ULNS or a bit of NO3?

[Yas]

Hi everyone!

I guess there are two methods of keeping SPS healthy.

1. ULNS with amino or other SPS foods. I'm not sure if this is a way to go because I had once kept ULNS tank, but haven't given food to my SPS. They died probably because of too low nutrients. So I simply thought feeding is needed for ULNS tanks.

2. A bit of NO3 and slight PO4 with no SPS foods, and you keep cleaning the glass everyday. Also, there will be algae growing on your live rock. I keep hermit and emerald crabs to mow it now.

My question is which is better or is there other ways?

I had been constantly losing my SPS when I had been running ULNS tank, with cheato, powerful skimmer, GFO, and GAC. All those stuff kept my tank really clean to the extent nearly no NO3 and PO4 are detected even if I added some fish. But my SPS corals were all pale, no polyp extension at all, further breached, and eventually died.

After reading a couple of threads, I realized a bit of NO3 might have been needed for SPS. So I removed my GAC, reduced skimmer pump flow, and greatly reduced GFO like only 5 grams for my 70G tank. My NO3 is about 1ppm, and PO4 is 0.05ppm now, but my SPS look much much healthier. Branches are thicker and color is deeper. Now I have to clean my tank glass every day, but it's at least much better than seeing them die. I see color is deeper, but not brighter. It may be just a matter of perception, but I don't know if there's any better way to make it brighter. So I would like to know if there's a good way to make it.

Of course, my first goal is to keep my SPS longer, and the second goal is to make them brighter while keeping them healthy. Any suggestions?

Thank you!

Yas

 

[tdileo]

With a little bit of NO3 and PO4, you shouldn’t have algae growing to the point you need to clean glass every day and it’s growing all over your rocks. My nano is a pretty high nutrient system and I clean the glass twice a week, all my SPS are fine and there’s not a blanket of algae on the rock lol. My vote is for a little NO3 and PO4, much easier to maintain and cheaper long term IMO.

 

[Finhead]

To keep healthy SPS you'll want 2-5 PPM NO3 and 0.03 or a bit higher PO4. Anything less you'll get pale colors and they are basically starving.

 

[Yas]

With a little bit of NO3 and PO4, you shouldn’t have algae growing to the point you need to clean glass every day and it’s growing all over your rocks. My nano is a pretty high nutrient system and I clean the glass twice a week, all my SPS are fine and there’s not a blanket of algae on the rock lol. My vote is for a little NO3 and PO4, much easier to maintain and cheaper long term IMO.

Don't know why I keep cleaning the glass everyday while you clean it twice per week. I leaned the cleaner the better, but it was an advice for newbies, but I kept believing it and doing it till I noticed the problem recently.

 

[Yas]

To keep healthy SPS you'll want 2-5 PPM NO3 and 0.03 or a bit higher PO4. Anything less you'll get pale colors and they are basically starving.

So it seems I still have some more room for NO3. Thank you!

 

[tdileo]

Don't know why I keep cleaning the glass everyday while you clean it twice per week. I leaned the cleaner the better, but it was an advice for newbies, but I kept believing it and doing it till I noticed the problem recently.

Well personally I don’t mind a little algae on the glass, I only clean it once it’s visible or if I have someone coming over or am taking pictures.

 

[Yas]

Well personally I don’t mind a little algae on the glass, I only clean it once it’s visible or if I have someone coming over or am taking pictures.

Right, I don't want to put my hand frequently.

 

[cobra2326]

To keep healthy SPS you'll want 2-5 PPM NO3 and 0.03 or a bit higher PO4. Anything less you'll get pale colors and they are basically starving.

I don’t think exact numbers like this are ideal. In general, it’s important to have “enough” nutrients available for the corals. This can be accomplished even with undetectable nitrate and phosphate with heavy feeding. It’s also possible with elevated numbers, or numbers in the 0.25-1 range for Nitrate, which is why some people aim for just barely detectable. It really depends on your nutrient load, system maturity, flow, light, etc. Watch the corals and make small changes.

