It's all @Paul B's fault... my journey to an immune reef (hopefully!)

[Dom274]

People don't want to keep sps - People want to be successful


Don’t understand this ^^^

Seriously? Not everyone wants to do corals, let alone SPS. Last time I checked, FOWLR tanks were still a thing and there's a whole forum of Zoa enthusiasts here... Nobody sticks around in this hobby if they are constantly killing everything. Many of us understand the higher needs they have and voluntarily pass.

 

[MnFish1]

I thought the "0 nitrates is good" myth was finally busted? High nutrients aren't the problem for SPS, it's all about stability.

Nitrates above 100 are not good....

 

[Dom274]

Nitrates above 100 are not good....

Says who?

and my followup question-

Prove it.

 

[Gweeds1980]

My tank has many SPS as I have shown on my tank thread inc YouTube videos I have posted. My nutrients are low due to my water management inc but not limited to my waterfall ATS. I frag my SPS often and sell ir give the frags away. Although I share many things with Paul I also do a few things differently some of which achieve similar results e.g. Paul uses ozone where I prefer to use Oxydators for reasons I have stated many times. However even with our few differences our results are very similar.

Again, for the record, my system also has SPS... montis, acros and stylos. Also softies and lps. Tbh I struggle to keep lps alive and my softies, whilst looking healthy, grow very little (which is fine with me!). My params for po4 and no3 are undetectable with salifert and 5 to 10ppm respectively. Recently I have gone completely 'au naturele' and dispensed with any filtration save for live rock and a small DSB. My nutes dropped initially, then raised again then stabilised at the above. I don't know why this is but I believe it's because algae grows happily in my tank, but is eaten as quickly as it grows by the large herbivore population, thus a large amount of nutrients are recycled from fish to algae to fish again. Also as I do not use any prepared foods now, my po4 input is very small. I also dose plankton sized foods hourly during lights off for my feather star. Which, btw is coming up to its first birthday in my tank. I struggle to see how a captive reef can be kept any more naturally than that, aside from simply sectioning a part of a real reef off! I do have a UV hooked up, but it hasn't been switched on yet this year. I also don't do water changes, everything required is dosed using the red sea a,b and c. The last WC was using NSW and if I do another it will also be with NSW.

As for Paul's method, i went into this purely to try to discover a better way of running my tank in terms of disease resistance, but have now adopted the most natural system that I can think of, the vast majority of that has been done by thinking of everything in terms of 'is this what happens on the reef?' Rather than 'x or y is out of kilter, how can I fix it?'

 

[MnFish1]

Seriously? Not everyone wants to do corals, let alone SPS. Last time I checked, FOWLR tanks were still a thing and there's a whole forum of Zoa enthusiasts here... Nobody sticks around in this hobby if they are constantly killing everything. Many of us understand the higher needs they have and voluntarily pass.

That would be an interesting poll (if it hasn't already been done). The fact is there will always be outliers within any group of animals be that fish, coral etc. The fact that one person (or a couple) people are able to keep certain fish and have them spawn does not 'scientifically prove' that those methods are reproducible for a large number of aquarists - or that the conditions provided are the 'best' for the animals being kept.

I once asked 'an expert' how do these people with supposedly heretically high or low parameters keep these fantastic aquaria. The answer - they have selective memories. The fish/coral/invertebrates that died under those conditions are conveniently forgotten and the ones that remain and thrive have adapted to the conditions in that particular tank.

As to Paul B's methods, I have no doubt that he believes entirely his theories about bacteria in live foods helping keep fish immune. I have a different theory. The feeding of high quality, high protein, varied diet with proper vitamins, etc (even without bacteria) in a low stress environment would produce the same results - including spawning, etc.

 

[Kevinkmk]

I wasn't trying to discredit what you do, I actually find it quite interesting and incorporate a lot of your feeding tips. I was just replying to the poster who said he fed his fish selcon and fish from the market then decided to introduce ich into the tank. He said 5 out of his 11 fish survived. It just shocked me that thats what he got from reading this thread and made me sad for the fish who suffered.

It was heart broken that I lost the fish that I have. I did not intentionally introduce disease into my dt. It was on some snail that I bought and I fail qt them. I wan to go fallow and treat my fish but there is a Catalina goby in the 100g rock scape. So my best approach was to feed quality food since I won’t be able take all fish out for qt and fallow.

 

[MnFish1]

Says who? and my followup question- Prove it.

Google it. (JK) Paul himself has said he cant keep certain kinds of corals due to his nutrient levels.

