Old school No3 Po4 levels!

[Antoniocastro]

Hello
I’m from old school I have been out of hobby for 15 years. Now I want go back but I have seen now that recommendation levels of No3 and Po4 are too high
(NITRATE (NO3) <30PPM
PHOSPHATE <0.1PPM)
levels recommend by WWC.
Old school this levels are too high !
And all sps coral dead! And all the tank and rocks full of green algae!!!
(No3 1 or 2 ppm and Po4 undetectable levels in old school !)
What is the difference now?
Why you can handle this high levels with happy corals and algae free?
Thank you!

 

[SeaDweller]

Do you have a lot of little frags or large colonies? Are you certain it’s only the nutrient levels you’re dealing with, and what are your actual NO3/PO4 levels? Have you checked your Alk, Ca, and Mg levels?

 

[Seminoles76]

Hello
I’m from old school I have been out of hobby for 15 years. Now I want go back but I have seen now that recommendation levels of No3 and Po4 are too high
(NITRATE (NO3) <30PPM
PHOSPHATE <0.1PPM)
levels recommend by WWC.
Old school this levels are too high !
And all sps coral dead! And all the tank and rocks full of green algae!!!
(No3 1 or 2 ppm and Po4 undetectable levels in old school !)
What is the difference now?
Why you can handle this high levels with happy corals and algae free?
Thank you!

I think the thought comes from people starving the tanks of 3/4 and people were struggling with coral health because of that.

The newest thought process seems to be to keep 3/4 low but detectable in the beginning of the tanks life. Once your coral starts turning into colonies it’s acceptable to let the 3/4 levels rise a little as the colonies will outcompete the algae for nutrients.

Have fun getting your new setup up and running and welcome back to the hobby.

 

[KrisReef]

Hello
I’m from old school I have been out of hobby for 15 years. Now I want go back but I have seen now that recommendation levels of No3 and Po4 are too high
(NITRATE (NO3) <30PPM
PHOSPHATE <0.1PPM)
levels recommend by WWC.
Old school this levels are too high !
And all sps coral dead! And all the tank and rocks full of green algae!!!
(No3 1 or 2 ppm and Po4 undetectable levels in old school !)
What is the difference now?
Why you can handle this high levels with happy corals and algae free?
Thank you!

Scientists found out that all those little mouths on corals like to eat! Too low levels (old school) = dead coral and lots of algae.

Low levels of nitrate and phosphate are fine, and "stability" is now the buzz word in school. Alkalinity needs to be stable, around 8Dkh, calcium above 400 (etc.) lots of debate on what the proper levels are, but stability with some nutrients is now the thing.

 

[bobby.w.hodges]

The way i read it is that they don't recommend levels higher than that because it will cause issues, anything lower that 30ppm no3 and .1 po4 is good.

 

[DesertReefT4r]

Filteration has increased in effectiveness. The wet dry and skimmers of 15 years ago are outdated and have improved a lot. Macro algae refugiums and reactors and algae scrubbers have become almost standard equipment on reef tanks and are highly effective at nutrient removeal. Refugium lighting has improved with the advances in LEDs. Carbon dosing is another highly effective method of nutrient removeal and it was a big thing 5-8 years ago as was the UNLS method. All this has added up to reef systems that have the ability to remove wastes and organics before it can break down into no3 and po4.
Just an example those that have been in the hobby for a long time rememeber skimmers like the IO SeaClone,

this was rated for 100g what a joke barely handles a 29g. Or the Coralife Super Skimmers, better but still not very good.

. Now we have skimmers with well designed bodies, proper ratings and pumps and impellers designed for protein skimmers. Like this DC pump Reef Octopus

or this more basic AC pump model

. These are highly effective skimmers when used properly compared to old school skimmers.

 

[Seminoles76]

Another thing that may have happened back then is people were starting to see systems like Zeovit pop up with stunning tanks running zero nutrients. When people tried to emulate the zero nutrients without running a zeo system where everything is added back in they got into trouble.

