Help! PO problem despite using RowaPhos

  • Thread starter Thread starter bucfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users None

bucfan

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 27, 2011
Messages
306
Reaction score
35
Location
Orlando, FL
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I have a 100g BB fully stocked with corals and some fish. I've been battling high NO and PO for months. I may have been feeding heavily. Was using Brightwell's ExtraxPhos for 3 months and it only lowered PO from 0.57 to 0.42. Never quite did it's job. Then I switched to RowaPhos 2+ weeks back. Overnight PO dropped from 0.42 to 0.19 and in 2 days they were down to 0.04. I use a Hanna meter to test. Now over the past 5 days it's creeping back up again. It was 0.10 on Fri and yesterday it was 0.16. How could that be? I thought RowaPhos took weeks to deplete and lose it's PO absorbing power. Mine has run only 2 1/2 weeks. I have it in a reactor and it was running a bit fast so I just added a flow valve last night and changed to a slow trickle. Could the water flow have been too much? Need some help figuring this out. Do I need to switch out the RowaPhos with fresh one? I also have NO ~ 30 but that's another issue. Running a biopellet reactor too.
 
Last edited:
Both nitrates and phosphates stem from overfeeding....which may be no problem, except that you are probably overstocked too, which obviously magnifies the overfeeding.

In lieu of taking care of the problem at its root, why not at least cut back on the feeding until you see things balance out?

-Matt
 
Macro algae both consume nitrates (and if present ammonia first) and phosphates.

So to me an algae turf scrubber or a refugium full of macro algae is the best.

But then that just my .02
 
Yes, you need to switch out the Rowaphos already. If its full, which you have detected it is, then it stime for a change.
 
The distributor's page has a lot of info about the product, FYI.

Seems like the recommended dosage rate is 1 mL of rowa per gallon of saltwater water and that dose will be able to remove 3 ppm of phosphate before exhaustion.

If we assume you had the "correct" dosage and that your phosphate levels are increasing (vs static), you'll never see the whole 3 ppm reduction in your test results. Think about it this way: after absorbing the would-be increase in phosphate your tank would have seen (keeping the phosphate level from increasing) it only had enough capacity left of the initial 3 ppm to lower the system phosphate level by about .4 ppm. Make sense??

Hope this helps!

-Matt
 
Both nitrates and phosphates stem from overfeeding....which may be no problem, except that you are probably overstocked too, which obviously magnifies the overfeeding.

In lieu of taking care of the problem at its root, why not at least cut back on the feeding until you see things balance out?

-Matt
Definitely not overstocked with fish. I have cut feeding fish to once daily from twice and feed coral twice weekly instead of every other day. Feeding could have been a problem but should not be since I have made the change 3 weeks back.
 
Good steps to take!

You'd have to look at your test results to really know if feeding "could have been" or "still is" a problem though.

If test results indicate phosphate levels are still creeping up, then you haven't licked the problem and you'll have to increase the dosage of RowaPhos ($$$) if you want to get out in front of phosphate production.

Or you can figure out another course. Getting more and bigger band-aids for the nutrient issue doesn't sound like the most enjoyable long term strategy. :)

Overfeeding
I would consider reducing coral-specific feedings to zero or at least very infrequently - and do anything possible to make the feedings neat and efficient. Remember, every time you feed the fish they feed the corals - literally - so manual coral feedings are superfluous (and very messy) in most cases.

One thing to consider is that if you are truly no longer overfeeding (rule of thumb I tell people is one mouthful of food per fish, per feeding...once per day is usually the max....much less could be good as well), then the fact your phosphates are climbing (if still true) may indicate your tank is overstocked compared to what it can handle.

At least consider what options you may have to reduce the bio-load. Of course, removing the largest animals will have the largest impact.

Detritus
Another thing to consider is that there's a good chance that the rocks and/or sand bed have become clogged with detritus during the period of overfeeding.

This would also keep phosphate levels rising in your tests in spite of your feeding reduction.

I would suggest you take your finger or a stick and swizzle around in the sand in a few likely places where there is low flow and/or turbulence: bases of rocks, under powerheads, etc. If you see detritus cloud up from the sand (anything but white is bad), I would consider removing the sand bed via siphon vs. cleaning it. Do so in sections over the course of a week or two if you choose to do this....taking the time will allow the live rock to assume control slowly of the tank's bio-filtration. Whether you put in new sand or not is optional. Speaking from experience, "not" will be much easier to maintain in the long run.

Also use a power head or turkey baster to blast some water into your rocks. If you see detritus come out of the rocks, continue with a powerhead until there is noticeably less detritus coming out, then follow up with a round of siphoning/a water change to remove the detritus. Repeat if necessary.

Flow
Addressing any flow issues would be my next move after this. Adequate flow is the only thing keeping gravity from settling 100% of all that poop/fish food into your rocks and sand. More/better pumps or better placement are the two main avenues to improvement.

Consider that whatever your flow situation is at the beginning, as the tank becomes more stocked and grown in, what you end up with is more things in the water. More things = more turbulence = weaker flow in the tank = more detritus settling.

Because of this very natural trend, it's very typical to need to add more powerheads (sources of flow) as well as rearrange the ones you have.

For example, I started my 36x12x18H" tank with a plain 175 gph Penguin Powerhead. As corals grew in, I had to upgrade to a Tunze 6045 (1100 gph), then 2x6045's (2200 gph) and finally 3x6045's (3300 gph). I could actually have made do with three smaller pumps in the end as I had a greater need for more sources of flow (to get some flow around huge coral colonies), than the actual increase in overall flow numbers.

I hope this helps!

-Matt
 

IF YOU HAD TO TAKE A REEFING EXAM, WOULD YOU PASS?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 32 45.7%
  • Not yet, but I have one that I want to buy in mind!

    Votes: 9 12.9%
  • No.

    Votes: 26 37.1%
  • Other (please explain).

    Votes: 3 4.3%

New Posts

Back
Top