Color and growth talk - clean vs dirty tank

[Reefer_Madness]

So am becoming very curious about a subject that a lot of people are pretty hard headed and very opinionated about. It seems like people see this as black or white...

 

Almost everything in this hobby is an opinion. Most of the "rules" have been broken successfully by other hobbyists. Keep in mind this may appear to be a question, but it is meant as a conversation. If you are thinking about posting a 2 word answer, I don't think this thread is for you. I'm hoping to talk about this and get real opinions and experiences.

 

So here we go...

 

Do SPS corals grow faster in a "dirty" tank or a "clean" tank? Which has better PE? Why do you think this?

 

My tanks are "clean". By that, I mean unmeasurable nitrates or phosphates. My corals are growing like weeds. I am about to do some experimenting with increasing my nitrates and phosphates to increase color in my SPS. When my tank was "dirty" it had better and brighter colors. I feel that if a tank is too clean it has pale colors. That's been my experience. But, I am seeing my corals grow pretty fast in a clean tank. I'm wondering if I do succeed in gradually raising my nitrates and phosphates a little, will my growth slow down or will it increase? I am pretty sure the colors will be more appealing to my human eye, but does that mean the coral is healthier? I'm not sure. I can promise you one thing, most of these corals don't look like this in the ocean. Does that mean they are less healthy? What do you think?

 

If the water is super clean, I would assume the PE would be more extended, since they are reaching for food. If the water is a little dirty, and has more readily available nutrients, does that mean the PE would be less? I'm curious. There are all kinds of things that affect PE, but in theory, if all parameters were kept exactly the same would PE be better in a clean tank or a dirty tank? What about growth? Better in clean or dirty tank? With all the other parameters good and stable...no changes.

 

There is obviously a tipping point for a dirty tank. That number is not for this thread. For the discussion, I am assuming any measurable nitrates or phosphates is "dirty". "Clean" is unmeasurable. Very broad definition but I'm trying to keep someone from latching onto minutia and ignoring the point.

 

Has anyone switched from a clean tank to a dirty tank on purpose? What was your experience?

 

This conversation would be so much better with a coffee or a beer.

[WishNewFish]

As a retrospective, I have experienced the same - if I didn't feed and water is clean my corals are wide open like they may blow themselves up, and if there are particles floating around water, the corals are semi open.

 

Not sure if this is a true correlation of not.

[Keraxis]

I would look up rich ross tanks.  His tank had numbers so high that corals should have been dieing but they thrive.  

[paul b]

I am really not sure what the answer to this is. My nitrates are about 40, I never tested phosphates and my LPS are also growing like weeks and have been for years. Who knows?

[Reefer_Madness]

It peaks my curiosity because so many people have these "rules" of what a tank is supposed to be.  Logically, some of it does not make sense.  My experiences don't always seem to match the loudest of the opinions out there on the forums. 

 

Paul - You are a perfect example of this. 

[sethsolomon]

I have experienced pretty much the same thing.  When my nitrates and phosphate is lower I get better growth but my colors suck.  And as of lately, I have been keeping my nitrates at about 20 ppm.  

 

In my last tank out in CO, I constantly tried to chase growth but my colors were always lacking.

 

Here is a picture of my last tank,  the colors are dull but had great growth.  That tank was kept arround 5 ppm nitrates, 0.05 ppm Phosphates, 450 ppm calc, 7.8dkh alk, 1450 ppm mag.  But lighting may also play a part in this as well.  This tank was 250w 14k phoenix, Aquasun and Super actinic VHO's, 2x 50w blue chip leds, 1 reefbrite.

 

 

Now with my tank out here my levels are arround 20ppm nitrate, 0.12ppm phosphate, 440ppm calc, 9dkh alk, 1400ppm mag  and my growth is a little slower but my colors are awesome!  This tank is lit with 400w 20k radiums, 1x 50w blue chip, 1 super actinic and 1 454 VHOs, and a reefbrite.

 

 

 

So I think it may all be a giant proportion that you maintain more than anything.  I may try dropping my alk down and feed less and see if it affects my colors and growth to the levels similar to my tank out in CO.  And see if the lights are responsible for the color or the levels are.

 

Also, the algae is kinda annoying at higher nutrient levels.  I need to get a few more emeralds and another 1-2 dozen trochus snails.

Edited November 23, 2015 by sethsolomon

[Sharkey18]

I have been struggling to keep sps for years and I think my main problem has always been stability. I was not great about mainitaing my water quality so alk, calcium and even salinity was unstable. 