 

[LobsterOfJustice]

Filtration is stronger and more efficient. Previously we didn’t have strong enough filters to over-filter tanks. Advances include better equipment like skimmers but also new methodologies like carbon dosing. It doesn’t help that people also tend to keep less fish in their tanks and feed less than they used to. We also didn’t previously have a way to measure low phosphates, so what we were calling undetectable or zero was likely still close to the recommended range today.

Nutrients also interact with lighting. We don’t need to get into an argument but LEDs definitely put out a different type of light compared to halides - intense peaks at certain spectrums, and sometimes not well blended. I think corals handle the intensity of LEDs better with some nutrients in the water. As a side note, people are also running alkalinity much lower now for the same reason.

 

[SeaDweller]

Jeez... I must be having an off day, I thought you followed WWC’s numbers and all of your SPS are dead and you have algae everywhere. Smh

 

[Charlie’s Frags]

The hobbyist grade test kits 15 years ago were not nearly as accurate as todays tests are either. Readings of 0,0 were probably much higher in actuality.

 

[delv2323]

High end equipment and techniques in 2004 were similar to today's save maybe LED lighting. Filtration, flow and nutrient handling are the same.
I think the thoughts on nutrient level is higher is ok, maybe preferable, as long as you don't have algae issues. It's a process and a 3 month old tank can't possibly respond to the same higher PO4/NO3 levels a 2 year old tank might.

 

[hart24601]

That recommendation is just saying anything keep phosphates under 0.1 and nitrate under 30ppm, they are not targets but upper limits. Just like other general range limits in the hobby while it's ok to be at the limit a while it's not great practice and nearing that limit is when action should be taken.

 

[A.G]

Years age we heard the words “you cant over skim” or “you cant over light” etc . I remember the common threads were coral browning.

Skimmers, GFO, GAC and refgiums have become so effective in removing nutrients that we started to struggle with keeping corals. The advancement in testing made it easier for us to understand that corals need no3 and po4 to the thrive. Now the threads are about corals fading !

 

[Neoalchemist]

I actually think it's not so much the equipment, chem, testing etc. (Although they do make a big impact) I believe it's the trend away from ocean harvested organically grown laced with nutrients true live rock. Even the true live rock available at lfs has been dried and recycled at some point. Or in circulation in tanks for 15+ years. How often do you see hitchhiker gorilla crabs or pistol shrimp anymore?

 

[DesertReefT4r]

Real from a reef in the ocean live rock for sure has a highly positive impact on a reef tank. Tanks using dry rock of one kind or another while being "pest free" deal with several other issues and challenges. Expect 2 years for a tank started with just dry rock to be bacterially stable similar to a live rock tank. Dry rock has its own issues. Odd algea issues, cyano, bacteria blooms, issues with dions and bryopsis are pretry common now and was very rare when live rock was commonly used. Its just become part of the reef hobby now that live rock has all but become unavailable. Dry rock and bacteria in a bottle just cant compare to real live rock from a reef.

 

[ScottR]

I actually think it's not so much the equipment, chem, testing etc. (Although they do make a big impact) I believe it's the trend away from ocean harvested organically grown laced with nutrients true live rock. Even the true live rock available at lfs has been dried and recycled at some point. Or in circulation in tanks for 15+ years. How often do you see hitchhiker gorilla crabs or pistol shrimp anymore?

I’ve found two gorillas in my LR. But I’m certain it’s from the ocean. When you find multiple live barnacles on LR, it’s been around for awhile.

 

[Neoalchemist]

Real from a reef in the ocean live rock for sure has a highly positive impact on a reef tank. Tanks using dry rock of one kind or another while being "pest free" deal with several other issues and challenges. Expect 2 years for a tank started with just dry rock to be bacterially stable similar to a live rock tank. Dry rock has its own issues. Odd algea issues, cyano, bacteria blooms, issues with dions and bryopsis are pretry common now and was very rare when live rock was commonly used. Its just become part of the reef hobby now that live rock has all but become unavailable. Dry rock and bacteria in a bottle just cant compare to real live rock from a reef.

