High phosphates

[UMALUM]

Yes, so 2 ppm no3 is about 20,000% higher than the environment torch corals come from, this is not an exaggeration but the actual value. The idea of too low no3 causing the “issue” is less likely than aliens secretly blasting your corals from space with invisible lasers.

Doesn't 2 fall well within hannas error margin? Meaning he could be sitting at 0 with no alien help needed.

 

[CHSUB]

Doesn't 2 fall well within hannas error margin? Meaning he could be sitting at 0 with no alien help needed.

I guess it could, however imo no3 deficiencies very, very rarely exists (if ever) in aquariums with fed fish. For example my no3 is .07- .16ppm (Hanna LR). Always reads zero on Salifert and I would guess 0 on Hanna HR. Nutrient deficiencies should never be diagnosed with hobby test kits.

 

[BZOFIQ]

I guess it could, however imo no3 deficiencies very, very rarely exists (if ever) in aquariums with fed fish. For example my no3 is .07- .16ppm (Hanna LR). Always reads zero on Salifert and I would guess 0 on Hanna HR. Nutrient deficiencies should never be diagnosed with hobby test kits.

wow, that's low!

 

[CHSUB]

wow, that's low!

Yes, don’t do anything special to maintain that level, just weekly 15% WC and good maintenance. Imo, level is perfect if everything looks good.

 

[mcarroll]

I assume this proves why some of my torches have been retracted last few months.

I don't think we've touched on what changed a few months ago that caused this trend you're noticing of retracted polyps. If you can't point to anything, then it may be nothing.

At least from the pics I'm seeing so far in the thread, I'm not sure I even see a problem.

IMO do nothing different and just see how things play out for the next few weeks....then reinvestigate.

Make sure you're maximizing flow and stability in the system, but that's it IMO.

 

[UMALUM]

It should also be mentioned that euphyllia often retract sometimes for up to a week or so when reproduction is taking place. Maybe there's nothing wrong at all?

 

[allof fish]

It should also be mentioned that euphyllia often retract sometimes for up to a week or so when reproduction is taking place. Maybe there's nothing wrong at all?

1 of the torches has split once in the time since it has been retracted which I thought was odd. Like a complete split and has still been retracted since

 

[allof fish]

It should also be mentioned that euphyllia often retract sometimes for up to a week or so when reproduction is taking place. Maybe there's nothing wrong at all?

But also 3 of them don’t look near as good as my one gold torch

 

[allof fish]

I guess it could, however imo no3 deficiencies very, very rarely exists (if ever) in aquariums with fed fish. For example my no3 is .07- .16ppm (Hanna LR). Always reads zero on Salifert and I would guess 0 on Hanna HR. Nutrient deficiencies should never be diagnosed with hobby test kits.

Nitrate usually sits around 10 on a salifert kit. It was low during this test because I did a water change a few days ago. Currently only have 3 fish so bioload is low and I skim with filter socks. I have a fish shipment coming this week which will add 5 more so that should help increase nitrates. But even with these nutrients some what imbalanced it’s literally just those 3 torches. 1 torches looks great and all other LPs is great too

 

[allof fish]

I don't think we've touched on what changed a few months ago that caused this trend you're noticing of retracted polyps. If you can't point to anything, then it may be nothing.

At least from the pics I'm seeing so far in the thread, I'm not sure I even see a problem.

IMO do nothing different and just see how things play out for the next few weeks....then reinvestigate.

Make sure you're maximizing flow and stability in the system, but that's it IMO.

I can definitely understand that it’s just how they use to look when I first got them. I’ll show pics again from then to now. Flow is good as the one good torch looks great. First pic is 1 of torches 1 not in second pic but top torch is a gold torch that is doing great in second pic but all other looks same

 

[mcarroll]

I guess it could, however imo no3 deficiencies very, very rarely exists (if ever) in aquariums with fed fish.

I wonder if you're referring to our corals (etc) consumption of many different forms of N that are available rather than consumption of no3 down to ultra-low levels?

Are you aware of any studies that validate whether our reef organisms (especially corals) can utilize concentrations this low?

 

[CHSUB]

I wonder if you're referring to our corals (etc) consumption of many different forms of N that are available rather than consumption of no3 down to ultra-low levels?

Are you aware of any studies that validate whether our reef organisms (especially corals) can utilize concentrations this low?

I’m not sure if zooxanthellae are using levels of no3 at that level and I would not expect any validation except my personal opinion. I’ve seen your book collection and it seems we reference much of the same scientific research; so I don’t think I could provide something you haven’t seen?