Firstly, it depends on what kind of tank you want to keep (fish only vs coral and which types). It also depends on whether you want to keep your fish/corals in an environment in which they will thrive or merely tolerate. It also depends on how much algae you want to tolerate in your tank.

The conventional wisdom is that if you have high nitrates (and I would consider >100 pretty high) that you have an overfeeding problem or a nutrient export problem.

TO answer your question: Who says a nitrate level of 100 is 'not good' for a reef tank is 'almost everyone'.
As to proving it - well - a high nitrate level is a sign of a poorly maintained tank meaning that any small 'mistake' could lead to more problems - so I think thats proof enough. Here is series of 2 articles (this is part 1) listing the parameters of successful tanks by Mike Palletta in the articles he describes fantantastic tanks with nitrate levels of 5-50 - with the key being there has been extreme attention paid to water chemistry over time - especially alkalinity - with nitrate being one of the lesser important items measured. https://www.reef2reef.com/ams/tank-parameters-of-some-masters.263/ (there is also a part 2 you can read). In any case, Im not sure that having nitrate levels >100 suggests good aquarium maintenance practices...

There are numerous scientific articles describing detrimental effects of high nitrates to corals - depending on the other nutrients present as well. It also depends on the other nutrients in your tank - i.e. if you have an extremely high nitrate level and low PO4 levels coral bleaching and death can occur.

 

[Dom274]

I once asked 'an expert' how do these people with supposedly heretically high or low parameters keep these fantastic aquaria. The answer - they have selective memories. The fish/coral/invertebrates that died under those conditions are conveniently forgotten and the ones that remain and thrive have adapted to the conditions in that particular tank.

With all due respect, your "expert" is an idiot. That's a convenient excuse used by someone when they can't possibly fathom that the rest of society moves forward while they stick to their "Old school" ways. I know, I know, I'll get off the lawn.

 

[Dom274]

Google it.

The conventional wisdom is that if you have high nitrates (and I would consider >100 pretty high) that you have an overfeeding problem or a nutrient export problem.

TO answer your question: Who says a nitrate level of 100 is 'not good' for a reef tank is 'almost everyone'.
As to proving it - well - a high nitrate level is a sign of a poorly maintained tank meaning that any small 'mistake' could lead to more problems - so I think thats proof enough. Here is series of 2 articles (this is part 1) listing the parameters of successful tanks by Mike Palletta in the articles he describes fantantastic tanks with nitrate levels of 5-50 - with the key being there has been extreme attention paid to water chemistry over time - especially alkalinity - with nitrate being one of the lesser important items measured. https://www.reef2reef.com/ams/tank-parameters-of-some-masters.263/ (there is also a part 2 you can read). In any case, Im not sure that having nitrate levels >100 suggests good aquarium maintenance practices...

There are numerous scientific articles describing detrimental effects of high nitrates to corals - depending on the other nutrients present as well. It also depends on the other nutrients in your tank - i.e. if you have an extremely high nitrate level and low PO4 levels coral bleaching and death can occur.

The conventional wisdom is wrong - I said it before, stability is key. Causation does not equal correlation, the nitrates weren't the determining factor, the alkalinity was. You honestly think your're going to get good SPS results with alkalinity swings? If we are talking about hard to keep SPS, stable ALK & CA would be a given.

There are numerous scientific articles describing detrimental effects of high nitrates to corals - depending on the other nutrients present as well. It also depends on the other nutrients in your tank - i.e. if you have an extremely high nitrate level and low PO4 levels coral bleaching and death can occur.

Who, whoa whoa. You're getting your info from scientific articles? There are a million differences between a lab and our hobbyist environment. I side with paul because I have replicated similar systems and maintained them for years (Actually more of a lack of maintenance lol). I don't mean to pick on you, but I think this is where you might be missing the point. You are assuming that high nitrates means that tank has been neglected - To which you are correct, say 99% of the time. In addition to high nitrates, that neglected tank also has CA & ALK issues due to the overfeeding and/or nutrient export problems. What I believe you have overlooked are that there are people out there that have stabilized CA & ALK and then intentionally jacked their nitrates up. Why would you do that? I have a zoa tank and zoas love dirty water - dirtier the better. As it turns outs, the handful of SPS in the tank to add some variety to all the zoas ended up doing better due to not being starved.

 

[Gweeds1980]

That would be an interesting poll (if it hasn't already been done). The fact is there will always be outliers within any group of animals be that fish, coral etc. The fact that one person (or a couple) people are able to keep certain fish and have them spawn does not 'scientifically prove' that those methods are reproducible for a large number of aquarists - or that the conditions provided are the 'best' for the animals being kept.