If you think about it from a chemistry standpoint you can see it clearly.
Live rock is composed primarily of calcium carbonate skeleton. Nutrients are sequestered throughout the skeletal based rock. In the interior of this porous rock ph can be very low due to lack of gas exchange. At low ph the calcium carbonate slowly dissolves releasing the nutrients that were bound there.
So a tank with ocean live rock is constantly leaching a small amount of nutrients into the water right at rock where the corals and algea grow.
This meant that back in the day we were already behind the curve regarding nutrient removal before we even add fish. And back in the day most tanks were over stocked, whereas now we seemed to learn our lesson on that a little too well also. A lot of the tanks I've encountered in the dinoflagellates threads are lightly stocked or slowly stocked. I'm starting to believe that dry rock tanks need more fish a little faster to help keep bacteria populations from stagnating.

 

[LobsterOfJustice]

If you think about it from a chemistry standpoint you can see it clearly.
Live rock is composed primarily of calcium carbonate skeleton. Nutrients are sequestered throughout the skeletal based rock. In the interior of this porous rock ph can be very low due to lack of gas exchange. At low ph the calcium carbonate slowly dissolves releasing the nutrients that were bound there.
So a tank with ocean live rock is constantly leaching a small amount of nutrients into the water right at rock where the corals and algea grow.
This meant that back in the day we were already behind the curve regarding nutrient removal before we even add fish. And back in the day most tanks were over stocked, whereas now we seemed to learn our lesson on that a little too well also. A lot of the tanks I've encountered in the dinoflagellates threads are lightly stocked or slowly stocked. I'm starting to believe that dry rock tanks need more fish a little faster to help keep bacteria populations from stagnating.

Doesn’t really make sense to me. Why would nutrients bind to the rock in the ocean, and then be released in our tanks? Also, why do you assume dry rock doesn’t have the same amount, if not more, nutrients bound to it?

 

[Seminoles76]

Doesn’t really make sense to me. Why would nutrients bind to the rock in the ocean, and then be released in our tanks? Also, why do you assume dry rock doesn’t have the same amount, if not more, nutrients bound to it?

I tend to agree with Neo.....albeit I am Mech Engineer so my Chemistry is basically what I can muster from common sense.
IME, my first dry rock tank sucked PO4 out of the water as fast as I could put it in. It was about 100 pounds of acid/bleach cured Pukani. I could dose PO4 to .08 and 12 hours later be right back to 0. My only guess is was the rock was absorbing all of the PO4. After 18 months of this I am finally able to keep small amounts of PO4 without dosing and just utilizing a heavy feeding regime. All my live rock starts utilized some form of PO4 absorbing media to keep it in check.

I would say there is no way in the world properly dry rock has as much nutrients bound to it vs real live rock from the ocean.

I also agree with his bacteria hypothesis. I just think in the first year the tank would be better served to be dosed by bottled bacteria on a constant basis.

 

[Neoalchemist]

Doesn’t really make sense to me. Why would nutrients bind to the rock in the ocean, and then be released in our tanks? Also, why do you assume dry rock doesn’t have the same amount, if not more, nutrients bound to it?

When corals and other calcium carbonate builders grow their skeleton organically, a small amount of phosphate which is a basic building block of all living tissue is stored along with some other organic nutrients in that skeletal material. About 15 or more years ago it was common advise to run effluent from a calcium reactor through some type of po4 reduction media to absorb the po4 released from the dissolving calcium carbonate in the reactor. Also consider the the decades of life that has grown died and regrown layer after layer on and in the depth of the rock detritus and sediment trapped in the homes of boring microbes all of these creatures leave their dirt and decomposing waste Life grows on and in, then dies and is grown over and over. Real live rock is not really rock at all but the compacted corpses of decades or centuries of years of life. On the other hand growing coral on dried and cleaned or man made rock can be akin to trying to grow tomatoes in the dust bowl. You can do it but your going to have to manually condition the soil to be successful.
.