NO3, PO4 not the enemy

[Billldg]

I will simply say to each their own. Corals do adapt and will eventually grow, if they don't die to the given parameters. It does not make them right or wrong. Life does adapt to what is given to them to survive.

I will ask this though...What are the parameters of the actual ocean that they live in?

 

[HuduVudu]

I think we can agree that just because a marine scientist understands a good deal about the natural reef environment, that doesn't mean he/she will automatically be a reef keeper.

And because of this, I am baffled as to why these people are referred to so regularly on boards dedicated to reef keeping.

Most of the chemistry that I use is from a high school chemistry. I apply it to my needs in my aquarium and I don't use much beyond that. Biology is the same.

I think people look way to hard to scientists for complicated answers that in my experience provide very little if any help on the problems most reefers face. It seems like scientific knowledge is only used in public by reefers to bash other reefers for things that they themselves are struggling with.

Solving many of the basic reefing problems requires very little understanding of any basic science. Mostly it requires a tinkering mindset, accurate observation and honest evaluation. Nothing will substitute for these qualities to solve reefing problems.

 

[LRT]

I will simply say to each their own. Corals do adapt and will eventually grow, if they don't die to the given parameters. It does not make them right or wrong. Life does adapt to what is given to them to survive.

I will ask this though...What are the parameters of the actual ocean that they live in?

Id love to know this as well. Ive dived the gulf reef in schools of thriving fish and corals and it was a literal poop fest the whole time I was in water. I think there's is way to much water exchange happening on the reef at any given time to look at it this way. At what time and where do we check these levels to get true levels that these corals are actually introduced to on daily basis?

 

[Jacked Reefer]

And because of this, I am baffled as to why these people are referred to so regularly on boards dedicated to reef keeping.

Most of the chemistry that I use is from a high school chemistry. I apply it to my needs in my aquarium and I don't use much beyond that. Biology is the same.

I think people look way to hard to scientists for complicated answers that in my experience provide very little if any help on the problems most reefers face. It seems like scientific knowledge is only used in public by reefers to bash other reefers for things that they themselves are struggling with.

Solving many of the basic reefing problems requires very little understanding of any basic science. Mostly it requires a tinkering mindset, accurate observation and honest evaluation. Nothing will substitute for these qualities to solve reefing problems.

As someone studying for their degree in marine bio. This is entirely false. Just because you have gotten great results from tinkering, observing, and evaluating (ie. the scientific method…) doesn't nullify the importance of verified research in the hobby. Reading though several articles will save you years of tinkering if done properly. As well as the more controlled experiments provide a clearer view into what actually may be the true cause and effect of things.
It is sad to see people completely discrediting evidence because it doesn’t align with how they think. As in this case. A scientific article regarding the slowing of coral growth due to excess phosphate levels in water is posted. And instead of posing contrary evidence (to phosphate slowing down coral growth) instead a few corals as well as multiple comments questioning the hobbyists “skill level” of all marine biologists! Please try and at least prove the article wrong. As well as have some civilized discussion on the subject.
this is not saying there is no reason to question the science! The point of studies is provided observations the can ge questioned. But perhaps it would be to hard to ask people to stay on track instead of discredit the role of science in a scientific hobby….

 

[Spare time]

Food/poop decomposes into nitrate and phosphate. These are bad when they get high. So we prevent them with filter socks and skimming and remove them with water changes and GFO. And if we do enough of that, we too can have beautiful, sps dominant reefs.

I don't buy it. There are lots of examples of old, flourishing tanks that ignore the standard advice.

What's the evidence that NO3/PO4, both necessary nutrients, are bad at high levels? Perhaps they're not directly harmful, but high levels indicate something else is missing, preventing growth and nutrient uptake. Water changes would fix that, and frequently water changes are widely thought to be effective.

But what about Lasse' report of no WC? His tank is mature and has lots of big corals. But they're not growing. At least not to the same extent we want frags to grow. Imagine a new tank full of frags. We want them to grow to maybe 10x in size. But once they have, growth must stop (or at least slow to a rate fragging can handle) or they'll be bigger than the tank.

So new tanks and mature tanks are completely separate beasts. New tanks need fast growth conditions. Slow growth conditions in mature, "full" tanks save you the trouble of fragging all the time.

So am I on to something? I've heard "there are lots of ways to be successful" many times, but I think that translates to "we don't fully understand the science yet". Perhaps this is a component of different methods to successful tanks.

