

slowly raise levels through feeding and allow tank to adjust with the increased feedings.

current water parameters:
35 PPT
8.5 dKH
PO4 < 0.015 Hanna PPB meter
NO3 < 1 salifert kit turns yellow
PH 8.1-8.4

Tanks
the system has two display tanks and two 50 gallon frag tanks.

120 display:
orange shoulder tang
1 yellow tang
1 coral bueaty
1 hawk
1 damsel
1 Pajama cardinal
light cleanup crew

72 display:
LPS dominant
1 cleaner wrasse
1 McCoskers flasher wrasse (still in QT)
1 desjardini tang
1 tomini tang
light cleanup crew

reactors:
I will be using 1/2 HC GFO recommended by BRS and 1/2 Rox.8 recomended by BRS

new feeding schedule
(amount is for all tanks), feeding twice a day. during the weekdays once at 6 and once at 10, on weekend noon and 6PM

day 1 (split into two feedings):
3 cubes of rinsed mysis
cube equivalent of cyclopeeze
1 cube of ova
1 cube of rods coral food

Day 2 (split into two feedings):
3 cubes of rinsed mysis
cube equivalent of cyclopeeze
1 cube of ova
1 cube rotifiers
1 cube of regular rods food

Pictures
I'll talk some pictured starting tomorrow on a weekly or so basis. Pictures will be with the same camera, lens, settings, saturation and white balance. I'll be using the following corals which appear faded in color:

(1) unknown acro I call the Christmas Tree
(2) $500 Efflo
(3) Tricolor Bali
(4) ORA Chip
(5) Gary's unknow Acro

Any thoughts on all this?
 
i am totally going to trail this thread. i am doing the same thing and going through the SAME problem man as you have seen and heard from me. cut out rox and gfo and feed more is what im doing.

i didnt completely cut out rox, just decresed it by alot
 
hopefully we can both make some progress from this :) maybe we can both be more like Cully when it's all said and done...that's all i really want.
 
My tank is new. Everything looks good in the beginning. It's much more impressive when the SPS tank has been running for 4 years and still looks good.

I'm just running ROX right now.
 
I think I also have a similar issue but I believe it's partly due to the presence of dinoflagellates which have been observed to "clean" the water really well. I have had undetectable nitrates for about 9 months. I don't run carbon or GFO, just a decent skimmer. I'm also kind of light on the fish load:

140 gal total volume
hippo tang
yellow tang
coral beauty
ocellaris

I'll be following.
 
I think I also have a similar issue but I believe it's partly due to the presence of dinoflagellates which have been observed to "clean" the water really well. I have had undetectable nitrates for about 9 months. I don't run carbon or GFO, just a decent skimmer. I'm also kind of light on the fish load:

140 gal total volume
hippo tang
yellow tang
coral beauty
ocellaris

I'll be following.

There have been some recent threads on taking down dinoflagates with dosing of H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide). do a search on RC.
 
For those who want to take the deep dive, Dana Riddle wrote an updated series of articles after the series linked in Mark's link above. Here are some of them:

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2009/1/aafeature1
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2009/2/aafeature1
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2009/4/aafeature1

It gives some incredibly specific information on how different specific pigments respond to light spectrum and intensity and a few comments on chemically-induced changes in coloration. It's more biased towards raw data than being something you can act on, but it's still really interesting (to me at least).
 
Yeah it seems like a solid plan.Problem is it feels out of place to comment when I dont have near the experience as any of you with sps.

If you think about any underwater videos filmed on a reef you cant help notice all the particulates ,plankton ,detritus ,ect sweeping through the reef ,its unmistakable.Food sources?likely so imo.

The confusion comes with articles whitch site studys such as these" Vernon 86/2000?" found sps corals can meet up to 98% of their energy requirements from photosynthesis alone"....and others like -(Furnas 1990) "Readings taken on the GBR showed concentrations of (0.002mg/l) as No3 and (0.016mg/l) as P04."Another like algae is found to be limited at .03 as p04.

