Randy's Tank and Learn Thread

[rishma]

My wife worries about the clowns in so much light, but I tried to explain that the tropic sun at 3 feet down is likely significantly higher. :)

They’re just working on their tan. That’s why they’re so orange.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

They’re just working on their tan. That’s why they’re so orange.

Exactly. They were Wyoming Whites before I turned up the light! lol

 

[fandaga]

Magnifica Update

Recall that I had been having significant issues getting my magnifica to settle down and not keep moving, and a few times it released entirely and ended upside down on the sand.

On Feb 7 (about 3 weeks ago), I added a spotlight on it in case it wanted more light. I added a
32 w led grow spot light (4,000 k, cri 95) that I use on my refugium and put it directly over the anemone island. It was a big lighting boost, and I measured the par today. It was in the 300 range before the spot light, and just over 1,000 with the spot light. Big increase.

Since that time, the anemone has largely stopped moving around, and is perched at the island top, often stretching further toward the light. It has also become much more yellow (even when lit by my normal lights), perhaps due to more zoox or other light pigments it uses. Not as attractive, but health is the goal.

It's too soon to declare total success (I'll wait another month for that), but assuming this trend holds, it might be due to:

1. It wanted very high light
2. It healed a foot issue or internal issue of some sort.
3. Something changed in the tank water that it now likes (no idea what that could be, however).
4. Its purely coincidence and bad things are to come.

Obviously, I'm hoping its not possibility #4. lol

Eventually, I may back off the light and possibly change to a higher kelvin spot light, if I can find one that fits. I'd prefer something in the 6,000 to 8,000 k range. I actually don't mind the yellow look, however. It looks like a sunny day to me.

This picture shows a side view with it stretching toward the spot light:

Tank shot showing how the spot light highlights it:

Two pictures of the color without the spot light. Note the mottling/speckling in the tentacles in the second picture. Not sure what that is, but I have read that it may be nonuniform zoox populations.

So cool! Any idea what level of PAR it receives in the wild?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

So cool! Any idea what level of PAR it receives in the wild?

They are known to live from 1 m to the 20-40 m range, and in the range, the peak par would be from higher than what I have to lower. I’ve also read they can even be exposed at low tides. I don’t know where this one came from, except I’d guess that I doubt it came from the deep end of that range. A paper I read on their depth distribution said the survey teamcould not go as deep as they saw some below them.

 

[Rocks reef]

Magnifica Update

Recall that I had been having significant issues getting my magnifica to settle down and not keep moving, and a few times it released entirely and ended upside down on the sand.

On Feb 7 (about 3 weeks ago), I added a spotlight on it in case it wanted more light. I added a
32 w led grow spot light (4,000 k, cri 95) that I use on my refugium and put it directly over the anemone island. It was a big lighting boost, and I measured the par today. It was in the 300 range before the spot light, and just over 1,000 with the spot light. Big increase.

Since that time, the anemone has largely stopped moving around, and is perched at the island top, often stretching further toward the light. It has also become much more yellow (even when lit by my normal lights), perhaps due to more zoox or other light pigments it uses. Not as attractive, but health is the goal.

It's too soon to declare total success (I'll wait another month for that), but assuming this trend holds, it might be due to:

1. It wanted very high light
2. It healed a foot issue or internal issue of some sort.
3. Something changed in the tank water that it now likes (no idea what that could be, however).
4. Its purely coincidence and bad things are to come.

Obviously, I'm hoping its not possibility #4. lol

Eventually, I may back off the light and possibly change to a higher kelvin spot light, if I can find one that fits. I'd prefer something in the 6,000 to 8,000 k range. I actually don't mind the yellow look, however. It looks like a sunny day to me.

This picture shows a side view with it stretching toward the spot light:

Tank shot showing how the spot light highlights it:

Two pictures of the color without the spot light. Note the mottling/speckling in the tentacles in the second picture. Not sure what that is, but I have read that it may be nonuniform zoox populations.

