Do Higher Phosphates Affect Some SPS More Than Others?

sgrosenb

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
476
Reaction score
298
Location
Naples, FL
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
It has fascinated me for some time now that the reefing community is so split on being successful with higher (0.2+++) phosphate vs. lower (0.03-0.05) phosphate. It seems well documented on R2R that folks can have success with SPS carrying both higher or lower phosphates. The question arose on another thread with @jda and @Charlie’s Frags as to what, if any , SPS would have more trouble handling higher phosphates. In an effort not to hijack that thread, I'm starting one here as I'm interested in what folks think.

My personal experience was that I had trouble keeping many types of acros (I'm not knowledgeable enough to know their scientific names - Tyree Red Dragon, some tabling acros, PC Rainbow, SC Orange Passion, to name a few), but was able to keep monit's, stags, birdsnests, and a few others just fine. My phosphates were roughly 0.2 for a while, and when lowering them to 0.03-0.05, I was able to start keeping the aforementioned acros alive. I didn't change any other parameters, and I dropped them after my tank was 18+ months old, so it strikes me that the phosphate drop was the trick. I could, however, be convinced otherwise.

Curious if other folks have any insight or experience related to SPS that may or may not thrive in a high phosphate tank. I'm also interested in why some folks are able to be successful with SPS in high nutrient tanks and some are not - is it maturity, some other variable that pairs well with the higher nutrients, or just poor tank husbandry in other areas?

Thanks for any insights anyone might have!

Cheers,
Scott
 

Charlie’s Frags

Follow me on Instagram @Charlies Frags
View Badges
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
6,129
Reaction score
9,449
Location
Houston
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
It has fascinated me for some time now that the reefing community is so split on being successful with higher (0.2+++) phosphate vs. lower (0.03-0.05) phosphate. It seems well documented on R2R that folks can have success with SPS carrying both higher or lower phosphates. The question arose on another thread with @jda and @Charlie’s Frags as to what, if any , SPS would have more trouble handling higher phosphates. In an effort not to hijack that thread, I'm starting one here as I'm interested in what folks think.

My personal experience was that I had trouble keeping many types of acros (I'm not knowledgeable enough to know their scientific names - Tyree Red Dragon, some tabling acros, PC Rainbow, SC Orange Passion, to name a few), but was able to keep monit's, stags, birdsnests, and a few others just fine. My phosphates were roughly 0.2 for a while, and when lowering them to 0.03-0.05, I was able to start keeping the aforementioned acros alive. I didn't change any other parameters, and I dropped them after my tank was 18+ months old, so it strikes me that the phosphate drop was the trick. I could, however, be convinced otherwise.

Curious if other folks have any insight or experience related to SPS that may or may not thrive in a high phosphate tank. I'm also interested in why some folks are able to be successful with SPS in high nutrient tanks and some are not - is it maturity, some other variable that pairs well with the higher nutrients, or just poor tank husbandry in other areas?

Thanks for any insights anyone might have!

Cheers,
Scott
Would your corals rtn/stn at 0.20 po4?
 
OP
OP
S

sgrosenb

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
476
Reaction score
298
Location
Naples, FL
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Mainly STN, from the base up. Either that or they would just not grow. Like, at all - I had an RRC Marvin the Martian that was nice color, great PE, but literally didn't grow or base out more than 1mm in over 12 months. I could be convinced that the STN and lack of growth are due to something else, but if it is then I'm perplexed - everything else in my tank is stable and perfect levels for what the overall reefing community seems to think is ideal for parameters.

The only other thought I had was that somehow my lighting was impacting the growth and death, but people have convinced me time and time again that's not it. I have a T5 / LED combo with 4x T5 running 9 hours and 6x Radion XR15's w/ diffusers, ramping up with just blues and purples from 6am-9:30am, followed by full spectrum at 80% until 5:30pm, then ramping down blues and purples to 9:30pm. Par is 200 at the bottom and 450 at the top. Any red flags there? Or anything else you think could be the culprit?
 

jda

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
14,325
Reaction score
22,134
Location
Boulder, CO
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
This is an overgeneralization and I will post more later, but basically any old school acro that still costs a lot of money now tends to be in this camp. Purple Monster, Pink Panther are two that I fear for the most. Many smooth skinned acropora. ORA German Blue Digi (not a true Digi, but you get the point) is one that is not a super easy SPS and is one of the most beautiful that grows like a weed in NSW conditions, but starts to get brittle, loses color and then dies back when they rise.

Raising N and P is not instant death, but not growing and then dying at the first sign of stress is also just as bad.

