Are You Starving Your Tank?

[Servillius]

Im going to suggest something very unfashionable. The answer to the question in the title is “probably not.”

This suggestion has come up often enough in threads lately that I would like to offer a contrary view. Now don’t get me wrong, if you’re literally stripping the poop out of your tank so aggressively that you really really have no nutrients in the water at any point during the day, you could be starving your tank.

Doing so is danged hard however and I don’t believe everyone magically discovered the secret to nutrient free water all of a sudden.

I’m also not saying we may not have reasons for raising the nutrient load in water these days. We all know there is a relationship between lighting, nutrients, alkalinity and burned tips. I suspect the nutrients are there to compensate for all the LED lighting. Maybe not, it’s a guess.

Here’s what I do know however. There ha e been a lot of amazing tanks over a very long time that did great with minimal nutrients. I was looking for data, so I went to the old tank of the month database in Reefkeeper and took down some data.

Some of these numbers are extrapolations from the text, but most are as reported with me averaging range data unless the range was large in which case I tried to resolve by reading. A dash means it wasn’t reported. N/a means no tank that month. Zero means it was reported as undetectable. There’s still much data to record, but here you go. Note the consistency from 2002 to 2008 and the slight increase by 2014. Without further ado...

 

[BoomCorals]

The data needs context. What nutrient export methods were being used? What were they testing with, and was it low range test kit so that with margin of error it still works correctly?

Example, the Hannah phosphate checker can’t tell you if you have 0.00 or 0.03 phosphate, because .03 is the margin of error. But the Hannah ultra low phosphorous checker can.

In my experience if you are using natural export methods like refugium or ATS, you can run very low nutrients and will not starve your corals. But if you’re running GFO, nopox, etc you run the risk, and people do strip too many nutrients.

 

[Servillius]

The data needs context. What nutrient export methods were being used? What were they testing with, and was it low range test kit so that with margin of error it still works correctly?

Example, the Hannah phosphate checker can’t tell you if you have 0.00 or 0.03 phosphate, because .03 is the margin of error. But the Hannah ultra low phosphorous checker can.

In my experience if you are using natural export methods like refugium or ATS, you can run very low nutrients and will not starve your corals. But if you’re running GFO, nopox, etc you run the risk, and people do strip too many nutrients.

I agree with you for the most part. It does need context, etc. but a high number of those tanks run GFO and they’re some of the most amazing tanks we’ve ever seen in the hobby.

I want to emphasize I’m not arguing you can’t overdo it. I just think we’ve way overblown the risk. I bet I could run a lot of GFO on an otherwise healthy t5 lit tank before coral growth was seriously inhibited.

We’ve taken a bit of sound advice, if you have a really clean tank and run aggressive phosphate stripping stuff, you might overdo it, and turned it into this theory that we need really dirty water to keep corals happy.

Edit: as to context, I strongly encourage everyone to go look at the tanks and review for yourselves. I wouldn’t want anyone to take it from me, I’m just sorta pointing.

 

[BoomCorals]

I agree with you for the most part. It does need context, etc. but a high number of those tanks run GFO and they’re some of the most amazing tanks we’ve ever seen in the hobby.

I want to emphasize I’m not arguing you can’t overdo it. I just think we’ve way overblown the risk. I bet I could run a lot of GFO on an otherwise healthy t5 lit tank before coral growth was seriously inhibited.

We’ve taken a bit of sound advice, if you have a really clean tank and run aggressive phosphate stripping stuff, you might overdo it, and turned it into this theory that we need really dirty water to keep corals happy.

Edit: as to context, I strongly encourage everyone to go look at the tanks and review for yourselves. I wouldn’t want anyone to take it from me, I’m just sorta pointing.

You’re also looking at the data with a narrow view. You’re ignoring all other variables involved. No one is saying you can’t have an amazing tank while running GFO etc. But there is more to it than that, including being an experienced reefer that knows how to export nutrients using GFO etc, and understanding what their corals are telling them.

A lot of people run GFO or nopox or vodka etc that shouldn’t be or don’t need to be. That’s why you see many threads where that is the cause. It’s not because we are trying to be fashionable.

 

[Servillius]

Oh I don’t know that experienced reefers are necessarily trying to be fashionable, but can we at least agree 10 years ago we would have heard a lot less GFO hate?

I also see lots of threads where the implication is people should be trying, TRYING to have dirtier water. If you’re using vodka and gfo and there are medical techs using samples of your water to calibrate their “clean room” standards, okay, back off.

I’m just not buying that the average refer with a year or two of experience is reaching ULNS nirvana. I think it’s more likely they’re just watching their rock suck up their phosphate and they’re six months away from showing up here complaining about how their tank was perfect, until suddenly GHA...