Your Mag looks great! Plump and healthy

 

[Rocks reef]

My wife worries about the clowns in so much light, but I tried to explain that the tropic sun at 3 feet down is likely significantly higher. :)

You get them tiny sunglasses Randy!

 

[Rocks reef]

They are known to live from 1 m to the 20-40 m range, and in the range, the peak par would be from higher than what I have to lower. I’ve also read they can even be exposed at low tides. I don’t know where this one came from, except I’d guess that I doubt it came from the deep end of that range. A paper I read on their depth distribution said the survey teamcould not go as deep as they saw some below them.

Most animals are collected by divers on one breath, so I'd assume yours didn't come from more than 4-5 meters.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Chemistry Update

Nothing particularly notable, but I’m reporting it for completeness.

Nitrate 11 ppm (no change to ammonia dosing)

Salinity 34.6 ppt (sg = 1.0261) no change to AWC; made a new batch new salt water and added molybdste and nickel as I did last time)

Temp 78.5 deg F. Back to normal after the raising during the blizzard)

pH 8.1 at 12:40 pm

Alk 9.3 dKH. Rising a bit, but ok and hard corals and coralline are doing very well. Not going to reduce the AFR yet.

Phosphate 0.48 ppm. Continues to rise. I’m reluctant to use GFO or lanthanum, but I may get an external canister filter to better run GAC and do some mechanical particle removal.

I cleaned the skimmer neck. Photos below of the neck after a finger swipe, and a handful of the mud from it.

Made a new 1.5 L batch of AFR and 1.1 L of 0.1 N sulfuric acid for alk titrations from the 2.0 N acid I have on hand,

 

[rishma]

I’m surprised your phosphate climbs like that since you’re growing macroalgae.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I think some folks have noted that TDO chromoboost seems to boost phosphate. It may be higher in P than some other foods.

 

[rishma]

I think some folks have noted that TDO chromoboost seems to boost phosphate. It may be higher in P than some other foods.

I observed the same thing when I was using TDO.

 

[TeeJay87]

I think some folks have noted that TDO chromoboost seems to boost phosphate. It may be higher in P than some other foods.

Benepets is a high quality food and they make pellets now with virtually the same formulation as their popular powder feed.

BenePellet Reef 3mm 38g

Based on the BeneReef microbiomic formula which provides a blend of patent-pending prebiotics and probiotics, beneficial bacterias, proteins, and superfoods to maximize consumption and absorption. It was scientifically formulated for easy uptake by SPS and LPS corals, anemones, crustaceans...

benepets.co

The anecdotes I’ve heard is that it is low in PO4, or the NO3:PO4 ratio is higher than other foods. For example, “I used Reef Roids if PO4 is low and Benepets if NO3 is low.” Benepets seems to back up these anecdotes; a Q&A on their site:

Q: “Why is Benereef better at not creating phosphate pollution in saltwater tanks?”

A: “Phosphate cycle: Benereef has been engineered with the perfect balance of phosphates which are an essential nutrient in any system. As food and nutrients are consumed and excreted during the phosphate cycle it will release orthophosphates into the water and if those orthophosphates are not used you’ll get algae blooms. Bacteria are scavengers and they seek out and capture those phosphates and store it and when the coral eats and consumes those bacteria you move those phosphates from the bacteria to the coral.”

Science Behind Benepets

benepets.co

I’m not sure their answer really answers the question, but I think it backs up the idea that the food is likely conservative in PO4. The food does contain bacteria so that might be what they are getting at.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Benepets is a high quality food and they make pellets now with virtually the same formulation as their popular powder feed.

