Are elevated nutrients a problem, or not?

[Reefahholic]

I also don't see much compelling for the idea that you can grow algae in one part of the system to limit algae in another part of the system.

HaHa…this whole time I thought you were Ben J. When I saw all the Tubastraea in your tank I realized it was you. Now I have a face with the name.

Anyway, have you seen this video.? Seems to be good example of outcompeting GHA, but it’s hard to believe that a smaller refugium outcompeted that whole scape. Maybe it was really dense. I have seen others outcompete turf algae with algae scrubbers which as you know are typically a lot more aggressive. It literally starts pealing off the rocks once it’s dead. You need to watch the video below to the end to see how crazy the algae comes off the rocks. Something definitely killed it or outcompeted it.

 

[Reefahholic]

I do not agree that .7 or no3 is low - it likely does not matter at all if ammonium or nitrite are present or the coral is assimilating live things at any rate.

Depends on if we’re taking about the Ocean, a 10 year old system, or 6 mo old system. The Ocean and established system have a huge advantage with way more resources available. These are two completely different environments where it’s much easier for corals to thrive in ULN, but the 6 mo old system will struggle. Jda, I think sometimes you forget get that many reefers have tanks under 1 year, and your system is like 15 yrs old. It’s a bit different for you.

 

[Thales]

HaHa…this whole time I thought you were Ben J. When I saw all the Tubastraea in your tank I realized it was you. Now I have a face with the name.

Anyway, have you seen this video.? Seems to be good example of outcompeting GHA, but it’s hard to believe that a smaller refugium outcompeted that whole scape. Maybe it was really dense. I have seen others outcompete turf algae with algae scrubbers which as you know are typically a lot more aggressive. It literally starts pealing off the rocks once it’s dead. You need to watch the video below to the end to see how crazy the algae comes off the rocks. Something definitely killed it or outcompeted it.

When algae gets advanced like that, it is often really easy to remove a lot of it by siphoning like in the video, or by pulling it out by hand. Like in the video, you don’t get all of it, and it grows back. In the before times this was one of the regular maintenance tasks irs to try to manage algae. Let it boom till it is easy to remove.

When I set up the Secret Home Lab and came back after two weeks, one of the tanks was covered in algae and I just pulled most of it out real quick. Then, I put a polishing filter on the tank and went at the leftover algae with a brush. Added herbivores and never had an algae issue again.

 

[NEFFx]

I think it’s important to mention the relationship of tests for phosphate(PO4) and phosphorous (P). Where phosphate is 3x that of phosphorus (PO4 vs P) and both tests are conducted on ICP. they are similar enough and may confuse discussion for some.

Point 1 in OP. A good article from mentioned that the ratio of nitrates to phosphates is crucial. From 100:1 to 20:1 range is best. NO3PO4. This is the crucial factor in the discussion and should be discussed together for success and proper discussion.

@SunnyX has a good post on the bacterial driven system and has mentioned similar discussion topics resulting from bacterial populations being a driver for healthy coral (point 4 in OP) Bacterial driven system

Overall I think nutrients are import to the system. Hence why coral only systems must dose them to stop them from bottoming out and bleaching the coral. I also think that AB+ type additives have become
Big in the hobby as they provide a lot of other nutrients not normally provided in our tanks that compliment the nutrient uptake of the corals.

 

[Garf]

that the ratio of nitrates to phosphates is crucial. From 100:1 to 20:1 range is best. NO3PO4

My ratios have been all over the place and I’ve never noticed any difference, although generally my tank nutrients are highly elevated compared to most.

 

[Thales]

Hey Randy! If you expect I would reply, I must!

I chased a lot of numbers in a lot of tanks for a long time and had varying degrees of success. I watched a lot of people do the same. I watched a lot of people do a lot more work than I did, and some had more suceess and some had less, which led me to think that doing more to a tank doesn't mean that it will be 'better'. No matter what people do, it seems some corals do well in their system and some don't.

I think reef tanks are complex systems and that it can be really hard to pin down what does and doesn't make a difference in coral health, espically because we tend to try to lump all coarls into one bin.

