what works the best for you

[volivier]

i'm reading and looking at pictures online, some use reactors, controllers etc. Others just a power head and kalk drip, homemade two part mix. I understand maintenance also would be a factor. How often you change water or bulbs. How long are your bulbs on? What wattage? I'm asking for your experience with what works for you to have your sps grow. I'm having some success with sps, just trying to get better... Thanks.....

 

[Snowboarda42]

In this order:
1. Water quality - Keep the good stuff up and the bad stuff down. Minimize temperature changes as well as pH changes. Using macroalgae to take out your nitrates and organophosphates is a big help as well.

2. Flow - Not having enough flow will inhibit some SPS coral's ability to rid itself of wastes. However, too much flow will irritate corals, making them deformed, brown/white out, etc.

3. Light - Seeing as how this is the coral's main source of food (indirectly), it's definitely important. However, more is not always better. Personally, I run alot less light than most do, yet due to excellent water quality and great flow, I've seen nothing but great results. Too little light will of course cause the coral to slow its growth substantially, but on the other end, to much can cause tissue necrosis, as well as browning out from being burned. Another factor that comes into play is color spectrum. On a side note, some people keep lights on for 20hours a day with good results, others with 8 or less. Personally, I want my tank to work around my schedule. I like the idea of waking up, and seeing my tank with my actinics on as soon as I walk into my living room. After coming out of the shower, its great to see the tank's fully lit, that way I can really enjoy it. Same goes with night time too. Recent studies show that WPG (watts per gallon) isn't as important as most people make it out to be. I'm not saying it isn't but it seems that the actual distance from the light makes a bigger difference. I'm not saying you can take a 15W bulb and put SPS frags 2" from the light, it just doesn't work that way. However, some keep the WPG up in order to get light to the corals that are farther down in the tank. It comes down to what you keep. Clear water with little to no surface film plays a role in this as well. In the end, WPG and Distance play a certain balancing act for corals. Believe it or not, it's much easier than it sounds.

The extra equipment you mentioned of course helps out, but isn't a requirement. Everyone has seen wonderful, huge tanks that have excellent colors, lots of growth, etc. But, all these things do is basically do #1 of what I just listed - keep your param's in check. Kalk and Ca reactors help keep your Ca and Alk up, but it might be easier and financially feasible for others to simply dose Kalk, 2-Part, etc. The extra equipment is alot nicer if you have the patience to set it up, a tank with a sufficient amount of Ca/Alk demand, and the extra money.

Just my experience/opinion.

 

[volivier]

thank you, hopefully others will put in their two cents too.

 

[volivier]

i went BB a few months ago, took out the macro and mud in the refugium. Put the macro in my nano tank. Maybe I should add some back to the sump area.

 

[Snowboarda42]

I would definitely keep some macro in your tank. Not only is it a great remover of Nitrates and Phosphates, but some of it is a great place for organisms such as copepods to breed and grow, then get pumped into your tank where they can be consumed by fish (i.e. mandarins, wrasses, etc.), and also help clean up your tank and live rock of detritus and leftover food.

 

[DonW]

thank you, hopefully others will put in their two cents too.

My thinking is just the oposite and of course depends on the system and what your keeping. Ca reactors are a great device for stability, and if you have any real ca and alk demand a ca reactor will only save you time money and grief. There is a learning curve but you just need a decent understanding of reef chemistry.
The way I look at macro is if the tank has enough nutrients to keep macro alive it has to many nutrients and needs additional help with removal prior to break down.

Don

 

[Reeferdude]

I'm trying to understand this. Help me out please. How does the nutrient level in a tank and the fact 'that' tank water is sustaining macro equate to "too much" nutrients?

Here's the reason I ask...Macro derives it's food source from water, light/photosynthesis and a minor amount from it's roots if embedded in sand or substrate similar to a plant although non vascular, not so much if simply attached to rock ect..Since most systems provide water to macro through the sump or a refugium from the main tank would that indicate that all those systems using DT water to supply macros have too many nutrients?

 

[DonW]

I'm trying to understand this. Help me out please. How does the nutrient level in a tank and the fact 'that' tank water is sustaining macro equate to "too much" nutrients?

Here's the reason I ask...Macro derives it's food source from water, light/photosynthesis and a minor amount from it's roots if embedded in sand or substrate similar to a plant although non vascular, not so much if simply attached to rock ect..Since most systems provide water to macro through the sump or a refugium from the main tank would that indicate that all those systems using DT water to supply macros have too many nutrients?

Its really not that complicated. It takes nutrients for macro to survive, without the macro simply dies and rots away. The goal of a "sps system" is as close to nutrient free as possible. In a near nutrient free system macro cannot live. I cant grow macro unless I cut way back my water changes it simply starves.

Don

 

[Reeferdude]

So we could take maco algae from one tank and place it in a so called nutrient free tank and even with light and the water it would die? Very interesting.

 

[DonW]

So we could take maco algae from one tank and place it in a so called nutrient free tank and even with light and the water it would die? Very interesting.

Yes, bring me your macro and I'll kill it for you.:lol:

Don

 

[plack]

Just a question. pardon me If I am stealing this thread. Is the relationship between nutrients and nitrates one to one. I mean at zero nitrates does that mean zero nutrients? I don't think so but how else do you measure for or evaluate nutrient level other than corals browing out ? maybe phosphates?



Paul

 

[DonW]

Just a question. pardon me If I am stealing this thread. Is the relationship between nutrients and nitrates one to one. I mean at zero nitrates does that mean zero nutrients? I don't think so but how else do you measure for or evaluate nutrient level other than corals browing out ? maybe phosphates?



Paul

Not really, I guess you could have the water tested. I think the best way is just observation. How often you have to clean glass, skimmate color, odor and quantity, coral coloration, algae growth and good old aptasia. If the goal is nutrient free then even sacrafical critters like zoos are a good way to tell if your getting there.

Don

 

[kevinpo]

Phosphate, Iron, silicates, and others can all be utilized by macro and micro algae as food sources. To limit algae growth we need to limit their food source (nitrate being a food source).
Algae can be used as a tool (an inexpensive and efficient tool) to soak up excess nutrients. Certain algae can have its drawbacks so be sure to research before use. Chaetomorpha (spaghetti algae) is one of the kinds I recommend. The marine algae we find in our tanks must have three things, light, water, and food. If any one of the three things is missing the algae will die.

Regards,
Kevin

 

[cwegescheide]

I started to have some problems a while back after I sortof got lazy with the maintanence (water changes etc) and I will tell you since I have been changing 15 - 20% of my water every week and changing a generous amount of carbon every two weeks my corals are really starting to look much better. My Nitrates were getting around 20 I'd say when my corals were not looking so hot. Now that I have gotten my nitrates back down to < 5 I can tell where I had browning and "burnt" looking tips on some corals these have since started healing up and looking more colorful. I'm very pleased at what I have been seeing since I have been seeing.

Now with that said, the real reason my corals stony corals are looking better I'm still on the fence. Its more of what is the "real" reason my corals were looking kinda crappy. I have a couple soft corals in my tank (I can't part with them) and they say there is definatley chemical warfare going on which could be the reason for the "burnt" tips on some of my sps. Is it because 1) I'm using more carbon and changing it every 2 weeks? Absorbing the chemicals.. or 2) dillution of the chemicals they are excreting or 3) Lowering my nitrates are making a difference OR 4) All of the above?