BenePellet Reef 3mm 38g

Based on the BeneReef microbiomic formula which provides a blend of patent-pending prebiotics and probiotics, beneficial bacterias, proteins, and superfoods to maximize consumption and absorption. It was scientifically formulated for easy uptake by SPS and LPS corals, anemones, crustaceans...

benepets.co

The anecdotes I’ve heard is that it is low in PO4, or the NO3:PO4 ratio is higher than other foods. For example, “I used Reef Roids if PO4 is low and Benepets if NO3 is low.” Benepets seems to back up these anecdotes; a Q&A on their site:

Q: “Why is Benereef better at not creating phosphate pollution in saltwater tanks?”

A: “Phosphate cycle: Benereef has been engineered with the perfect balance of phosphates which are an essential nutrient in any system. As food and nutrients are consumed and excreted during the phosphate cycle it will release orthophosphates into the water and if those orthophosphates are not used you’ll get algae blooms. Bacteria are scavengers and they seek out and capture those phosphates and store it and when the coral eats and consumes those bacteria you move those phosphates from the bacteria to the coral.”

Science Behind Benepets

benepets.co

I’m not sure their answer really answers the question, but I think it backs up the idea that the food is likely conservative in PO4. The food does contain bacteria so that might be what they are getting at.

Thanks. :)

I’ve read some of the Benepets claims, and it’s somewhat confusing. I don’t doubt it’s a low P food, but I also know it is very hard for people who need low phosphate foods due to kidney issues to get a complete diet using foods folks want to eat. So I’m not really convinced that they do so for fish when a potentially massive market for people cannot do it.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I observed the same thing when I was using TDO.

I use it to ensure good coloration of my clowns. In my old tank I found diet made a big difference, and used Arctipods to color them up. But that’s an expensive way to go and the TDO is logistically easier for me. :)

 

[TeeJay87]

In regards to your climbing PO4, something occurred to me recently that you are likely aware of, but I think it’s worth stating. If the NO3/PO4 ratio at which you input food into the system is consumed by organisms in your system in exactly the same NO3/PO4 ratio (on average), then your NO3/PO4 ratio will be consistent. However, if you do water changes, then it is a fact that your NO3/PO4 ratio will be thrown off balance in favor of climbing PO4. This is a result of the fact that PO4 gets bound in rock and sand, so water changes remove a higher percentage of system NO3 vs system PO4. And as you know, PO4 will leech out of the rock/sand after the water change until the water and rock are in equilibrium. The more rock and sand you have, the greater the imbalance of climbing PO4 per water change.

Possible ways to combat this in order of my personal preference:
1a. Add NO3/Ammonia and increase light intensity/hours of a refugium.
1b. Add NO3/Ammonia and increase light intensity/hours of display lights.
2. Lanthanum in skimmer (monitor lanthanum levels with ICPs).
3. Add NO3 and carbon dose. I did this but am almost completely off it because I believe feeding bacteria too much hurts CO2 and pH levels; and also return pump, skimmer and wavemakers all need more frequent cleaning due to getting gummed up with bacterial film.
4. GFO or similar removers. Works well but major con for me is the trace element sink.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

In regards to your climbing PO4, something occurred to me recently that you are likely aware of, but I think it’s worth stating. If the NO3/PO4 ratio at which you input food into the system is consumed by organisms in your system in exactly the same NO3/PO4 ratio (on average), then your NO3/PO4 ratio will be consistent. However, if you do water changes, then it is a fact that your NO3/PO4 ratio will be thrown off balance in favor of climbing PO4. This is a result of the fact that PO4 gets bound in rock and sand, so water changes remove a higher percentage of system NO3 vs system PO4. And as you know, PO4 will leech out of the rock/sand after the water change until the water and rock are in equilibrium. The more rock and sand you have, the greater the imbalance of climbing PO4 per water change.

Possible ways to combat this in order of my personal preference:
1a. Add NO3/Ammonia and increase light intensity/hours of a refugium.
1b. Add NO3/Ammonia and increase light intensity/hours of display lights.
2. Lanthanum in skimmer (monitor lanthanum levels with ICPs).
3. Add NO3 and carbon dose. I did this but am almost completely off it because I believe feeding bacteria too much hurts CO2 and pH levels; and also return pump, skimmer and wavemakers all need more frequent cleaning due to getting gummed up with bacterial film.
4. GFO or similar removers. Works well but major con for me is the trace element sink.

