I Run the Most thriving SPS Tank on 0 P and 0 N

[IslandLifeReef]

@ZaneTer, thanks for the articles. Though they mention inorganic N and P uptake, the only article that talks about excess N and P, due to runoff from fertilizers, concluded that though the coral made up 3 times the biomass, it used 1/3 of the N that the algae used, and 1/10 of the P than the algae used. They only measured NH4 uptake, not NO3. Seems like excess benefits algae more than coral.

I'd like to see your scientific article refuting what @Randy Holmes-Farley states. If you read the article, you know that the 0.005 ppm PO4 is an as low as number. This article pretty much agrees with what @Lasse states below.

Notice the comment about consumption and excess.

You were the one that stated that we need to get away from the idea that "near 0 is fine because there is an excess is ridiculous." You now say that you don't know what near 0 is and want me to define it. How can you make a statement like that when you have no standard to base it on?

IMO and in most of the articles I have read show a NO3 concentrations of around the figure you mentioned (0.1 - 0.3 ppm NO3) but the PO4 levels normally show around 0.04 ppm. The PO4 will alter because of reasons @ZaneTer mentioned - upwelling, land run off and currents.



If the production is higher than consumption - you read a excess in the water - if the consumption is higher - you read zero!

 

[ZaneTer]

@ZaneTer, thanks for the articles. Though they mention inorganic N and P uptake, the only article that talks about excess N and P, due to runoff from fertilizers, concluded that though the coral made up 3 times the biomass, it used 1/3 of the N that the algae used, and 1/10 of the P than the algae used. They only measured NH4 uptake, not NO3. Seems like excess benefits algae more than coral.

I'd like to see your scientific article refuting what @Randy Holmes-Farley states. If you read the article, you know that the 0.005 ppm PO4 is an as low as number. This article pretty much agrees with what @Lasse states below.

Notice the comment about consumption and excess.

You were the one that stated that we need to get away from the idea that "near 0 is fine because there is an excess is ridiculous." You now say that you don't know what near 0 is and want me to define it. How can you make a statement like that when you have no standard to base it on?

Well let’s discuss this, what is your consideration for near zero? I am going to go with anything less than natural seawater with the consideration that it is a floating variable. I am going to go with less than 0.03ppm if you want a numerical value attached to it.

Recent studies have come to the conclusion that insufficient PO4 levels in the ocean are one of the reasons for coral bleaching and mortalities. Here is a link below:

Phosphate deficiency promotes coral bleaching and is reflected by the ultrastructure of symbiotic dinoflagellates

Enrichment of reef environments with dissolved inorganic nutrients is considered a major threat to the survival of corals living in symbiosis with dinoflagellates (Symbiodinium sp.). We argue, however, that the direct negative effects on the symbiosis ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

It seems the upwellings the reefs relied upon are no longer delivering as much as previously.

One thing I can’t find proof of is that excess >0.1ppm (as you like numerical values) PO4 is responsible for any coral mortalities. I can find quite a few papers to the contrary.

However.... I am finding more and more literature that supports the idea that higher than NSW levels of NO3 are causing damage to our reefs. So to the original point of this thread it may be good to have low nitrate but I haven’t had any experience support this. My corals paled with low nutrients or just plain died.

I think we have to stop considering our tanks as anything like the oceans and instead consider them to be their own ecosystems with their own needs. I can’t feed endless amounts of plankton and maintain perfect water chemistry 24/7 but I can feed the zooxanthellae to ensure the coral is well fed as a result. I am going to continue to do that but making sure NO3/PO4 levels stay around 10ppm and 0.15ppm respectively.

Thank you and goodnight, I’ll catch up with this discussion in the morning

 

[IslandLifeReef]

Well let’s discuss this, what is your consideration for near zero? I am going to go with anything less than natural seawater with the consideration that it is a floating variable. I am going to go with less than 0.03ppm if you want a numerical value attached to it.

