Are all low nitrate/phosphate situations equal?

[Ironic_Water]

Recently I had an intense algae bloom that seemed to soak up all my residual phosphate and nitrates in the water, rendering them undetectable.

However, clearly nitrates(ammonia) and phosphates are still being introduced to my tank with the addition of foods and whatnot.

Wouldn't it be foolish to add ammonia and phosphates to raise the levels, a commonly prescribed method of recovery when nutrients bottom out, since the nutrients are there, just simply being absorbed before they can show up in the water column?

I managed to get the algae under control, but I can see it lurking in the crevices of the rockwork and my overflow - and so I started doing Tropic Marin's carbon dosing (NP Bacto) despite it saying to have a residual of phosphate which I don't have, even though I'm heavily feeding which is introducing high amount of phosphates.

Is this foolish of me? Or is my gut feeling right, in that not all low nutrient situations are created equal - and in fact you can have high nutrients without it being detectable in the water itself?

 

[feelingfishy]

I tried chasing detectable nutrients in my old 330 towards the end of the tank and it only resulted in algae. My corals were growing fine with no detectable nutrients although a little washed out looking. The silicone seal broke on that tank twice, so I just scraped it and bought my new tank a CADE 2100.

It took a while for nutrients to become detectable in my new tank , but it’s different this time as no algae at all seems to grow and I’m only at the year mark.

Here are pics of the 2 tanks if it helps at all.

 

[exnisstech]

I'm scared of dinos so I always like to see something beside zero so I'll dose NO3 or PO4 if I see zero. I use bacto balance on two tanks but only one runs low. The other runs NO3 10-12 and PO4 0.2-0.35 but it's full of larger fish and I feed very heavy.

 

[feelingfishy]

Yea, I think what you are seeing in my old tank are partially Large Cell Amphidinium Dinoflagellates.

 

[Ironic_Water]

I'm scared of dinos so I always like to see something beside zero so I'll dose NO3 or PO4 if I see zero. I use bacto balance on two tanks but only one runs low. The other runs NO3 10-12 and PO4 0.2-0.35 but it's full of larger fish and I feed very heavy.

I thought the consensus was the dinos aren't caused by low nutrients, rather the opposite - the growth of dinos unseen to the eye without a microscope is absorbing all the phosphate/nitrates in the water column as they grow. Low nutrients aren't the cause, but the symptom.

Cart before the horse. Take that with a grain of salt though, just something I heard.

 

[DangerDave]

I have a nutrient deficiency in my tank, it's fishless. It's a longer story then this, but it's a 425 gallon frag tank and sump that has some of the inhabitants and all of the rock and rock media that was in a display system that sprung a leak. It's 4ft by 8ft and 16 inches deep. I was dosing nitrates and phosphates to manage the deficiency. The system had the mother of all algae outbreaks, and the worst ugly stage that I've ever experienced (in volume not time frame). A clean up crew of a 175 snails, 10 pithos crabs, and 25 hermits couldn't keep up with it, let alone put a dent in it.

I started dosing ammonia a few months later instead of nitrates full time this summer based on Randy's Ammonia dosing thread, Since then, the clean up crew has gotten through total algae coverage of the sides and bottom in less then a month. It feels like the corals are great at taking up ammonia, and the algae is better at taking nitrates. I dose the ammonia at a level to keep my nitrates at 5-10. Right now that is about 100ML of Randy's recipe a day, spread evenly with a Neptune DOS.

It may be worth giving it a shot. I still have algae growth thankfully. I mean if you can't grow algae you can't grow coral lol. But, the algae seems to be at a disadvantage now, growing slower and allowing the clean up crew to do it's job easier.

Good luck and happy reefing!

Dave

 

[buruskeee]

I thought the consensus was the dinos aren't caused by low nutrients, rather the opposite - the growth of dinos unseen to the eye without a microscope is absorbing all the phosphate/nitrates in the water column as they grow. Low nutrients aren't the cause, but the symptom.

Cart before the horse. Take that with a grain of salt though, just something I heard.

It is theorized that bottomed out nutrients cause other organisms to starve out and Dinos can survive in that environment, at which they then start outcompeting and taking over surfaces. The methods to best Dinos is to boost up nutrient levels to the higher end to have other organisms surprise and outcompete the Dinos.

 

[feelingfishy]

I thought the consensus was the dinos aren't caused by low nutrients, rather the opposite - the growth of dinos unseen to the eye without a microscope is absorbing all the phosphate/nitrates in the water column as they grow. Low nutrients aren't the cause, but the symptom.

Cart before the horse. Take that with a grain of salt though, just something I heard.

It was this way for my old tank. I would dose and the Dino’s would just flare up. If I could go back I would not dose any nitrates/phosphates as it just made things worse for me. I would on the other hand have purchased more fish to create a more consistent bioload.

 

[Dburr1014]

I thought the consensus was the dinos aren't caused by low nutrients, rather the opposite - the growth of dinos unseen to the eye without a microscope is absorbing all the phosphate/nitrates in the water column as they grow. Low nutrients aren't the cause, but the symptom.