I’m not sure I see that being the case if one starts the tank with rock that is clean of bound phosphate. I do agree with your solutions, and I’ve been trying to use 1a, though I have not recently increased the light time. I may do that. Thank you for the reminder.

I do agree that binding to rock and sand throws off the amounts exported by water change, but I think the overall effect is in the other direction since one has to consided the binding to begin with.

Let’s take a hypothetical example.

Add 100 ppm nitrate and 1 ppm phosphate.

A water change removes them in the ratio present and does not change the ratio remaining in the water.

But say half of that phosphate binds to rock and sand, leaving 100 ppm nitrate and 0.5 ppm phosphate.

Then do a 50% water change.

That leaves 50 ppm nitrate and 0.25 ppm phosphate.

Some of the previously bound phosphate will be released to bring the value to something higher than 0.25 ppm but less than 0.5 ppm. Let’s say it is 0.4 ppm.

Thus, the combination of some binding, a water change, and then some desorption brings us to 50 ppm nitrate and 0.4 ppm phosphate.

That entires process has raised the N/P ratio, not lowered it. :)

 

[TeeJay87]

I’m not sure I see that being the case if one starts the tank with rock that is clean of bound phosphate. I do agree with your solutions, and I’ve been trying to use 1a, though I have not recently increased the light time. I may do that. Thank you for the reminder.

I do agree that binding to rock and sand throws off the amounts exported by water change, but I think the overall effect is in the other direction since one has to consided the binding to begin with.

Let’s take a hypothetical example.

Add 100 ppm nitrate and 1 ppm phosphate.

A water change removes them in the ratio present and does not change the ratio remaining in the water.

But say half of that phosphate binds to rock and sand, leaving 100 ppm nitrate and 0.5 ppm phosphate.

Then do a 50% water change.

That leaves 50 ppm nitrate and 0.25 ppm phosphate.

Some of the previously bound phosphate will be released to bring the value to something higher than 0.25 ppm but less than 0.5 ppm. Let’s say it is 0.4 ppm.

Thus, the combination of some binding, a water change, and then some desorption brings us to 50 ppm nitrate and 0.4 ppm phosphate.

That entires process has raised the N/P ratio, not lowered it. :)

I think you are mixing up ratios here because you use the system level ratio pre water change and the water level ratio post water change. We can use system or water ratios pre and post water change. System NO3:PO4 is 100:1 pre water change and 50:0.8 or 100:1.6 post water change. Water NO3:PO4 are 200:1 ratio pre water change and 125:1 or 200:1.6 post water change. The result at either level is climbing PO4. And every iteration of this process will trend toward climbing PO4 whether you look at the system or the water.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

We are looking at different things. You are just looking at the water change aspect, while I am looking at the whole process that involves the original binding part too.

 

[TeeJay87]

You made a NO3:PO4 ratio comparison of the system pre water change but only the water column post water change. Feels like apples and oranges to me, but the trend still holds even if you do it this way. With each iteration you will trend towards climbing PO4.

 

[rishma]

I have found that the phosphate management strategy in my current tank dictated the foods that I feed. It was quite an endeavor to dial it in but I ultimately landed on a slightly phosphate-deficient food mix and then supplementing by dosing phosphate. As corals have grown and consumption has increased my phosphate dosing has also steadily increased. I’ve considered changing the food mix to include more phosphate and dialing back dosing but I haven’t gotten motivated to disrupt a stable system.

Adding phosphate is much much easier than reducing it. That’s a main takeaway from my current tank. It’s a different approach than I used previously.

All that said, i was worrying too much about phosphate when I started down this road and much of the effort was probably unnecessary. I did learn a lot.