Are they wrong ,NO. There absolutely true but shouldn't be taken for anything more,imo.Atleast not so literal,imo.

Looking at some of this closer and notice the wording "up to" 98% ,whitch makes sense because other studies show it varying depending on the sp.,in fact one study showed an average for pocillopora much less somewhere between 40-51% though "favorable conditions it varied "up to" 90% for one species of pocillopora.
The truth about the low po4 & no3 above is that those readings were found to be so low, theoretically not enough to support the GBR.

Some of these articles are also under "ideal conditions" (ex.- One species of zoanthus was found to meet up to 100% of its carbon intake through photosynthesis alone) Ok , fine.Reading closer that was true but only under on a non overcast day in less than a given depth,at high noon ,low tide and calm sea with real strong natural sunlight.

To me that says that wildreefs must be getting these nutrients from food or atleast do when needed.Its just not obvious but its known as fact nutrients are very tightly cycled on a reef (e.g.- this binds this,that eats that ,this is absorbed,metabolized..consumed ,consumed,stored as growth...ect....ect...

Areas on an actual wildreef for N & P are also not constant if you consider a huge school of butterfly ,tangs that rush in to feed and in the process they give back to the corals by waste instant usable sources of nutrients.
Also those nutrient readings go up as you leave the surface and more so off the reef.
The real export of a healthy wildreef is actually through phytoplankton blooms.Whitch is carried through and off the reef by wave/tidal action ,slowly settling to the ocean flooor where it accumulates re-releasing C/N/P and whatever else it mght have taken in, whitch is why the concentrations for these are way way higher off the reef according to Adey's writings.

When I look at members tanks in this forum who Id consider really sucessful with lots of colorful sps,I ,also notice how much they feed the only difference seems to be the ways used to export keeping nutrient levels low.
Some might be using frquent large waterchanges another might be fueling bacteria or LaCl ,whatever the case there appears to be similarities whitch seem to be supplying enough food while maintaining dissolved nutrients low.
Seems like this is similar to a wildreef input/export if you think about it.

I just apply a simple understanding of nutrients in a nonscientific way,whitch holds true for the most part.
Organic nutrients-relates more towards food sources ,and if you look at the ingredients of your fish food it contains these nutrients bound up in the food.
Inorganic nutrients refers mostly to Co2 <----note the C for carbon,no3,no2,nh3/4 and po4 (mostly refers to just algae limiting nutrients) the symbols with the N in it are sources of inorganic Nitrogen.

Zoanthellae like the flowering plant I bought my wife for valentines day cant use the steak I cooked to get its nutrients,and my wife cant get nutrients from the sun but she can if she eats the steak.The same type logic applies to a coral and its host algae.The coral can eat to obtain nutrients but zoanthellae cannot.Zoanthellae use the sun and inorganic nutrients turning them into organic food for the coral.
Beyond that it gets subjective but for the most part holds true.

Just my thoughts based on what Ive read and try to understand while applying it to reefkeeping.
If its wrongful thinking,I got no problem here with someone else stepping in with corrections.Im definately no expert just thought might be of help.
Goodluck guys.

-Steve
 
Steve, that makes a lot of sense. Especially the part about "stuff" in the water on a natural reef. I've long felt that was the biggest difference between what we consider today to be a successful reef tank at home vs. the real reef. The real reef has a lot more stuff in the water column.

I feel that we need to be careful when talking about "nutrients" in a fish tank. Do we literally mean fully dissolved/processed nutrients in the seawater? If so, then yeah, we need to keep nutrients low. But IME that often comes at the expense of "stuff" in the water column - detritus, food, plankton, whatever it is.

People talk about natural reefs as being nutrient-poor. IMHO that is very misleading. They are incredibly nutrient-dense, but the nutrients are typically bound up in some life form. Levels of dissolved nutrients may be very low, but nutrients are very readily available if you're a creature that can eat.

Here is the first of a seven part series on the subject:

http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-07/eb/index.php

Eric points out some of the statistics that Steve is referencing regarding different species' abilities to get nutrients from different sources.
 