Yes they are harmful if high. But they are also bad if too low. The key is to keep them in an ok range since we don't allow our corals to gather these via feedings like they do in the wild.

 

[Charlie’s Frags]

I don’t care what the natural reef parameters are. I, and the vast majority of hobbyist, don’t have the water volume, biodiversity, water movement and the sun to replicate it. I also don’t prefer the way acropora look in nature (mostly brown and/or grey).

 

[Spare time]

Food/poop decomposes into nitrate and phosphate. These are bad when they get high. So we prevent them with filter socks and skimming and remove them with water changes and GFO. And if we do enough of that, we too can have beautiful, sps dominant reefs.

I don't buy it. There are lots of examples of old, flourishing tanks that ignore the standard advice.

What's the evidence that NO3/PO4, both necessary nutrients, are bad at high levels? Perhaps they're not directly harmful, but high levels indicate something else is missing, preventing growth and nutrient uptake. Water changes would fix that, and frequently water changes are widely thought to be effective.

But what about Lasse' report of no WC? His tank is mature and has lots of big corals. But they're not growing. At least not to the same extent we want frags to grow. Imagine a new tank full of frags. We want them to grow to maybe 10x in size. But once they have, growth must stop (or at least slow to a rate fragging can handle) or they'll be bigger than the tank.

So new tanks and mature tanks are completely separate beasts. New tanks need fast growth conditions. Slow growth conditions in mature, "full" tanks save you the trouble of fragging all the time.

So am I on to something? I've heard "there are lots of ways to be successful" many times, but I think that translates to "we don't fully understand the science yet". Perhaps this is a component of different methods to successful tanks.

The other main issue with these being high is particularly when one is way higher than the other. Just go on Google scholar and read some papers.

 

[Nano sapiens]

Id love to know this as well. Ive dived the gulf reef in schools of thriving fish and corals and it was a literal poop fest the whole time I was in water. I think there's is way to much water exchange happening on the reef at any given time to look at it this way. At what time and where do we check these levels to get true levels that these corals are actually introduced to on daily basis?

I think you'd have to approach this in a similar way to lighting's DLI (Daily Light Integer) which is used to determine the total amount of photons falling on a particular area per day. So this could be 'DNI' (Daily Nutrient Input) to determine all the possible forms of nutrition ingested or absorbed by a coral in a day.

Which then brings up the question; "How different is the nutrition profile from day to day?" (ex: one day a school of Tangs poops all over the area, the next they are absent ). So perhaps monitoring would be necessary for at least a few days to build up a more accurate nutrition profile.

Sounds like it would be tough enough in an aquarium, what more in the wild.

 

[HuduVudu]

A scientific article regarding the slowing of coral growth due to excess phosphate levels in water is posted.

Yup and empirical evidence was also posted that provided a reefers successful tank with "high" phosphate. Complete with pictures of healthy coral, and test kits with numbers.

The thing about science in a very complex system is that you will struggle and fail to adequately isolate variables. I think that multi-variable calculus would be a valuable teacher in this respect.

and instead of posing contrary evidence (to phosphate slowing down coral growth)

Are you looking for contrary studies or actual evidence? because actual evidence was provided.

Please try and at least prove the article wrong.

How? The way that you want it proven wrong?

Look, reason and reality must be united to provide true wisdom. You can't have one without the other.

Understand that you have bias. You have invested in a course of action, and now you are about to defend to the death the choice that you made. Just know that I have not attacked your course of action, I have simply agreed with another person about how best to approach reef keeping problems. I have no understanding why you have chosen your path in life. You must have had good reason for it. That makes you an adult human. Welcome.

Just know that you don't know what you don't know. Case in point when you get to the higher level courses in your scholastic journey you would have struggled to know what they meant without first mastering the lower level classes. To reiterate you don't know what you don't know, and throwing around studies and jargon won't change that.

 

[LRT]

I think you'd have to approach this in a similar way to lighting's DLI (Daily Light Integer) which is used to determine the total amount of photons falling on a particular area per day. So this could be 'DNI' (Daily Nutrient Input) to determine all the possible forms of nutrition ingested or absorbed by a coral in a day.

Which then brings up the question; "How different is the nutrition profile from day to day?" (ex: one day a school of Tangs poops all over you, the next they are absent ). So perhaps monitoring would be necessary for at least a few days to build up a more accurate nutrition profile.

Sounds like it would be tough enough in an aquarium, what more in the wild.