Some don't care at all. Most stags don't care. I had this discussion with Richard Ross that my opinion is that what he still had in his tank was stuff that didn't care and people needed to pay attention to all that he did lose along the way. He agreed and said that the tries to make this point when he presents and it is mostly missed on folks.

Even the stuff that doesn't care usually grows faster, looks better and appears more tolerant of distress (anecdotal) under these conditions, so everybody wins.

I would like to separate keeping residual levels from chasing numbers. I never recommend dropping (or raising) values quickly. Too many people do not have the ability to see that dropping too fast was what caused their issues, not where they got to. Like take 3 months to drop .1 or .2... what does it hurt. They do not get that high overnight.

Lastly, for now, a few friends used to keep higher levels and were convinced to lower theirs slowly. Every single one of them saw more growth and a wider range of corals that they could keep over time. They all listened to my advice to go really slow and be methodical. When you see this over and over by people that you trust to do it right, it starts to add up.
 

jda

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
14,325
Reaction score
22,134
Location
Boulder, CO
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I will also say that people who have no interest in keeping some of these acros and don't wish to do anything to lower their P are really smart. Why bother and take the risk, right? However, it is not a bad idea to learn that there is a different level out there - not better or worse, just different - just as I realize that I could do a bit less work and maybe take a fuge offline if I wanted to stop caring about my smoothies.

Also, coralline is an absolute bear with NSW type of N and P - it just grows so fast and forms sheets that you need like woodworking tools to scrape if you let it go too long.
 

Charlie’s Frags

Follow me on Instagram @Charlies Frags
View Badges
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
6,129
Reaction score
9,449
Location
Houston
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Mainly STN, from the base up. Either that or they would just not grow. Like, at all - I had an RRC Marvin the Martian that was nice color, great PE, but literally didn't grow or base out more than 1mm in over 12 months. I could be convinced that the STN and lack of growth are due to something else, but if it is then I'm perplexed - everything else in my tank is stable and perfect levels for what the overall reefing community seems to think is ideal for parameters.

The only other thought I had was that somehow my lighting was impacting the growth and death, but people have convinced me time and time again that's not it. I have a T5 / LED combo with 4x T5 running 9 hours and 6x Radion XR15's w/ diffusers, ramping up with just blues and purples from 6am-9:30am, followed by full spectrum at 80% until 5:30pm, then ramping down blues and purples to 9:30pm. Par is 200 at the bottom and 450 at the top. Any red flags there? Or anything else you think could be the culprit?
Were you carbon dosing? I had uniform white stn from the base, which would be followed by burnt tips when I carbon dosed. I tried nopox at first and biopellets the 2nd time. Perfect numbers with dead acros
 

Charlie’s Frags

Follow me on Instagram @Charlies Frags
View Badges
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
6,129
Reaction score
9,449
Location
Houston
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
@jda mentioned “nuances”. One of the nuances that gets overlooked is the alk and residual n/p relationship. Low n/p combined with higher alk (+8-8.5) is usually a recipe for disaster. I find for my tank the higher n/p provides a buffer if my alk swings, which happens everyday.


I agree with @jda that lower n/p are better for acropora in terms of growth and color, although I can’t think of anyone with better colors than mine. There are better photoshopped/blue filtered pics around but I know better. I don’t use a blue only at any time of my spectrum. Anyways…..lower n/p will typically be better over all for growth, algae and other pest control etc. What drives me nuts is when someone has a sps help thread with 10-20 no3/ 0.08-0.30 po4 and someone chimes in with “your corals are dying bc your n/p should less than 5/0.03”
Elevated n/p do not cause mass casualties is my point.
 
OP
OP
S

sgrosenb

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
476
Reaction score
298
Location
Naples, FL
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Were you carbon dosing? I had uniform white stn from the base, which would be followed by burnt tips when I carbon dosed. I tried nopox at first and biopellets the 2nd time. Perfect numbers with dead acros
No meaningful carbon dosing to speak of. I tried lower N and P with Tropic Marin Elimi-NP for about a month but it didn't seem to make a dent in PO4 and I didn't want to over-do it (my Nitrates were fine, and I actually dose NO3 now) so I switched to LC which has been great. All that to say I didn't notice carbon dosing having a positive or negative effect, but admittedly I didn't stick with it long enough to really have good data to support it one way or another.

Some don't care at all. Most stags don't care.
This resonates with me @jda I have a stag that has grown 6+ inches in the past year (with and without higher PO4) and it was by far my best performing coral. So far everything you've said has been in-line with my experience.

One more anecdotal side note - I am now on my 4th (FOURTH!!! Ouch on the pocketbook!) SC Orange Passion after killing the first three. I purchased the fourth one after my PO4 was down and it is now at least living and looks like it's going to make it, and I might even be seeing some small growth.
 