Recent studies have come to the conclusion that insufficient PO4 levels in the ocean are one of the reasons for coral bleaching and mortalities. Here is a link below:

Phosphate deficiency promotes coral bleaching and is reflected by the ultrastructure of symbiotic dinoflagellates

Enrichment of reef environments with dissolved inorganic nutrients is considered a major threat to the survival of corals living in symbiosis with dinoflagellates (Symbiodinium sp.). We argue, however, that the direct negative effects on the symbiosis ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

It seems the upwellings the reefs relied upon are no longer delivering as much as previously.

One thing I can’t find proof of is that excess >0.1ppm (as you like numerical values) PO4 is responsible for any coral mortalities. I can find quite a few papers to the contrary.

However.... I am finding more and more literature that supports the idea that higher than NSW levels of NO3 are causing damage to our reefs. So to the original point of this thread it may be good to have low nitrate but I haven’t had any experience support this. My corals paled with low nutrients or just plain died.

I think we have to stop considering our tanks as anything like the oceans and instead consider them to be their own ecosystems with their own needs. I can’t feed endless amounts of plankton and maintain perfect water chemistry 24/7 but I can feed the zooxanthellae to ensure the coral is well fed as a result. I am going to continue to do that but making sure NO3/PO4 levels stay around 10ppm and 0.15ppm respectively.

Thank you and goodnight, I’ll catch up with this discussion in the morning

Ok, I can agree with less than natural sea water levels as being close to zero. Using that as a baseline, considering the error on most home test kits, a reading of any NO3 and any PO4 on these kits would bring you close to NSW levels.

The article you linked focused on an imbalance of NO3 to PO4. This imbalance ranged from 211/1 to 1/60. The article also mentioned that NSW had a ration of 4.3/1 to 7.2/1. The article also did not state that low PO4 caused bleaching, only that their experiment showed that an imbalance of high NO3 to low PO4 made the corals more susceptible to stress, such as high temperatures, that caused bleaching.

Again, I don't think that you have shown that readings near 0 on home NO3 and PO4 are comparable to lower than NSW parameters. And yes, I do like numbers if we are going to try to quantify what are acceptable levels to maintain and if someone is going to make a broad statement saying that low levels are ridiculous. We need to define low levels in that instance.

 

[Lasse]

The basic statement I try to say in my post is in line with @ZaneTer - we have to get rid of the dogma of near 0 - it can work for and with some reefers and aquarium but will create more problems than advantage for most aquarists. If you have a slight excess of inorganic PO4 - you will have a more stable aquarium. It will take time before the reserves is empty and they acts as buffers if the concentration in the water column reads zero. For me - I aim for a concentration around 0.04 but not panic if it rise to a level around 0.15. But I have run my aquarium for 3 years and I´m not a beginner. What I have seen in Sweden and in threads here at R2R is that this haunt for figures near 0 create more problems than beautiful reefs. My recipe to new reefers is more like - create a stable aquarium first - learn how it works in your case and start fine tuning after a year or two.

The average PO4 concentration in our seas vary much more than we believe - this study of deep water outside Japan shows a daily variation between 0.86 to 1.98 µM inorganic PO4 - it respond to 0,082 - 0,19 ppm inorganic PO4 if I have done my math in the right way.

There is other studies I have seen and have refereed to in other threads that state an average over our reefs around 0.04 ppm inorganic PO4.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Bob Weigant]

Ill go on record and say I don't test for anything other than alk. Maybe once a month for Ca and Mag. I let my corals tell me the story and if their looking good , growing and happy then I leave it alone. Water changes weekly but thats about it. It may not be the way most people do it but it works for me

 

[IslandLifeReef]

The basic statement I try to say in my post is in line with @ZaneTer - we have to get rid of the dogma of near 0 - it can work for and with some reefers and aquarium but will create more problems than advantage for most aquarists. If you have a slight excess of inorganic PO4 - you will have a more stable aquarium. It will take time before the reserves is empty and they acts as buffers if the concentration in the water column reads zero. For me - I aim for a concentration around 0.04 but not panic if it rise to a level around 0.15. But I have run my aquarium for 3 years and I´m not a beginner. What I have seen in Sweden and in threads here at R2R is that this haunt for figures near 0 create more problems than beautiful reefs. My recipe to new reefers is more like - create a stable aquarium first - learn how it works in your case and start fine tuning after a year or two.