 

I took a break and just focused on my lps for a while. Recently I have committed to a "clean" tank and was dosing Redsea nopox to achieve that. My sps seem to be happier, coloring up and growing. I recently started dosing reef energy A and B to see if adding some "coral nutrition" i could get good growth and color. 

 

So far things are going well, but since I was starting with brown or dead, things could only get better. 

 

Does PE always mean healthier? I like PE because I think it looks nicer but I am not sure if PE absolutely indicates health? What is PE means the corals are starving? 

 

Excellent conversation. 

[Cliff Puckstable]

I don't check no3 or po4 ever so I can't comment on that.

 

However, I do believe that lighting plays a big role in sps coloring. I've been running led, t5, and mh simultaneously in my frag tanks in the last 4+ months. All the corals share the same water so that eliminates water quality out of the equation. I've noticed the same corals color up differently under each light. Some corals look better under certain lighting. Some look like poo.

[Rob A]

I have wondered for awhile about the correlation between required light levels and nutrients. If the water is clean will the corals starve at higher light levels? For instance, my first frag tank was a 29 gal dirty tank with cheap lights and I had a beautiful bonzai in it. Now that I have cleaner tanks and better lights I can't keep one alive.

 

I also wonder how accurate a test measurement is when the living organisms are using the nutrients in question. (Water volume vs bio load). If a tank is really full of corals and measures 0 nutrients is that accurate? 

[YHSublime]

I would venture to say that this still pertains to this.

 

Like I said, no science, just observation.

 

But speaking of opinions, I'm of one that every single tank is different, and what works for you may not work for the next guy or gal in line, there are to many variables. Do what works for you. If that means having a reverse under gravel filter, then so be it!
 

I don't believe you should chase numbers, but I do believe you should track them. Keep in mind, the only thing I test for is salinity when I make up a batch of salt, but I'm also prepared for the fact that my nano may crash this afternoon, or end up being a 40 year old tank like Pauls (I just want to be able to go around in 39 years and say "who has a 40 year old nano, raise your hand!)

 

Talk to Pizzaguy if you want to see the results from having to DOSE nitrates and phosphates into a nutrient starved tank.
 

I also agree with Keraxis about checking out Rich Ross and his phosphates discussion.

[khh27]

I've always understood that the cleaner the water the less par you nees to run cause the light penetrate better and can even burn corals and on dirtier water run higher par cause the light does penetrate as much but as far as how much I don't know..100..20...50 par difference idk.. I tend to keep my tanks dirtier cause coloration not growth.

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[mogurnda]

I don't check no3 or po4 ever so I can't comment on that.

 

However, I do believe that lighting plays a big role in sps coloring. I've been running led, t5, and mh simultaneously in my frag tanks in the last 4+ months. All the corals share the same water so that eliminates water quality out of the equation. I've noticed the same corals color up differently under each light. Some corals look better under certain lighting. Some look like poo.

 

 

But speaking of opinions, I'm of one that every single tank is different, and what works for you may not work for the next guy or gal in line, there are to many variables. Do what works for you. If that means having a reverse under gravel filter, then so be it!

 

I don't believe you should chase numbers, but I do believe you should track them. Keep in mind, the only thing I test for is salinity when I make up a batch of salt, but I'm also prepared for the fact that my nano may crash this afternoon, or end up being a 40 year old tank like Pauls (I just want to be able to go around in 39 years and say "who has a 40 year old nano, raise your hand!)

 

What they said.

 

I am not really sure where one crosses the line from "clean" to "dirty."  I have always fed my tank with a shovel, and have learned that, when things get out of whack, you can still get heavy SPS growth with NO3 up to about 50, as long as there is adequate light and stable Ca and HCO3.  However, (again, my experience only) growth comes to a screaming halt when PO4 gets anywhere near 1 ppm.  Usually, my heavy growths of sponge and macroalgae keep NO3 and PO4 below measurable levels, and I don't see a lot of difference in growth or color between "somewhat dirty" and "clean". 

 

Light seems to have more of an impact.  When I shifted from halides to LED a while ago, growth slowed considerably, but almost all the SPS showed more interesting colors.  The growth may also be slowed somewhat by the fact that I added a small school of coral beauties at about the same time I changed to LEDs.  PE is minimal on some of the corals because of the angels' occasional nipping, but I like the fish too much to even think about getting rid of them.  It turns out corals can survive and grow just fine when their polyps are retracted a lot of the time.

 

Chasing numbers and micromanaging seems like a bit of a fool's errand.  My goal is a stable, manageable system that looks like a real reef.  I have seen a lot of members come and go on this forum, and it seems as though the ones who follow the Big Trends the most closely tend to have the shortest half lives. 