Potatohead

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Aug 3, 2017
Messages
2,427
Reaction score
3,581
Location
Vancouver
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I strongly believe phosphate in the 0.08 range is far superior to the 0.02 range. I also believe over about 0.16 it does start to affect color and growth, but this is far superior to having phosphate too low, which will cause death. My experience is essentially the opposite of the OP's, my tank thrives at these slightly higher levels.

There are a lot of successful tanks that run very low nutrients, but most are either on a heavy feeding regimen like Zeovit, and/or they are packed with fish and are mature tanks that can keep the nutrients down.
 

tamanning

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 7, 2020
Messages
315
Reaction score
408
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Not sure if I'm the person to chime in here.
I've read everything from corals will adjust to your tank if you keep it stable to you must do water changes more often.
What are we supposed to do? There is a group of people that will preach numbers while others say stability. who's correct?
 

jda

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
14,325
Reaction score
22,134
Location
Boulder, CO
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I also would strongly suggest that nobody recommends that somebody moves N and P as a first resort. What mostly gets posted around here are people telling others to get them up. Advising to get the residual levels up or down are equally as bad.

The harder to understand point of this is that residual levels are fools gold. Higher is nearly always not as good at some point, but that point depends. However, the difference between success at .005-.01 like mine and .10 is likely just export since the availability has to be the same if success is achieved. However, most cannot handle the idea of availability and throughput since there is no way to really measure it. Residual levels are easy to test and relay to other people as a measurable, but like so many other things in life, they are near meaningless in the context that most use them.

What even people with higher levels often fail to realize is that the available N and P is driving the tank and not the residual levels. If they still fed the same way and just exported a bit more where the N and P came down a bit (slowly - have I mentioned this?), it is likely that everything would get a bit better.

Too many people have tried to move their N or P too fast and experienced a problem and blamed the lower levels instead of their methods. People also have stopped feeding to get N and P lower and choked out all availability, which is probably way worse.

I would recommend that people understand what a building block is - N and P are building blocks. You need them when you need them in small amounts to build new organic tissue. More does nothing. Building blocks are not like energy or sugars where more can lead to more activity in the coral. When people say "feed your corals with N and P" this sentiment is just wrong. Think of N and P as bricks and mortar and the energy as the bricklayers. You don't need any more bricks than you are going to lay that day, which is why they get delivered to job sites constantly and people are mixing just enough mortar to use right then. It is the bricklayers that drive the bus (energy). If you had a bunch of bricks laying around that you don't need and mixed too much mortar, then it is all for waste and gums up the works - the parallel to this is that every building block is needed at low levels just above not being growth limiting, but every one of them is poison at higher levels. The scale from being growth limiting to slowing down cellular activity to death is different for every animal and there is a wide scale, but it is there... which is why some corals don't care if P is .5 and others do.

There is a paper in my signature that has more of my ramblings on these topics if anybody wants to read it. It is a mess, so sorry, but understanding this is not easy.
 
OP
OP
S

sgrosenb

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
476
Reaction score
298
Location
Naples, FL
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I would recommend that people understand what a building block is - N and P are building blocks. You need them when you need them in small amounts to build new organic tissue. More does nothing. Building blocks are not like energy or sugars where more can lead to more activity in the coral. When people say "feed your corals with N and P" this sentiment is just wrong. Think of N and P as bricks and mortar and the energy as the bricklayers. You don't need any more bricks than you are going to lay that day, which is why they get delivered to job sites constantly and people are mixing just enough mortar to use right then. It is the bricklayers that drive the bus (energy). If you had a bunch of bricks laying around that you don't need and mixed too much mortar, then it is all for waste and gums up the works - the parallel to this is that every building block is needed at low levels just above not being growth limiting, but every one of them is poison at higher levels.
What a great analogy. Starting to read your paper on this as we speak. In your example, is "energy" lighting, or something more? Sorry to attempt to oversimplify this as I'm guessing my question is far more complex. Thanks.
 

jda

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
14,325
Reaction score
22,134
Location
Boulder, CO
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Light excites the zoox which produces sugar/energy for the coral. Not for this post, but also why light is like numbers 1 through 8 on my top 10 list of important things for a reef.

Corals can get some energy if they can capture food - some are better than others at this. Since this is the SPS section, the most effective way is to catch bacteria in the slime coat. However, there are a bunch of things working against the coral in our tanks. First, bacteria are not as abundant with our filtration systems. Second, they corals lose a battle with math - they just lack surface area compared to rock, sand, etc. flampton gave me a lot of good info on this and has posted a lot if you want to search for him.

