Nutrients to low? What did I miss?

[brahm]

Hey everyone I’m getting back into the hobby after an extended break. So much has changed. Tridents, roller mats, leds (that work), and high flow gyro pumps to say the least. Somethings stayed the same or got worse like silly names tied to high prices

what I don’t get is all this ‘nutrients are too to low’ talk can someone fill me in, my previous goal for keep sps was to keep my corals fed but never led them swim in their own waste.. so ie high import high export, shooting for low numbers, and that worked well for me.

so what changed the here? When did we switch from trying to feed our corals food to giving them nitrates and phosphates or is there a general misunderstanding that’s being repeated amongst us reefers these days? Am I missing something?

One of my previous tanks, phosphates always shot for .03 or less, and nitrate were usually at 0

Reefkeeping Magazine - October 2013 Tank of the Month

Reefkeeping ...an online magazine for the marine aquarist.

reefkeeping.com

 

[SPR1968]

I agree with the keeping phosphate locked down to less than 0.03 because of the issues is can cause, and I think people have moved away from zero nitrate because of the potential for cyno, dino’s etc

I think for ‘the masses’ a good target is around 5-10 nitrate which is certainly what I aim for, and at this level I don’t feed the corals as much

BUT, there are many ways to run a reef tank, and there are many beautiful reefs with very low nutrients including the one you picture so......

 

[Ravsta]

Wow! Beautiful tank Welcome back to the dark side

 

[Hersheyb]

I would just stick to whatever works for u.. tons of gorgeous and tanks in the low nutrient side and tons on the high nutrient side.

 

[PBar]

Maybe just to add one extra thing:

In my opinion, seems that now we are moving towards the path of the relation (ratio) importance between nitrate and phosphate rather than looking into them separately.

Again, good results we’ve seen with all type of numbers over the last years... however, a high ratio apparently in many cases is giving very good results.

Let‘s see...

 

[kenchilada]

Hmm... I’m also getting back into the hobby, but I was definitely aware of “too low nutrients” problem ten years ago. That’s not new. I nuked a SPS tank with GFO in 2003 and learned that one.

I think the biggest change to me is everyone using dry rock (terrible) and how people follow very questionable commercially-motivated YouTube channels for advice.

 

[MONTANTK]

I think what’s happening is we are starting to better understand the relationships between coral and water chemistry. In the past when something was labeled difficult it was generally because tank water needed to be pristine. Now with new dosing regiments it seems to be more about stability. In many cases, higher nutrients actually promote better coral or growth. When you think about it, it makes sense. You give the coral a little more nutrients than it needs and it will grow much better and look better than one that is constantly “hunting” for nutrients.

 

[jda]

You did not miss anything. High import and high export is still what works the best. All that you missed is misinformation and perhaps lack of teaching.

What people who parrot such ideas missed is the differentiation between available and residual "nutrients." People have either not been taught, or have not taken the time to understand, is that nitrate and the singular form of phosphate that their test kits can detect is not what corals really need to thrive... fools gold. People see some middle-level N and P tanks and simply think that the elevated levels of N and P are the driver, but the high availability that got them to rise was the real prize and that the residuals are just along for the ride and that the tank would be just as good if the feeding continued and the residual levels were lowered. It is hard to understand things that you cannot so easily measure, but nothing worth doing is all that easy.

I consider the "low nutrient" phenonomen to be a phase, much like true ULNS was (driving below natural levels with media and chemicals). Eventually, most will leave the hobby just out of normal attrition, or people will get the knowledge that high throughput via heavy import and heavy export is the goal, and not residual levels. However, it takes a lot time to stop a bad rumor that is easy to latch onto since the truth is harder to understand.

Labeling a tank as low or high "nutrient" without understanding the availability is lazy and dangerous, IMO. I have N of about .1-.2 and P of 1-3 ppb and there are more available "nutrients" in my tank that I would guess in most other peoples... the residual levels are just not high, which matters not. My tank is NOT anywhere near low "nutrient."

 

[kenchilada]

You did not miss anything. High import and high export is still what works the best. All that you missed is misinformation and perhaps lack of teaching.