Good husbandry means taking out the waste you put in. We’re not teaching that when we keep telling folks their tanks are “too clean.” We know what a clean tank looks like. The ones with problems they’re asking for help on are not them, but we as a community are telling these folks not to use the best weapons they have, or even take seriously the possibility their tank is filthy and that’s why they have algae problems.

If we were teaching folks to keep clean tanks, then to slowly add the necessary nutrients that would be great. If we told them to keep tanks clean until the corals are growing so fast they don’t give a poop about the nitrate levels, that would be great too. That’s not how I interpret what I see or how I interpret how I see the advice being received.

Telling them to push up nutrients in young tanks is how you get “I want to quit” thread however.

 

[mcarroll]

I agree with you for the most part. It does need context, etc. but a high number of those tanks run GFO and they’re some of the most amazing tanks we’ve ever seen in the hobby.

That's a really good project as well as a topic in much need of elucidation.

I think you're at the very beginning with the data collection phase, however. Your goal is information, not data, after all.

Data ≠ information.

I think data are totally useless without context...possibly even harmful.

Consider this...

Every newb that comes though this thread is likely to take that table of data as testimony that "zero nutrients works".

That will be on top of the "common knowledge" already circulating that "zero nutrients is good".

That "common knowledge" (which is also without context) is how the dino threads got to be some the most common threads that newbs open....consider how quickly the Dino sticky got to 4000+ posts. (Those cases/threads should be practically unheard of.)​

The context that's missing (and why I never "went for" ToTM articles as guides in any way whatsoever) is how the tank got that way. Did they start that way? Did it ever have a big algae bloom? Did it just get cleaned up for the ToTM photo?

Without that context (not just whether they used a particular filter media), we almost shouldn't care about their numbers. Caveat emptor should rule.

In fact, I doubt many have started their tanks with zero nutrients, held them purposefully at zero, and then gone on to have a problem-free zero-nutrient reef.

Too many things need dissolved nutrients to prosper for that to work.

IMO the crazy volume of dino threads/posts are testimony to that...and that there is a "common knowledge" telling folks to start tanks that way.

So the next phase IMO would be to finish what's been mentioned already...fill out the table with as many variables as you can.....GFO use, dosing methods, tank history, et al. Cases without enough data points would have to be disregarded, helping to thin your data. Certain columns will be able to be given more or less weight and you can probably start to see some trends.

My prediction is that all those 0.0's would have a story of deep nutrient-recycling within a mature tank ecosytem as explanation...probably including strong algal uptake in the mix. (I.e. there's no starving going on, and there's no lack of algae.)

Once you have your list dialed in to this level, you can start digging into tank backgrounds to find out how they got that way. My guess is that you'll mostly have to interview people for this since they rarely post enough detail to conclude much. This is the stage where you'll get real answers IMO – information.

 

[Servillius]

That's a really good project as well as a topic in much need of elucidation.

I think you're at the very beginning with the data collection phase, however. Your goal is information, not data, after all.

Data ≠ information.

I think data are totally useless without context...possibly even harmful.

Consider this...

Every newb that comes though this thread is likely to take that table of data as testimony that "zero nutrients works".

That will be on top of the "common knowledge" already circulating that "zero nutrients is good".

That "common knowledge" (which is also without context) is how the dino threads got to be some the most common threads that newbs open....consider how quickly the Dino sticky got to 4000+ posts. (Those cases/threads should be practically unheard of.)​

The context that's missing (and why I never "went for" ToTM articles as guides in any way whatsoever) is how the tank got that way. Did they start that way? Did it ever have a big algae bloom? Did it just get cleaned up for the ToTM photo?

Without that context (not just whether they used a particular filter media), we almost shouldn't care about their numbers. Caveat emptor should rule.

In fact, I doubt many have started their tanks with zero nutrients, held them purposefully at zero, and then gone on to have a problem-free zero-nutrient reef.

Too many things need dissolved nutrients to prosper for that to work.

IMO the crazy volume of dino threads/posts are testimony to that...and that there is a "common knowledge" telling folks to start tanks that way.

So the next phase IMO would be to finish what's been mentioned already...fill out the table with as many variables as you can.....GFO use, dosing methods, tank history, et al. Cases without enough data points would have to be disregarded, helping to thin your data. Certain columns will be able to be given more or less weight and you can probably start to see some trends.

My prediction is that all those 0.0's would have a story of deep nutrient-recycling within a mature tank ecosytem as explanation...probably including strong algal uptake in the mix. (I.e. there's no starving going on, and there's no lack of algae.)