Yes, when I see any level of no3 I’m assuming nutrients are “getting through” to no3 and corals(etc) are using other forms of N. I have had system where corals starved but that was with super charged bacteria(zoalites and organic carbon dosing)and before ICP and Hanna Low Range Checker. I’m convinced super charged bacteria is consuming nitrogen and incorporating it into its biomass before it can be used by other organisms including zooxanthellae, resulting in a nutrient deficient system. The “lights” went on for me recently when I started directly and abundantly feeding corals. Even with the knowledge corals capture and consume food, i didn’t believe it was necessary and had what I thought was great success without doing so. I have a Stylophora that daily consumes more mysis than my clowns. It has amazing me watching 10 mysis disappear into the flesh of this coral. I don’t believe fish poop can provide this nutrition. My fish mostly poop near the gravel and this rich food seems to be mostly consumed by critters and is converted to ammonia before it is captured by corals, probably one of the difference between reefs and glass box? Pictured is my stylophora consuming a single mysis which took less than 10 minutes, this coral has grown from a single frag to cantaloupe sized in just over a year. Growth that I would have expected requiring 3 to 5 years.

 

[schooncw]

I read through the thread and gather it’s a relatively new 90 gallon, started without live rock and if this is so, add some! There is so much more to just cycling and there are excellent threads here-Sunny’s for one-on why you need a mature, stable biome,etc. Are you new to the hobby? I’ll post that thread for you if you want.
As far as your nutrients go, IMO, they are way low and you should not be using phosguard, perhaps GFO, when things settle down. Don’t consider LAN, that will really mess you up.
If it were me, I’d add some live rock and do regular wc’s and that’s it! With LPS and softies, why are you messing w calcium and alkalinity? A regular wc should be all you need. Don’t chase numbers.

 

[allof fish]

I read through the thread and gather it’s a relatively new 90 gallon, started without live rock and if this is so, add some! There is so much more to just cycling and there are excellent threads here-Sunny’s for one-on why you need a mature, stable biome,etc. Are you new to the hobby? I’ll post that thread for you if you want.
As far as your nutrients go, IMO, they are way low and you should not be using phosguard, perhaps GFO, when things settle down. Don’t consider LAN, that will really mess you up.
If it were me, I’d add some live rock and do regular wc’s and that’s it! With LPS and softies, why are you messing w calcium and alkalinity? A regular wc should be all you need. Don’t chase numbers.

I do have some sps and starting to add more relatively soon. Tank is pretty stable in a sense that I’m not sure if my phosphates were high to begin with. Lfs Hanna checker had mine at .36 and .44 last week and half. My new Hanna checker I tested 8 times to make sure I’m doing it right and all were between .02 and .06 so I feel like mine are my accurate. No way I did them wrong on all of them. Nitrates are low at 1 but feeding more and just added more fish. Was gonna add more rock anyways to kinda add to my scape. Was either gonna do dry live or live rock.the real reason I’m questioning it is because a few of my torches have not looked the best last few months. I was told high phosphates but if my Hanna checker is right that’s not correct. And it’s just a few torches all other lps and sps is fine. Very hard to figure out.

 

[mcarroll]

Lfs Hanna checker had mine at .36 and .44 last week and half. My new Hanna checker I tested 8 times to make sure I’m doing it right and all were between .02 and .06 so I feel like mine are my accurate.

Make sure you're both using the same model# of tester. Some Hanna's read out phosphorus levels in "ppb" units while others read out phosphate levels in "ppm" units. (You can convert between units with a table that Hana has on their website.)

Euphillia looking weak would be more consistent with low phosphate levels. 0.06 is prolly fine, but 0.02 is probably choking them out.

Avoid doing water changes or anything else to reduce nutrients when they are already this low. (ie. no water changes, GFO, carbon dosing, no extra filter media, etc.)

 

[allof fish]

Make sure you're both using the same model# of tester. Some Hanna's read out phosphorus levels in "ppb" units while others read out phosphate levels in "ppm" units. (You can convert between units with a table that Hana has on their website.)

Euphillia looking weak would be more consistent with low phosphate levels. 0.06 is prolly fine, but 0.02 is probably choking them out.

Avoid doing water changes or anything else to reduce nutrients when they are already this low. (ie. no water changes, GFO, carbon dosing, no extra filter media, etc.)