What people who parrot such ideas missed is the differentiation between available and residual "nutrients." People have either not been taught, or have not taken the time to understand, is that nitrate and the singular form of phosphate that their test kits can detect is not what corals really need to thrive... fools gold. People see some middle-level N and P tanks and simply think that the elevated levels of N and P are the driver, but the high availability that got them to rise was the real prize and that the residuals are just along for the ride and that the tank would be just as good if the feeding continued and the residual levels were lowered. It is hard to understand things that you cannot so easily measure, but nothing worth doing is all that easy.

I consider the "low nutrient" phenonomen to be a phase, much like true ULNS was (driving below natural levels with media and chemicals). Eventually, most will leave the hobby just out of normal attrition, or people will get the knowledge that high throughput via heavy import and heavy export is the goal, and not residual levels. However, it takes a lot time to stop a bad rumor that is easy to latch onto since the truth is harder to understand.

Labeling a tank as low or high "nutrient" without understanding the availability is lazy and dangerous, IMO. I have N of about .1-.2 and P of 1-3 ppb and there are more available "nutrients" in my tank that I would guess in most other peoples... the residual levels are just not high, which matters not. My tank is NOT anywhere near low "nutrient."

This is really well put. It prompted me to read the article linked in your signature and that is great info, especially the part about how coral would rather use ammonia than NO3. I'm going to print that out and tape it inside my stand because its something I've heard over and over yet constantly forget.

 

[BranchingHammer]

@jda After reading all of your posts, I was skeptical of your methods at first and I was dosing nitrate/phosphate directly. The dosing of chemicals did not help at all, but as soon as I started feeding a lot more and bringing my nutrient import up, my tank started looking really good. I have heavy nutrient reduction on my tank, and the method you describe seems to work the best. It also makes sense scientifically, why add the final end products of the degradation of food rather than the food itself. I really appreciate the detailed posts that you have written because they are very educational and help new reefers if they read them. There are many tanks with higher N/P values that look amazing as well. High nutrient import/export just happened to work for my tank. Many ways to do this hobby and many of them work very well. I just appreciate it when someone like @jda goes the extra mile to explain why a method works and debunks some myths around that method.

 

[blasterman]

Heavy SPS growth tanks like the OP's are consuming huge amounts of nutrients and out competing all the baddies.

If the average beginner starts up a 100 gal tank, cycles it, puts a dozen SPS frags in it and targets 0 nitrate and 0.0001 phosphate they will be whining in the forums a year later why their live rock is bare white and their SPS has grown 1/4 of an inch. How many threads do we see like that in a week?

We also need to stop comparing mature, heavy growth tanks to new tanks less than 18 months old with a fraction the coral load. The goal is the same but the tank ecologies are radically different and nutrient consumption radically different.

 

[brahm]

Thanks for the great responses.

A couple of things that I can use some clarity on. When we are talking about nutrients now are we speaking of dosing phosphates and nitrates, or are we talking of nutrients in the broad sense as foods that provide nutrition. This where I get thrown off. I would feed my tank/fish/corals/whatever else but never specifically dosed N&Ps.

Where I feel a lot of the ULNS/LN tanks of the past went wrong was similar to what you are saying they starved out their tanks to chase numbers there were a lot of confusion around the whole process some of that was due to things being lost in translation (German to English), very complex theories hard to digest but us normies , broken telephone over forums, and as some folks said there is more than one way to skin a cat.. also at the time I remember when the zeovit popped it was like nothing we ever saw before.

I tried a lot of different things, never went full zeovit but did try a few different carbon dosing methods with selective zeovit products, but in the end.. Feeding, Water changes, GFO/Carbon, and an oversized skimmer did the trick.

Are folks now starving their tanks of "food" but feeding their sps w/N&P and having success?

On another note @kenchilada brought up dry rock. I always used Dry / Deadrock for my tanks. It was cheaper and the cycle was faster as you didn't have to wait for everything that was dying to rot off, unless you had a good source of cured live rock but that was $$$. I also did somethings (first couple years of the tank, not so much once it was grown out) that won't ever recommend to folks as it is risky.. but whenever getting frags from people I would pour in all their water, thinking it would help with Bacteria diversity (100% anecdotal). I also assumed whenever I bought LPS, or Maricultured plugs, and other corals that came with "rock" that rock was going to be better than any dry/live rock that I could buy so I left it in the tank as the rock attached corals is shipped in water. Later in the tank's life, all things got dipped in Bayers as I didn't want to risk rocking the boat.