The average PO4 concentration in our seas vary much more than we believe - this study of deep water outside Japan shows a daily variation between 0.86 to 1.98 µM inorganic PO4 - it respond to 0,082 - 0,19 ppm inorganic PO4 if I have done my math in the right way.

There is other studies I have seen and have refereed to in other threads that state an average over our reefs around 0.04 ppm inorganic PO4.

Sincerely Lasse

I totally agree with you @Lasse. My tank stays right at 0.03 PO4 and 0.3 NO3. I feed heavy and only use a skimmer and water changes for nutrient export. There are a lot of people who would classify this as near zero. I barely get any color on my NO3 test kit. However, everything is happy and stable. Good coral and coraline algae growth and great colors.

So my point is, making blanket statement such as near zero is bad when near zero can mean different things to different people is a little misleading. While I don't advocate chasing numbers, I do think that we should be a little more specific in our terminology.

There are many different ways to run a reef tank, and what works for one person may or may not work for another.

 

[Lasse]

@Sallstrom aim to 0.02 in inorganic PO4 but around 5 in NO3 and it works well.

According NO3 - there is different opinions - I know that some very good German reefers as @Hans-Werner advocate low NO3 levels (below 1 ppm) but I am among them that advocate for levels over 2 ppm. However - there is different reasons for the different strategies - people advocating low NO3 levels concentrate on some studies of coral health and concentrate to use ammonia or urea as primary nitrogen source

My recommendation of levels above 2 ppm concentrate on investigations showing that cyanobacteria can be promoted in levels below 2 ppm NO3 because lower levels of NO3 in our aquariums promote forming of hydrogen sulphide, hence phosphate release.

@IslandLifeReef When I hear of low levels near zero - I always think of the dogma as low as possible. It is true - we must be more clear what we means with different words - IMO - your 0.03 ppm PO4 is not super low however we differ a little about the inorganic nitrogen concentrations. 2 ppm is for me low.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[MnFish1]

My problem here - and its a small problem as compared to @Paul B's worms crashing - is that there is no definition of 'near zero'. So everyone here may be saying the exact same thing. My OPINION: If there is detectable phosphate in a tank - there shoudl be no 'damage' to corals etc. The 'nutrient' is present in excess. My opinion - whether that amount is 0.00001 or 0.1 makes no difference. There is still excess phosphate available for coral needs.

People (no offense to those people) who try to play with these numbers may just be chasing their tails. For this reason - when an 'upwelling' occurs naturally - N and P levels fluctuate widely - and there are not big problems. So - why are we here (myself included) trying to micromanage ratios of N/P on a day to day basis. It is one reason I have started testing much less frequently - with much more success.

I sometimes thing people like to 'do something' - and If they are doing something thats a positive. Take a person with abdominal pain. The person comes in - the Doctor says 'its a virus' - patient disappointed. The person comes in the doctor says we'll do a Cat scan - the person is happy. Its the same concept as the people who say - the xxxxxxx alk monitor is great because I can test. Then everyone doubts the results.

 

[User1]

My recipe to new reefers is more like - create a stable aquarium first - learn how it works in your case and start fine tuning after a year or two.

Pretty much big thumbs up here. First year and a half is all courtship. Can't force it.

 

[Elegance Coral]

My 2 cents.........

The title of this thread talks about SPS corals. Not LPS, softies, or mixed reef tanks.

Here, around Florida, we have coral reefs even though the vast majority of the reef building SPS corals are dead. We still call them coral reefs though. The same can be said about many coral reefs around the planet. Looking at conditions and nutrient levels around such coral reefs can give us an indication as to what kills SPS corals, but tells us little about what allows them to grow and thrive.