Cart before the horse. Take that with a grain of salt though, just something I heard.

Dino are in every tank that has coral. Zooxanthellae is a dinoflagellate.

I have never heard that theory before.

 

[Ironic_Water]

Dino are in every tank that has coral. Zooxanthellae is a dinoflagellate.

I have never heard that theory before.

This is referring to a dino bloom - they are still algae, and need nutrients to grow in a bloom scenario. It's just that when they bloom, the beginning stages is invisible to the naked eye, so you see the bottoming-out nutrients, but not the growth (even though it's growing exponentially).

When you can finally see the growth, the bloom is already well underway and already soaked up a lot of nutrients, causing people to think it's the low nutrients that caused the bloom, and not the other way around.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Wouldn't it be foolish to add ammonia and phosphates to raise the levels, a commonly prescribed method of recovery when nutrients bottom out, since the nutrients are there, just simply being absorbed before they can show up in the water column?

No. Inadequate levels means the amount you are adding in foods or dosing not fully meeting the demand.

 

[exnisstech]

I thought the consensus was the dinos aren't caused by low nutrients, rather the opposite - the growth of dinos unseen to the eye without a microscope is absorbing all the phosphate/nitrates in the water column as they grow. Low nutrients aren't the cause, but the symptom.

Cart before the horse. Take that with a grain of salt though, just something I heard.

I've always read low nutrients are a problem

 

[Ironic_Water]

No. Inadequate levels means the amount you are adding in foods or dosing not fully meeting the demand.

The demand seems to come from the algae growing between my rockwork (in places my CUC has a hard time reaching), so wouldn't it just be feeding algae growth if I were to dose? If I were to dose nutrients, wouldn't all I be doing is feeding the algae?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

When you can finally see the growth, the bloom is already well underway and already soaked up a lot of nutrients, causing people to think it's the low nutrients that caused the bloom, and not the other way around.

That’s a hypothesis that I am not convinced is true.

An alternative hypothesis is that dinos can grow at low nutrient levels where algae, diatoms, and bacteria are not as easily able to outcompete them for surfaces, and the dinos take over until you boost the nutrients to allow better competition.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

The demand seems to come from the algae growing between my rockwork (in places my CUC has a hard time reaching), so wouldn't it just be feeding algae growth if I were to dose? If I were to dose nutrients, wouldn't all I be doing is feeding the algae?

You’d be feeding anything in the tank that needs it, and keeping low nutrients is not generally a good way to limit algae because it starves corals too. Herbivores are a better way.

 

[feelingfishy]

This is a very enjoyable conversation for me. I’m torn between the two hypothesis’s.

Edit: I’m also torn between if hypothesis’s is the right way to say the plural form of hypothesis, lol. I think the better way to say it is “The premise of the hypotheses”

 

[exnisstech]

This is a very enjoyable conversation for me. I’m torn between the two hypothesis’s.

I'm not a science guy and I haven't researched dinos outside of reading posts but I can't remember reading of anyone complaining about dinos while having high nutrient levels. I have read a lot of reports from people with low/0 levels and having a dino outbreak. I'll err on the side of keeping mine above 0.

 

[Ironic_Water]

I'm not a science guy and I haven't researched dinos outside of reading posts but I can't remember reading of anyone complaining about dinos while having high nutrient levels. I have read a lot of reports from people with low/0 levels and having a dino outbreak. I'll err on the side of keeping mine above 0.

There are some posts on this forum about having dinos with high nutrients - I'm swaying towards it being more of a imbalance in the microbiome over simply being an argument of high vs low nutrients.

Otherwise, if it was truly just low nutrients, you wouldn't be seeing dinos with high nutrients, but there have been cases even on here you can search of dinos with high nutrient tanks.

I have a feeling a lot of issues reefers face (and life in general) are far more complex than simply X vs Y.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

There are some posts on this forum about having dinos with high nutrients - I'm swaying towards it being more of a imbalance in the microbiome over simply being an argument of high vs low nutrients.

Otherwise, if it was truly just low nutrients, you wouldn't be seeing dinos with high nutrients, but there have been cases even on here you can search of dinos with high nutrient tanks.

I have a feeling a lot of issues reefers face (and life in general) are far more complex than simply X vs Y.

Low nutrients with new dry rock is the prime dino recipe. Low nutrients in established live rock is not nearly the same risk.

Yes, some folks get dinos with high nutrients. I think there are different species of dinos and there may well be other contributing factors to getting them in high nutrient conditions.

 

[KrisReef]

This is a very enjoyable conversation for me. I’m torn between the two hypothesis’s.

Edit: I’m also torn between if hypothesis’s is the right way to say the plural form of hypothesis, lol. I think the better way to say it is “The premise of the hypotheses”

Agree with the interesting discussion. I am pretty sure we used to study Hypotenuse in math, and alternative hypothesis in science, and plurals seem to come with ii's at the end, but not in this case? Hypotheses, with e's replacing i's? Latin was not a course of study for me.

I made most of that up, but I truly agree this is a useful thread and discussion on nutrient levels and theories about cause and effect of them levels.