 

[Finhead]

I don’t think exact numbers like this are ideal. In general, it’s important to have “enough” nutrients available for the corals. This can be accomplished even with undetectable nitrate and phosphate with heavy feeding. It’s also possible with elevated numbers, or numbers in the 0.25-1 range for Nitrate, which is why some people aim for just barely detectable. It really depends on your nutrient load, system maturity, flow, light, etc. Watch the corals and make small changes.

Well if you research that is a target number for most very succesful SPS dominant tanks that are not running something like a Zeovit system. Too low and your starving the corals, you can keep them alive a long time that way just not ideal.

 

[jda]

There are four ways, IMO:

1). Let the tank handle this naturally in an equilibrium. If you have a good setup with good anoxic area and good maintenance or a fuge, this will usually lead to low, but not too low, N and P... somewhere near NSW. This is not ULNS even though these levels are very low.
2). ULNS by driving N and P low with GFO and organic carbon - this appears to work best with T5 and MH and not so much with LED. These are your ZEO folks... as well as others.
3). Higher nutrients on the high side of thriving. This is usually P around .02 to .05 and N from 1 to 5.
4). Very high... above #3. You can see this in tanks where everything is mature and fast growth is not all that important, but these tanks usually did not get to this point this way. You can all see this wreck tanks.

BTW - my acropora do the best with #1. I have N at .1 and P around .005 to .01, but I do nothing for this to happen except change water and feed the fish. I do have MH, which I believe plays a huge role here.

 

[TX_Punisher]

There are four ways, IMO:

1). Let the tank handle this naturally in an equilibrium. If you have a good setup with good anoxic area and good maintenance or a fuge, this will usually lead to low, but not too low, N and P... somewhere near NSW. This is not ULNS even though these levels are very low.
2). ULNS by driving N and P low with GFO and organic carbon - this appears to work best with T5 and MH and not so much with LED. These are your ZEO folks... as well as others.
3). Higher nutrients on the high side of thriving. This is usually P around .02 to .05 and N from 1 to 5.
4). Very high... above #3. You can see this in tanks where everything is mature and fast growth is not all that important, but these tanks usually did not get to this point this way. You can all see this wreck tanks.

BTW - my acropora do the best with #1. I have N at .1 and P around .005 to .01, but I do nothing for this to happen except change water and feed the fish. I do have MH, which I believe plays a huge role here.

Man I thought I was the only one around here with p04 with three decimal places. I'm at .006. That's 2ppb on the Hannah phosphorus checker. My n should be below 5 now with the latest water change. I hope I can get some good growth and color soon.

 

[jda]

Having low N and P is not dangerous or a problem. Using artificial means to get them there can be. People have a hard time separating the two but it is an important distinction to make.

 

[Yas]

I don’t think exact numbers like this are ideal. In general, it’s important to have “enough” nutrients available for the corals. This can be accomplished even with undetectable nitrate and phosphate with heavy feeding. It’s also possible with elevated numbers, or numbers in the 0.25-1 range for Nitrate, which is why some people aim for just barely detectable. It really depends on your nutrient load, system maturity, flow, light, etc. Watch the corals and make small changes.

In my case, too-low nutrient with heavy feeding didn't work. But I only fed fish, not SPS. I should have tried SPS food. But for fish food, I fed heavy that time.

 

[Yas]

There are four ways, IMO:

1). Let the tank handle this naturally in an equilibrium. If you have a good setup with good anoxic area and good maintenance or a fuge, this will usually lead to low, but not too low, N and P... somewhere near NSW. This is not ULNS even though these levels are very low.
2). ULNS by driving N and P low with GFO and organic carbon - this appears to work best with T5 and MH and not so much with LED. These are your ZEO folks... as well as others.
3). Higher nutrients on the high side of thriving. This is usually P around .02 to .05 and N from 1 to 5.
4). Very high... above #3. You can see this in tanks where everything is mature and fast growth is not all that important, but these tanks usually did not get to this point this way. You can all see this wreck tanks.