One throughline to my reefing approach as been to 'stabilize' the system and then try to leave it alone as much as possibe. Sometimes that has led me to being overly lazy or the realities of life distracted me, which has led to some issues. However, when I keep up on most stuff, when I am paying attention so that whatever I have in place to keep the reef going is working and doing what it is supposed to - and when I am not changing chemistry or majorly tweaking anything at all in the system...when I let it all ride and do its thing, the corals seem to grow better, faster, and be more colorful.

I think flow is really important, and think it equally important that it changes intensity and style over the course of the day. This tends to help mix any dead spots, and gives the more sensitive corals a break from high flow.

I have also noticed that it sometimes seems to talk 3-8 months for my reefs to recover from something traumatic. Earlier this year I had some pathogen causing RTN, so I treated the tank, and only now does the display seem to be firing on all cylinders and the system seems robust. I was just gone for 3 weeks and the alk droped from around 9 to around 7 for 2 two of those weeks (and took a week to come back up after I got home) and none of the corals seemed to care, the sps are growing like mad.

I have also noticed that it takes some corals a long time to adapt to a particular system. Like 3-8 months or more. I think this may be responsible for some of the correlation/causation confusion we see in the hobby; if a coral has been doing poorly for a while, and the reefer changes something, it is very easy to say that change made the difference, when it really could just be the coral finally adapting.

I have seen no compelling evidence that low nutrients impact algae, and, given how algae live, I don't think that idea makes much sense at its core. I also don't see much compelling for the idea that you can grow algae in one part of the system to limit algae in another part of the system. I think herbivores, and manual removal/cropping are practical solutions to a lot of algal problems. I think most and dino and cyano issues burn themselves out, and that letting them do that stabilizes the system, and makes it more robust over time.

All that said, I have not tested Po4 and Nitrate since March (Po4 .62 & No3 35 which was up from the previous time I tested in October (Po4 34 No3 14). I keep thinking I should test, but it feels like make work, which I am trying to avoid at this point in my life. I don't do ICP often, and when I do test at home I usually use a Hach DR890, but I got some hanna checkers so I could more easily be on the same page of most of the hobby (though that might require me to actually do some testing).

In general, I think mixing testing methodologies will make you insane, so I say pick one and stick with it (and be realistic about the numbers because there is so much room for error and variability). I tried for a long time to compare methods of testing salinity (Milwaukee, Misco, Floating, Refracto, Conductivity, etc) and nearly went bonkers. Now use the apex conductivity probes in my system for trending, a veegee because it is fast for quick checks, and a Tropic Marin floating if I want to feel more precise (I should calibrate it but ugh). I like ICP every once and a while to check for anything obviously out of whack that could be killing my tank. I currently don't do biomics testing because I don't think there is much that is actionable in that realm yet. Again, kudos for folks that like to try to dig into those numbers.

In 2019 I plumbed the Secret Home Lab into the display system because volume impacts stability, and taking care of two systems was making me nuts. Yes, there are downsides to this but there are downsides to independent systems as well. In the Lab I have been growing coarls from embryos since 2020 (they are large now and I hope they will spawn this season) and I spawned A. mil last Nov/Dec and those babies are growing nicely. I am currently hoping for some gravid A. sar to arrive next week to spawn in early Nov (and hope for not a split spawn, so tiring!).

In the display (Mixed - LPS, SPS, NPS) some 'hard to keep sps' are doing fine and some are doing less fine. The pearl berry had AEFW, and seems to be perking up, and the Paletta Pink Tip is going gang busters. The Hawkins won't stop growing. I think that is all of the fancy names I remember.

So what is my point in regards to nutrients? I agree with you, there is no simple answer. I do know that I am much more interested in making my display beautiful to my eye, and playing with baby coral, than I am in tracking numbers and dosing lots of stuff. But that is me, and I fully appreciate folks that have the time and energy and money to mess around in that arena. I do think that a 'stable system' seems like it is very important in regards to long term care, and that whatever your philosophy around nutrients may be, keeping the system robustly stable seems important. I think a lot of available reefing methods produce good tanks, and help turn around bad tanks, not because of anything intrinsic to the method, but because they get people to pay attention to the system as a whole and help keep it stable.

