Coloring up SPS
- Thread starter jackson6745
- Start date
- Location
- Westbury L.i
great thread on sps......im still learning though.......now lets say p04 isbarely detectable on a liquid test kit......how about nitrates and how do they affect sps coloration?
- Location
- Staten Island
I am pretty much new to acros but 8 months under pc's with close to no nitrate conditions from frags.. Has my acros doing well at the top of the tank.. 180 show, 125 sump.. Close to 30 fish... With a natureef denitrifier that introduces alk. as a biproduct of the end process of the cycle... Probably methanol that is used to cycle nitrates..but only a pinch and that I think kills much of paracites that should be in my system, Only because I have never used a QT tank and I have been doing this for close to 13 years...But still only credit myself as a NEWBIE...
fluidimagery
There's more to life...
- Location
- Riverhead, NY
I'm having some issues with some SPS now. I've been noticing a few of my corals aren't quite as bright as they used to be. Green Stag, colony of pocillipora, some type of acro. Meanwhile other pieces seem to be looking good and growing pretty fast (Millipora, a different type of acro, montis)
I just did a ALK / Calc test for the first time in about 2 months. Alk was at 10.4 and Calc was at 400, MG was at 1380. I have an aquamedic 2 part doser for the calc and alk which doses evenly. I just turned the alk down a bit and the calc up. Normally my alk is around 9 and calc at 460. MG I ran out of and need to pick some more up. I use Tropic Marin which I hear is naturally low in MG.
Anyway, what I'm getting at is if you think the Calc being low and alk being a bit high is causing the loss of color. I also have a few more fish in the tank but my PO4 has been around the same .1 it's always been (Hanna Meter) Nitrate is indetecable with my Salifert kit (but I hear that's pretty much a worthless test kit) Bulbs are only about 6 months old (2 x 175 12k SE MH)
I just did a ALK / Calc test for the first time in about 2 months. Alk was at 10.4 and Calc was at 400, MG was at 1380. I have an aquamedic 2 part doser for the calc and alk which doses evenly. I just turned the alk down a bit and the calc up. Normally my alk is around 9 and calc at 460. MG I ran out of and need to pick some more up. I use Tropic Marin which I hear is naturally low in MG.
Anyway, what I'm getting at is if you think the Calc being low and alk being a bit high is causing the loss of color. I also have a few more fish in the tank but my PO4 has been around the same .1 it's always been (Hanna Meter) Nitrate is indetecable with my Salifert kit (but I hear that's pretty much a worthless test kit) Bulbs are only about 6 months old (2 x 175 12k SE MH)
- Location
- Beechurst NY
nice thread...
- Location
- Staten Island
http://www.ultimatereef.com/TOTM/2007_may/ so i came across this guys website when doing some research and noticed something that i never heard of before... if you check it out.. under number 7 on his list, listed next to additives and i quote "I use a 50/50 mix of vodka/white vinegar to control my nitrates if and when needed." i would say this guy has decent knowledge on what he is talking about.. is this possible?
Ah-yep . . .
The vodka-vinegar theory is too feed the bacteria that eat nitrate and thereby increase the overall number of nitrate eating bacteria, but the problem is you introduce unwanted bi-products in the process so constant dosing is believed to be deleterious. That other board, which shall remain nameless, has extensive discussions on the topic in the chemistry forum. Also, some folks have suggested that systems like the Zeovit system are in fact using an additive like "vodka-and-vinegar" in their regimen, and if my nose is to be trusted I would say that might infact be true because the Zeovit Ultra-Bak has a definite "vodka-vinegar" smell :shocked:
Joe
The vodka-vinegar theory is too feed the bacteria that eat nitrate and thereby increase the overall number of nitrate eating bacteria, but the problem is you introduce unwanted bi-products in the process so constant dosing is believed to be deleterious. That other board, which shall remain nameless, has extensive discussions on the topic in the chemistry forum. Also, some folks have suggested that systems like the Zeovit system are in fact using an additive like "vodka-and-vinegar" in their regimen, and if my nose is to be trusted I would say that might infact be true because the Zeovit Ultra-Bak has a definite "vodka-vinegar" smell :shocked:
Joe
Last edited:
First off your alk and calc are within "normal" parameters and are not having any effect on your corals. Secondly if you can measure PO4 you have too much by far for keeping colorful acros. Tell us some more about your system. Do you have a sand bed? What's your bio load? How about some pics? Anyways, just tryin' to help :division:
Joe
Great thread.
After reading through the whole thread i will add my 2 cents.I first agree with House Of Laughter,when he said back in the begining to "Feed Your Fish".I am still a newb to reefkeeping 8yrs,but have been keeping SPS from the very begining I had a 180g BB mostly sps reef with a huge fish load (22 fish),& i liked to keep them happy.My SPS were colorful but not "bursting" with color my PO4 stayed at .04 Hanna meeter.