We can get into how acropora don't want to use nitrate later. ...and probably the singular form of phosphate that your test kit reads. Catching food can also deliver N and P. In the case of bacteria assimilation, they coral gets nearly all of the energy and building blocks. Digesting through the polyp can be beneficial depending on what gets caught, but also could cost more to process than what it gets. The paper goes into ammonia/ammonium as the best nitrogen source and why nitrate is worthless to lots of coral (generalization, but mostly true for us)... again, availability over residual levels.
 

DeniableArc

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 19, 2019
Messages
645
Reaction score
962
Location
Sydney
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I also would strongly suggest that nobody recommends that somebody moves N and P as a first resort. What mostly gets posted around here are people telling others to get them up. Advising to get the residual levels up or down are equally as bad.

The harder to understand point of this is that residual levels are fools gold. Higher is nearly always not as good at some point, but that point depends. However, the difference between success at .005-.01 like mine and .10 is likely just export since the availability has to be the same if success is achieved. However, most cannot handle the idea of availability and throughput since there is no way to really measure it. Residual levels are easy to test and relay to other people as a measurable, but like so many other things in life, they are near meaningless in the context that most use them.

What even people with higher levels often fail to realize is that the available N and P is driving the tank and not the residual levels. If they still fed the same way and just exported a bit more where the N and P came down a bit (slowly - have I mentioned this?), it is likely that everything would get a bit better.

Too many people have tried to move their N or P too fast and experienced a problem and blamed the lower levels instead of their methods. People also have stopped feeding to get N and P lower and choked out all availability, which is probably way worse.

I would recommend that people understand what a building block is - N and P are building blocks. You need them when you need them in small amounts to build new organic tissue. More does nothing. Building blocks are not like energy or sugars where more can lead to more activity in the coral. When people say "feed your corals with N and P" this sentiment is just wrong. Think of N and P as bricks and mortar and the energy as the bricklayers. You don't need any more bricks than you are going to lay that day, which is why they get delivered to job sites constantly and people are mixing just enough mortar to use right then. It is the bricklayers that drive the bus (energy). If you had a bunch of bricks laying around that you don't need and mixed too much mortar, then it is all for waste and gums up the works - the parallel to this is that every building block is needed at low levels just above not being growth limiting, but every one of them is poison at higher levels. The scale from being growth limiting to slowing down cellular activity to death is different for every animal and there is a wide scale, but it is there... which is why some corals don't care if P is .5 and others do.

There is a paper in my signature that has more of my ramblings on these topics if anybody wants to read it. It is a mess, so sorry, but understanding this is not easy.
I have always enjoyed your read ups and concentrating on availability over residual just makes sense. The only problem is how to measure and adjust is the hard part
 

ScottB

7500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 5, 2018
Messages
7,873
Reaction score
12,155
Location
Fairfield County, CT
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
In my experience with SPS, I've only had troubles under this combination of circumstances:

System was too new; my aragonite had no stored PO4; and my bioload was too small. What little nutrient was going in got processed away super fast. This of course led to dinos.

I had to dose > a liter of phosphate solution plus some sodium nitrate and rapidly add fish. Was all better 4-6 weeks later and fish feeding >3 times per day.

I feel fish are very underrated for the valuable role they play in producing *coral food. Respiration and defecation fill the nutritional gap that zoox leave.

*edit
 
Last edited:

jda

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
14,325
Reaction score
22,134
Location
Boulder, CO
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Not only do fish produce ammonia/ammonium which is a corals preferred method to get nitrogen, they also produce many forms of phosphate/phosphorous organic/inorganic and not just the one that your test kit can detect. Nobody really knows what form all corals want/need, so the variety is likely very good for the tank.
 
OP
OP
S

sgrosenb

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
476
Reaction score
298
Location
Naples, FL
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
@jda unfortunately I have an update here that isn't good. After lowering my PO4 to an ideal spot many months back, they slowly crept back up to about 0.2-0.3. I appear to have made the fatal mistake of trying to bring them back down too quickly via GFO, and I am now experiencing STN from the base up on many of my corals that, until now, have been perfectly fine and growing (albeit growing slowly). I also had a large algae outbreak (turf algae).