Once you have your list dialed in to this level, you can start digging into tank backgrounds to find out how they got that way. My guess is that you'll mostly have to interview people for this since they rarely post enough detail to conclude much. This is the stage where you'll get real answers IMO – information.

I totally agree with everything you say here. My defense is simply to say I wasn’t so much setting out to start a project as to refute the swing we’ve made to what comes across to me, and I fear to some others, as an overly firm position. I think it’s fair to say I’ve established that it’s possible to have happy sps with low nutrients.

I totally understand and respect the position I may be coming across as too dogmatic in the other direction. I will continue to try not to. That’s not my intent. This is a complex question. I’m simply suggesting we don’t leave the impression you can solve your problems by adding bat guano to your tank. I’m betting “you’re starving your corals” is overused advice given to newbies.

Your crack about growing coral to export phosphates is actually a very sussinct summary of what I’m trying to get at. The needs of a tank change over time. Early on I think it’s a bad idea to encourage adding nutrients unless someone has demonstrably gone overboard on stripping them such that they clearly have none not just in their water, but in the rock, sand, etc. I think that’s rare. As the tank matures and the balance tips in favor of stripping nutrients, feed more becomes a great idea.

One thought to add. I expect the people with long established sps success are not so fussed about what they hear. When we say something on the forum, it’s a good idea to appreciate the difference between how all those new users with problems will here it and how you or, to the tiny extent I’m getting there, will hear it. Most of the folks listening are in the former caragory.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Im going to suggest something very unfashionable. The answer to the question in the title is “probably not.”

This suggestion has come up often enough in threads lately that I would like to offer a contrary view. Now don’t get me wrong, if you’re literally stripping the poop out of your tank so aggressively that you really really have no nutrients in the water at any point during the day, you could be starving your tank.

Doing so is danged hard however and I don’t believe everyone magically discovered the secret to nutrient free water all of a sudden.

I’m also not saying we may not have reasons for raising the nutrient load in water these days. We all know there is a relationship between lighting, nutrients, alkalinity and burned tips. I suspect the nutrients are there to compensate for all the LED lighting. Maybe not, it’s a guess.

Here’s what I do know however. There ha e been a lot of amazing tanks over a very long time that did great with minimal nutrients. I was looking for data, so I went to the old tank of the month database in Reefkeeper and took down some data.

Some of these numbers are extrapolations from the text, but most are as reported with me averaging range data unless the range was large in which case I tried to resolve by reading. A dash means it wasn’t reported. N/a means no tank that month. Zero means it was reported as undetectable. There’s still much data to record, but here you go. Note the consistency from 2002 to 2008 and the slight increase by 2014. Without further ado...

I would just add the comment that a zero phosphate reading in 2002 with kits that probably barely read down to 0.05 ppm may have been quite different than a reef today using a lower range method that can readily detect 0.01 ppm.

 

[Servillius]

I would just add the comment that a zero phosphate reading in 2002 with kits that probably barely read down to 0.05 ppm may have been quite different than a reef today using a lower range method that can readily detect 0.01 ppm.

Completely agree. I did note that where I marked zero they were actually reported as undetectable on salifert. Better testing is almost certainly part of the story of the increase in results over time.

Again, my goal is just to encourage us to distinguish between (a) don’t go crazy and over strip your tank, and (b) you don’t need to worry about nutrients in your young tank, actually you should add more.

I don’t think b is what the experts are saying, but I do get the impression it is the dogma that is getting repeated. I’m hoping to encourage the effort to differentiate so the folks downhill from the ones like you who know what they’re talking about get a more nuanced view of the story.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Completely agree. I did note that where I marked zero they were actually reported as undetectable on salifert. Better testing is almost certainly part of the story of the increase in results over time.

Again, my goal is just to encourage us to distinguish between (a) don’t go crazy and over strip your tank, and (b) you don’t need to worry about nutrients in your young tank, actually you should add more.

I don’t think b is what the experts are saying, but I do get the impression it is the dogma that is getting repeated. I’m hoping to encourage the effort to differentiate so the folks downhill from the ones like you who know what they’re talking about get a more nuanced view of the story.