On the other hand i was big on two SPS feeding suplements DY's oyster eggs,& phyto.My husbantry was very good with weekly 40g waterchanges.
With that being said i did notice the mention of saltmixes in here ever so slightly,which takes me to my objective.I was anal about my salt mixes,for some reason.Itried them all for a period of 4 month each.When i say ALL i mean ALL even that ZEO salt crap.I got the best colors by mixing 50/50 Reefcrystals,& Oceanic.
So IMO i would say that the best key to color in your stonies is great nutrient import,& better nutrient export (wet skimmimg)And a good balance of salt mixes that gets parameters as on spot as possible,& keeps the "snake oils" out of the enviorment.I to sold my calcium reactor to advance my PH,& have it stable,at 8.3 nite 8.1 -8.2 during the day.(Pinpoint)Growth was much faster,& the CA hovered around 430 with no additive,& weekly WC's.
With all that,my colors were very nice,& positivly had no browns.The Rose Millipora in my avtar was in my 180.I just got setteled down in my new place,& will be setting up a new tank after the Christmas tree comes down.
Happy Reefing everybody,& Merry Christmas.
After reading through the whole thread i will add my 2 cents.I first agree with House Of Laughter,when he said back in the begining to "Feed Your Fish".I am still a newb to reefkeeping 8yrs,but have been keeping SPS from the very begining I had a 180g BB mostly sps reef with a huge fish load (22 fish),& i liked to keep them happy.My SPS were colorful but not "bursting" with color my PO4 stayed at .04 Hanna meeter.
On the other hand i was big on two SPS feeding suplements DY's oyster eggs,& phyto.My husbantry was very good with weekly 40g waterchanges.
With that being said i did notice the mention of saltmixes in here ever so slightly,which takes me to my objective.I was anal about my salt mixes,for some reason.Itried them all for a period of 4 month each.When i say ALL i mean ALL even that ZEO salt crap.I got the best colors by mixing 50/50 Reefcrystals,& Oceanic.
So IMO i would say that the best key to color in your stonies is great nutrient import,& better nutrient export (wet skimmimg)And a good balance of salt mixes that gets parameters as on spot as possible,& keeps the "snake oils" out of the enviorment.I to sold my calcium reactor to advance my PH,& have it stable,at 8.3 nite 8.1 -8.2 during the day.(Pinpoint)Growth was much faster,& the CA hovered around 430 with no additive,& weekly WC's.
With all that,my colors were very nice,& positivly had no browns.The Rose Millipora in my avtar was in my 180.I just got setteled down in my new place,& will be setting up a new tank after the Christmas tree comes down.
Happy Reefing everybody,& Merry Christmas.
There are many different combinations of equipment and husbandry to lead to the final achievable goal of colorful and rapidly growing SPS.
To sum up success in two words IMO: Phosphate control.
Inorganic phosphate inhibits calcification. Stop calcification and you decrease/stop growth which decreases color.
How you decrease phosphate really doesn't matter, i.e. skimming, water changes, phosphate absorption, etc; as long as you come close to the magic level (Redfield ratio) found in nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redfield_ratio
To sum up success in two words IMO: Phosphate control.
Inorganic phosphate inhibits calcification. Stop calcification and you decrease/stop growth which decreases color.
How you decrease phosphate really doesn't matter, i.e. skimming, water changes, phosphate absorption, etc; as long as you come close to the magic level (Redfield ratio) found in nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redfield_ratio
Last edited:
MARINE BIOGEOCHEMISTRY: ON REDFIELD RATIOS
The following points are made by P.G. Falkowski and C.S. Davis (Nature 2004 431:131):
1) An interesting empirical observation in biology is the relationship between the elemental composition of organisms and ecosystems. All organisms are composed primarily of a mixture of six major elements: hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulphur. But the proportion of these basic ingredients varies between organisms -- and such variations can lead to interesting properties within ecosystems.
2) For example, in the oceans most of the biomass comprises small drifting organisms (plankton) that are rich in nitrogen. These organisms are essentially functionally similar ensembles of metabolites, often encased in a shell formed from the most readily available ingredients. Much plankton is consumed by other plankton with similar chemical compositions. The result is that on average, the nitrogen: phosphorus (N
) ratios of plankton in the oceans are remarkably similar throughout the world, averaging approximately 16:1 by atoms. When these organisms or their body parts sink into the ocean interior, their energy-rich bodies are consumed by bacteria which, in aerobic conditions, oxidize the organic matter to form dissolved inorganic nutrients, especially CO2, NO3(-) and PO4(3-).