This new tank is the first time I'm using live rock (or used live rock) in this case, but that's a whole different mess as it's older rock, and the tank couldn't be set up right away (maybe a topic for another thread)

 

[jda]

Let me start by saying that I hate the term "nutrient." It is too broad and it carries too many assumptions from people wanting to equate it with food, fuel or other things. I think that is best to call things for what they are like energy or building blocks.

Full ZEO tanks are not low "nutrient" in the slightest. They have more stuff running through them (availability) than most other tanks... they just have low residual levels. Heavy import and heavy export. A few minutes into the BRS video on their ZEO tank, the dude pretty much lays out how many "nutrients" go into the tank but also how they get them out - I pretty much don't like to recommend BRS videos since they are more infomercials, but they sum this up pretty good.

N and P are not food. They are building blocks. They are needed for organic tissue growth. Think of them as bricks and mortar - you need them when you need them, but too many laying around does not do anything. The most efficient brick laying operations have just enough fresh mortar mixed and bricks brought in to keep the progress moving, but not a whole bunch sitting around to make everything hard and dangerous. The actual energy in the brick laying process is the workers - for corals, it is the sugars made by the zoox being fueled by the light. More light and zoox production can actually make more sugars which means more energy - more N and P does nothing as long as you are not growth limiting your stuff (think low, but detectable).

We are in the SPS section, so I am going to overgeneralize for acropora, but most zoox in the acropora will do better getting their nitrogen from ammonia/ammonium. Nitrate is not a preferred mechanism. Some corals can convert nitrate back into ammonia/ammonium, but it costs them energy... not preferred. Some corals can use nitrate direct, but those same ones can also use ammonia/ammonium, so there is no downside to feeding more. Phosphate comes in all different shapes and sizes... phosphorous, phosphate, organic, inorganic and the works... some corals can use different kinds and types. Our test kits are mono, and so is the supplements that anybody is adding. Without knowing EXACTLY what is added and what corals are in there, there is no way to know if adding a specific P additive will do anything, but have the aragonite bind it up.

In short, dosing nitrate and some kind of phosphate on the back end is not doing what most people think that it is doing. Feeding a lot will do what people want - get their corals some available building blocks to hopefully work in conjunction with all of the sugars that the zoox is making from your lighting.

I need to work on my N and P paper - I just started to copy posts from forums and a few PMs and there is nothing coherent on there.

Live rock is really easy. Have the people ship it in wet newspaper. The overnight airplane ride out of water will usually get all of the nasty crabs and shrimp to fall off and all of the good stuff like pods, starfish, microfauna, sponges, etc. will survive the ride and mini-cure process once you get it at home. You can lose some cool things like urchins. Sure, you can get some algae or aiptasia (most a gulf problem), but if you don't have a full-out coral QT, those are likely coming anyway.

 

[brahm]

Hmm, that's really interesting, thank you for helping to clarify, and taking the time to answer my questions. Out of curiosity and I do apologize if you cover this else and 100% do not mean to offend by asking this. How do you know this, how are you proving it, what sort of methods, what is your background hobbyist or scientist, do you consider the above-mentioned fact or theory?

Btw it's good to see you still active I remember your name from the RC days! Started checking out your build thread need to go through it all, but what I saw so far.. Woah looks awesome!

As far as a live rock the wet newspaper things still cause a lot of what's on there to start to die and rot, unfortunately. I used to have a business and spend a lot of timing handling fresh live rock.. it's got some life to it and you can save a bit of stuff on it, it's a crapshoot though, and a lot of it is already dying/decaying by the time the consumer gets it. It was/is the best option most people had and a lot cheaper than buying rock shipped in water (if that's even possible). But if you're looking for bacteria & diversity imop you're gonna get plenty of that as you buy corals attached to rocks (or on the corals themselves) that haven't been exposed to the same conditions as rock is shipped, and of course, you can add that to an already active tank without the same concern of starting another cycle that you would get from fresh live rock. Although I have found a few mantis while fragging corals encrusted onto rocks before

 

[Macbalacano]

This discussion has been very eye-opening, thanks for sharing and looking forward to reading more!

What @jda is saying just makes sense, but I guess I'm trying to wrap my head around - how can we educate the masses or try to help people efficiently so as to increase their chances of success.