IMO, unless tanks have great herbivore fish controlling algae, tanks that have high nutrients and no algae may be controlling it by trace element limitation.

here's a study that suggests that in some parts of the ocean where iron is very limited, availability of iron from shipwrecks can drive a nice reef into a disaster of algae by metal availability:

Black reefs: iron-induced phase shifts on coral reefs
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3280131/pdf/ismej2011114a.pdf

"The Line Islands are calcium carbonate coral reef platforms located in iron-poor regions of the central Pacific. Natural terrestrial run-off of iron is non-existent and aerial deposition is extremely low. However, a number of ship groundings have occurred on these atolls. The reefs surrounding the shipwreck debris are characterized by high benthic cover of turf algae, macroalgae, cyanobacterial mats and corallimorphs, as well as particulate-laden, cloudy water. These sites also have very low coral and crustose coralline algal cover and are call black reefs because of the dark-colored benthic community and reduced clarity of the overlying water column. Here we use a combination of benthic surveys, chemistry, metagenomics and microcosms to investigate if and how shipwrecks initiate and maintain black reefs. Comparative surveys show that the live coral cover was reduced from 40 to 60% to o10% on black reefs on Millennium, Tabuaeran and Kingman. These three sites are relatively large (40.75 km2 ). The phase shift occurs rapidly; the Kingman black reef formed within 3 years of the ship grounding. Iron concentrations in algae tissue from the Millennium black reef site were six times higher than in algae collected from reference sites. Metagenomic sequencing of the Millennium Atoll black reef-associated microbial community was enriched in iron-associated virulence genes and known pathogens. Microcosm experiments showed that corals were killed by black reef rubble through microbial activity. Together these results demonstrate that shipwrecks and their associated iron pose significant threats to coral reefs in iron-limited regions."

 

[Servillius]

IMO, unless tanks have great herbivore fish controlling algae, tanks that have high nutrients and no algae may be controlling it by trace element limitation.

here's a study that suggests that in some parts of the ocean where iron is very limited, availability of iron from shipwrecks can drive a nice reef into a disaster of algae by metal availability:

Black reefs: iron-induced phase shifts on coral reefs
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3280131/pdf/ismej2011114a.pdf

"The Line Islands are calcium carbonate coral reef platforms located in iron-poor regions of the central Pacific. Natural terrestrial run-off of iron is non-existent and aerial deposition is extremely low. However, a number of ship groundings have occurred on these atolls. The reefs surrounding the shipwreck debris are characterized by high benthic cover of turf algae, macroalgae, cyanobacterial mats and corallimorphs, as well as particulate-laden, cloudy water. These sites also have very low coral and crustose coralline algal cover and are call black reefs because of the dark-colored benthic community and reduced clarity of the overlying water column. Here we use a combination of benthic surveys, chemistry, metagenomics and microcosms to investigate if and how shipwrecks initiate and maintain black reefs. Comparative surveys show that the live coral cover was reduced from 40 to 60% to o10% on black reefs on Millennium, Tabuaeran and Kingman. These three sites are relatively large (40.75 km2 ). The phase shift occurs rapidly; the Kingman black reef formed within 3 years of the ship grounding. Iron concentrations in algae tissue from the Millennium black reef site were six times higher than in algae collected from reference sites. Metagenomic sequencing of the Millennium Atoll black reef-associated microbial community was enriched in iron-associated virulence genes and known pathogens. Microcosm experiments showed that corals were killed by black reef rubble through microbial activity. Together these results demonstrate that shipwrecks and their associated iron pose significant threats to coral reefs in iron-limited regions."

Good stuff. Thank you. As an example of herbivore control, I have two tanks plunged into my sump. Here’s the display with the hungry sail fin in it.

And here’s the back tank with insufficient herbivore control...

That’s after a cleaning and you can still see hair and bubble algae all over the back. It gets much worse! Other than a wipe of the glass every two days, I do no algae management at all on the display. For the record I also show near 0 nitrate and phosphate in the water column, but that’s clearly not true of the system as a whole. I feed reasonably well (2 punches of spectrum pellets, 2 chunks of Rods reef, kz amino acid, kz amino acid LPS, kz Coral Vitalizer, and Reef Chili daily).

 

[ca1ore]

Whether ones tank is 'starved' or not depends I think on what one attempts to keep. I've always been more of a fish first reefer, so unless I feed the tank multiple times a day some of my fish begin to lose weight. I'm also a strong proponent of herbivores. My system shows similar to yours - main display is clear of hair and bubble algae as well as aiptasia. My frag tank, on the other hand is a pest-fest. The difference - algae and aiptasia predators in the display but not in the frag.

 

[Servillius]

Whether ones tank is 'starved' or not depends I think on what one attempts to keep. I've always been more of a fish first reefer, so unless I feed the tank multiple times a day some of my fish begin to lose weight. I'm also a strong proponent of herbivores. My system shows similar to yours - main display is clear of hair and bubble algae as well as aiptasia. My frag tank, on the other hand is a pest-fest. The difference - algae and aiptasia predators in the display but not in the frag.

