Are You Starving Your Tank?

[mcarroll]

It's impossible to know anything for sure, but it's fun to see what bits we do know...

Dinoflagellates – Are You Tired Of Battling Altogether? is the dino thread I started when I saw 1,000 people bleaching their reefs in the old dino thread.

Started May 4, 2017....it's a little more than 13 months later and I'm already near 4500 posts.

That 4500 doesn't count most of the folks from the old dino thread, nor does that 4500 count all the individual dino threads out there.

The old dino thread was also 4000+ posts (see link in my thread) and there are A LOT of independent threads out there all the time.

Almost all of them from both threads and all the independent ones are from new tank owners who starved their tanks down to dino-land.

I can't tell you if that's "most people starting tanks" or if it's just a small percent.....but it seems like a lot of tanks from my point of view.​

IMO where most folks go wrong on nutreints is by adding too much livestock at once at the start of the tank. This move/mistake necessitates too much feeding in a tank that's incapable of processing the extra nutrients.

If folks would start smaller and go slower with the live-stocking, there would be far fewer issues across the board with newbie tanks.

 

[Servillius]

It's impossible to know anything for sure, but it's fun to see what bits we do know...

Dinoflagellates – Are You Tired Of Battling Altogether? is the dino thread I started when I saw 1,000 people bleaching their reefs in the old dino thread.

Started May 4, 2017....it's a little more than 13 months later and I'm already near 4500 posts.

That 4500 doesn't count most of the folks from the old dino thread, nor does that 4500 count all the individual dino threads out there.

The old dino thread was also 4000+ posts (see link in my thread) and there are A LOT of independent threads out there all the time.

Almost all of them from both threads and all the independent ones are from new tank owners who starved their tanks down to dino-land.

I can't tell you if that's "most people starting tanks" or if it's just a small percent.....but it seems like a lot of tanks from my point of view.​

IMO where most folks go wrong on nutreints is by adding too much livestock at once at the start of the tank. This move/mistake necessitates too much feeding in a tank that's incapable of processing the extra nutrients.

If folks would start smaller and go slower with the live-stocking, there would be far fewer issues across the board with newbie tanks.

Yep,

I’ve always started even very large tanks with a fish or two. I then watch, not for the first fits and starts of the ammonia cycle, but until I feel I’m on top of the nutrient and algae cycle. 3 months or more, sometimes lots more.

What I find surprising is the amount of waste and nutrients that accumulate even though I’m running heavy filtration (i.e. Zeovit, heavy skimming, refugium, etc.). Tanks in the first 6 - 12 months just don’t process gunk the way an established tank does, even with very careful feeding.

There’s usually a point where, even though I thought I was doing a good job, I still end up surprised by the algae growth. That’s when I get a sense for exactly how much export the tank actually wants. Ideally that’s where you dial it so a little more comes out than in. Do that for a while and the tank settles into its happy place and you can start adding slowly.

As for dino, my experience, and it appears consistent with what others are saying, is definitely that it’s related to getting nutrients too low, but more importantly it seems to happen when nitrates are too low but phosphates are still available (easy to have happen since you will usually have a reserve of phosphates in your substrate). At that point I get red slime. Every time I’ve gotten dino it’s because I nuked the slime chemically rather than just worked on getting the phosphates under control and the tank in balance.

It’s fairly easy to nitrate starve a newer tank. As Randy points out, it’s also fairly easy to limit natural algae growth by a variety of methods (trace elements, I think LED lighting runs a risk of doing this). But the phosphate is easily limited once you know. For those that don’t, it climbs and keeps finding a place to go; planaria, dino, red slime, etc. The distinction I’m going for is that while you may have too little of some nutrient, the bigger picture is that you need care and balance, not more nutrients.

Now that I tweek GFO levels carefully rather than overreacting and rely on chaeto to do the hard work while GFO is there to adjust things I don’t see dino.

All that gets back to what I’m trying to sell in this thread though. The fix to your problem tank is to learn to eliminate excess waste and get it to a natural equilibrium where it can keep its own balance. I don’t think it’s helpful or healthy to leave the impression more nutrients is a magic fix or a necessity at this point. More care and understanding is.

The tanks are not “starved.” They’re out of whack and not processing things properly in a way that may manifest as starvation because one of the variables is way too low. Overreactions with “solutions” to problems does more harm than good.

One last thought. I’ve seen tanks with problem diatoms on here as well. The fix is first to find the source and remove it. But GFO is a healthy part of fixing the problem. Scaring people off it’s use is unnecessary.

 

[tripdad]

I like where your headed with the discussion but I think your initial data sets are useless. Unless you know what they are adding back in your only looking at a random data point.You need all parts of the equation to draw any valid conclusions, JMO. I still feel the best tanks I've seen are high import balanced by high export. In theory the same data set you use as an example would still be quite low. However in reality your using high nutrients but low "residual" nutrients. I just think it's really tricky to just look at a couple data points and try and draw any conclusions. As an aside to the discussion, I think there is much we don't understand about new tank versus old tank.

