Nitrate and Phosphate Stability?

[BigJohnny]

Who out there (who has success in keeping a nice colorful growing stick tank) believes nutrient STABILITY is important. Everyone has their own opinions on what the right numbers are for nitrate and phosphate, based on lighting, flow, alkalinity levels etc, but how important do you think it is to keep those levels stable?

For example, I run my tanks at 8 dkh. I prefer 5ppm-15ppm nitrate and .03-.08 phosphate. I find my corals suffer if my nitrates dip below 5 and phosphate below .03 (for a sustained period, a few days nah). I personally have never had nutrients so high my corals suffer, but I know some people claim to have.

It is awfully hard for me to keep my nutrients at exactly say 10ppm nitrate, .05 phosphate (and i dont try), but I keep them in my range as much as possible. I've been wondering lately if trying to keep them stable at exact numbers would be beneficial, rather than letting them fluctuate within a desirable range, like I do with for Alk for example.

I believe they just need to be at a sufficient level to prevent issues, but I've never tried stabilizing them after that besides preventing them from getting too much higher then I deem the corals need them to be.

Just curious to hear other people's thoughts/experiences out there.

Thanks!

 

[CodyRVA]

Whats good man!

IME relatively small swings in NO3 and PO4 have much less of an impact on reef health compared to the same measurable swings in ALK, CA, MG. I've seen my nutrients fluctuate slightly with no real impact on the tank other than... maybe if I go too low for a while growth will slow and if I go a bit high the glass might get dirtier faster or i'll see small areas of algae. Keep in mind the range for this is very minimal. That being said I have had massive pO4 spikes in the past and as PO4 relates to ALK; this event completely wiped out my SPS. I'm sure by now we've all heard of reefers keeping high nutrients, which I believe is possible, but I don't believe you can go from ULN to a heavy bio load over night.

 

[BigJohnny]

Whats good man!

IME relatively small swings in NO3 and PO4 have much less of an impact on reef health compared to the same measurable swings in ALK, CA, MG. I've seen my nutrients fluctuate slightly with no real impact on the tank other than... maybe if I go too low for a while growth will slow and if I go a bit high the glass might get dirtier faster or i'll see small areas of algae. Keep in mind the range for this is very minimal. That being said I have had massive pO4 spikes in the past and as PO4 relates to ALK; this event completely wiped out my SPS. I'm sure by now we've all heard of reefers keeping high nutrients, which I believe is possible, but I don't believe you can go from ULN to a heavy bio load over night.

Heeeyyyy, this guy. What range were your nutrients normally fluctuating in before the spike? Was that po4 spike from your moving incident? What did it swing to? Did you have rtn or browning then stn?

Also, you ran biopellets right? I forget.

 

[jda]

It makes sense that the tank with the best color and growth probably have rock solid N and P numbers too. Wether that is a byproduct of an excellent hobbyist who otherwise is on the money with everything else, or that the corals just love stability (as everybody always says), is hard to tell, but there could be something there. Of course, the ocean is very stable, has very little of either and yearling colonies are the size of cantaloupes in most places.

My tank just naturally stays at .1 N (I have sand) and .005-.01P with me doing anything. It has been like this for years. This is just NSW Nutrient Level, not ULN - I have absolutely no interest in ULN. I don't think that you can deny that some of the best growth tanks are less than 1 and less than .01 where calcification is the easiest for the coral, so for optimum growth, I think that it makes sense to have numbers consistently on the lower side - not ULN, but just low or NSW.

It would seem that keeping higher numbers stable is a lot harder. With my numbers, a water change won't move them enough for a test kit to tell, but I replaced 20% of the water. With numbers 10-20x as high, then they would get moved to where a test could tell the difference. However, who knows if a coral can, or not.

I do know this... I recommended to two friends to get their P below .01 when they were complaining about slow growth. About a week later, nearly every acropora had new branches and about a week after that, little coralline spots are all over their glass again, so it does appear to take a while for the corals to show that they react to a change.

 

[Flippers4pups]

Arguments regarding nutrient level can be endless. But there is credence in it.

https://www.reef2reef.com/ams/tank-parameters-of-some-masters.263/

 

[CodyRVA]

Heeeyyyy, this guy. What range were your nutrients normally fluctuating in before the spike? Was that po4 spike from your moving incident? What did it swing to? Did you have rtn or browning then stn?