[Reefer_Madness]

I have seen a lot of members come and go on this forum, and it seems as though the ones who follow the Big Trends the most closely tend to have the shortest half lives.

Agreed. That's kind of where I am going with this conversation.

 

I really like where this talk is going.

[Reefer_Madness]

What has caused me to really question everything is my experiences in the past.

 

I got my first reef tank 25 years ago and then got out of it for about 10 years. The "rules" then were different. I had a very successful tank back then. Fast forward to about 5 years ago when I got back into the hobby. Everything I knew to be successful from past experience is now horrible practice. Every loud voice on the big forums says so.

 

Now I say "why" to everything I hear. Most people just repeat what they have heard rather than thinking for themselves.

 

This is the real reason for this conversation. Real experiences and a first person discussion.

 

I think a conversation like this needs to have personal failures and success.

 

Ok enough reef hobby preaching. I'm off my soap box now...

[Keraxis]

I grew sps fine in my old tank but would kill zoas... well not kill but they would not grow so they would melt if anything shifted.  Now I keep my tank dirtier and grow zoas fine and still have some sps which grows fine.  (Non of my sps is considered difficult though)  My color is pretty nice also.  Mike palleta also feeds heavily in his super overstocked tanks and everything he has looks amazing.  I feel people stress to much over having that pristine glass box of water and some corals suffer from that.  

[Reefer_Madness]

Some very interesting reading I found:

 

http://www.thereeftank.com/forums/f362/some-light-reading-for-you-all-191201.html

 

You can't believe everything you read, but some of this stuff really does make sense. 

[YHSublime]

Some very interesting reading I found:

 

http://www.thereeftank.com/forums/f362/some-light-reading-for-you-all-191201.html

 

You can't believe everything you read, but some of this stuff really does make sense. 

 

That's a lot of information.

[mling]

I have heard that softies prefer dirty water, which is why my 100ppm tank is predominately filled with them and Zoas.

 

I use my Kenya Tree to gauge when to change water, usually about 2 to 3 weeks.

[zygote2k]

I maintain about 40 tanks personally- most of which are reefs. Water chemistry varies between all of them but I try to maintain some semblance of a standard- I tend to shoot for 400 Ca, 3.0-4.0 meq/l Alk, 1200-1400 mg, 40ppm  or less N03, and 1ppm or less of P04. Nitrate and Phosphate issues are the bane of my existence and many methods have been employed over the years to combat these- now switching to AIO BP's...

I have found in some tanks with N03 as high as 75ppm and P04 as high as 1ppm, with heavy flow and constant feedings, SPS grew very fast and were brightly colored. Weekly water changes kept the nutrients in check and then with the addition of BP's, and the reduction of the Nitrate to near zero and reducrion of P04 to 0.25 or less, these SPS tanks stopped growing and coloration  paled.

It might have been the sudden(4 months) reduction of nutrients that did this, but I never observed where the sweet spot of growth/coloration was in relation to nutrient levels. I do keep accurate water chemistry records on these tanks but it's mostly to keep an eye on fluctuations of parameters.

I have 4 tanks battling cyano bacteria and one of them has fantastic SPS growth and coloration. I'm noticing that the tanks that are approaching 5 years of growth are experiencing the cyano issues and am formulating a plan to implement a 5 year cleaning cycle to combat these issues- a rejuvenation of sorts. Paul B does this from time to time.

 

I think that if you wanted to find the true answer to this question, you'd have to set up several tanks with similar equipment and all of them with different nutrient loads and track results over time.

I'm willing to bet that if enough WAMAS members got together and donated their time, effort, and money together, we could set up this experiment somewhere....

I have tons of equipment to donate....

[s2nhle]

Very good discussion. tagging  along

[Anemone]

Just reading this again and wanted to say thanks to all who shared their experiences.

It seems that if natural reefs have lower N and P levels than the open ocean, it must be because they are absorbing those nutrients faster than the ocean currents can replenish them. Which is kind of incredible when you think about how much water must be moving through the reefs 24/7. Something in there must really have an insatiable appetite for N and P.

[Origami]

Just reading this again and wanted to say thanks to all who shared their experiences.

It seems that if natural reefs have lower N and P levels than the open ocean, it must be because they are absorbing those nutrients faster than the ocean currents can replenish them. Which is kind of incredible when you think about how much water must be moving through the reefs 24/7. Something in there must really have an insatiable appetite for N and P.