I think that's the issue these days with society, in general, is that people just want the quick and dirty solution to solve their problem or to get the results that they want, without really understanding anything at all.

It seems to me that the ones that are successful long term, are really the ones that take a lot of time and effort to understand what is really going on in their tanks. I guess I'm just trying to figure out how we can do that as a community to help each other in an efficient way. I think the reason most people obsess over N and P readings (me included!) is because it's simple/easy direct to the point.

"Oh you have x/y problem because your N/P is too low or high" is very easy to communicate, measure, track etc...

I always tell people - in business - you can't manage what you don't measure. Sounds like we have a similar problem in the hobby. We're measuring/paying attention to the wrong things!

PS: my take away after this is I'm going to double my feedings and work hard on increasing my export methods. Maybe I'll be converted to this ideology, give me a couple of months LOL

 

[jda]

Your fish will thank you for feeding more too. Groups of tangs will not be agressive, or way less aggressive. Angels will not nip at corals and clams at much, if at all. Your crabs and shrimp will be happy to not pick at your corals. They will grow, which means that your cute foxface will need a new home in a few years.

I was into reefing when I was in college, so my electives were of more interest to me (even though oceanography is not as cool as you think and not a great class to take with Theory of Automata, Compiler Theory and an otherwise already difficult workload.) Most of these things are in books, classes and are actual science. ...you know, a book, which is peer reviewed and has stood up the rigor of the publishing process, makes revisions and additions. I joke, but Veron's books and articles are very insightful. So are the actual PhDs that have dedicated a lot of time to this hobby. Every once in a while, there is something good in a BRS video, but these are mostly ads for products that they sell - it is a shame that they have replaced books for many. Has anybody that has gotten into the hobby for the last decade spent a few hours at WWM (Wet Web Media) reading the responses that the actual scientists (who are also hobbyists) have written? Some discount them as old-school, but what worldly biology and chemistry has changed since we started to keep fish in a glass box in the past 40-60 years? Most of my experience with in-tank chemistry has come from Dr. RHF. Some find him cryptic and unhelpful, but if you actually want help, and not just confirmation of some bias, then he is very helpful if you take the time to understand what he is saying... dude has done as much as anybody to try and help people.

DO NOT discount the speakers at a big event like MACNA. Some are there to help hobbyists with methods and techniques with their tanks and some are there to talk supply chain and some are pure chemistry and biology people. They are all usually good.

For example, Dr. RHF put in all of his phosphate articles that it binds to aragonite, sometimes in mass quantities. These articles have been out on the web before r2r was a site. However, so few know this. I don't know what you do about this.

There is not much that you can do about the current semi-culture of just wanting somebody to agree with you or they are 100% against you. Just type and hope that some get it. If you are trying to actually help, this usually involves a hard truth that so many are quicker to deny than accept... however, the ones that accept it are worth the effort, even if they are few. Everybody cannot be exceptional.

I think that it would help for people to separate out building blocks from energy/sugars and help people understand what each does. Availability vs residual is next. Then, that N and P are poisons for all living creatures at various levels and you can reach these levels in your tanks, so smart to pay attention to the needs of you inhabitants (just look at diatoms and dinos which can be poisoned at relatively low N levels). This is foundational stuff, but it seems lacking.

For those who want to read more. 2sunny posted a similar thread a few months ago. ...same premise about having low residuals and not understanding what the trend was all about raising them. His tanks have been beautiful for a LONG time if anybody wants to find it.

