CC Voodoo Majick- Residual Nutrients

[Reefahholic]

Just wanted to get everyone’s thoughts on Residual Nutrient levels. Healthy or Begging for trouble?


Pic below was the first day I received this CC Voodoo Majick:

 

[mtraylor]

It will color up

 

[Reefahholic]

It will color up

It did. But what is your opinion on keeping Acro’s in residual’s if the system is 5 yrs plus.

 

[mtraylor]

I really don't understand what the question and or statement is susposed to be. It's very vague.

If you are stating that you have a 5 year old reef that has never had a coral in it and you just put your first one in.....well congrats on moving to corals. I like the coral. One of my favorites for colors.

I have no opinion on the water as there are no parms listed here. The water quality IMO, will be what it is. The numbers won't lie. Test the water and it will tell you if it's good

Maybe put some details in why you are stating you have residual parms. Are you stating you haven't done a water change in five years and never added any supplements and you have never tested the water and now your tank only has "residual nutrients"?

 

[Reefahholic]

I really don't understand what the question and or statement is susposed to be. It's very vague.

Ok, let me be more specific.

The question is…what are your thoughts on residual nutrients? Maybe I should define that.

Residual nutrients: The nutrients remaining after the greater part or quantity is gone.

Here’s a basic example. Let me
just list these two sets of nutrient numbers below, and we’ll pretend that both of these were confirmed via ICP-MS.

1. P = 0.15 | N = 15

2. P = .01 | N = 1

Now, you have two (5 year) established acro systems. In both systems the corals are alive and doing good. System #1 has deep rich colors. System #2 has very light colors, but with excellent PE. Which nutrient levels would your prefer and why?

 

[Waters]

Kind of a strange question lol......I guess it depends on what you like. Do you like rich darker colors or more pastel colors in your acros? I would want to have as many nutrients as I could to keep the deep colors in the acros while not feeding algae issues.

 

[Dburr1014]

Ok, let me be more specific.

The question is…what are your thoughts on residual nutrients? Maybe I should define that.

Residual nutrients: The nutrients remaining after the greater part or quantity is gone.

Here’s a basic example. Let me
just list these two sets of nutrient numbers below, and we’ll pretend that both of these were confirmed via ICP-MS.

1. P = 0.15 | N = 15

2. P = 0.1 | N = 1

Now, you have two (5 year) established acro systems. In both systems the corals are alive and doing good. System #1 has deep rich colors. System #2 has very light colors, but with excellent PE. Which nutrient levels would your prefer and why?

I'll play;
Option #2 for me.
If I feed more I can slide into option #1.
If I feed the same, I can hold at option #2.

 

[Reefahholic]

Kind of a strange question lol......I guess it depends on what you like. Do you like rich darker colors or more pastel colors in your acros? I would want to have as many nutrients as I could to keep the deep colors in the acros while not feeding algae issues.

I like them safe. I also like to hear opinions and logic.

 

[Waters]

I'll play;
Option #2 for me.
If I feed more I can slide into option #1.
If I feed the same, I can hold at option #2.

But........couldn't you take option 1 and feed LESS to slide into option 2 or hold and stay in option 1 ?

 

[Reefahholic]

But........couldn't you take option 1 and feed LESS to slide into option 2 or hold and stay in option 1 ?

What if you get a hard growth spurt and find yourself in #2?

 

[Reefahholic]

Well, here’s my logic.

Corals in residual nutrient levels can thrive, but can a lot of times end up on the pale or lighter side which I personally feel is a risk not worth taking. When problems arise I’ve noticed those are the first frags to checkout. I prefer higher nutrient levels within reason. What I’ve experienced personally is that said corals purchased from 5 year established system in residual nutrient levels are often suffering from low or depleted minor or trace elements as well. Typically Cobalt, Chromium, Manganese, Iron, Selenium, Iodine, Nickel, Zinc, Copper, and Vanadium. Many of those elements are important for light protection and other functions. I suspect this is why these frags are the first to check out. IMO, when you get a growth spurt nutrients and many other elements tank a dive (especially the elements mentioned above), and when the corals or frags are left in residual levels and weak chemistry long enough problems can arise. Of course…it’s always the big bad “bacteria moster” that did it. Seems like some reefers never consider a swing, or depleted elements. It’s always a vicious Arcobacter or Vibrio species. I feel that is unlikely in most cases, and the data I’ve been seeing seems to indicate that. That’s my .02 cents. I’m no scientist.


That CC Voodoo Majick is no longer with me (But I do have a back up) It did color up and lasted for quite a while, but a Fluconazole Tx gone bad took it out. Out of 28 Acro’s it was the only one that didn’t make it sadly. To be honest, it was probably one of the healthiest corals in my tank at the time. I was surprised it checked out. It did gain a lot of color and was looking really good. So I can’t blame that on residual nutrients because it was with me for months and by that time it received all the elements and nutrition needed to thrive. The other frags from the same system did check out relatively early on when the tank was too young and unstable. I had a 0.1+ PO4 swing and they STN’ed. It was just too much for them coming from such a ULN system. Other frags that came from a higher nutrient system didn’t blink during that event. Now I try to buy frags from a reefer or vendor that is closer in nutrients to where I run my system.