People talk about natural reefs as being nutrient-poor. IMHO that is very misleading. They are incredibly nutrient-dense, but the nutrients are typically bound up in some life form. Levels of dissolved nutrients may be very low, but nutrients are very readily available if you're a creature that can eat.


Couldn't agree more. You have to think of how things are carried TOO and AWAY from corals on the natural reef. In high volume by the oceans currents. Now think about in in a box in your living room. You have to import a lot, AND expoert a lot, but not all dissolved organics.
 
here are pictures for 2012_02_28:

Bali Tri-Color:
DSC_5842_001_8001.jpg


Christmas Tree:
DSC_5843_003_8001.jpg


$500 Efflo:
DSC_5853_005_8001.jpg


ORA Chip:
DSC_5856_007_8001.jpg


Gary's unknown acro:
DSC_5858_009_8001.jpg
 
Steve/Nate/Mark -

Glad I'm not a lone ranger on this. The goal is you said, introducing nutrients into the water column, but at the same time managing the PO4 and NO3 levels via conventional husbandry along with Carbon Dosing. I've opted for a range of food sizes to cover the spectrum. The larger are geared at the fish, the small in hopes of direct consumption from the SPS, but I wont know if this is really happening.

If it works I still wont know how the SPS are consuming, but I will have a nicer tank which is half way there.

As you can tell from the pictures above I'm lacking in color.
 
A few thoughts for the fun of it.

I'm not sure inorganic N and P is the right focus. Nitrogen deficiencies can occur but I don't think they are likely in a system with as many fish as you have. Fish produce ammonia with lots of nitrogen when they pee or breathe and they poop lots of phosphate.
"Stuff" dissolved and particulate might be. It works reasonably well for me;,lots of fish , lots of food, no mechanical filtration and a healthy culture of heterotrophic bacteria keep inorganic N and P low, add more" stuff" and keep corals healthy and reasonably colorful and have done so for the past 3+years. Oh oh now I've jinxed it. I'm going to drink a little vodka for good luck.
Some particulates are almost always suspended in the clear water if you look closely.Obviously with more stuff , more flow is needed to keep it in suspension.
Once a balance is found keeping some constancy in most things is important ,imo. I am fastidious about feeding and dosing the same amount of the same things every day with only a little tweaking from time to time.
The nutrient we don't measure is organic C ( I would but no one will loan me a 50 thousand dollar analyzer) . Organics are very complicated and diverse and much is unknown . They not only provide a source to meet heterotrophic needs ( ie to supplement organic C from photosynthesis) but they also bind metals as well as phosphate and nitrate. "Stuff" is organic and present in dissolved and particulate forms and can be consumed by feeding or absorbtion.

A change in organic export via enhanced skimming or enhanced gac can change the way organics are organized since both of these methods selectively take certain hydrophobic and/or amphipathic organics and not others. It may change the overall level of organics or the mix of organics in ways that advantage or disadvantage the consumers at certain levels .
Organics also serve to bind metals . Roughly 99% of the metals in our tanks are bound to ligands which makes them less toxic and bioavailable. Assays have shown that most reef tanks accumulate metals over time from salt mixes foods ,impurities and supplements.. Changing the organic mix or reducing bacterial metabolism might release free toxic metals at some point in the action.
Managing the organic mix is a shot in the dark but soluble organic carbon dosing( ie vodka and/or vinegar) along with heavier feeding,particularly with small micron stuff like fish waste or oyster feast, et alia and more fish may at least give us a bullet. Care is needed to prevent shooting oneself in the foot , however.

FWIW, I keep NO3 at around 0.2ppm and PO4 around .04ppm within the limits of test accuracy but the water has plenty of "stuff" most of the time. I run rox gac .purigen and gac in moderate amounts and dose vinegar and vodka in moderate amounts. I've tried aminos, iron, iodiide without any noticeable effect one way or the other.

Personally, I get better color with halides and vho supplemetation for sps than I do with leds but I'm still open minded on them and may go there down the road.

Looking forward to your progress in this experiment. Good luck.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top