Thanks for the push that helped me to summarize my current reefing philosophy, clearly I had this brewing in the back of my brain. Sorry if it is kind of off topic.

Here are two pics of my display I just took after being home from being gone for about 3 weeks. The right side had a major remodel yesterday, so sorry if it looks not grown in. Photographed under SKY lights, one set to photo mode at 50% brightness, and the other set to custom blues off, white and amber 100%shot on iPhone 13 with the Aquarium Cam app on auto. Beats me, I don’t see color well, so maybe they look like the tank actually looks. I am tired.

Sorry, I forgot to mention food. I feed a lot.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Hey Randy! If you expect I would reply, I must!

I chased a lot of numbers in a lot of tanks for a long time and had varying degrees of success. I watched a lot of people do the same. I watched a lot of people do a lot more work than I did, and some had more suceess and some had less, which led me to think that doing more to a tank doesn't mean that it will be 'better'. No matter what people do, it seems some corals do well in their system and some don't.

I think reef tanks are complex systems and that it can be really hard to pin down what does and doesn't make a difference in coral health, espically because we tend to try to lump all coarls into one bin.

One throughline to my reefing approach as been to 'stabilize' the system and then try to leave it alone as much as possibe. Sometimes that has led me to being overly lazy or the realities of life distracted me, which has led to some issues. However, when I keep up on most stuff, when I am paying attention so that whatever I have in place to keep the reef going is working and doing what it is supposed to - and when I am not changing chemistry or majorly tweaking anything at all in the system...when I let it all ride and do its thing, the corals seem to grow better, faster, and be more colorful.

I think flow is really important, and think it equally important that it changes intensity and style over the course of the day. This tends to help mix any dead spots, and gives the more sensitive corals a break from high flow.

I have also noticed that it sometimes seems to talk 3-8 months for my reefs to recover from something traumatic. Earlier this year I had some pathogen causing RTN, so I treated the tank, and only now does the display seem to be firing on all cylinders and the system seems robust. I was just gone for 3 weeks and the alk droped from around 9 to around 7 for 2 two of those weeks (and took a week to come back up after I got home) and none of the corals seemed to care, the sps are growing like mad.

I have also noticed that it takes some corals a long time to adapt to a particular system. Like 3-8 months or more. I think this may be responsible for some of the correlation/causation confusion we see in the hobby; if a coral has been doing poorly for a while, and the reefer changes something, it is very easy to say that change made the difference, when it really could just be the coral finally adapting.

I have seen no compelling evidence that low nutrients impact algae, and, given how algae live, I don't think that idea makes much sense at its core. I also don't see much compelling for the idea that you can grow algae in one part of the system to limit algae in another part of the system. I think herbivores, and manual removal/cropping are practical solutions to a lot of algal problems. I think most and dino and cyano issues burn themselves out, and that letting them do that stabilizes the system, and makes it more robust over time.

All that said, I have not tested Po4 and Nitrate since March (Po4 .62 & No3 35 which was up from the previous time I tested in October (Po4 34 No3 14). I keep thinking I should test, but it feels like make work, which I am trying to avoid at this point in my life. I don't do ICP often, and when I do test at home I usually use a Hach DR890, but I got some hanna checkers so I could more easily be on the same page of most of the hobby (though that might require me to actually do some testing).

In general, I think mixing testing methodologies will make you insane, so I say pick one and stick with it (and be realistic about the numbers because there is so much room for error and variability). I tried for a long time to compare methods of testing salinity (Milwaukee, Misco, Floating, Refracto, Conductivity, etc) and nearly went bonkers. Now use the apex conductivity probes in my system for trending, a veegee because it is fast for quick checks, and a Tropic Marin floating if I want to feel more precise (I should calibrate it but ugh). I like ICP every once and a while to check for anything obviously out of whack that could be killing my tank. I currently don't do biomics testing because I don't think there is much that is actionable in that realm yet. Again, kudos for folks that like to try to dig into those numbers.