This is an interesting topic to me, and there’s no doubt corals can live and thrive in either environment with the right conditions present. I just feel like skirting the border is more dangerous.

 

[ScottB]

Ok, let me be more specific.

The question is…what are your thoughts on residual nutrients? Maybe I should define that.

Residual nutrients: The nutrients remaining after the greater part or quantity is gone.

Here’s a basic example. Let me
just list these two sets of nutrient numbers below, and we’ll pretend that both of these were confirmed via ICP-MS.

1. P = 0.15 | N = 15

2. P = .01 | N = 1

Now, you have two (5 year) established acro systems. In both systems the corals are alive and doing good. System #1 has deep rich colors. System #2 has very light colors, but with excellent PE. Which nutrient levels would your prefer and why?

I would never run #2 except with the following circumstances:
(a) I was really good at managing a zeovit system
b) Tank was just so stocked with coral that no matter how often or how much I fed the fish they always stayed low.

You just have zero margin for error/starvation and running the risk of a dino outbreak.

I prefer to run #1. I will even let them run a little higher, then knock them back with a WC and some lanthanum chloride.

 

[jda]

I think that most know that I have very low residual sources of nitrogen and phosphorous in the forms of nitrate and phosphate. I do, however, have very abundant sources of nitrogen via ammonia/ammonium and phosphorous in the form of metaphosphate and organically bound phoshorous.

The Voodoo Magik does well in my tank. I have given many frags to others that have very high residual levels of nitrate and phosphate but also lots of fish, so likely also many sources of available nitrogen and phosphorous as well... and the frags do well here too.

I don't think that this coral cares too much. I do get more contrast with wider range and more output of lighting, which seems to make more of a difference than residuals to me.

 

[Reefahholic]

I think that most know that I have very low residual sources of nitrogen and phosphorous in the forms of nitrate and phosphate. I do, however, have very abundant sources of nitrogen via ammonia/ammonium and phosphorous in the form of metaphosphate and organically bound phoshorous.

The Voodoo Magik does well in my tank. I have given many frags to others that have very high residual levels of nitrate and phosphate but also lots of fish, so likely also many sources of available nitrogen and phosphorous as well... and the frags do well here too.

I don't think that this coral cares too much. I do get more contrast with wider range and more output of lighting, which seems to make more of a difference than residuals to me.

Jda’s system is a perfect example of how a coral can thrive in lower nutrient levels. His system is very established (north of 5 yrs
I believe), and he has good quality light. Even if the nutrients are testing zero with hobby test kits, you will see his organic nitrogen and phosphate levels on ICP are not really zero, but maybe lower than what a typical reefer is running. The important thing is that nutrients are there. In this case the corals are still thriving, because they have all the organic compounds needed.

The average 1 year old dry rock tank would not be able to support coral health in this environment. There is usually not enough food for the corals to eat, and they begin to starve and STN/RTN.

IMO, the number one killer of corals is depleted or low PO4.

 

[Reefahholic]

You just have zero margin for error/starvation and running the risk of a dino outbreak.

Pretty much my thoughts exactly. This is why I prefer to error on the higher end. I will even sacrifice some color pop for a healthy coral.

 

[jda]

I reject the sentiment that my tank is lower in "nutrient" levels. I have a massive amount of nitrogen and phosphorus, just not much nitrate and phosphate - too few understand the difference. Nitrogen and phosphorous are the "nutrients" that count and no3 and po4 are fools gold (ish). Zeo tanks are also very high in "nutrients" just not po4 and no3.

BTW - I hate the term nutrients. Nitrogen and phosphorous are building blocks of life. no3 and po4 are waste products of complex cycles and systems. It would be better to call each thing for what it is. Light and zoox create energy and sugars. They are not the same and do different things each worthy of understanding, but they are all technically "nutrients."

As for po4, there are many different kinds. We can only test for orthophosphate, which is the least usable form. Meta/poly phosphates appear more desired by coral, along with organically bound phosphorous. You can have very low orthophosphate levels and still have much polyphosphate and organically bound phosphorous. I kinda on accident did an experiment where it took about three days for polyphosphate to totally break down into orthophosphate, so there appears to be a window of higher availability there for your corals, zoox/dinos and stuff.

My current tank is over 20 years old and has rock from another tank back in the early/mid 1990s. It has been around for a while. I redid it in the early 2000s of which the sand and rock are still around today and survived a move to Colorado nearly in tact and undisturbed.

 

[Reefahholic]

I reject the sentiment that my tank is lower in "nutrient" levels. I have a massive amount of nitrogen and phosphorus, just not much nitrate and phosphate

I agree with that. Have you done an ICP lately. I’d be curious to see the results.