I once asked 'an expert' how do these people with supposedly heretically high or low parameters keep these fantastic aquaria. The answer - they have selective memories. The fish/coral/invertebrates that died under those conditions are conveniently forgotten and the ones that remain and thrive have adapted to the conditions in that particular tank.

As to Paul B's methods, I have no doubt that he believes entirely his theories about bacteria in live foods helping keep fish immune. I have a different theory. The feeding of high quality, high protein, varied diet with proper vitamins, etc (even without bacteria) in a low stress environment would produce the same results - including spawning, etc.

I think the idea of replicating an animals natural habitat as closely as possible (including diseases) is a sound basis for keeping said animal as it would be in the wild (which is somewhere on that fine line between thriving and dead). Keeping a completely artificial habitat, with a sterile environment is absolutely not the best way to keep any animal. However, the truth is none of us are able to replicate the reef perfectly and equally we can't keep any aquarium sterile, even if we wanted to.

At the end of the day, there are many ways to skin a cat... some of us choose to go towards one of these extremes and some of us sit squarely in the middle. Does that mean one or the other is better? Probably not, they are just different... then it comes down to the simple human need to defend ones position... we have chosen one way because we believe it is the best, so we will argue against those who don't believe the same as us... just look at sports fans, religious groups or nations throughout history. An extreme comparison admittedly, but you get the idea!

 

[MnFish1]

The conventional wisdom is wrong - I said it before, stability is key. Causation does not equal correlation, the nitrates weren't the determining factor, the alkalinity was. You honestly think your're going to get good SPS results with alkalinity swings? If we are talking about hard to keep SPS, stable ALK & CA would be a given.

Again - I have to wonder if you even read what I wrote. I never mentioned that alkalinity swings were meaningless. I said that the conventional wisdom is that if you have exceedingly high nitrates (and I consider 100 exceedingly high) that you have an overfeeding problem or a nutrient export problem. I also said that all of the successful aquarists quoted in the article (written here on reef2reef - parts 1 and 2) were meticulous in testing the standard parameters - nitrates ranged (in these very successful tanks between 5 and 50). The consensus was that of all of the parameters tested nitrate was the least important - and that stability was key. So why are you arguing as if I said the exact opposite.

Who, whoa whoa. You're getting your info from scientific articles? There are a million differences between a lab and our hobbyist environment. I side with paul because I have replicated similar systems and maintained them (Actually more of a lack of maintenance).

If you are trying to imply that scientific articles are not at least a 'starting off' point to determining how chemicals and other methodologies affect our tanks, I think you are in the distinct minority. Just look at the great videos BRS makes comparing (in a semi-controlled manner) different methodologies for reef-keeping. I supose you discount those as well (they also have a couple interesting videos on nitrates).

With all due respect, your "expert" is an idiot. That's a convenient excuse used by someone when they can't possibly fathom that the rest of society moves forward while they stick to their "Old school" ways. I know, I know, I'll get off the lawn.

Except - the methods you're extolling are the 'old school ways'. And what the expert is saying is actually completely true IMHO. There are lots of reasons that various species die and others live in a reef setting - competition for nutrients, toxin release, coral aggression, poor husbandry, etc. His point was that eventually, the organisms that survive in a tank are the ones that have best adapted to the conditions in that particular tank. No more no less. This is why its impossible to generalize whats 'successful' and what is 'not successful' based on looking at a picture of a perfect looking tank - without knowing the other inhabitants that didnt survive in that particular environment.

PS - I honestly don't get where you're coming from. arguing that somehow a nitrate level of >100 is somehow beneficial or a positive or the sign of a well maintained tank is something that you should prove or defend.

 

[Brew12]

and equally we can't keep any aquarium sterile, even if we wanted to.

I keep my fish in a 50/50 bleach mixture to ensure my aquarium is sterile. Never have seen a sign of disease.

 

[Gareth elliott]

I thought the "0 nitrates is good" myth was finally busted? High nutrients aren't the problem for SPS, it's all about stability.

Very high numbers regardless if stable will cause zooxanthelle to be expelled from some corals. The algae produces more energy than the corals need in these instances. And remove the source of the excess glucose, their symbiotic algae. In the wild you see this as bleaching events not linked to temperature, on reefs near runoff.

Similar to over fertilizing terrestrial plants, roots grow too short, and fruits grow too fast.

Often are incapable of handling disease or drought.

Tbh without very heavy chemical filtration,some systems using zeolite, 0 nitrate is pretty hard to achieve.