Sane models both ppm and I followed all the steps and made sure I did everything right. I’ve been told both options high phosphates is why but also that that’s not why they look the way they do. I’ve added more fish so feeding more and will get nitrates up which should help. I just don’t know where to turn for phosphates. Whether they’re high low idk where to go from there. I feel like I should trust my checker as I tested 8 times and all were consistent and if nitrates around 1 then that would make sense with only 3 fish at the time.

 

[mcarroll]

Sane models both ppm and I followed all the steps and made sure I did everything right. I’ve been told both options high phosphates is why but also that that’s not why they look the way they do. I’ve added more fish so feeding more and will get nitrates up which should help. I just don’t know where to turn for phosphates. Whether they’re high low idk where to go from there. I feel like I should trust my checker as I tested 8 times and all were consistent and if nitrates around 1 then that would make sense with only 3 fish at the time.

One of you guys has a defective unit then – maybe circle back to let them know and compare results with them on the same sample?

If your corals are weak looking, phosphates aren't too high....they are too low.

 

[allof fish]

One of you guys has a defective unit then – maybe circle back to let them know and compare results with them on the same sample?

If your corals are weak looking, phosphates aren't too high....they are too low.

I can’t tell if they’re weak looking or not. It’s literally just 3 torches. Maybe my nutrients have just been too low but everything else is fine including 1 torch other LPS and sps so far. So very odd I would think to just have a few peices regression

 

[mcarroll]

I can’t tell if they’re weak looking or not. It’s literally just 3 torches. Maybe my nutrients have just been too low but everything else is fine including 1 torch other LPS and sps so far. So very odd I would think to just have a few peices regression

I was referring to the reason the thread was opened, which is the corals you mentioned as being retracted. (Figuring out the phosphate readings is coincidental, right?)

Coral nutrition is an interesting subject becuase it all revolves around something called the "coral diffusion boundary layer".

Corals don't experience the water around them directly, they experience it though this boundary layer. Flow characteristics and the corals genetics (species) determine this boundary layer.

Because corals are different from one another, and because different areas in the tank experience differences in flow, individual corals have different experiences of the same water.

Corals in lower flow areas will have a lower rate of access to the water, in general.

Similarly, some corals are built to have a stronger boundary layer to withstand more flow, others are built to have less boundary layer because they don't experience much flow. Our tank can only be one kind of way, so all corals are not equally satisfied even if all of them are "fine". And in fact "fine" is a range, and some will be at the top and the bottom of that range....hence (IMO) your retracted corals.

Anywho....keeping PO4 and NO3 levels above a certain level is to avoid having to worry about these ranges too much, so that it's easier to make *all the corals* happy, even if our flow isn't perfect for *every* coral. But keeping great flow is also still a top priority for this AND other reasons.

A corals' feeding status matters here, but feeding corals without wrecking the tank is usually pretty hard....so emphasizing dissolved nutrients (and cleanup crews!) is usually the way.

 

[allof fish]

I was referring to the reason the thread was opened, which is the corals you mentioned as being retracted. (Figuring out the phosphate readings is coincidental, right?)

Coral nutrition is an interesting subject becuase it all revolves around something called the "coral diffusion boundary layer".

Corals don't experience the water around them directly, they experience it though this boundary layer. Flow characteristics and the corals genetics (species) determine this boundary layer.

Because corals are different from one another, and because different areas in the tank experience differences in flow, individual corals have different experiences of the same water.

Corals in lower flow areas will have a lower rate of access to the water, in general.

Similarly, some corals are built to have a stronger boundary layer to withstand more flow, others are built to have less boundary layer because they don't experience much flow. Our tank can only be one kind of way, so all corals are not equally satisfied even if all of them are "fine". And in fact "fine" is a range, and some will be at the top and the bottom of that range....hence (IMO) your retracted corals.

Anywho....keeping PO4 and NO3 levels above a certain level is to avoid having to worry about these ranges too much, so that it's easier to make *all the corals* happy, even if our flow isn't perfect for *every* coral. But keeping great flow is also still a top priority for this AND other reasons.

A corals' feeding status matters here, but feeding corals without wrecking the tank is usually pretty hard....so emphasizing dissolved nutrients (and cleanup crews!) is usually the way.

I just tested phosphate again and then nitrate with a brand new Hanna checker. Phosphate was .07 while nitrate was 1.4 I’ve been trying to feed more to get nitrates up and adding new fish recently should help. Hopefully low nutrients is the result for my torches retracting. I’m not buying lfs phosphate tester. I’ve tested 9 times all within .02-.08 in last week. Want to get nitrates up to around 10 and hold phosphates hopefully that can fix it