Brand New 8 gallon bio cube

[living_tribunal]

It says the phosphorus needs to come from fish poops tho. Otherwise it risks skeletal integrity. Solution: a school of fish for your tank

Not necessarily. It has to be inorganic phosphate. So phosphorous for example works. Phosphate from decomposed food wont.

 

[Magellan]

“... Phosphate is critical for photosynthesis, likely from its multiple products in the Calvin cycle (e.g., Martin et al. 2000), although this has not been specifically examined in zoooxanthellae. Likewise, phospholipids are incorporated into the organic matrix of corals and may be vital for the control of nucleation and crystal growth of the skeleton (Ferrier-Pagès et al. 2016 and contained references). However, an undersupply of phosphate coupled to an increase in inorganic nitrogen disrupts photosynthesis and causes a loss of coral biomass, ultimately leading to coral disease and bleaching ( Rosenberg et al. 2007;Wiedenmann et al. 2012;Rosset et al. 2017). ...”

(PDF) Coral Food, Feeding, Nutrition, and Secretion: A Review

PDF | Tropical scleractinian corals are dependent to varying degrees on their photosymbiotic partners. Under normal levels of temperature and... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

I agree, zero phosphates are bad! There aren’t numbers attached to those statements though, that previously posted experiment was thorough, and I would suspect that the effect of phosphate was exponential as well.

As I mentioned earlier, while this is important in the barrier reefs, it’s not nearly as porous as you think and has no bearing on the corals in our tank. As noted in the study, there was no stress observed or mortalities. In fact, polyp extension was longer as well as photosynthetic rate of zooxanthelle.

on a 4 month study of one species of Acro. How long are you planning to keep those corals?

 

[living_tribunal]

I agree, zero phosphates are bad! There aren’t numbers attached to those statements though, that experiment was thorough, and I would suspect that the effect of phosphate was exponential as well, before completing

on a 4 month study of one species of Acro. How long are you planning to keep those corals?

They did have numbers attached though. They tested with a low param of 0.09 and a high at .5 mgL (ppm). Growth was fastest at .5.

 

[living_tribunal]

I agree, zero phosphates are bad! There aren’t numbers attached to those statements though, that previously posted experiment was thorough, and I would suspect that the effect of phosphate was exponential as well.

on a 4 month study of one species of Acro. How long are you planning to keep those corals?

There are hundreds of more studies confirming this.

Check the citations.

 

[Magellan]

They did have numbers attached though. They tested with a low param of 0.09 and a high at .5 mgL (ppm). Growth was fastest at .5.

As was skeletal decay! Were all those blurbs from the same article? I thought you were referencing two different sources

 

[living_tribunal]

As was skeletal decay! Were all those blurbs from the same article? I thought you were referencing two different sources

It's not skeletal decay, it's skeleton density.

Porous skeleton is not necessarily bad and certainly not for corals in our tank. It's due to the availability of phosphate and the ability to use it. Of course there has to be balance however and I'm not saying anyone should go around phosphates unless they have to.

What I'm mainly getting at is A.) The idiots running gfo out there and this stigma around phosphates telling everyone to decrease theirs. B.) People tend to associate the benefits of phosphates with nitrate which is incorrect. As a coral absorbs phosphate from the column, it then passses very small amounts of nitrate to zooxanthelle which produces sugar for the coral to grow. When nitrate is too high itremoves the relationship and less sugar ispassed to the coral.

I remember seeing a brs video where they even said that excess phosphate DECREASES skeletal growth. Absolute skeletal growth and mass is larger under high phosphates, just density is slightly less.

A few scientists have even proclaimed that absent of algae to cover the coral in high nutrient systems, higher phosphate is preferable as long as the relationship with N is maintained.

 

[living_tribunal]

As was skeletal decay! Were all those blurbs from the same article? I thought you were referencing two different sources

Referencing a few I didn't add a link to. Read the articles in the citations, they are very interesting.