I only used a small amount of GFO, didn't reduce my import, and it was the only variable I changed, but I'm convinced it is the culprit. So my question now is - where do I go from here? My PO4 is sitting steadily at 0.08-0.09 via Hanna URL checker. Should I let the tank sit where it is at and stabilize before proceed with more GFO, or just continue on with (less) GFO? More water changes? I've removed as much turf algae as I can by hand, and have ordered a few pincushion urchins to help in the fight. Any advice you have in trying to possibly save some of my SPS would be helpful. Thanks again for all of your guidance and help. I guess maybe I would have been better off just being content with slightly higher PO4 :(
 

Charlie’s Frags

Follow me on Instagram @Charlies Frags
View Badges
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
6,129
Reaction score
9,449
Location
Houston
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
@jda unfortunately I have an update here that isn't good. After lowering my PO4 to an ideal spot many months back, they slowly crept back up to about 0.2-0.3. I appear to have made the fatal mistake of trying to bring them back down too quickly via GFO, and I am now experiencing STN from the base up on many of my corals that, until now, have been perfectly fine and growing (albeit growing slowly). I also had a large algae outbreak (turf algae).

I only used a small amount of GFO, didn't reduce my import, and it was the only variable I changed, but I'm convinced it is the culprit. So my question now is - where do I go from here? My PO4 is sitting steadily at 0.08-0.09 via Hanna URL checker. Should I let the tank sit where it is at and stabilize before proceed with more GFO, or just continue on with (less) GFO? More water changes? I've removed as much turf algae as I can by hand, and have ordered a few pincushion urchins to help in the fight. Any advice you have in trying to possibly save some of my SPS would be helpful. Thanks again for all of your guidance and help. I guess maybe I would have been better off just being content with slightly higher PO4 :(
I use this
 

Kostas G.

Community Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 15, 2019
Messages
55
Reaction score
32
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I lowered my phosphates from 4ppm (yes, you read that right) to 2 ppm in a couple weeks and from 2ppm to 0.08 in 1-2 weeks. I did not experience any algae outbreak and very minor if any stress on my Acropora. I would say they adored the drop. With every drop they would grow faster, bleach lightly, and look way happier. My phosphates sit around 0.03-0.06 now. I have totally forgotten what sun/rtn is at these levels. I have to say everything grows better and is way sturdier at low phosphates.
My nitrates are still on the high side despite continuous work on lowering them. I am between 10ppm & 20ppm. What amazes me is I don’t get much coralline algae growth even at these levels. Which tells me my nitrate levels are still bad. I need to drop them too….
 

McPuff

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
1,322
Reaction score
1,514
Location
Plymouth, MI
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
This topic is especially interesting to me right now because ATI shows my nutrients as follows:

NO3 - 217 mg/L
PO4 - .42mg/L

Crazy high! I will say that for over a year (maybe two) I haven't run any sort of algae reactor/fuge/etc. on my system (300gal moderate fish stocking, high coral density). Oddly enough, algae growth is not very high at all but coral growth for some species is pretty slow (e.g., pink lemonade, vinh). Some corals are growing just as fast as ever (pink floyd, yellow tort!). A few, however, have algae on the growth tips (fox flame, bumble bee). There seems to be no rhyme or reason; I have lost a few monti species over the past few months (mystic sunset, forestfire digi died but sunset and rainbow montis are perfectly fine). Bali green slimer has algae tips, purple slimer is super happy (next to each other). Yellow slimer has algae tips, blue slimer is happy (next to each other). Strange!

Just over a month ago I added an algae reactor and put caulerpa in it. Hasn't grown much which is making me consider just putting some chaeto into a makeshift refugium in my sump and putting a huge light on it (I wonder if the light in my reactor is just too weak). Trying to get nitrates down but slowly and I'm not sure I want to mess with PO4 at this point (avoiding GFO for now!). I haven't sent in a water sample in a few months but am planning to do so within a couple weeks.

One other potentially complicating factor is that I had my CARX effluent running straight into my return pump (reactor pH 6.45 with open stream). I believe the acidic effluent was making the high nutrients more of a problem (acidification and high nutrients is a bad combo for corals). Since I moved the effluent to the intake of the algae reactor I have actually seen some improvement in the algae-tip-issue. When I add the refugium I'll just drop the effluent right in there.

I'm sure that once they come down to a more acceptable level (under 100 at least), then I should see real improvement in growth rates across the board. I do not feel I am chasing numbers here... just trying to get within a more suitable range. It was my mistake not to run algae for so long.

Has anyone else experience nitrates THIS HIGH... without hugely adverse effects?
 

Mastering the art of locking and unlocking water pathways: What type of valves do you have on your aquarium plumbing?

  • Ball valves.

    Votes: 58 50.0%
  • Gate valves.

    Votes: 64 55.2%
  • Check valves.

    Votes: 27 23.3%
  • None.

    Votes: 28 24.1%
  • Other.

    Votes: 9 7.8%
Back
Top