With that in mind, it only seems logical to me, to look to nature to see where these SPS corals/reef building coral, still flourish, and haven't been decimated by mans pollution.

Here's a link to someone's pick of the top 15 coral reefs around the world.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

I just picked Fiji because it has two coral reefs on that list. Here's a link to water quality around Fiji.

Importance of Seawater Quality Testing | MES Fiji

mesfiji.org

A quote from the link above....
"The acceptable level of nitrates and phosphate that will not cause eutrophication (excessive growth of algae) is 0.01-0.06 mg/L and 0.001-0.010 mg/L respectively."

Those numbers on most of our hobbyist level tests are near zero, if not zero, and far below the recommendations I see in this, and other threads like it. Those numbers are also higher than the numbers around many other HEALTHY GROWING coral reefs.

So, what's taking place here? In the hobby, people suggest maintaining N and P levels far in excess of what many scientists consider eutrophication levels. Then, like has been suggested in this thread, people grow massive quantities of algae in an effort to keep N and P levels from climbing even higher. This is, by definition, the recipe to create eutrophication in a body of water. Lots of nutrients, to grow lots of algae, equals eutrophication, and the death of animals.

IMHO, by now, we should be doing much better with these corals than mother nature does, but, by and large, we aren't. We can remove parasites, predators, competition for space, storm damage, and seasonal changes. Basically, everything that stunts, or limits the corals growth, health, and reproduction. Compare many captive species to their wild relatives, and we're doing much better than mother nature does at caring for these animals. Captive tigers grow larger, are more athletic, and live longer than their wild relatives. Just as one example. IMHO, we should be doing the same with these corals by now.

Why can't we ask some real simple and obvious questions? Like, why are these corals thriving in very low nutrient waters in the wild, but seem to starve in our systems at those levels???? What are we doing wrong??? Shouldn't we be working to find out what we're doing wrong, in stead of abandoning the animals evolution, and forcing it to live in higher nutrient environments, where it doesn't do as well, but at least it may survive?

IMHO, the largest contributing factor to answer this question, and which is left out of many research papers on the subject, is food. With the energy (sugars, carbohydrates) provided by the corals zooxanthellae, the coral doesn't need to consume much food, if any, for energy. They basically, only need enough food to supply the building blocks for growth and reproduction. Things like nitrogen and phosphorus. For themselves, and for their zooxanthellae, if there is very little in the water. These things are a necessity, but there isn't a high demand for it. The vast majority of the food we eat is for energy, and most of the nitrogen and phosphorus we consume we simply discharge as waste, utilizing very little of it. Just as fish and most other animals do.

So, if we provide food to our corals, we have no need to maintain X amount of inorganic N and P in the water. No constant testing to hit some imaginary perfect number, no inorganics to fuel problem causing algae and microbes, and no special products of N and P to purchase and measure and dose to the system. All we need to do is add food with its organically bound N and P which is not accessible by problem causing algae and microbes.

The only problem I see with this, is that we don't have test kits for organic nitrogen and phosphorus. This makes it kinda impossible to come up with a number to represent the amount of food needed for a particular system. IMHO, this isn't a real big deal because we can learn to read "bio markers". We can learn to look at the animals in our systems and determine if they're healthy, well fed, and growing, or if they aren't. If they aren't, and everything else is adequate, just feed more.

Within reason, you can not overdose food, until inorganics begin to climb. IMHO, most of the inorganics in the majority of marine aquariums, is not produced by the digestion of the target organisms being fed, but is produced by the accumulation of rotting organics in sand beds and trapped in, and between, massive amounts of rock. If we eliminate the vast majority of rotting organics laying around the system, we reduce the vast majority of the inorganic N and P the system produces. This frees us up to feed without much of a concern for elevated inorganics. Food in, and poop out before it decomposes.

Again, this is just my 2 cents.
Ya'll enjoy...... I gotta go clean the clownfish system. Nitrate and phosphate are off the charts in that thing. LOL
Peace
EC

 

[jda]

Water that I took home from the coral sea tested out at 1 ppb of phosphorous on the Hannah Ultra Low. ...this does not mean much, but something.