Agreed. The particular areas we have snorkled would be a great start. They are snorkled daily almost. Fish are fed in the process. So they get extra poopy haha
Totally forgot about currents kicking up the water and how cloudy it actually is at times as well.
Not to mention not too far out whale sharks and mantas are basking gobbling up the cloudy water full of fish eggs and stuff.
We should sample all these areas all the time.

 

[Jacked Reefer]

Yup and empirical evidence was also posted that provided a reefers successful tank with "high" phosphate. Complete with pictures of healthy coral, and test kits with numbers.

The thing about science in a very complex system is that you will struggle and fail to adequately isolate variables. I think that multi-variable calculus would be a valuable teacher in this respect.



Are you looking for contrary studies or actual evidence? because actual evidence was provided.



How? The way that you want it proven wrong?

Look, reason and reality must be united to provide true wisdom. You can't have one without the other.

Understand that you have bias. You have invested in a course of action, and now you are about to defend to the death the choice that you made. Just know that I have not attacked your course of action, I have simply agreed with another person about how best to approach reef keeping problems. I have no understanding why you have chosen your path in life. You must have had good reason for it. That makes you an adult human. Welcome.

Just know that you don't know what you don't know. Case in point when you get to the higher level courses in your scholastic journey you would have struggled to know what they meant without first mastering the lower level classes. To reiterate you don't know what you don't know.

That is an understandable assessment of the situation. But the evidence presented does not directly correlate with the point attempting to be made. I do believe SPS corals can thrive at a higher nitrate level (and have seen it myself in a bay in Mexico that read about 50ppm nitrates if I remember correctly). But the article posted addressed the speed of growth. Not coloration. not heath. Both of which are entirely plausible. And in fact, I'm in the camp that higher nutrient levels (to an extent) correlate with better color.
Let me set the record straight. I am not trying to argue about nutrient levels here. My approach is as long as you have stable nutrients then you will have healthy corals. This is not contrary to anything posted in the thread. My issue with this whole ordeal is the fact that it seems difficult for many to consume evidence from the other side of the argument. As well as many claiming that science has no place in the reef-keeping scene to defend their position. By all means, Keep reefs the way you want to. But as humans, we are born knowing nothing. As the summarized quote from Socrates that you utilized states. But the amazing thing about humanity is we have the ability to process near-infinite amounts of evidence to formulate our conclusions. Perhaps there is some side to this debate that I have not seen yet that you have knowledge of. In that case that is what I would like to know. Not the belief about science playing no role within the hobby.

 

[HuduVudu]

FWIW, I live near the Gulf and I just recently went to get some water to do a water change. I waded into the surf with rolled up shorts and got a five gallon bucket of water. It had a lot of sediment and was pretty gross looking. Did my water change with it because making RO/DI has become expensive for me. Though I have to say carrying two five gallon buckets full of water back to the 200 yard distance to the car was pretty intense.

Either way tested the parameters. Was kinda surprised that NO3 was indeed 0 (or near it don't have a low range). Other things I could test for were indeed NSW the ocean is a big place and parameters are pretty stable. Didn't test for PO4 though but I guess next time I am at the beach I could get some more water to test.

Just know that the water conditions were not amenable to any sort of snorkeling or diving because of the visibility. This is pretty much how it is most of the time.

 

[Jacked Reefer]

I think you'd have to approach this in a similar way to lighting's DLI (Daily Light Integer) which is used to determine the total amount of photons falling on a particular area per day. So this could be 'DNI' (Daily Nutrient Input) to determine all the possible forms of nutrition ingested or absorbed by a coral in a day.

Which then brings up the question; "How different is the nutrition profile from day to day?" (ex: one day a school of Tangs poops all over you, the next they are absent ). So perhaps monitoring would be necessary for at least a few days to build up a more accurate nutrition profile.

Sounds like it would be tough enough in an aquarium, what more in the wild.

Unfortunately, I believe that a daily nutrient profile would be near impossible. As it is impossible to determine what kind of nutrients are absorbed into the coral and which are denied access into the tissue or the polyps.
One possible way to possible understand this is tissue samples from corals on multiple different occasions. Doing an analysis of what kinds of nutrient build-up are present and making inferences based on that.
But of course, this is all brainstorming. As well as assuming that this has not been done before. But an elemental level understanding of the tissue composition of multiple different coral pieces would be a valuable source of information to have.

 

[Chrisv.]