The volume of the ocean is very, very large so it dilutes these nutrients very quickly on a reef. That's probably the first thing to note. Consumption probably also plays a part, but dilution probably plays a huge part in why the concentration is low. Bio-available sources of N&P are mostly coming off of decay processes and from phosphate- and nitrogen-fixing bacteria. So it's really not the ocean currents replenishing these nutrients. It's the circle of life (for the most part). When ocean currents bring a sudden surge of nutrients into an area, you typically see huge ecosystem disruptions. 

[madweazl]

I started my first "successful" reef around '97 when we were living in CA. In '98, I decided to join the Marine Corps and received orders to Yuma AZ shortly after. I drained the tank, placed the rock, fish, corals, and clams in buckets, loaded the moving truck with the aquarium last, placed the rock, fish, corals and clams back in and filled the tank half full. I used two battery operated pumps to keep the water moving but had no heat or cooling source. It took us about five hours to get to AZ and when we arrived, the keys to our house didn't work so we had to stay in a hotel over night. I was worried but there wasn't anything I could. The next morning we received the new keys and I went to work setting everything back up. In the end, my derasa was the only casualty (crocea was just fine, go figure). That tank endured some rough spots over the years. From Sep 03 - Oct 04 I was in Japan and my wife had to take care of the tank. Not a single water change was done and the only thing added to the tank was Sealab 28. The setup had internal powerheads for movement and an AquaC Remora with four VHOs on an Icecap 660. Nothing died in that year; nothing looked great but nothing looked terrible. In '09 I received orders back to CA and didn't think I'd be able to take the setup with me so I gave everything to a coworker. I learned a lot from the 12 or so years that setup was going. It was truly amazing how resilient everything was when it was in a somewhat stable environment (by stable I don't necessarily mean good, just consistent). I never tested for nitrates and phosphates, never cared.

 

In 2010 or '11, I thought we were in a somewhat stable period so I decided to setup another tank. I now had access to NSW via the Scripps pier so I went that route. I had a refugium on this setup (mainly so I could stuff the pump, heater, etc down there instead of the DT), a 26g FBH, and a CPR overflow. I never had better results than with the NSW. I added calcium initially for a while but then just went to water changes every two weeks (unless weather or red tides effected water quality). As luck would have it, I received orders back to Japan early 2013 and gave things to friends. I setup a 50g out there and went the same route with frequent water changes using NSW and it did great for the short time I was out there as well. I retired a year later and had to give everything away again but everything was growing like a weed again.

 

My point in all of this rambling is that my best results were with NSW and I didn't care what the nutrient levels were. The water off the Scripps pier isn't "clean" and the calcium levels were always right around 400 (397 sticks in my head for some reason) but everything did great (think the only SPS was a birdsnest though). I stuck to regular 25% changes because I had easy access to the water (right across the street from my house in Japan LOL). Thankfully my new setup is on the smaller side and I can keep decent size water changes as part of my regimen without going broke (though no access to NSW) but I think people have gotten too hung up on technology saving the day when all they really needed was to trust their eyes. I think there is an infinite number of paths to success in reef keeping.

[Origami]

^^Madweazl, so you were among the users of NSW off the Scripps spigot? I know that there's some controversy amongst some of the SD reefers with using Scripps water. However, it seems to me that if you check the tide and water conditions before taking the water, most people who do that are happy with the water they get there. Just curious as I have reefing friends associated with the club there (some of whom use the water and others who refuse to).

[madweazl]

^^Madweazl, so you were among the users of NSW off the Scripps spigot? I know that there's some controversy amongst some of the SD reefers with using Scripps water. However, it seems to me that if you check the tide and water conditions before taking the water, most people who do that are happy with the water they get there. Just curious as I have reefing friends associated with the club there (some of whom use the water and others who refuse to).

Yep, loved it. Just had to pay attention to water conditions/weather and you were fine. I had one algae bloom when I wasnt paying attention but other than that, it was fantastic. 

 

This was taken right around six months. Gorgonian ended up growing to the water line and was fragged a few times (literally grew like a weed if you fed it consistently). The anemone was growing way too fast (never should have put it in a 26g tank) and the duncan grew like a weed as well. I ended up zorching most of the mushrooms when I switched to LEDs which really sucked but everything else was happy. The GSP went balistic and had to be cut back frequently as well. The birdsnest top middle did really well for months but had some issues when I had the algae bloom. Didnt kill it but stunted its growth for a few months. Hated breaking that little tank down. The rasta on the left never did really well; never did figure out what it needed. The green toadstool was probably my favorite piece and it grew really fast as well. 

 

 

Was probably my favorite clam of all time too; positively gorgeous when some natural light would hit. 

 

Edited June 7, 2016 by madweazl