I have the best results with N at about .1 (have to use ICP/IC to find this since no test kit will) and 1-3 ppb of Phosphate. Colors are best. Growth is best. I could probably have 10x this high and still do OK to a level where most reefer would not even notice, but I can. I do have a massive amount of sand and rock which buffers that N level should anything happen... it would take a lot of have it swing.

I was around 20+ years ago. The goal was to test out at zero on a bad hobby-grade test kit - "clear," to be exact. Nobody thought that they were actually at zero since they had growth an algae and stuff - only people today who read the old stuff think that people strove for zero.

If you have not seen growth and color at NSW level N and P, then you just don't know... there is a difference. If you think that you are having good growth with levels higher than this, then you would be amazed. A massive downside is that the coralline just becomes a relentless grower.

 

[jda]

I know that this is just a digi and I am not bragging, but this is a newer tank (May 4 startup) and the P is at 0 ppb on the Hannah Ultra Low since inception. This is likely because of the 3" of fresh aragonite sand and good, phosphate free live rock that is binding up all kinds of P leaving none in the water column. First photo was the day that I got the frag on June 2nd 2019 - second is today. This dual 1" frag is now 3+ inches on both sides. That urchin behind there is much larger than a golf ball.

Sorry for the bad iPhone picks that do not pick up the blue polyps at all. This is ORA Blue Polyp German Digi.

I am not saying that everybody has to run near NSW levels, but the whole narrative that it is stupid or does not work is just wrong too. Remember that throughput is more important than residual levels where heavy import and heavy export are key... but this takes experience and knowledge to understand whereas people can latch onto a number.

Two months of growth. Red line on the second photo is where the branch was in the first photo.

 

[Lasse]

"The acceptable level of nitrates and phosphate that will not cause eutrophication (excessive growth of algae) is 0.01-0.06 mg/L and 0.001-0.010 mg/L respectively."

Nothing in the text says if the figures 0.01-0.06 mg/L and 0.001-0.010 mg/L of nitrates and phosphates respond to NO3/PO4 or NO3-N/PO4-P. Checking with the guidelines that is mentioned in the link (Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council (ANZEEC 2002) Seawater Standards) shows that they express the concentration as N and P (NO3-N and PO4-P. And this is normal in environmental literature. It means that if we should translate this figures into the way we express us - they will be like 0.0442 - 0.27 ppm as NO3 and 0.00306 - 0.0306 ppm as PO4 . And in the text they talk about excessive growth of algae. But a lot of us knows that there is other ways of handling algae growth than limit the nutrients. All literature from real reefs also point out that it is mostly lack of grazers that is the real reason for algae take over (overfishing as one example)

From the manual of Hanna Checker UL phosphorous.

Accuracy ±5 ppb ±5% of reading @ 25°C

- translated to ppb as PO4 it will be ±15 ppb or ± 0.015 ppm PO4. The new Hanna marine UL phosphate meter says Accuracy ± 0.02 ppm PO4 This means that a reading of 1 ppb P first must be converted to PO4 (multiplied with 3.05) band after that compared with the accuracy. - It means a reading of 1 ppb P can be whatever between 0 and 0.018 ppm as PO4.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[jda]

If algae is the issue, then people are looking mostly in the wrong places if they have a competent level of N and P - sure excess needs managed, but if you are below 5 and .10, then you should be able to handle this. Even with 0 ppb of P in this tank a few posts ago, I have algae. I have consumers whose job is to handle algae - mostly pincushion urchins from the Florida Keys, some astreas and some emerald crabs. Even with 0 ppb on that test kit (who knows what it really is) and .1n, my tank would get overrun with algae without snails, crabs and urchins. IME, relying on fish for algae control has been a joke for me except for a few rare circumstances where I have had fish that would crush bubble algae.

Remember that most of these organisms can get N from ammonia/ammonium, so N can be a red herring. This might be too advanced for now, though...