In 2019 I plumbed the Secret Home Lab into the display system because volume impacts stability, and taking care of two systems was making me nuts. Yes, there are downsides to this but there are downsides to independent systems as well. In the Lab I have been growing coarls from embryos since 2020 (they are large now and I hope they will spawn this season) and I spawned A. mil last Nov/Dec and those babies are growing nicely. I am currently hoping for some gravid A. sar to arrive next week to spawn in early Nov (and hope for not a split spawn, so tiring!).

In the display (Mixed - LPS, SPS, NPS) some 'hard to keep sps' are doing fine and some are doing less fine. The pearl berry had AEFW, and seems to be perking up, and the Paletta Pink Tip is going gang busters. The Hawkins won't stop growing. I think that is all of the fancy names I remember.

So what is my point in regards to nutrients? I agree with you, there is no simple answer. I do know that I am much more interested in making my display beautiful to my eye, and playing with baby coral, than I am in tracking numbers and dosing lots of stuff. But that is me, and I fully appreciate folks that have the time and energy and money to mess around in that arena. I do think that a 'stable system' seems like it is very important in regards to long term care, and that whatever your philosophy around nutrients may be, keeping the system robustly stable seems important. I think a lot of available reefing methods produce good tanks, and help turn around bad tanks, not because of anything intrinsic to the method, but because they get people to pay attention to the system as a whole and help keep it stable.

Thanks for the push that helped me to summarize my current reefing philosophy, clearly I had this brewing in the back of my brain. Sorry if it is kind of off topic.

Here are two pics of my display I just took after being home from being gone for about 3 weeks. The right side had a major remodel yesterday, so sorry if it looks not grown in. Photographed under SKY lights, one set to photo mode at 50% brightness, and the other set to custom blues off, white and amber 100%shot on iPhone 13 with the Aquarium Cam app on auto. Beats me, I don’t see color well, so maybe they look like the tank actually looks. I am tired.

Thanks for the great summary!

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I think it’s important to mention the relationship of tests for phosphate(PO4) and phosphorous (P). Where phosphate is 3x that of phosphorus (PO4 vs P) and both tests are conducted on ICP. they are similar enough and may confuse discussion for some.

Point 1 in OP. A good article from mentioned that the ratio of nitrates to phosphates is crucial. From 100:1 to 20:1 range is best. NO3PO4. This is the crucial factor in the discussion and should be discussed together for success and proper discussion.

@SunnyX has a good post on the bacterial driven system and has mentioned similar discussion topics resulting from bacterial populations being a driver for healthy coral (point 4 in OP) Bacterial driven system

Overall I think nutrients are import to the system. Hence why coral only systems must dose them to stop them from bottoming out and bleaching the coral. I also think that AB+ type additives have become
Big in the hobby as they provide a lot of other nutrients not normally provided in our tanks that compliment the nutrient uptake of the corals.

I personally do not agree that nutrient ratios have much meaning, as long as neither is low enough to be growth limiting.

 

[NEFFx]

My ratios have been all over the place and I’ve never noticed any difference, although generally my tank nutrients are highly elevated compared to most.

Curious whether they are all over the place respect to changes or within the 100:1 and 20:1 area. This really isn’t a whole lot of change. 50ppm vs 0.5ppm for example. Vs 5ppm : 0.05ppm. Where I think issues happen when you have 50ppm: 0.05ppm or 5:1.0 leading to slow coral growth and or high algae growth.
(I’ve noticed) and I think, not supported by science I’m aware of, it’s because the ratio is what impacts uptake by the coral.

So essentially just curious where your ration range tends to be?

I personally do not agree that nutrient ratios have much meaning, as long as neither is low enough to be growth limiting.

Opinion or is there evidence/science, you tend to have the latter that’s why I’m asking. I think ocean sits at 20:1 from what I recall in articles. We tend to have higher nitrates than the ocean.