I will say that higher residuals are not all that bad in moderation, depending in what you want to keep. I like to keep a wide variety of acropora including a lot of smooth skinned stuff and older pieces that are mostly gone from the hobby now. While a moderate level of residual N and P is fine for a lot of acropora, there are also plenty that will stop growing in tanks with even middling levels of residuals and die in tanks with higher levels where other acropora don't seem to care at all. Most just chalk this up to "oh well" or "too hard for me" which is VERY smart for them since they seem to have accidentally had a reckoning about where they are at, but for others who want to keep those, they have to start thinking dynamically and figure out that a Richard Ross tank is probably not going to keep a lot of these more tricky acropora alive, which he full agrees with. The simple thinker sees a bunch of larger acropora in a high residual tank and does not realize that 1). they are a subset that will tolerate the high residuals, nor 2). that the residuals did nothing, but the constant availability that drove the residuals higher carried the day for the corals. I would not freak out if my N hit 2-3 or my P hit .1 ppm, but that is going to be max for me with what I want to keep. However, my rock and sand keep the N and .1-.2 and the P at 1-3 PPB (every once in a while up to 5) and that is fine with me too. Even the few softies that I have (Colorado Sunbursts, Eclectus & Jawbreakers and a few Z&P that I like) grow faster than others at these more natural residual levels... but, again, they have plenty of available building blocks and also plenty of high quality light. If you want to keep stuff that does not care about moderate levels of residuals, then that is awesome, but it is smart to know that not everything will thrive under these conditions, including some inverts that you might want to control algae. The thing to REALLY keep in mind is that even if you have higher levels of residuals, you have to keep feeding and keep stuff available.

 

[TriggerFinger]

Your fish will thank you for feeding more too. Groups of tangs will not be agressive, or way less aggressive. Angels will not nip at corals and clams at much, if at all. Your crabs and shrimp will be happy to not pick at your corals. They will grow, which means that your cute foxface will need a new home in a few years.

I was into reefing when I was in college, so my electives were of more interest to me (even though oceanography is not as cool as you think and not a great class to take with Theory of Automata, Compiler Theory and an otherwise already difficult workload.) Most of these things are in books, classes and are actual science. ...you know, a book, which is peer reviewed and has stood up the rigor of the publishing process, makes revisions and additions. I joke, but Veron's books and articles are very insightful. So are the actual PhDs that have dedicated a lot of time to this hobby. Every once in a while, there is something good in a BRS video, but these are mostly ads for products that they sell - it is a shame that they have replaced books for many. Has anybody that has gotten into the hobby for the last decade spent a few hours at WWM (Wet Web Media) reading the responses that the actual scientists (who are also hobbyists) have written? Some discount them as old-school, but what worldly biology and chemistry has changed since we started to keep fish in a glass box in the past 40-60 years? Most of my experience with in-tank chemistry has come from Dr. RHF. Some find him cryptic and unhelpful, but if you actually want help, and not just confirmation of some bias, then he is very helpful if you take the time to understand what he is saying... dude has done as much as anybody to try and help people.

DO NOT discount the speakers at a big event like MACNA. Some are there to help hobbyists with methods and techniques with their tanks and some are there to talk supply chain and some are pure chemistry and biology people. They are all usually good.

For example, Dr. RHF put in all of his phosphate articles that it binds to aragonite, sometimes in mass quantities. These articles have been out on the web before r2r was a site. However, so few know this. I don't know what you do about this.

There is not much that you can do about the current semi-culture of just wanting somebody to agree with you or they are 100% against you. Just type and hope that some get it. If you are trying to actually help, this usually involves a hard truth that so many are quicker to deny than accept... however, the ones that accept it are worth the effort, even if they are few. Everybody cannot be exceptional.

I think that it would help for people to separate out building blocks from energy/sugars and help people understand what each does. Availability vs residual is next. Then, that N and P are poisons for all living creatures at various levels and you can reach these levels in your tanks, so smart to pay attention to the needs of you inhabitants (just look at diatoms and dinos which can be poisoned at relatively low N levels). This is foundational stuff, but it seems lacking.

For those who want to read more. 2sunny posted a similar thread a few months ago. ...same premise about having low residuals and not understanding what the trend was all about raising them. His tanks have been beautiful for a LONG time if anybody wants to find it.

