What should i do about 0.0 nitrate/phosphate

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rooles
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None
I see that you have a pellet feeder on the tank, and very little coral load. Personally I wouldn't be concerned with the 0-0 reading, although its not mentioned what type of test kit you use, some test kits provide a range ,not a number. Its not mentioned how often you food, but me personally I feed 3-4 times per day.
I am using salifert. I am doing the more accurate method for nitrate. I have not tried doing the more qccurate method for phosphate, the test vial in both cases appears completely clear with no sign of tint.

I am currently feeding twice a day. Im going to increase that to 3 times a day and see how that goes for a couple of weeks
 
For a quick bump I just use Neo-nitro and neo phos.
Increase feeding takes time to ramp up so good as a longer term solution.
 
To the best of my ability in performing the tests yes. I went from showing a small amoubt of phosphate and a fair amount of nitrate to nothing at all
Phosphate is very hard to put a number on as the colour change is at least for me, hard to see.

I use the Hanna for that test.

If your sure, bump them.
 
Phosphate is very hard to put a number on as the colour change is at least for me, hard to see.

I use the Hanna for that test.

If your sure, bump them.
Im going to have to run the morr accurate test on phosphate. But to what i can see the vial is completely clear with no tint of blue.

I was able to previously discern the lowest possible testing value before it went to 0.0
 
Many people have heard that reducing nutrients to "zero" (nitrate, phosphate, etc as measured by hobby test kits) is not good for coral growth. The answer is, it depends. "Zero" is not really zero of course; hobby test kits don't need to test super low levels like lab tests do. In other words, there is always a level of nutrients there, even if you have "all zeros".

First thing to know is that natural reefs always test "zero" for nutrients with hobby test kits. Yet, they have very high growth rates; acro's can grow two feet in one year. But yes, some hobbyists do see less growth with zero nutrients. Why is this, and what is different with tanks compared to natural reefs?

One answer is food particles. The enormous amount of visible food particles (and invisible dissolved particles) in natural reefs is so high that at night some divers can't see their own hands. And the enormous level of photosynthesis on reefs consumes most of the resulting nutrients. But hobbyists can't have this level of food particles because of nutrient build up, so they reduce feeding, to as little as 1/1000 of natural reef levels. Thus, corals can starve from lack of food particles.

So one bandaid to help with this is to keep tank nutrients above "zero". This feeds bacteria around the corals, and the bacteria then become coral food. Softies take it in directly, by inflating with water, and polyps eat the microbes and pods that eat the bacteria.

This works but is self-limiting, because in most cases higher levels of phosphate is going to slow the coral growth, and also because bacteria are hard for polyps to grab. So the trick is to keep food particle levels up high, and keep nutrients down low, at the same time. In other words, try to duplicate natural reefs.

Also, some people say they get some brown dust algae (usually dino's) when nutrients go to zero. However this is temporary, because of phosphate leaving the sand and rocks. After a few weeks, this will go away.
 
This works but is self-limiting, because in most cases higher levels of phosphate is going to slow the coral growth,

I don't think that concern is significant for most hobbyists unless you are in some sort of growth competition or are a coral farmer. Richard Ross noted that the one study that folks rely on to make such predictions only saw an 8% decline.
 
Many people have heard that reducing nutrients to "zero" (nitrate, phosphate, etc as measured by hobby test kits) is not good for coral growth. The answer is, it depends. "Zero" is not really zero of course; hobby test kits don't need to test super low levels like lab tests do. In other words, there is always a level of nutrients there, even if you have "all zeros".

First thing to know is that natural reefs always test "zero" for nutrients with hobby test kits. Yet, they have very high growth rates; acro's can grow two feet in one year. But yes, some hobbyists do see less growth with zero nutrients. Why is this, and what is different with tanks compared to natural reefs?

One answer is food particles. The enormous amount of visible food particles (and invisible dissolved particles) in natural reefs is so high that at night some divers can't see their own hands. And the enormous level of photosynthesis on reefs consumes most of the resulting nutrients. But hobbyists can't have this level of food particles because of nutrient build up, so they reduce feeding, to as little as 1/1000 of natural reef levels. Thus, corals can starve from lack of food particles.

So one bandaid to help with this is to keep tank nutrients above "zero". This feeds bacteria around the corals, and the bacteria then become coral food. Softies take it in directly, by inflating with water, and polyps eat the microbes and pods that eat the bacteria.

This works but is self-limiting, because in most cases higher levels of phosphate is going to slow the coral growth, and also because bacteria are hard for polyps to grab. So the trick is to keep food particle levels up high, and keep nutrients down low, at the same time. In other words, try to duplicate natural reefs.