 

[ZaneTer]

If algae is the issue, then people are looking mostly in the wrong places if they have a competent level of N and P - sure excess needs managed, but if you are below 5 and .10, then you should be able to handle this. Even with 0 ppb of P in this tank a few posts ago, I have algae. I have consumers whose job is to handle algae - mostly pincushion urchins from the Florida Keys, some astreas and some emerald crabs. Even with 0 ppb on that test kit (who knows what it really is) and .1n, my tank would get overrun with algae without snails, crabs and urchins. IME, relying on fish for algae control has been a joke for me except for a few rare circumstances where I have had fish that would crush bubble algae.

Remember that most of these organisms can get N from ammonia/ammonium, so N can be a red herring. This might be too advanced for now, though...

It has long been my suspicion that tanks running low N are using ammonia instead before it can eventually be converted to nitrate BUT how does that explain the the low phosphate levels? Would you consider your tanks to be highly stocked with fish?

 

[jda]

I think that most organisms prefer to use Ammonia/Ammonium anyway. It can be expensive like 30% more energy to use nitrate if they have to.

This tank above has 5 fish in it. There is a link in my signature to the build. I feed them twice a day with flakes.

There is still enough P, even if there is no surplus yet. There has to be or else nothing would grow. Veron or Fenner or Dr. Ron (I cannot remember whom) once gave a talk probably 20 years ago at a show that corals can recycle most P in the tissue for day to day operation, but you have to have an influx to grow - this is why death should not happen even with really low levels since they should be able to maintain and not grow. Death is likely from something else and the low P blamed. So they have to be getting enough if they are growing, but there does not have to be a surplus.

This is why I never advocate to add more. I see no need. Eventually, the rock and sand will bind up enough that they will allow the water level amount to rise, but once I hit 1 to 3 ppb, then in goes the chaeto to keep it that low and to keep the sand and rock from binding too much more.

 

[Punchanello]

Slightly tangential but so far I have really only seen two arguments for running an ULNS. The first is a deliberate choice and method for a particular aesthetic, like Zeovit. The second and most common argument is all about dealing with algae and generally has nothing to do with coral health.

What I know now, and wish I knew before, is that the same 'nutrients' that are used by coral to grow and colour and stay health whether organic or inorganic are also the ones used by algae. So if you have healthy corals you will also have healthy algae. The difference (within reason of course) between an algae forest and a largely algae free coral forest is often livestock, not running lower and lower nutrients. Tangs, snails etc

This is why I dislike the go-to 'get your nutrients in control' advice for algae or nuisance bacteria problems. Hate it in fact. Who's ever had an algae problem a perfectly reasonable 5ppm No3 and .03ppm Po4? I'm assuming everyone. In fact, while all my corals were dying with undetectable nutrient readings and I had scrubbed every algae off every rock I could, there were some bubble algae's and bacteria that did just fine in that environment.

I have limited experience of course but I tend to fall to @jda 's view. I don't have an issue with much higher levels of nutrients, but so long as nutrients are detectable, they are available for uptake.

 

[Zerobytes]

This is a great read and indicative of the fact we have a lot of knowledgeable people on this board, which is why all of us others follow the discussions.

Speaking from experience from a novice I can say bad stuff happens when they get to zero for me. I keep NO3 between 5 and 10 and PO .5 and .1. For me, I’m amazed folks are able to tune them in so precise. Even if I wanted to get to the agreed-upon low levels there is no way I could keep it there. Hats off for being able to control things that way, really.

 

[EmdeReef]

I would agree with @jda that there is a very visible difference in growth and coloration in very low/undetectable N and P tanks.

This is particularly true for newly added frags IME as I do think that many corals will eventually adapt to high(er) nutrients.

 

[garybigley]

Thanks for taking the time, this has to be the best and more complete advice I’ve seen, what you just wrote should become a sticky somewhere in this forum many new hobbiest would benefit from such advice.

This is really helpful. I had a dino problem that I solved and now have a GHA problem. I'm going to follow what you say here and see if I can lick this one. This is really good information.