3) In 1934, Alfred Redfield (1890-1983) wrote a now classic paper in which he proposed that the N ratio of plankton (16:1) causes the ocean to have a remarkably similar ratio of dissolved NO3(-) and PO4(3-). This hypothesis suggested that, devoid of life, the chemical composition of the oceans would be markedly different. The concept of Redfield ratios has been fundamental to our understanding of the biogeochemistry of the oceans ever since.
4) The basic problem with Redfield ratios is that they are empirical. The ratios were originally derived from measurements of the elemental composition of plankton, and the NO3(-) and PO4(3-) content of seawater from a few stations in the Atlantic, but were subsequently supported by hundreds of independent measurements. Yet there is no known reason why the average N ratio of plankton should be 16:1. Why not 6:1? Or 60:1? If one looks at the elemental composition of individual species of phytoplankton grown under nitrogen or phosphorus limitation, the N ratio can vary from around 6:1 to 60:1. Redfield understood this problem, but did not try explain it, except to note that the N ratio of inorganic nutrients in the ocean interior was an average, and that small-scale variability around the mean was to be expected.
5) Despite many reports that the elemental composition of organisms in a region of the ocean does not conform to Redfield ratios, or that the elemental composition of marine phytoplankton grown in cultures is not 16:1, Redfield's fundamental concept remains valid. It cannot be rationalized by reductionist arguments, nor refuted by anecdotal observations. The fact that the NO(3-)O4(3-) ratio in the interior of all major ocean basins is remarkably similar to the N ratio of plankton is due to the residence times of these two elements in the ocean (roughly 10^(4) years), relative to the ocean's circulation time (roughly 10^(3) years). As the residence times exceed the mixing times by an order of magnitude, it should not be surprising that the NO(3-)O4(3-) ratios in the ocean interior are remarkably constant.
6) The specific elemental composition that is the Redfield ratio is truly an "emergent" property that reflects the interaction of multiple processes, including the acquisition of the elements by plankton, the formation of new biomass and the remineralization of the biomass by bacteria in the ocean interior, as well as losses of nutrients from the ocean because of burial in the sediments (for example, phosphorus in apatite), or outgassing to the atmosphere (for example, production and loss of N2, due to denitrification).(1-4)
References:
1. Falkowski, P. G. et al. Science 305, 354-360 (2004)
2. Hedin, L. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 30, 10849-10850 (2004)
3. Redfield, A. C. in James Johnstone Memorial Volume (ed. Daniel, R. J.) 176-192. (Liverpool Univ. Press, 1934)
4. Sterner, R. W. & Elser, J. J. Ecological Stoichiometry: The Biology of the Elements from Molecules to the Biosphere (Princeton Univ. Press, 2002)
Nature http://www.nature.com/nature
The following points are made by P.G. Falkowski and C.S. Davis (Nature 2004 431:131):
1) An interesting empirical observation in biology is the relationship between the elemental composition of organisms and ecosystems. All organisms are composed primarily of a mixture of six major elements: hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulphur. But the proportion of these basic ingredients varies between organisms -- and such variations can lead to interesting properties within ecosystems.
2) For example, in the oceans most of the biomass comprises small drifting organisms (plankton) that are rich in nitrogen. These organisms are essentially functionally similar ensembles of metabolites, often encased in a shell formed from the most readily available ingredients. Much plankton is consumed by other plankton with similar chemical compositions. The result is that on average, the nitrogen: phosphorus (N
) ratios of plankton in the oceans are remarkably similar throughout the world, averaging approximately 16:1 by atoms. When these organisms or their body parts sink into the ocean interior, their energy-rich bodies are consumed by bacteria which, in aerobic conditions, oxidize the organic matter to form dissolved inorganic nutrients, especially CO2, NO3(-) and PO4(3-).3) In 1934, Alfred Redfield (1890-1983) wrote a now classic paper in which he proposed that the N
ratio of plankton (16:1) causes the ocean to have a remarkably similar ratio of dissolved NO3(-) and PO4(3-). This hypothesis suggested that, devoid of life, the chemical composition of the oceans would be markedly different. The concept of Redfield ratios has been fundamental to our understanding of the biogeochemistry of the oceans ever since.4) The basic problem with Redfield ratios is that they are empirical. The ratios were originally derived from measurements of the elemental composition of plankton, and the NO3(-) and PO4(3-) content of seawater from a few stations in the Atlantic, but were subsequently supported by hundreds of independent measurements. Yet there is no known reason why the average N