Also, some people say they get some brown dust algae (usually dino's) when nutrients go to zero. However this is temporary, because of phosphate leaving the sand and rocks. After a few weeks, this will go away.
Any good articles that talk about methods for doing this? (High food source in water column with low tank pollution).
 
Many people have heard that reducing nutrients to "zero" (nitrate, phosphate, etc as measured by hobby test kits) is not good for coral growth. The answer is, it depends. "Zero" is not really zero of course; hobby test kits don't need to test super low levels like lab tests do. In other words, there is always a level of nutrients there, even if you have "all zeros".

First thing to know is that natural reefs always test "zero" for nutrients with hobby test kits. Yet, they have very high growth rates; acro's can grow two feet in one year. But yes, some hobbyists do see less growth with zero nutrients. Why is this, and what is different with tanks compared to natural reefs?

One answer is food particles. The enormous amount of visible food particles (and invisible dissolved particles) in natural reefs is so high that at night some divers can't see their own hands. And the enormous level of photosynthesis on reefs consumes most of the resulting nutrients. But hobbyists can't have this level of food particles because of nutrient build up, so they reduce feeding, to as little as 1/1000 of natural reef levels. Thus, corals can starve from lack of food particles.

So one bandaid to help with this is to keep tank nutrients above "zero". This feeds bacteria around the corals, and the bacteria then become coral food. Softies take it in directly, by inflating with water, and polyps eat the microbes and pods that eat the bacteria.

This works but is self-limiting, because in most cases higher levels of phosphate is going to slow the coral growth, and also because bacteria are hard for polyps to grab. So the trick is to keep food particle levels up high, and keep nutrients down low, at the same time. In other words, try to duplicate natural reefs.

Also, some people say they get some brown dust algae (usually dino's) when nutrients go to zero. However this is temporary, because of phosphate leaving the sand and rocks. After a few weeks, this will go away.
Very good and very closely describes my reefing philosophy. I think I do a pretty good job of both feeding corals and maintaining near reef nutrient levels.
 
I don't think that concern is significant for most hobbyists unless you are in some sort of growth competition or are a coral farmer. Richard Ross noted that the one study that folks rely on to make such predictions only saw an 8% decline.
I agree and sort of disagree if I think about the “unknown, unknowns” …if corals are not growing at a maximum rate, I wonder if they are not as healthy as they could be. This maybe leads to coral issues that include: rtn, stn, BJD, coral predators, and mysterious losses?
 
I agree and sort of disagree if I think about the “unknown, unknowns” …if corals are not growing at a maximum rate, I wonder if they are not as healthy as they could be. This maybe leads to coral issues that include: rtn, stn, BJD, coral predators, and mysterious losses?

Maybe. But would you say that pH 8.2 is not good because corals grow faster at 8.4? Or that 7 dKH is not good because corals grow faster at 10 dKH?

I'm not sure growth rate is always a good predictor of "health" and susceptibility to disease.
 
Maybe. But would you say that pH 8.2 is not good because corals grow faster at 8.4? Or that 7 dKH is not good because corals grow faster at 10 dKH?

I'm not sure growth rate is always a good predictor of "health" and susceptibility to disease.
Yes unknown, unknowns…density of the coral vs measurable length? In the ocean density seems very important and less so in a glass box. Agreed that “extra” growth might not be a good predictor.
 
Any good articles that talk about methods for doing this? (High food source in water column with low tank pollution).
I think that Dynamic Aquaria by Walter Adey is the best starting point
 
Will do! Currently im running filter floss as my only means of mechanical filtration. I also have seachem matrix and purigen in filter chambers.

Im doing 5 gallon water changes weekly. Should i go biweekly or go with a smaller amount of water weekly?

Those are organic binding materials. They are unlikely to be having a big impact on nitrate and phosphate.

Water changes will reduce nutrients, but for phosphate, the effect is not that great, with even a 100% water change often leaving close to (but less than) the amount due to its release from rock and sand.
 
Those are organic binding materials. They are unlikely to be having a big impact on nitrate and phosphate.

Water changes will reduce nutrients, but for phosphate, the effect is not that great, with even a 100% water change often leaving close to (but less than) the amount due to its release from rock and sand.
So would you recomend continuing my current 5 gallon weekly changes but increasing feeding, or lower to 3 gallons weekly while also feeding more?
 
So would you recomend continuing my current 5 gallon weekly changes but increasing feeding, or lower to 3 gallons weekly while also feeding more?

I'd just feed more.
 

TOP 10 Trending Threads

Back
Top
Home
Post thread…
Market
What's new