Yeah, I can’t imagine thinking of my tank as starved, but there are very few nutrients hanging out in the water to be tested. I’m just hoping we make sure to talk clearly about the distinction.

 

[BigJohnny]

Actually 75% of the threads I see about people struggling with keeping coral are starving their tanks, usually with gfo/carbon, biopellets, carbon dosing, or all of the above. It is very common.

 

[Servillius]

Actually 75% of the threads I see about people struggling with keeping coral are starving their tanks, usually with gfo/carbon, biopellets, carbon dosing, or all of the above. It is very common.

With all dues respect, I suspect otherwise. I don’t believe all these young tanks are being starved.

I’m tempted to run an experiment, set up a new tank, and try to starve it.

Let’s hear what you all think would do the trick and what would count as proof the corals are or are not starving.

 

[BigJohnny]

With all dues respect, I suspect otherwise. I don’t believe all these young tanks are being starved.

I’m tempted to run an experiment, set up a new tank, and try to starve it.

Let’s hear what you all think would do the trick and what would count as proof the corals are or are not starving.

Not sure how you can suspect otherwise without knowing which threads I'm referring to lol. I also never said they were all young tanks.

There really is no point in debating generalities though, too many other factors to disqualify (the source of your suspicion) and we'd have to agree what it means for a coral to be starving first. It all is starting to sound very tiring to me for something I am so sure of.

Unfortunately, if you don't think people can (and many are) starving their corals with the methods I mentioned, I must slip back into the shadows ; ) good luck on your experiment.

 

[Servillius]

Not sure how you can suspect otherwise without knowing which threads I'm referring to lol. I also never said they were all young tanks.

There really is no point in debating generalities though, too many other factors to disqualify (the source of your suspicion) and we'd have to agree what it means for a coral to be starving first. It all is starting to sound very tiring to me for something I am so sure of.

Unfortunately, if you don't think people can (and many are) starving their corals with the methods I mentioned, I must slip back into the shadows ; ) good luck on your experiment.

Well don’t do that. I’m trying to make a point so I’m hardly about to get upset that you don’t agree with it.

I’m saying a I suspect there are other solutions to the problems being identified at coral starvation. Maybe I’m wrong. Can you identify the threads? Maybe we can see if this really is the answer.

I’m hoping to advance the discussion; if I did the opposite I’m a bad person. That’s not my goal at all!

 

[BigJohnny]

Well don’t do that. I’m trying to make a point so I’m hardly about to get upset that you don’t agree with it.

I’m saying a I suspect there are other solutions to the problems being identified at coral starvation. Maybe I’m wrong. Can you identify the threads? Maybe we can see if this really is the answer.

I’m hoping to advance the discussion; if I did the opposite I’m a bad person. That’s not my goal at all!

I realize now that came across more abrasive than I intended. I'm just lazy, that's all this is. I also wrote a longer response with more detail but my phone died so I had to write something again. I'm very relaxed and I don't think either of us are upset.

If I posted a thread I'd have to find one first and then make you agree that every other aspect of coral health that could show similar symptoms was in check and that would be very difficult and time consuming, especially because there are many things about coral health we don't understand or can't confirm! I really just wanted to share my opinion.

I do believe that we are both right, it is certainly on a case to case basis. A lot of times there are multiple issues. I agree with @BoomCorals that unless you are using "artificial" means of nutrient reduction than it is much harder to starve the tank. But, I think it can be far too easy if you use them.

 

[Servillius]

I realize now that came across more abrasive than I intended. I'm just lazy, that's all this is. I also wrote a longer response with more detail but my phone died so I had to write something again. I'm very relaxed and I don't think either of us are upset.

If I posted a thread I'd have to find one first and then make you agree that every other aspect of coral health that could show similar symptoms was in check and that would be very difficult and time consuming, especially because there are many things about coral health we don't understand or can't confirm! I really just wanted to share my opinion.

I do believe that we are both right, it is certainly on a case to case basis. A lot of times there are multiple issues. I agree with @BoomCorals that unless you are using "artificial" means of nutrient reduction than it is much harder to starve the tank. But, I think it can be far too easy if you use them.

Thanks and fair enough. I think one way to put what is really a fairly small difference is just that I think we’re seeing lots of people with what look to me like really dirty tanks getting told they’re nutrient starved. In some sense it’s not fair to complain that some people give bad advice if you’re not talking to those people. Im just hoping we can frame things more carefully to avoid disinformation.

I’m also a big fan of more natural nutrient removal for the very reason you and boom identify.

 

[happyhourhero]

I see far more posts of people struggling with keeping corals alive listing extremely low nitrates and phosphates than I do people struggling with higher nutrients.