 

[rob safron]

Hopefully someday we will have more scientific info on this topic, at the top of my research right now. All of my pink and red corals are pretty much tan/brown and have been shortly after buying them. My tank runs close to 0 nitrates( 0-.5) and low phosphate (0-.01) which should stop browning. Trying to dose nitrates but don’t see any real change in any corals or browning. Also I always have some amount of cyno prior to dosing and after dosing. Other alge certainly has increase with dosing. Lighting was my last thoughts and went from years of AB+ to 14k and radions at 50 to as high as 90%. No change in coral although my corellaline alge is growing with brighter light than it ever did in an+.

 

[Servillius]

Hopefully someday we will have more scientific info on this topic, at the top of my research right now. All of my pink and red corals are pretty much tan/brown and have been shortly after buying them. My tank runs close to 0 nitrates( 0-.5) and low phosphate (0-.01) which should stop browning. Trying to dose nitrates but don’t see any real change in any corals or browning. Also I always have some amount of cyno prior to dosing and after dosing. Other alge certainly has increase with dosing. Lighting was my last thoughts and went from years of AB+ to 14k and radions at 50 to as high as 90%. No change in coral although my corellaline alge is growing with brighter light than it ever did in an+.

Are you dosing iron? If not I’d encourage it. You can target red by dosing strontium, bromine and/or floride. Run triton and see what’s low?

 

[Servillius]

I like where your headed with the discussion but I think your initial data sets are useless. Unless you know what they are adding back in your only looking at a random data point.You need all parts of the equation to draw any valid conclusions, JMO. I still feel the best tanks I've seen are high import balanced by high export. In theory the same data set you use as an example would still be quite low. However in reality your using high nutrients but low "residual" nutrients. I just think it's really tricky to just look at a couple data points and try and draw any conclusions. As an aside to the discussion, I think there is much we don't understand about new tank versus old tank.

I agree with everything you say here with one caveat, my purpose with the data was to show it was possible to have low nutrients in your water column and still have a healthy tank.

I personally prefer the low residual, high input type systems you describe. That way I can control the residual and keep things clean but can also control the input and keep things fed.

 

[rob safron]

Are you dosing iron? If not I’d encourage it. You can target red by dosing strontium, bromine and/or floride. Run triton and see what’s low?

I do test 3 times a year. All is good and I do dose extra strontium, iodine and potassium to keep it level. Don’t dose extra iron.

 

[Servillius]

I do test 3 times a year. All is good and I do dose extra strontium, iodine and potassium to keep it level. Don’t dose extra iron.

Try it. Good stuff. You can dose it fairly heavily as it’s taken up quickly. Randy can probably add much to this.

 

[mcarroll]

WELL SAID and worth repeating!

Allow me!

I’ve always started even very large tanks with a fish or two. I then watch, not for the first fits and starts of the ammonia cycle, but until I feel I’m on top of the nutrient and algae cycle. 3 months or more, sometimes lots more.

What I find surprising is the amount of waste and nutrients that accumulate even though I’m running heavy filtration (i.e. Zeovit, heavy skimming, refugium, etc.). Tanks in the first 6 - 12 months just don’t process gunk the way an established tank does, even with very careful feeding.

There’s usually a point where, even though I thought I was doing a good job, I still end up surprised by the algae growth. That’s when I get a sense for exactly how much export the tank actually wants. Ideally that’s where you dial it so a little more comes out than in. Do that for a while and the tank settles into its happy place and you can start adding slowly

Spot on.

 

[Nano sapiens]

IMO where most folks go wrong on nutreints is by adding too much livestock at once at the start of the tank. This move/mistake necessitates too much feeding in a tank that's incapable of processing the extra nutrients.

If folks would start smaller and go slower with the live-stocking, there would be far fewer issues across the board with newbie tanks.

Agreed. I'd like to add a caveat that many beginning reef keepers are often unaware of. Adding coral biomass has a different effect on the system than adding lots of fish and/or crustaceans too quickly. Corals tightly cycle the available nutrients and their waste products are relatively minimal, whereas fish, especially, excrete a large amount of waste via their gills (ammonia) and feces.

What I see happen most often in these newly set up tanks is that the fish/crabs/shrimp are added quickly and at densities that are really only acceptable for a mature system (and sometimes even go beyond that!). A good portion of the live rock tends to remain devoid of coral and other sessile invertebrates, so alga have many potential places to gain a foothold. For these young systems, IMO, a slower approach in regards to fish/crab/shrimp stocking and a faster stocking rate of hardy corals would contribute greatly to less headaches (although there are always some with a new tank!) and longer term success.

 

[tripdad]

I personally prefer the low residual, high input type systems you describe. That way I can control the residual and keep things clean but can also control the input and keep things fed.

I agree 100%

 

[mcarroll]

My tank runs close to 0 nitrates( 0-.5) and low phosphate (0-.01) which should stop browning.

