What drives acro color outside of lighting?

[SheenaO]

Beauty
What’s your AI schedule? What model AI’s are you using?

2 hydra 52s and 1HD prime puck. AI schedule...like ramping up and down?

 

[SheenaO]

2 hydra 52s and 1 HD prime puck. AI schedule...Like what time they ramp up and down??

 

[Charlie’s Frags]

2 hydra 52s and 1HD prime puck. AI schedule...like ramping up and down?

Settings schedule?
Like this

 

[SheenaO]

 

[driftin]

That might be the most unique light schedule I've ever seen!

 

[Charlie’s Frags]

Cool
Thanks
That’s uhh....an interesting schedule. Very interesting.

Do you supplement with T5’s or just straight hydra 52 HD’s?

And just in case you’re curious why I’m so curious

 

[SheenaO]

Cool
Thanks
That’s uhh....an interesting schedule. Very interesting.

Do you supplement with T5’s or just straight hydra 52 HD’s?

And just in case you’re curious why I’m so curious

I do supplement with 4 t5 super blue bulbs..

 

[Charlie’s Frags]

I do supplement with 4 t5 super blue bulbs..

That’s what I thought

 

[X-37B]

I think many in the hobby forget to realize that the no3 and po4 that we measure is what your export system is not exporting.
I feed heavy, monitor both, and have 14 fish in my 120.
My ideal range for both my systems is:
No3 <5
Po4 < .06
My range is:
No3 5-10
Po4 .02-.1
Within these ranges I have no algae at all, good growth, and color.
If I feed to much pellet food both levels go up.
When levels go up I stop feeding pellets and it comes down.
This works for my systems.

 

[SamMule]

I think many in the hobby forget to realize that the no3 and po4 that we measure is what your export system is not exporting.
I feed heavy, monitor both, and have 14 fish in my 120.
My ideal range for both my systems is:
No3 <5
Po4 < .06
My range is:
No3 5-10
Po4 .02-.1
Within these ranges I have no algae at all, good growth, and color.
If I feed to much pellet food both levels go up.
When levels go up I stop feeding pellets and it comes down.
This works for my systems.

I found a video that does a really great job of describing the theory above. The more I learn, the more this makes sense to me...

 

[Charlie’s Frags]

I think many in the hobby forget to realize that the no3 and po4 that we measure is what your export system is not exporting.
I feed heavy, monitor both, and have 14 fish in my 120.
My ideal range for both my systems is:
No3 <5
Po4 < .06
My range is:
No3 5-10
Po4 .02-.1
Within these ranges I have no algae at all, good growth, and color.
If I feed to much pellet food both levels go up.
When levels go up I stop feeding pellets and it comes down.
This works for my systems.

Those dynamics sound perfect to me but can yield completely different results (acro death) for a hobbyists with less fish and less feeding. Even if their no3/po4 test residuals are higher. The stress issues will be compounded when the hobbyists attempts to lower them even more bc of the preached “ideal” formula. IME Hobbyists are more likely to kill sps lowering no3/po4 than they would just letting them remain higher in the first place.

 

[esse]

Nitrate is not useless to the tank as a whole, but excess mostly is. Macro algae will love it. You can poison dinos and sometimes cyano with higher levels of it. You need no3. You just don't need much of it. Everything needs nitrogen, but not everything can get nitrogen from no3 - this is where ammonia/ammonium come into play.

Throughput - heavy import of foods and heavy export of no3 and po4 is the goal. Lots of availability running through the tank at any given time, but low residual levels.

I came across this paper this morning & I'd be interested to know if there's anything new in there that might affect your thinking on the subject: https://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/68/m068p065.pdf

 

[Charlie’s Frags]

I’ll be the first in line to read any study performed in an actual aquarium environment after 2010.

 

[esse]

I’ll be the first in line to read any study performed in an actual aquarium environment after 2010.

I think this is from dec 2020;

edit: oops I thought it saw dec 2020 when I did the search.

I see now that it actually says published 1990

 

[Charlie’s Frags]

I think this is from dec 2020;

edit: oops I thought it saw dec 2020 when I did the search.

I see now that it actually says published 1990

And with references from 1969,1971, and 1986 etc.

 

[Charlie’s Frags]

I think this is from dec 2020;

edit: oops I thought it saw dec 2020 when I did the search.

I see now that it actually says published 1990

And I wasn’t knocking you or your specific study. Every study I’ve glanced at is either from the 1990s or don’t apply to the average hobbyists conditions

 

[esse]

And I wasn’t knocking you or your specific study. Every study I’ve glanced at is either from the 1990s or don’t apply to the average hobbyists conditions

lol no worries. I was just clarifying why I thought it was relevant to bring it up.

 

[jda]

IIRC there were a few studies with A. Palmatta that peer reviewers dismissed on a few accounts, but one was that they were a stressed species that often expelled zoox (bleached) and did not need a normal amount of N. Most hosts can recycle N for their symbionts to use, which means that healthy corals usually need new N to grow and not just to maintain (not completely, but close enough for this). Corals that bleach need to accumulate the building blocks that they expelled, which can really be hard and why established bleached reefs are so slow to recover but some smaller corals do OK and grow. It has been a while since I have heard anybody speak on this, so my memory is probably not great on the topic. In any case, A. Palmata is probably not a great subject for a captive study since you need permits to keep the threatened or endangered species (not sure what it is anymore).

I don't know what time has to do with much, unless testing equipment has gotten better. It is not like biology or chemistry has changed since most on this board have been reefing. Hubris of man to think that once one becomes more aware that nature/environment somehow changed because of it.

 

[Charlie’s Frags]

IIRC there were a few studies with A. Palmatta that peer reviewers dismissed on a few accounts, but one was that they were a stressed species that often expelled zoox (bleached) and did not need a normal amount of N. Most hosts can recycle N for their symbionts to use, which means that healthy corals usually need new N to grow and not just to maintain (not completely, but close enough for this). Corals that bleach need to accumulate the building blocks that they expelled, which can really be hard and why established bleached reefs are so slow to recover but some smaller corals do OK and grow. It has been a while since I have heard anybody speak on this, so my memory is probably not great on the topic. In any case, A. Palmata is probably not a great subject for a captive study since you need permits to keep the threatened or endangered species (not sure what it is anymore).

I don't know what time has to do with much, unless testing equipment has gotten better. It is not like biology or chemistry has changed since most on this board have been reefing. Hubris of man to think that once one becomes more aware that nature/environment somehow changed because of it.

Youuuuuuu..Don’t think testing equipment has gotten better since 1990?? Since 1979?? Since 1969??? Testing is kinda the most important part of any study

 

[jda]

It is possible, but I have never heard this be an issue for any scientist in most fields - new equipment usually leads to new discoveries, not changing old ones. Nothing digital, except for maybe storage, is more infinite than film or real waves, so in some ways, convenience might have been substituted for pure accuracy, but counting electrons with a probe, grams and scales and most other things were pretty accurate back then. We are not talking about hobby grade stuff here where some of it has gotten more available for a reasonable price - even the tech behind a Hannah or Trident is not recent, just recently affordable.