Increasing Nitrates and Phosphates?

[Charley75]

Trying to increase these numbers. Actually haven’t tested for phosphates, need to get a test. Nitrates and Ammonia are always zero, even after trying to over feed. I added some zoo frags a week ago and they look ok, but not great. Should I be dosing nitrates and phosphates, or add more bioload?
90 gal with trigger 30 sump
2 clowns
Scopas tang
Tri color Anthias
Carpenter’s Flasher Wrasse
Lawnmower Blenny
Pygmy Cherub Angel
Royal Gramma
Various clean up crew
All fish are small

 

[Billldg]

You definitely need to test the phosphate level before you start to dose anything to raise the nitrates. You tank may be N03 and P04 deficient and it may take a while to raise it.

 

[Charley75]

Yeah...need to buy phosphates test.

 

[joseserrano]

What is your definition of your zoas look ok? Where your purpose in raising these? What are your other parameters, light, ...

 

[Charley75]

They seem to be shrinking. Salinity 1.025, temp 77-78, light ATI 6x54 T5 about 10” above surface. I’ve read that my Nitrates need to be higher...currently 0.

 

[ScottB]

How old is the system?
What are your nutrient removal tools? (Skimmer? refugium? etc?)

For PO4 testing, Hanna ULR is the only way to go.
For nitrates, I prefer the NYOS kit.

I would GRADUALLY increasing my feedings. Without a ton of nutrient consuming coral, fish feedings alone are more than enough to keep measurable nutrient. Just increase slowly, or you will kick off a GHA party.

 

[Charley75]

Reef octopus 150 skimmer, no refugium yet. The system is about 3 months old. I also use a mesh filter sock that I change every couple days.

 

[jda]

You might want to wait a few more months before you blame N and P for one week of a good, but not great, looking zoa frag.

In the mean time, read up on actual building block availability and all of that. What you will learn is that availability is more important than residual levels on a test kit. Just a trace of P if fine and that the N from ammonia/ammonium is a much better way to get nitrogen to your corals than using no3, which costs them a lot of energy to use. Basically, feed a lot and export a lot - this is the best.

Oh, and it can take about a year for a tank to stabilize to where you can fine tune it with additives and stuff - everything that you do to try and speed up this process will likely need to be repaid a few times over. Just let nature work.

 

[2Wheelsonly]

You might want to wait a few more months before you blame N and P for one week of a good, but not great, looking zoa frag.

In the mean time, read up on actual building block availability and all of that. What you will learn is that availability is more important than residual levels on a test kit. Just a trace of P if fine and that the N from ammonia/ammonium is a much better way to get nitrogen to your corals than using no3, which costs them a lot of energy to use. Basically, feed a lot and export a lot - this is the best.

Oh, and it can take about a year for a tank to stabilize to where you can fine tune it with additives and stuff - everything that you do to try and speed up this process will likely need to be repaid a few times over. Just let nature work.

I hear you on availability and all that...for sake of understanding better I will ask: What's the point of testing if the residual levels don't matter? I feel like the only times in the last 10 years I have lost healthy corals was when my po4 got low and I know there is never a point when my test kit didn't show a number (1-4pbb on my hanna ULR). When I have raised my po4 via dose everything always recovers and starts looking good. I honestly have never seen much difference in my tanks when nitrate was high or low but I for sure see it when po4 drops and I instantly know my number has gotten low looking at the tank.

Is there any time corals can "starve" when nutrients are present in test kits?

 

[jda]

N and P do not feed corals. They are building blocks of life, not a form of energy. They are necessary for tissue growth and repair, not for food. The light feeds corals, and if they can catch any food (not likely in our tanks). The ocean has P of around <1 or 1 ppb of P and about .1 N and nothing there is growth limited, even in the areas where acropora have no food to catch.

My typical answer is that the corals are probably not getting enough high quality light, or it was the drop/swing down to low levels rather than actually being there.

I test every once in a while to make sure that mine are not going up. This would tell me that something was wrong in my tank. Having some, but not too many, it what is important. Unless you are using chemicals or media, it is not likely that nobody has true zero N - the test kit is just not good enough to measure down to .1 or .5 of where ever a sand bed or real live rock will take you. If you have any kind of sand or rock, it will bind a massive amount of P and use as a buffer and release some if you get too low - only REALLY new tanks will have close to zero P and then be at risk to go to actual zero. I have read out 0 ppb on hannah ultra low before, but most of the time I am at 1 to 3... sometimes 4.

The big mistake that people make is thinking of N and P as food. They are necessary, but they are not for energy. Understanding the difference between energy and building blocks is important, IMO. You need enough building blocks around so that the coral can build new tissue, but not too many or else they can gum up the works. Imagine trying to lay the brick on a 20 story building... you need just enough mortar (N) and bricks (P) to build what you are building - if you have too much mortar and brings laying around, nobody could move and get any other work done.

I have a theory that some people are doing a study with that higher levels of N and P might be good in instances where light quality is deficient. The N and P slows down the zoox and does not allow the coral to suffer and burn since they are not truly getting all the type of light that they are wanting. In this case, it is a hack to save the coral. This could be more than a year away, though.