As someone studying for their degree in marine bio. This is entirely false. Just because you have gotten great results from tinkering, observing, and evaluating (ie. the scientific method…) doesn't nullify the importance of verified research in the hobby. Reading though several articles will save you years of tinkering if done properly. As well as the more controlled experiments provide a clearer view into what actually may be the true cause and effect of things.
It is sad to see people completely discrediting evidence because it doesn’t align with how they think. As in this case. A scientific article regarding the slowing of coral growth due to excess phosphate levels in water is posted. And instead of posing contrary evidence (to phosphate slowing down coral growth) instead a few corals as well as multiple comments questioning the hobbyists “skill level” of all marine biologists! Please try and at least prove the article wrong. As well as have some civilized discussion on the subject.
this is not saying there is no reason to question the science! The point of studies is provided observations the can ge questioned. But perhaps it would be to hard to ask people to stay on track instead of discredit the role of science in a scientific hobby….

Don't bother.

 

[HuduVudu]

My issue with this whole ordeal is the fact that it seems difficult for many to consume evidence from the other side of the argument.

LOL, ok my tank has 0 NO3 (or very low because of my test kit), my PO4 is I believe .1ppm. My coral are growing well, except my pipe organ it is being stubborn. The reason I don't know exactly what they are is because I don't care. In my time keeping corals it seems that these two parameters are not really important.

People seem to think NO3 and PO4 are really important and are using confirmation bias to ... well ... confirm their assessments.

As well as many claiming that science has no place in the reef-keeping scene to defend their position.

I said I use high school chemistry for understanding, to the point I use hard chemistry. Is this not science? I also use some basic biology too. Am I to understand that these "lower" level sciences aren't science?

But the amazing thing about humanity is we have the ability to process near-infinite amounts of evidence to formulate our conclusions.

Here is an interesting fact ... in a poll from Gallup 30ish percent of people think that if you get the coof you have a 50% chance of being hospitalized. Information isn't any good without qualification and integration. Conclusions based on information that is improperly qualified is not just detrimental but destructive.

When you complete your studies and hit the real world you are going to get a taste of this. Trust me when I say this will be a re-occurring theme throughout your life (it has been in mine). Note: I did not finish college and I have no degree.

Perhaps there is some side to this debate that I have not seen yet that you have knowledge of. In that case that is what I would like to know.

I think @Charlie's Frags has laid it out. It is also to the point that I made that the business of actually reef keeping is messy and heavily empirical.

Not the belief about science playing no role within the hobby.

This is what you are thinking you are arguing, because you are defending your choices. They have a saying when test taking I think it is appropriate here RTFQ.

 

[LRT]

FWIW, I live near the Gulf and I just recently went to get some water to do a water change. I waded into the surf with rolled up shorts and got a five gallon bucket of water. It had a lot of sediment and was pretty gross looking. Did my water change with it because making RO/DI has become expensive for me. Though I have to say carrying two five gallon buckets full of water back to the 200 yard distance to the car was pretty intense.

Either way tested the parameters. Was kinda surprised that NO3 was indeed 0 (or near it don't have a low range). Other things I could test for were indeed NSW the ocean is a big place and parameters are pretty stable. Didn't test for PO4 though but I guess next time I am at the beach I could get some more water to test.

Just know that the water conditions were not amenable to any sort of snorkeling or diving because of the visibility. This is pretty much how it is most of the time.

Your living my retirement dream haha.
I'll be honest. Seeing an actual reef in real life made me totally rethink my approach to this hobby. I came home. Built a system that im turning over probably 12-15× an hour. Feeding even heavier 2-3 × a day and not sure how but running close to nsw levels. I cant keep phosphates in it.
The waters where the reef where "dirtiest" where the waters that where most thriving. Especially off Mujeras Isle. We swam in the dirtiest water ive ever been in about 3/4 of a mille off Mujeras with the whale sharks in fact. Im not saying the way we are polluting the water is good. All im saying is what's happening naturally on a thriving reef isn't clean by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Nano sapiens]

As someone studying for their degree in marine bio. This is entirely false. Just because you have gotten great results from tinkering, observing, and evaluating (ie. the scientific method…) doesn't nullify the importance of verified research in the hobby. Reading though several articles will save you years of tinkering if done properly. As well as the more controlled experiments provide a clearer view into what actually may be the true cause and effect of things.
It is sad to see people completely discrediting evidence because it doesn’t align with how they think. As in this case. A scientific article regarding the slowing of coral growth due to excess phosphate levels in water is posted. And instead of posing contrary evidence (to phosphate slowing down coral growth) instead a few corals as well as multiple comments questioning the hobbyists “skill level” of all marine biologists! Please try and at least prove the article wrong. As well as have some civilized discussion on the subject.
this is not saying there is no reason to question the science! The point of studies is provided observations the can ge questioned. But perhaps it would be to hard to ask people to stay on track instead of discredit the role of science in a scientific hobby….