 

[living_tribunal]

Here is one that breaks down a lot of this:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5441187/

Corals adjust to low nitrogen/phosphorous significantly better than high nitrogen/phosphorous. Nitrate is a coral killer and most of these scientists consider nitrogen to be the only pollutant in the situation.

I feel like many issues people have in their tanks is due to this when other parameters are in line.

What I'm really trying to get at is people dramatically underestimate the importance of phosphates in our system.

I kept cringing when people just kept parroting "don't chase numbers" as a response when I inquired about my bottomed phosphate levels. "Don't dose phosphate, that's a recipe for disaster".

It was very annoying. I suppose those people don't care for the health of their corals.

 

[Treenk]

I’m kind of starting to become a little proud of this redneck rig.


Could be worse 2 and a half months in.

My 2 and a half is embarrased of himself now, lots of green rocks lol

 

[living_tribunal]

Here is a picture of the results on the polyps under low phosphate/low N, high n/low p, etc (you can see the skeleton density difference by comparing high n/high p to low n/high p, this was at a ratio of 1 N to 60 P mind you)

 

[living_tribunal]

So the optimal balance of nitrate to phosphate is ~ 6.5 μM NO3−/~0.3 μM PO4− or 20. I mistook the 6.4-6.8 I cited earlier.

 

[Treenk]

Wait.. sorry newb... are you saying .3 phosphate is good I thought it was suppose to be a tenth of that

 

[living_tribunal]

Wait.. sorry newb... are you saying .3 phosphate is good I thought it was suppose to be a tenth of that

I'm more so saying it's not bad in the absence of algae. People watch their phosphates to ensure algae doesn't take over which does more harm than the benefits of higher phosphate levels.

However, when you see people who have old systems and phosphates are .3 without algae, they are able to grow coral fast and this is one of the reasons why.

Lower phosphate levels are find as long as the nitrate to phosphate ratio is under 20x and the difference on coral growth between a 20x to 1x is almost nil.

 

[Magellan]

It's not skeletal decay, it's skeleton density.

Porous skeleton is not necessarily bad and certainly not for corals in our tank. It's due to the availability of phosphate and the ability to use it. Of course there has to be balance however and I'm not saying anyone should go around phosphates unless they have to.

What I'm mainly getting at is A.) The idiots running gfo out there and this stigma around phosphates telling everyone to decrease theirs. B.) People tend to associate the benefits of phosphates with nitrate which is incorrect. As a coral absorbs phosphate from the column, it then passses very small amounts of nitrate to zooxanthelle which produces sugar for the coral to grow. When nitrate is too high itremoves the relationship and less sugar ispassed to the coral.

I remember seeing a brs video where they even said that excess phosphate DECREASES skeletal growth. Absolute skeletal growth and mass is larger under high phosphates, just density is slightly less.

A few scientists have even proclaimed that absent of algae to cover the coral in high nutrient systems, higher phosphate is preferable as long as the relationship with N is maintained.

But high phosphates will grow a lot of algae. In a tank without tangs (my tank!) I would rather have lower phosphates. I agree, running a GFO reactor is probably foolish for most people, unless you know exactly how long to run it each day in order to keep your phosphates at the optimum level.

personally, I’m more of a “don’t fix what’s not broke” kinda guy, and haven’t ever worried about it. I feed a lot, keep up with my water changes, and my corals are happily growing way to big for my tank.

I think this process is what people meant when they said not to chase numbers. If my corals are healthy and growing, and my tank looks good (I MISS YOU, LAWNMOWER BLENNY!!) then why change anything? Tanks have a way of balancing themselves, as long as you are consistently doing the same things.

Obviously, in your case there was a really unique situation with the phosphate, the numbers were clearly wrong, and you took steps to rectify the situation. I don’t fault you in the slightest, and am in awe of your patience with water testing!