Also, you ran biopellets right? I forget.

NO3 at 1 and PO4 at .01-.03. My best guess is the spike occurred from the move in addition to the lack of attention it needed post move that it never got (self inflicted wounds). PO4 spiked to .75 in a week. Affects were across the board... 1 or 2 browned, most STN. The STN hit hardest in high light and flow. Here. And yea I'm still running pellets, very very little though, maybe 2 Tablespoons...?

 

[jda]

I hate it when people post that article... Those are some of the best-of-the-best who would probably have good results with any method or technique since they they have a wide breath and depth of experience. Also, those tanks were also chosen to prove a point and not some random sampling - there are plenty of stunning tanks that are at or very near NSW for nearly all parameters. Usually, the article does not really help people who are not as good as those folks and only confuses them more. However, in this case, each of them have indicated that all of their levels, including nutrients, are very stable - so it is a good link for this thread about stability in nutrients... so it might help a bit to prove the OPs supposition.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I think this is an interesting question, but one that cannot be answered by anecdote any more easily than can answering a question like

"If I eat fish as a kid, will I be taller as an adult than if I don't?"

meaning there are so many variables that the answer will be lost in the noise.

Specifically,
how much variability? what low end? what high end?
which nutrients?
which species?
which lighting and flow and skimming and GAC and everything else?
what else is limiting growth (alk, iron, etc.),
what organisms besides the SPS are being impacted, which in turn might impact the SPS (bacteria, algae, phytoplankton etc.)
and the list goes on...

 

[BigJohnny]

It makes sense that the tank with the best color and growth probably have rock solid N and P numbers too. Wether that is a byproduct of an excellent hobbyist who otherwise is on the money with everything else, or that the corals just love stability (as everybody always says), is hard to tell, but there could be something there. Of course, the ocean is very stable, has very little of either and yearling colonies are the size of cantaloupes in most places.

My tank just naturally stays at .1 N (I have sand) and .005-.01P with me doing anything. It has been like this for years. This is just NSW Nutrient Level, not ULN - I have absolutely no interest in ULN. I don't think that you can deny that some of the best growth tanks are less than 1 and less than .01 where calcification is the easiest for the coral, so for optimum growth, I think that it makes sense to have numbers consistently on the lower side - not ULN, but just low or NSW.

It would seem that keeping higher numbers stable is a lot harder. With my numbers, a water change won't move them enough for a test kit to tell, but I replaced 20% of the water. With numbers 10-20x as high, then they would get moved to where a test could tell the difference. However, who knows if a coral can, or not.

I do know this... I recommended to two friends to get their P below .01 when they were complaining about slow growth. About a week later, nearly every acropora had new branches and about a week after that, little coralline spots are all over their glass again, so it does appear to take a while for the corals to show that they react to a change.

Interesting however imo the nicest tanks have higher n and p then nsw. Wwc, Jason fox, Sanjay joshi

 

[BigJohnny]

Arguments regarding nutrient level can be endless. But there is credence in it.

https://www.reef2reef.com/ams/tank-parameters-of-some-masters.263/

Yes that's why I said everyone has their own opinion on the actual levels, I'm more interested in whether or not people believe stability at those levels produces better results (even if the parameters fluctuate in an acceptable range, so not big bad swings)

 

[BigJohnny]

NO3 at 1 and PO4 at .01-.03. My best guess is the spike occurred from the move in addition to the lack of attention it needed post move that it never got (self inflicted wounds). PO4 spiked to .75 in a week. Affects were across the board... 1 or 2 browned, most STN. The STN hit hardest in high light and flow. Here. And yea I'm still running pellets, very very little though, maybe 2 Tablespoons...?

dang .75 homie? Yikes. Moving tanks is fun isn't it lol?

 

[BigJohnny]

I hate it when people post that article... Those are some of the best-of-the-best who would probably have good results with any method or technique since they they have a wide breath and depth of experience. Also, those tanks were also chosen to prove a point and not some random sampling - there are plenty of stunning tanks that are at or very near NSW for nearly all parameters. Usually, the article does not really help people who are not as good as those folks and only confuses them more. However, in this case, each of them have indicated that all of their levels, including nutrients, are very stable - so it is a good link for this thread about stability in nutrients... so it might help a bit to prove the OPs supposition.