 

[jda]

Ocean is about less than .1 no3 and .005 po4, but that really does not matter since no3 and po4 are not the only forms of usable nitrogen or phosphorous in the ocean or any tank. That also works out to about 20:1 but you are assuming the max nitrate reading.

It is also my opinion that ratios of one form or anything against one form of another is folly. With nh4, no2, no3, etc. all delivering nitrogen along with ortho, poly/meta, organically bound phosphorous all working to deliver building blocks, only factoring in just one form of each would be like trying to figure out a ratio of male and female humans on the beach in one day but only using Taylor Swift fans.

 

[jda]

Depends on if we’re taking about the Ocean, a 10 year old system, or 6 mo old system. The Ocean and established system have a huge advantage with way more resources available. These are two completely different environments where it’s much easier for corals to thrive in ULN, but the 6 mo old system will struggle. Jda, I think sometimes you forget get that many reefers have tanks under 1 year, and your system is like 15 yrs old. It’s a bit different for you.

I don't think that nitrate being one of the many forms of available nitrogen is just a phenonomen that happens in the ocean or mature tanks. Even new tanks have ammonia, nitrite which much, much research has shown that the corals will use before nitrate.

 

[Treefer32]

Anecdotal is tough, because of other factors like silicates, or changes in water being put into the tank, did something like a screw fall into the sump? or did dosing screw up that day. So, when we see something wrong we quickly do water tests and discover oh crap my phosphates are high, when in reality maybe an alk doser got plugged or ran out. I wouldn't know anything about that...

That said, I had one reefer that has been in the hobby for as long as I've been alive stated "The corals I have are what's survived in my tank and I don't care about all these fancy tests."

There's something to be said about survival of the fittest. I've had many corals die in my tank, the ones that survive are the ones doing well. How can say blanket that corals like or do not like high nutrients. I've tried a green slimer and it did nothing for a year, then finally died on me. It did not like high nutrients. . . My green chalice I can't get it to stop growing, my orange kryptonite encrusting whatever, has plans to dominate the world. It's encrusting up and over other acropora.... I can't get it to stop. Green Hydnophora... Grows like a weed in my tank.

Acans? Nope, Had the same acan for 4 years. Not a single new head, wouldn't die until a few weeks ago it died due to low alk. See first paragraph.

My nitrates have been as high as 65 and are now routinely 15 after the addition of some major denitrification filtration. My phosphates as high as .66 (I lost corals at .66). They hover around .35. Still higher than I'd like but my corals seem not to care.

When I clean the glass again today I'll get more pictures. But, in short, the corals I have do great in high nutrients. I even have gonipora that have tripled in size since I got them last year, I never thought gonipora would do well in my tank. I can't keep an elegance coral to save my life. . .

I saw little difference in growth going from 65 nitrates to 15. The biggest change would be coloration. They seem to pop so much more in lower nutrients. I would say growth is inhibited by phosphates. When I get phosphates down to under .2 it seems hard corals grow faster, have better coloration and water is clearer.

 

[jda]

I also agree that hair is very easy to remove once it gets long. You don't need chaeto or any other competition for this. It was quite common to siphon it through a fine net (before filter socks) and then put the water back into the tank. Also, that hair algae also will use ammonia as a preferred source of nitrogen as well as many different types of compounds for phosphorous including ortho and poly. You can test VERY, VERY low on no3 and po4 test kits and have an abundance of nitrogen and phosphorous to grow algae like crazy.

 

[Thales]

I also agree that hair is very easy to remove once it gets long. You don't need chaeto or any other competition for this. It was quite common to siphon it through a fine net (before filter socks) and then put the water back into the tank. Also, that hair algae also will use ammonia as a preferred source of nitrogen as well as many different types of compounds for phosphorous including ortho and poly. You can test VERY, VERY low on no3 and po4 test kits and have an abundance of nitrogen and phosphorous to grow algae like crazy.