 

[living_tribunal]

But high phosphates will grow a lot of algae. In a tank without tangs (my tank!) I would rather have lower phosphates. I agree, running a GFO reactor is probably foolish for most people, unless you know exactly how long to run it each day in order to keep your phosphates at the optimum level.

personally, I’m more of a “don’t fix what’s not broke” kinda guy, and haven’t ever worried about it. I feed a lot, keep up with my water changes, and my corals are happily growing way to big for my tank.

I think this process is what people meant when they said not to chase numbers. If my corals are healthy and growing, and my tank looks good (I MISS YOU, LAWNMOWER BLENNY!!) then why change anything? Tanks have a way of balancing themselves, as long as you are consistently doing the same things.

Obviously, in your case there was a really unique situation with the phosphate, the numbers were clearly wrong, and you took steps to rectify the situation. I don’t fault you in the slightest, and am in awe of your patience with water testing!

I’m not saying to keep high phosphates at all, I hope that is not the message I’m delivering.

People focus too much on phosphates and not on. Itrates. People would simply be better off in the long run by keeping nitrate low and making it the focus.

Most n/p levels are relatively balanced in our systems from what consumes the, but most inorganic export methods only remove phosphates which will affect your corals.

I’m more or less dispelling the myths you hear from brs and many on here surrounding phosphates and the specific interactions they have on your corals.

 

[living_tribunal]

But high phosphates will grow a lot of algae. In a tank without tangs (my tank!) I would rather have lower phosphates. I agree, running a GFO reactor is probably foolish for most people, unless you know exactly how long to run it each day in order to keep your phosphates at the optimum level.

personally, I’m more of a “don’t fix what’s not broke” kinda guy, and haven’t ever worried about it. I feed a lot, keep up with my water changes, and my corals are happily growing way to big for my tank.

I think this process is what people meant when they said not to chase numbers. If my corals are healthy and growing, and my tank looks good (I MISS YOU, LAWNMOWER BLENNY!!) then why change anything? Tanks have a way of balancing themselves, as long as you are consistently doing the same things.

Obviously, in your case there was a really unique situation with the phosphate, the numbers were clearly wrong, and you took steps to rectify the situation. I don’t fault you in the slightest, and am in awe of your patience with water testing!

I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm primarily just bringing to the light the importance of phosphates and how they work in our reef tanks. I'm also trying to learn more.

I'm by no means going to try and replicate anything. I will however make a focus of trying to keep my nitrates down and phosphates up until it creates any kind of algae. I'd like to keep my tank in a range of 16-20 N/P going forward as well.

 

[Magellan]

Corals aren’t the only form of life in our tanks though. A lot of the recommended numbers aren’t necessarily the most optimum solutions for anything specific, but rather an environment that everything can be healthy in.

Ex: it’s recommended that nems need Nitrates of 5 or less.

another ex: my Goni comes from Indonesia, and would be happy in 82 degree water. Do I keep my tank at 82? Absolutely not lol, because I also have fish and inverts that most definitely would not agree with that decision!

ex #3: high alk, coupled with high Ca can grow SPS faster. But that’s a difficult path to walk, and easier to have a crash.

conclusion: recommendations aren’t natural laws, but are usually a good idea for most people in most situations.

 

[Katrina71]

Good morning y'all.

 

[SashimiTurtle]

Mornin'

 

[Treenk]

I'm more so saying it's not bad in the absence of algae. People watch their phosphates to ensure algae doesn't take over which does more harm than the benefits of higher phosphate levels.

However, when you see people who have old systems and phosphates are .3 without algae, they are able to grow coral fast and this is one of the reasons why.

Lower phosphate levels are find as long as the nitrate to phosphate ratio is under 20x and the difference on coral growth between a 20x to 1x is almost nil.

I get the phosphate thing it definitely helps algae grow so it makes sense other things would grow .. which im starting to get some red in sump I'm sure because of it. I'm not sure how your getting a 20x1 ratio. That seems a much closer than thought. If phosphate is .25ppm than nitrate needs to be under 5ppm that seems like really high phosphate and low nitrate.. am I not following on something. What are your phosphate nitrate levels?