I'm not sure it specified that the nutrients themselves were stable, just overall stability. In my experience people are usually referring to temp/salinity/alk/calcium/magnesium when they say to keep things stable, but your right, everything is probably stable. Having said that, "stable" can have a wide range depending on who you are talking to. Jason fox was mentioned in that article but he said he doesn't care if his alk drops or rises about 1 dkh in either direction unless it stays there, then he'll adjust. Stable in my case is no more or less than .2 dkh

 

[BigJohnny]

I think this is an interesting question, but one that cannot be answered by anecdote any more easily than can answering a question like

"If I eat fish as a kid, will I be taller as an adult than if I don't?"

meaning there are so many variables that the answer will be lost in the noise.

Specifically,
how much variability? what low end? what high end?
which nutrients?
which species?
which lighting and flow and skimming and GAC and everything else?
what else is limiting growth (alk, iron, etc.),
what organisms besides the SPS are being impacted, which in turn might impact the SPS (bacteria, algae, phytoplankton etc.)
and the list goes on...

Im not looking to definitively answer anything, just asked for opinions/experiences. Your such a scientist [emoji6]

 

[bif24701]

As long as my system has between 4-20ppm NO3 and .03-.10+ppm PO4 my corals do not pale out. I will notice a problem though after a only a few days if it does drop lower. I add PNO3 to every water change. PO4 is constant because I have a big chaeto fuge. No GFO. My system processes NO3 very well and will not accumulate on its own, drops with every water change unless I add some. I prefer ~5-8ppm NO3, it's been up to 20 when I dosed too much with no ill effect.
10-11 dKH
Very high flow 80x's display
Very high light 300-500+ throughout.
Feed very heavy and heavy export.
Corals especially montis grow fast in this condition and colors stay rich.

 

[jda]

In addition to the parameters that you listed, I consider nitrate, phosphate as well as lighting when I factor in stability. Light is easy for people who don't tinker.

My alk, calcium, mag, strontium, etc. constantly moves up or down, but I consider it "stable." For example, my CaRx is maintaining right now at about 7.3 and 445. This will make it's way down to about 6.5 and 425 over the next month as the growth outpaces the output. Then, I will retune it and it will slowly make it's way back up to 7.5 and about 450 for a week as the output outpaces the growth, and then go back down again as the coral growth catches up. That is technically not all that "stable" in a long-term linear way, but day-by-day it hardly moves. Nearly every tank with massive amounts of growth has these same issues unless people retune their dosers or CaRx every day.

Also, I do not use an ATO, so my salinity will do something like 1.02575 to 1.026 when I add 10-15 gallons of RO to the sump every other day. Again, so small that nothing seems to care.

My temp can go up half a degree before a chiller comes on - only happens a few times a year here in Colorado.

My N and P have been stable for years - more stable than this.

I do tend to believe that small swings are OK and can still be "stable" as long as you don't see values get crazy out of range.

 

[bif24701]

I think as long as the swing isn't so much to create some kind of set back.

 

[2Wheelsonly]

I have not been bit by having nutrient swings. If I don't pay attention my no3 drops to undetectable and I have problems. I strive to keep my po4 around 0.04 and my no3 around 5-10 (10 is where I want it). When I have higher nitrates my colors really pop under my G4 pros. When my nutrients drop, my colors look bland and pale...I am at the point where I just use the display as my test kit and react. I have not figured out a way to keep my nutrients stable and I don't want to reply on dosing.

Calc reactor for me...that's it. I don't want carbon and I loathe GFO; I always killed corals in the past with that stuff...it just works too well at stripping the water.

My tank is happy when there is a decent amount of nutrients and I have not seen a single strand of hair algae is at least 5 years in any of my tanks. I don't find algae problems at all when my nutrients are higher but I definitely see problems when they are low. I also don't feel having to clean the glass every few days is a good test either, no matter how low or high my tanks have been I have ALWAYS had to clean the glass. I think that's more bacterial film than anything that can't be avoided.

 

[Hans-Werner]

In my opinion and my experience a fluctuation by a factor of 2 or 3 in phosphates is no problem but fluctuation by an order of magnitude is a problem. And rising phosphate concentration is less of a problem than sinking phosphate concentration. Acropora spp. stop growing if phosphate concentration is sinking or dropping by more than a bit.