Zeo tanks are also very high in "nutrients" just not po4 and no3.

I’ve always been fascinated with their method. Although I’m not completely familiar with the organic sources used for nitrogen and phosphorus supplementation. I know whatever they’re using is very effective. When I look at the corals they are so pale that I’d be worried about their health had I not heard about the method. I know the Bacteria is feeding the corals, but it goes beyond that. It’s definitely beyond simple orthophosphates. I think the problem is that a lot of these sources aren’t readily available, and what is available is expensive. Correct me if I’m wrong.

I kinda on accident did an experiment where it took about three days for polyphosphate to totally break down into orthophosphate

What was the polyphosphate source.?

My current tank is over 20 years old and has rock from another tank back in the early/mid 1990s. It has been around for a while. I redid it in the early 2000s of which the sand and rock are still around today and survived a move to Colorado nearly in tact and undisturbed

Yeah I knew it was up there, but I did not realize it was that established. No wonder why the corals look so healthy, but I have not seen any pictures in quite some time. Cough Cough…hint hint…

 

[jda]

ZEO corals are mostly pale because they constantly add in heavy metals to limit zoox growth - zinc, copper, etc. If you do it right, it is more high contrast than pale - it can look really good in the hands of the right folks. ZEO is mostly just heavy feeding and organic carbon dosing system with some other things added. This is an oversimplification, but close enough for this discussion. It is the discipline that makes it work moreso than the product, IMO - any discipline that is equally intense will work really well.

You can buy polyphosphate off of Amazon, or wherever.

I never really saw the benefit of ICP. I never thought that it was all that accurate, which was confirmed later on by the folks on here. I can buy 400 gallons of IO for the same cost which would do more to cure any ills than the test, so I just do that. People often send out ICP looking for a smoking gun and get back more questions than answers.

 

[Reefahholic]

I never really saw the benefit of ICP. I never thought that it was all that accurate, which was confirmed later on by the folks on here. I can buy 400 gallons of IO for the same cost which would do more to cure any ills than the test, so I just do that. People often send out ICP looking for a smoking gun and get back more questions than answers.

ICP-MS has changed a lot of that. From what I’ve seen after looking at hundreds of analysis they are quite accurate. Especially with those elements in the ultra trace concentration range that OES wasn’t able to accurately detect. It just wasn’t sensitive enough to be trustworthy for those elements IMO. I’ve noticed significant changes being able to keep elements like Cobalt, Chromium, Manganese, Iron, Copper, Selenium, and Nickel in target ranges. Color, PE, and just the overall health of the corals is much better. Highly recommend ICP-MS if you ever have some extra cash. I think you’ll be quite pleased. Water Changes are great to remove pollutants. Unless of course you introduce pollutants with the salt which is completely possible. We all know what recently happened with TMP. I think it’s smart and helpful to know what’s in the salt in the first place, and at what ratios if you are relying solely on water changes for trace element replenishment.

You know as well as I do that not all salt brands are created equally, and some lack specific elements. Some elements may be low. Then you have the problem of getting consistency when mixing new batches. The top is different from the bottom, and most people aren’t flipping their 50lb buckets or shuffling their bags. I think @rtparty tested a bunch of different brands recently. I’d like to see the outcome on that.

Anyway here’s the difference between ICP-OES vs ICP-MS. As you can see below…the sensitivity with MS is much better. It has definitely changed my reef for the better, but it’s not for everybody.

 

[Dburr1014]

ICP-MS has changed a lot of that. From what I’ve seen after looking at hundreds of analysis they are quite accurate. Especially with those elements in the ultra trace concentration range that OES wasn’t able to accurately detect. It just wasn’t sensitive enough to be trustworthy for those elements IMO. I’ve noticed significant changes being able to keep elements like Cobalt, Chromium, Manganese, Iron, Copper, Selenium, and Nickel in target ranges. Color, PE, and just the overall health of the corals is much better. Highly recommend ICP-MS if you ever have some extra cash. I think you’ll be quite pleased. Water Changes are great to remove pollutants. Unless of course you introduce pollutants with the salt which is completely possible. We all know what recently happened with TMP. I think it’s smart and helpful to know what’s in the salt in the first place, and at what ratios if you are relying solely on water changes for trace element replenishment.

You know as well as I do that not all salt brands are created equally, and some lack specific elements. Some elements may be low. Then you have the problem of getting consistency when mixing new batches. The top is different from the bottom, and most people aren’t flipping their 50lb buckets or shuffling their bags. I think @rtparty tested a bunch of different brands recently. I’d like to see the outcome on that.

Anyway here’s the difference between ICP-OES vs ICP-MS. As you can see below…the sensitivity with MS is much better. It has definitely changed my reef for the better, but it’s not for everybody.

Which do you think is right and why do you think that?