BTW - my acropora do the best with #1. I have N at .1 and P around .005 to .01, but I do nothing for this to happen except change water and feed the fish. I do have MH, which I believe plays a huge role here.

I agree that it could be #1, but the tank has to be very matured and stable. For those whose tanks are not in equilibrium, the choices are #2 or #3 I guess. And #2 wasn't very healthy in my case. But I see some people are successfully doing it with #2. Don't know how it's possible.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Having low N and P is not dangerous or a problem. Using artificial means to get them there can be. People have a hard time separating the two but it is an important distinction to make.

You mean because people may overshoot to the low side, or because you are concerned about the methods themselves?

If it is the former, why are "artificial" methods (whatever those are in your definition) worse than "natural" methods?

 

[Abhishek]

You mean because people may overshoot to the low side, or because you are concerned about the methods themselves?

If it is the former, why are "artificial" methods (whatever those are in your definition) worse than "natural" methods?

Even I want to understand this !!! A fuge and real live rocks might be natural ways but what happens when you cannot do that .

I am very happy to use old school vodka and vinegar with gfo if needed to drive nutrients low along with water changes ...

Infact I have issues with macro algae as they have crashed on me in the past causing bigger problems .

Am pretty happy but want to know what natural ways provide extra when it comes to nitrate and phosphate reduction over artificial bacterial driven systems ?

Regards,
Abhishek

 

[bubbaque]

To keep healthy SPS you'll want 2-5 PPM NO3 and 0.03 or a bit higher PO4. Anything less you'll get pale colors and they are basically starving.

You 100% do not need no3 and po4 in those ranges. My nutrients are barely detectable and my sps are deeply colored and are no where near death.

 

[jda]

Because people go too far and we lack good quality tests to see how low Nitrate really is - the Hanna 736 is a good addition to the hobby. Notice that I said that it can be a problem, not that it HAS to be - there are people who can do this well.

If you let the tank deal with it, there is enough to drive the equilibrium, but not take it to zero. The bacteria would starve if their food source got to zero (nitrate as a food source, for example). Since it is not possible for aragonite to bind phosphate beyond equilibrium into extinction in the water column, even if you are very low, you still have some, which is usually enough. I know that GFO cannot take this to zero either, but organic carbon dosing can and so can LC, IIRC what LC does (I have never used it).

The really good hobbyists who use Zeo, and the like, use artificial methods to drive their nutrients low and it works very well for them. These folks are typically very good at what they do if they are still using these methods for more than a few months. What we typically see is that somebody reads or sees a video that they need to keep their nitrates low, buys a biopellet reactor when they first get a tank and then they are in charge... and they are probably not as good at this as the anoxic bacteria could have been (if they let them grow, but they likely limited them). The ecosystem works tireless for good and bad and can adapt to more and less load all driven to be meet the needs of incoming nutrients, but the artificial means are more static and depended on humans to notice and make changes.

Let's face it... not everybody is good enough to do this on their own and probably would be better off with a typical Berlin system with real live rock to denitrify with a fuge to further help denitrify and help with phosphates... if they cannot have a fuge, then just a bit of GFO to supplement their water changes to keep the water column and aragonite with healthy phosphate levels.

All of this gets really tricky when people choose not to use sand and/or rock that is capable of denitrifying or is already bound with phosphates. These people HAVE to be in charge... and it is just anecdotal, but there are several threads a day about this along with failures of not getting the equilibrium correct by the human.

 

[TUSI]

My tank is sps dominant and my po4 is always between 0.05 and 0.015 that's were I like it to have deep colors. My no3 is always higher than 5 and never had any issues with algae. My believe is a balance of every thing. Cleaning crews and also some softy corals to suck on nutrients.

 

[Servillius]

Man I thought I was the only one around here with p04 with three decimal places. I'm at .006. That's 2ppb on the Hannah phosphorus checker. My n should be below 5 now with the latest water change. I hope I can get some good growth and color soon.

2ppb? You let a grow rat crawl into your tank and die? Filthy!