 

[Dom274]

Again - I have to wonder if you even read what I wrote. I never mentioned that alkalinity swings were meaningless. I said that the conventional wisdom is that if you have exceedingly high nitrates (and I consider 100 exceedingly high) that you have an overfeeding problem or a nutrient export problem. I also said that all of the successful aquarists quoted in the article (written here on reef2reef - parts 1 and 2) were meticulous in testing the standard parameters - nitrates ranged (in these very successful tanks between 5 and 50). The consensus was that of all of the parameters tested nitrate was the least important - and that stability was key. So why are you arguing as if I said the exact opposite.

Because once I get the pitchfork and torch out it's hard to tell my lizard brain no.

If you are trying to imply that scientific articles are not at least a 'starting off' point to determining how chemicals and other methodologies affect our tanks, I think you are in the distinct minority. Just look at the great videos BRS makes comparing (in a semi-controlled manner) different methodologies for reef-keeping. I supose you discount those as well (they also have a couple interesting videos on nitrates).

I'm pretty sure most of us here aren't biology majors, so no, I'm not in a minority. The scientific articles are a good starting point, yes. But you hold to them like they're your bible. Take cars for example, they may look good on paper, but that doesn't mean they will perform well on the road (Not talking about mechanical issues). The very nature of a "system" in general is that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Isolating a small portion of the entire system in a lab tells fractions of the whole story.

PS - I honestly don't get where you're coming from. arguing that somehow a nitrate level of >100 is somehow beneficial or a positive or the sign of a well maintained tank is something that you should prove or defend.

I honestly don't get how you can argue with people who have done exactly what you are claiming can't be done. Must be that selective memory of mine.

 

[Dom274]

Very high numbers regardless if stable will cause zooxanthelle to be expelled from some corals. The algae produces more energy than the corals need in these instances. And remove the source of the excess glucose, their symbiotic algae. Similar to over fertilizing terrestrial plants, roots grow too short, and fruits grow too fast.

In the wild you see this as bleaching events not linked to temperature, on reefs near runoff. Often are incapable of handling disease or drought. Tbh without very heavy chemical filtration,some systems using zeolite, 0 nitrate is pretty hard to achieve.

Nice explanation. I agree that there is a limit of some sort, but I still think people are pulling this number of 100 out of thin air. I'm not out to prove anyone wrong per say - I am trying to make the point that it is detrimental to the hobby to claim that high nitrates are bad when there are many many more users struggling with brown and bleaching SPS due to too low of nitrates and phosphates.

 

[Gareth elliott]

I think this hobby as with any other hobby is full of anecdotal experiences, that make their way to fact, whether true or not.

There really isnt a right or wrong if you achieve the results you want and enjoy doing it.

Paul is going to say here...
Something sarcastic about the hobby not being enjoyable [emoji6]

My anecdotal view on nutrients is, dont let them get high on a lightly stocked tank. High nutrients, no inverts to use them, leads to algae.

 

[Greenstreet.1]

Seriously? Not everyone wants to do corals, let alone SPS. Last time I checked, FOWLR tanks were still a thing and there's a whole forum of Zoa enthusiasts here... Nobody sticks around in this hobby if they are constantly killing everything. Many of us understand the higher needs they have and voluntarily pass.

So keeping sps is not being successful ?

 

[atoll]

Can you send the link to your thank thread.

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/after-36-years-this-is-my-what-i-have-achieved-tank.303330/

And to be honest the only thing you and Paul do the same is the fish your tank is not really a Paul B tank.

Not so, I make my own foods from fresh sea food. I add fish oils, we both use a form of sterilisation Paul with Ozone me with my Oxydators, we both never QT, we both have powerful skimmers, we both grow algae, we both feed quite a lot and regular. We both add live foods, yes Paul more regular than I do. I may have missed a few things out so forgive me it's been a long day

 

[Greenstreet.1]

I thought the "0 nitrates is good" myth was finally busted? High nutrients aren't the problem for SPS, it's all about stability.

Where in that did I say or ask if 0 no3 is good or bad ?

 

[Greenstreet.1]

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/after-36-years-this-is-my-what-i-have-achieved-tank.303330/


Not so, I make my own foods from fresh sea food. I add fish oils, we both use a form of sterilisation Paul with Ozone me with my Oxydators, we both never QT, we both have powerful skimmers, we both grow algae, we both feed quite a lot and regular. We both add live foods, yes Paul more regular than I do. I may have missed a few things out so forgive me it's been a long day

First beautiful tank[emoji1531]
When was the last time you took sand and water from the ocean and put in your tank ? And how often are you doing it ?
Just skim the thread will read it when I get in to see how it’s like Paul’s. But I’m not talking about feeding as I feed basically the same way as you know.
It’s my daughter pic day at dance so I’m trying my best to follow.