I also suspect that the when the algae gets that big, it kind starts to degrade near the substrate as one of the stratigies to spread and maybe because it is shaded by the algae above. The stuff right on the substrate can be hard to remove, the stuff above, not so much.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Opinion or is there evidence/science, you tend to have the latter that’s why I’m asking. I think ocean sits at 20:1 from what I recall in articles. We tend to have higher nitrates than the ocean.

Clear cut science. If a nutrient such as nitrate is not low enough to limit growth, having more doesn’t make anything grow faster. That’s the whole basis of the concept of limiting nutrients for organisms.

The fact that the ocean has a certain ratio is not evidence of what is desirable, and obviously having N and P too low or too high but at your preferred ratio is not desirable.

 

[Batt]

Ok so being that this hobby is starting to understand that nutrients is needed in a reef system. Not all can obtain this. In the beginning we were told undetectable P04 and N03 is what we need. Put is caused all type of problem. From cyno to dinios. Now it's all changed. Now that IPC tested are present we are learning it more then we thought. We needs the Nitrates and phosphate and trace elements. And I know this is still a be debate but also PH is showing up to be key as well. I have been doing this for a very long time like 20 years. And Nitrate I keep at 15 to 25ppm. Phosphate. 03 to .08. I notice great color and growth. And don't feed anything else and I seen better results then I did back in the days. So we are headed in the right direction. Soon we will understand bacteria a what is good and bad.

 

[Batt]

Clear cut science. If a nutrient such as nitrate is not low enough to limit growth, having more doesn’t make anything grow faster. That’s the whole basis of the concept of limiting nutrients for organisms.

The fact that the ocean has a certain ratio is not evidence of what is desirable, and obviously having N and P too low or too high but at your preferred ratio is not desirable.

N03 and P04 is a food source for coral. Just like and living organism they need food to grow and thrive. So it dose help them grow. It also help the bacteria in the water column. That's a food source as well. This ration everyone is talking about to me is nonsense. Depending on your tank and coral depends on how much nutrients is needed along with trace elements. They all play a big role in the ecosystem in your reef. For example cyno. When there is no food source in the water column. Bacteria will start feeding on trace elements. Then each other. Causing and imbalance in bacteria. Causing cyno or a bacteria bloom. That still leads to cyno. Then you treat. What happen next cyno gone , then all of a sudden you have dinos. Because you didn't fix the lack of trace elements that the bacteria feed off of. Every thing plays a role with nutrients. You just need to find that sweet spot that's good for you and your corals.

 

[NEFFx]

I know everyone’s got their thing that works. But when we look for a rule of thumb I’ve yet to see one that is true for all tanks aside from this.

I have heard the mentality of the ratio being nonsense. But I haven’t heard anyone say their tanks succeed outside that radio, yet. The ratio works for both high and low nutrient systems as many claim to have success with both, as we all have. This assumes all else is the same (salinity changes, trace elements lacking, toxic chemicals etc)

Where the spectrum.
high nutrients or imbalanced ratio >zoas softies > LPS > SPS > good ratio and low nutrients.

Certainly there are always occasional exceptions but this has been my observation and aligns well with the tanks I’ve seen and my own. As well as everyone who claims they have had success high / low etc. lots of food / no fish etc.

and everyone is a Taylor swift fan, one way or another

 

[Thales]

The problem with rules of thumb is that they are generalizations that often break down when the rubber meets the road.
Our systems are quite complex and we don't have a great understaing of the complexity, so a rule of thumb seems hobbled out of the gate

 

[Reefahholic]

You can test VERY, VERY low on no3 and po4 test kits and have an abundance of nitrogen and phosphorous to grow algae like crazy.

100% fact! Also what happens is that most reefers tend to think there is too much Phosphate, but the reality in many cases is that the algae can sometimes outcompete the corals in certain situations, and the little phosphate that’s actually present isn’t available to everybody. As a result, the corals start to decline or become pale, and the microbiology is hindered. In these cases the reefer needs to dose the PO4 up to make it more available for the corals and biome so that the algae will become outcompeted. Sounds counterintuitive, but I’ve seen this happen in my own system a few times.