I will say that higher residuals are not all that bad in moderation, depending in what you want to keep. I like to keep a wide variety of acropora including a lot of smooth skinned stuff and older pieces that are mostly gone from the hobby now. While a moderate level of residual N and P is fine for a lot of acropora, there are also plenty that will stop growing in tanks with even middling levels of residuals and die in tanks with higher levels where other acropora don't seem to care at all. Most just chalk this up to "oh well" or "too hard for me" which is VERY smart for them since they seem to have accidentally had a reckoning about where they are at, but for others who want to keep those, they have to start thinking dynamically and figure out that a Richard Ross tank is probably not going to keep a lot of these more tricky acropora alive, which he full agrees with. The simple thinker sees a bunch of larger acropora in a high residual tank and does not realize that 1). they are a subset that will tolerate the high residuals, nor 2). that the residuals did nothing, but the constant availability that drove the residuals higher carried the day for the corals. I would not freak out if my N hit 2-3 or my P hit .1 ppm, but that is going to be max for me with what I want to keep. However, my rock and sand keep the N and .1-.2 and the P at 1-3 PPB (every once in a while up to 5) and that is fine with me too. Even the few softies that I have (Colorado Sunbursts, Eclectus & Jawbreakers and a few Z&P that I like) grow faster than others at these more natural residual levels... but, again, they have plenty of available building blocks and also plenty of high quality light. If you want to keep stuff that does not care about moderate levels of residuals, then that is awesome, but it is smart to know that not everything will thrive under these conditions, including some inverts that you might want to control algae. The thing to REALLY keep in mind is that even if you have higher levels of residuals, you have to keep feeding and keep stuff available.

You have provided very valuable information that is easy for me to understand; thank you. I would love to learn more!!

 

[brahm]

@jda thank you again for taking the time to write out the thoughtful response, really appreciate it. Seems we are on the same page the clarification helped with the correlation. Kudos to your mention of Bob Fenner ( with WWM ) I met him and we hung out many times back when I first started and was living in San Diego; he did so much for our hobby.

At some point, I may have to pester you about those older corals for some frags. The new stuff is great and all but I'm a sucker for the classics!

 

[MentalNote]

Welcome back! I'd like to add some comments to this thread.

Nutrient Recommendation Then vs. Now
-10 years ago, the general argument (on RC) was: should I keep my SPS tank nutrients low or ULNS?
-Today, the debate is: should I keep my SPS tank nutrients low or high. High is typically phosphates .15+ and nitrates 20+

-Thales, Richard Ross, started a thread years back titled "Guess my Phosphate Level" and disclosed his amazing tank had shockingly high phosphates levels. I think this helped shift the community away from ULNS.

Best Method?
As Hersheyb noted earlier, people find success with both methods. Personally, I think reefers find a method that works and then advocate it - to try to help others emulate their success. Based on advocacy seen on the board, either method can work.

REF Ammonium vs. Nitrates, here is a quote from Randy Holmes:

Link to Thread. To me this is similar to ATP - there are many conversions, some can be more costly than others. It doesn't mean that they don't happen.

Other Thread:
This thread I thought was quite interesting. You have Hans-Werner, jda, and successful SPS keepers having dialogue. At the end, there are links to some research papers too.

Pics to demonstrate competence:

 

[jda]

From some talks and reading over the years, it seems that some coral* that can turn nitrate back into ammonia/ammonium for the dinos to use have to spend 30-50% more energy doing so. The amount and ability depends a LOT on the coral and some can even use nitrate directly with low energy expenditure. There is not nearly enough documentation on this to know too much, but it is important to understand that any reference or study with a singular coral should not be assumed to work the same for others. Some coral cannot turn no3 back into ammonia at all. Some coral can use it straight up. Most acropora evidence, since we are in the SPS forum, shows that energy is needs. I usually say 30% to be safe and as a TOTAL generalization. The hamburger vs hot dog example is a good, but it is more like you need to run a 5k to get the hot dog... and then run back... you get some net benefit from it, but it took some serious energy to get it.

Micro algae usually cannot use nitrate - dinoflagellates in your coral are micro algae, which is why the host usually needs to convert nitrate back into ammonia/ammonium. Macro algae certainly can use nitrate as is - and it uses it well as long as it is not starting to get poisoned by it at higher levels.

There is also a lot of evidence that hosts can recycle N and P for their symbionts to reuse. Again, an overgeneralization for all species, but think of only needing N and P to grow whereas most can recycle to repair and maintain... for a while. Nothing lasts forever without new additions, it seems. This is why a bleaching event where a large coral expels all of its zoox, is SO bad... it literally almost took them a lifetime to accumulate what they had and are not equipped to quickly get it all back since most just add in increments.

*I am using coral in a broad sense here... softies, LPS, SPS, etc., like we discuss them on this board. Most researchers and scientists, but not all, will only call true coral as coral... so those that leave behind a skeleton. When reading a report, it is important to take note if they mention beyond the species that they list in their write up.