ratio of plankton should be 16:1. Why not 6:1? Or 60:1? If one looks at the elemental composition of individual species of phytoplankton grown under nitrogen or phosphorus limitation, the N ratio can vary from around 6:1 to 60:1. Redfield understood this problem, but did not try explain it, except to note that the N ratio of inorganic nutrients in the ocean interior was an average, and that small-scale variability around the mean was to be expected.5) Despite many reports that the elemental composition of organisms in a region of the ocean does not conform to Redfield ratios, or that the elemental composition of marine phytoplankton grown in cultures is not 16:1, Redfield's fundamental concept remains valid. It cannot be rationalized by reductionist arguments, nor refuted by anecdotal observations. The fact that the NO(3-)
O4(3-) ratio in the interior of all major ocean basins is remarkably similar to the N ratio of plankton is due to the residence times of these two elements in the ocean (roughly 10^(4) years), relative to the ocean's circulation time (roughly 10^(3) years). As the residence times exceed the mixing times by an order of magnitude, it should not be surprising that the NO(3-)O4(3-) ratios in the ocean interior are remarkably constant.6) The specific elemental composition that is the Redfield ratio is truly an "emergent" property that reflects the interaction of multiple processes, including the acquisition of the elements by plankton, the formation of new biomass and the remineralization of the biomass by bacteria in the ocean interior, as well as losses of nutrients from the ocean because of burial in the sediments (for example, phosphorus in apatite), or outgassing to the atmosphere (for example, production and loss of N2, due to denitrification).(1-4)
References:
1. Falkowski, P. G. et al. Science 305, 354-360 (2004)
2. Hedin, L. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 30, 10849-10850 (2004)
3. Redfield, A. C. in James Johnstone Memorial Volume (ed. Daniel, R. J.) 176-192. (Liverpool Univ. Press, 1934)
4. Sterner, R. W. & Elser, J. J. Ecological Stoichiometry: The Biology of the Elements from Molecules to the Biosphere (Princeton Univ. Press, 2002)
Nature http://www.nature.com/nature
TO SUMMARIZE the above info and integrate it towards our aquariums:
All living creatures in our tank will be similar to their ocean cousins having a Redfield ratio of 16N:1P. Collectively, they will work to maintain this ratio by either growing or dying as the water chemistry changes (water Redfield ratio changes).
If your water's inorganic phosphate level is high then the equilibrium between the living creatures ratio and the environment's ratio will be dissimilar. Therefore, the living creatures will use the inorganic/free phosphate to bring the ratios back to equilibrium by growing and using up the phosphate. This usually manifests as nuisance algae growth in our aquariums, since they are best at integrating excess nutrients towards replication. They decrease environmental P through growth, bringing the inorganic and organic Redfield ratios back to equilibrium.
Bacterial populations too will increase, but their effects on the entire ecosystem I will leave out, therefore keeping the thought process simpler.
In the case of SPS specifically, the zoox will grow when the environmental Redfield ratio is off (high phosphate), using up the external phosphate similar to other algae species. Since the zoox concentration within an SPS is constant, the host (coral) will not be able to adjust fast enough to deal the the zoox concentration increase. This will lead to many problems, the least of which will be lack of growth and color.
All living creatures in our tank will be similar to their ocean cousins having a Redfield ratio of 16N:1P. Collectively, they will work to maintain this ratio by either growing or dying as the water chemistry changes (water Redfield ratio changes).
If your water's inorganic phosphate level is high then the equilibrium between the living creatures ratio and the environment's ratio will be dissimilar. Therefore, the living creatures will use the inorganic/free phosphate to bring the ratios back to equilibrium by growing and using up the phosphate. This usually manifests as nuisance algae growth in our aquariums, since they are best at integrating excess nutrients towards replication. They decrease environmental P through growth, bringing the inorganic and organic Redfield ratios back to equilibrium.
Bacterial populations too will increase, but their effects on the entire ecosystem I will leave out, therefore keeping the thought process simpler.
In the case of SPS specifically, the zoox will grow when the environmental Redfield ratio is off (high phosphate), using up the external phosphate similar to other algae species. Since the zoox concentration within an SPS is constant, the host (coral) will not be able to adjust fast enough to deal the the zoox concentration increase. This will lead to many problems, the least of which will be lack of growth and color.
Last edited:
- Location
- Greenpoint Brooklyn, NY
i <3 u Solbby. Very interesting and good read on the topic.
- Location
- Marine Park
Shaun you're a sucker. Posts like this just make me want to go buy a tank again. I need to stop reading your posts, you're going to cost me a fortune. Nice info by the way
- Location
- Westbury L.i
at the moment my sps is light in coloration....theres color but not brilliant......they are not brown at all.....is it because i need more nutrients in the tank?...like feed more or add more fish?
BRAVO!
- Location
- Philippines
:bump: good read...
good read...
- Location
- Howard Beach, Queens
awesome read
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