What I see is that people are not discrediting peer reviewed evidence per se, but the particular evidence presented may not align with their own experiences in their own reef aquariums. This is to be expected since how an experiment is conducted, and the environment that it is conducted in, will almost certainly differ from any randomly selected reef aquarium's environment.

So when an accepted article states that elevated phosphate causes reduced coral skeletal growth, that can be taken as truth in the context of that specific experiment. However, when a reef keeper shows that elevated phosphate levels provided good coral growth, then one should perk up and take notice. In this case, I would postulate that the addition of phosphate to a reef in the wild is adding too much phosphate to the coral's total phosphate intake since it would be ingesting more phosphate from zooplankton and/or phytoplankton than in a reef aquarium setting. Having higher phosphate levels in a reef aquarium's water column for the corals to assimilate could simply provide a similar amount of actual total phosphate intake that a coral in the wild would obtain under typical natural reef nutrient levels.

 

[HuduVudu]

What I see is that people are not discrediting peer reviewed evidence per se, but the particular evidence presented may not align with their own experiences in their own reef aquariums. This is to be expected since how an experiment is conducted, and the environment that it is conducted in, will almost certainly differ from any randomly selected reef aquarium's environment.

So when an accepted article states that elevated phosphate causes reduced coral skeletal growth, that can be taken as truth in the context of that specific experiment. However, when a reef keeper shows that elevated phosphate levels provided good coral growth, then one should perk up and take notice. In this case, I would postulate that the addition of phosphate to a reef in the wild is adding too much phosphate to the coral's total phosphate intake since it would be ingesting more phosphate from zooplankton and/or phytoplankton than in a reef aquarium setting. Having higher phosphate levels in a reef aquarium's water column for the corals to assimilate could simply provide the same amount of actual total phosphate intake that a coral in the wild would obtain under typical natural reef nutrient levels.

I would go further and say that on the reef the photo period isn't even remotely close to what captive corals see. Wave action produces a ton of suspended sand and sediment dropping visibility and light penetration in the toilet. In the rainy season this is near constant. Corals can only have so much time to photosynthesize under these conditions.

 

[HuduVudu]

Your living my retirement dream haha.
I'll be honest. Seeing an actual reef in real life made me totally rethink my approach to this hobby. I came home. Built a system that im turning over probably 12-15× an hour. Feeding even heavier 2-3 × a day and not sure how but running close to nsw levels. I cant keep phosphates in it.
The waters where the reef where "dirtiest" where the waters that where most thriving. Especially off Mujeras Isle. We swam in the dirtiest water ive ever been in about 3/4 of a mille off Mujeras with the whale sharks in fact. Im not saying the way we are polluting the water is good. All im saying is what's happening naturally on a thriving reef isn't clean by any stretch of the imagination.

I have always loved the ocean.

I was VERY VERY VERY lucky to have spent 3 years in the Philippines on the ocean. I learned a ton.

One thing about the beach though is hurricanes. They are real. I went through a CAT 5 Typhoon in the Philippines. That was a very interesting experience. I have also seen my share of hurricanes on the Gulf coast.

 

[LRT]

I have always loved the ocean.

I was VERY VERY VERY lucky to have spent 3 years in the Philippines on the ocean. I learned a ton.

One thing about the beach though is hurricanes. They are real. I went through a CAT 5 Typhoon in the Philippines. That was a very interesting experience. I have also seen my share of hurricanes on the Gulf coast.

I wish I understood the science of all this more. Seeing the reef told me I was approaching things all wrong. So we are polluting the water with man made things I get that. But the healthiest reef ive been on was the dirtiest water ive ever been in. I couldn't understand it. The whole ulns thing because that's not what I observed. It was more super high water exchange of extremely dirt water occurring. This occurred to me when we waded out 30 yards into the surf and it picked me up and summersaulted me across the ocean floor 100 feet back onto the beach and left me there. Id be interested to hear your findings on nutrients levels in the dirtiest waters at certain times.
Maybe we could look at what's in the substrate to get and idea of concentrations in the water. Maybe im totally wrong in my thinking but practicing heavy turnover and and heavy feeding has totally changed my reef.