It probably initiates starving and accelerated damage from (or lack of repair for) photosynthesis.

Increasing nitrates without increasing phosphates can induce bleaching.

So proceed slowly – and get some PO4 fertilizer too!!

How old is your tank?

Also I always have some amount of cyno prior to dosing and after dosing. Other alge certainly has increase with dosing.

Cyano goes with nutrient instability IMO. Generalizing, they seem to have access to sources of N and P that others don't, allowing them to specialize in taking up otherwise-unavilable free nutrients.

Get P and N into the positive and keep them stable and you should see this phase out.

You'll also get a phase of hair algae more than likely, so be prepared, deal with it and don't get freaked out.

Once nutrients inputs are stable, this will work itself out though.

radions at 50 to as high as 90%.

Lighting changes can be tough on corals, which if stressed can reduce their competition for dissolved nutrients. Bonus to the algae. Ugh.

No change in coral although my corellaline alge is growing with brighter light than it ever did in an+.

This is a very positive sign – taking real estate away from even the potential of other algae growth.

Keep everything both fed and stable and this should continue. "Pest algae" should dwindle over time as well.

 

[VR28man]

Great thread. I think I’ll spend all night slowly going through it and digesting it .

Best part, though, were the shipwrecks ......

 

[Servillius]

Great thread. I think I’ll spend all night slowly going through it and digesting it .

Best part, though, were the shipwrecks ......

There are very few things that can’t be improved with a dramatic ship sinking at the right time.

 

[Servillius]

There are very few things that can’t be improved with a dramatic ship sinking at the right time.

Well, other than a cruise...

 

[rob safron]

Tank is 15 years old but converted to mostly SPS around 3 years ago. Yes to nitrate dosing increasing alge, I am seeing that for sure. Only thing I will say being ultra low nutrient for couple years now I have not seen poor growth or death of corals. Everything is growing like crazy. Mostly just not getting some pinks and reds to show. Was worried about running lights high but nothing has suffered, corals continue to grow. My highest Par I am getting is in the 450-525 range with 4 Radion xr30 pros over a 72 in tank at 90% 14K.

It probably initiates starving and accelerated damage from (or lack of repair for) photosynthesis.

Increasing nitrates without increasing phosphates can induce bleaching.

So proceed slowly – and get some PO4 fertilizer too!!

How old is your tank?



Cyano goes with nutrient instability IMO. Generalizing, they seem to have access to sources of N and P that others don't, allowing them to specialize in taking up otherwise-unavilable free nutrients.

Get P and N into the positive and keep them stable and you should see this phase out.

You'll also get a phase of hair algae more than likely, so be prepared, deal with it and don't get freaked out.

Once nutrients inputs are stable, this will work itself out though.



Lighting changes can be tough on corals, which if stressed can reduce their competition for dissolved nutrients. Bonus to the algae. Ugh.



This is a very positive sign – taking real estate away from even the potential of other algae growth.

Keep everything both fed and stable and this should continue. "Pest algae" should dwindle over time as well.

15

 

[saltyhog]

I think tanks vary greatly in their susceptibility to too low nutrients. With my current set up I struggle to maintain detectable NO3 and PO4 despite feeding the equivalent of 5 cubes of frozen food a day.

At one point I had a little bit of algae and ran GFO a little to flippantly. The result was a nasty case of dinos that has taken me almost 6 months to get over.

My previous tank I had to carbon dose to keep NO3 down to 5 or less. I'm still trying to figure out what the difference was in the two tanks.

 

[Nano sapiens]

I think tanks vary greatly in their susceptibility to too low nutrients. With my current set up I struggle to maintain detectable NO3 and PO4 despite feeding the equivalent of 5 cubes of frozen food a day.

Determining the 'nutrient levels' in a reef tank is really quite complex

I would take the stance that any 'low nutrient' system (as defined by low NO3 and PO4 levels) is not really low nutrient at all if being fed regularly. Determining 'low nutrient' from these two parameters, NO3 and PO4, ignores many other potential nutrient sources such as organic phosphates/derivatives, ammonia availability, baterioplankton levels, etc.

 

[Servillius]

Determining the 'nutrient levels' in a reef tank is really quite complex

I would take the stance that any 'low nutrient' system (as defined by low NO3 and PO4 levels) is not really low nutrient at all if being fed regularly. Determining 'low nutrient' from these two parameters, NO3 and PO4, ignores many other potential nutrient sources such as organic phosphates/derivatives, ammonia availability, baterioplankton levels, etc.

Yep, can’t agree more. This is part of the reason I’m cautious when we say things like “your nutrients are too low.” It can mean different things in different tanks and making a change in one will have a different effect than making a change in another.

 

[tacosricos]

I have found in my own tank that when my po4 starts getting above about 0.03, algae starts showing up. I use a hanna ULR. I don't usually test nitrate, but its always 2 or less with my Nyos kit, on most of my tanks.