• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up

Journal One Zero Three

Possibly Porites?

Could be @Tim Lee , thank you 🙏🏽

Looking like it’s an SPS finger coral for sure then. Main reason for asking is so it can be optimally positioned. The frag plug isn’t attached to any hardscape yet, it would be nice to know it’s tolerances before committing.
 
The growth tip means it's probably a montipora digitata but its hard to id yet as many things can look similar. I would say the monti still if the polyps are a true reflection of how far they will naturally extend and I'd be surprised if it stays brown (probably a rusty red would be my guess) under good lighting, just don't be to quick to move it to better light.
 
Last edited:
just don't be to quick to move it to better light.

Hey @mort , thanks for the reply 🙏🏽

Quite the opposite, have moved it down to substrate level now. The coralline algae on the frag started turning steadily white. Parameters are good and steady so suspect too much light if anything. Flying blind with light settings, no PAR meter and very little data or reporting on the ONF units. It’s trial and error for now. Scraped some coralline off, ground it up and broadcast to spread the bet it will successfully take.
 
I find coralline often dies off, especially in new systems, before it magically comes back with a vengence later. You will likely see tiny dots of pink developing in some of the shady areas (or for some reason on any plastics first) in a couple of weeks before you begin to curse it's name as it takes over the glass and makes a bit of bba look easy to remove in comparison.
 
Looks less like a growth tip than an area of tissue recession but the us will recover given the right environment.
Either way you are right to gradually acclimatise to light levels and the polyp extension means you are on the right track!
 
It's operating as the canary in the coal mine currently @Tim Lee . Undecided when to introduce further corals into the tank. Still leaning towards the mindset that diversity is the direction out of the 'ugly phase', rather than simply time.

If a ruined SPS can recover at this point, at these parameters and at this stage of the setups development, begs the question what it is I'm exactly waiting for as evidence for a green light to get moving. This frags recovery is the best method of testing this so far, open to other suggestions if you have some. There will be problems to overcome regardless. But itching to get the permanent residents in place so we have everything uptaking that we want uptaking and can balance things out from there.
 
Lots of corals aren't actually that demanding and can be grown pretty much from day one in a sterile tank, the nems are probably a better indicator for you unless they are a multi generational clone. Corals only really become a problem when nutrient levels are inconsistent (generally caused by to many fish to soon) or you have a major uptake of elements that isn't being balanced. The biggest risk to them in a new tank is algae growth but your looks spotless so I see no reason not to introduce the odd frag if you are confident of where things are.
 
You can see a montipora digitata growth tip here from tidal gardens, so you can compare

img_3891.jpg


The tissue damage on the side looks like slightly heavy fingered handling but it should be ok. These also really easily brown out in shops especially if they don't specialise in sps.
 
On to the next round of ugliness… things have gotten a little hairy:

1635152568531.jpeg


Most folks would be tearing their hair out ( 😂 ) with a tank slinging a new problem at you each week. However, finding knocking each one of them back extraordinarily satisfying.

The wicked thing about this is all parameters appear ideal throughout this process, so beginning to understand how the ugly phase really confuses folks.
 
Oh boy, has this tank turned into a fun ride. So whilst the 1200, 45F and terrarium have all been trucking along gracefully… this system has taxed the ol’ noggin.

Hair algae a week ago:

1636300529962.jpeg


Turns out I just can’t stand to have a tank without plants in it 😂

Photo today (with filter to remove blue):

1636301058406.jpeg


In order to turn the tank around, a lot of the standard advice has had to be ignored. Cutting to the chase, the hair algae was so significant that nitrates and phosphates were bottomed out, both zero at all times. Folks say this happens, even state it as a good thing, but it appears they neglect to talk about the next bit.

Then cloudy water… To the best of my knowledge the nitrifying bacteria were starved, as ammonia was potentially being preferentially uptaken by the new ‘in-tank refugium’ before anything in the sump could get a bite at the cherry.

Simple test, pour some Dr. Tim’s bacterial starter into the sump just after feeding the tank and wait. Eight hours later, clear water again. Seemed to readdress the balance of nitrifying bacteria to hair algae. Put the sump back in the game so to speak and has continued since.

Next… Second set of evidence that bottomed out N and P is a bad idea was poor polyp extension on the corals (now placed on a frag rack to keep them clean). Do not think bottoming out nutrients is a good thing in any system. You want inputs and you want them going somewhere, but no availability is a slow slope towards failure.

Decided to dose some potassium nitrate and potassium phosphate, bringing NO3 to 5ppm and PO4 to 0.03ppm. Pretty immediately the Goniopora extended itself and everything else thereafter. The nem’s brightened up too. To control where the inputs are going, decided to run the refugium during the photoperiod for competition. Corals and chaetomorpha versus hair algae.

Most suggest running the refugium opposite to the photoperiod at night to control Co2 levels but… wet dry system in the sump so no point. Stayed up to take hourly pH and dKH readings and they both remained stable across 24 hours.

Wet/dry doesn’t appear to be as detrimental in marine as is made out. Gassing off to atmospheric equilibrium, dissolving gases to atmospheric equilibrium… can’t really understand why they get such bad press, as the evidence so far is following the wet/dry system with a refugium is very efficient at nutrient export. Stable o2 and Co2 for the macroalgae in the refugium over 24 hours.

Few improvements to the simple sump design:

Wet/dry component:

1636303158905.jpeg


Small but fast growing refugium with chaetomorpha:

1636303214088.jpeg


Lid off the drip plate box so floss can be changed in seconds:

1636303293414.jpeg


The quick floss exchange has become important due to the amount of hair algae die off. If at all possible, want to keep the sump as simple as it already is. No carbon or Rowaphos running at the moment, want unfettered feedback from the system whilst getting to grips with it.

As for the hair algae, hoping to keep its decline going. Treated with Fluconazole to weaken it further and hopefully evict it completely. The remainder looks manageable now the root cause has been addressed:

1636307082598.jpeg


All things willing, will be back with good news on the next post, or a new problem 😂
 
Oh boy, has this tank turned into a fun ride. So whilst the 1200, 45F and terrarium have all been trucking along gracefully… this system has taxed the ol’ noggin.

Hair algae a week ago:

View attachment 176961

Turns out I just can’t stand to have a tank without plants in it 😂

Photo today (with filter to remove blue):

View attachment 176962

Great thread, and great work on the hair algae (my worst nightmare in my reefs and I would often nuke with Fluconazole at the first sign just in case)

In order to turn the tank around, a lot of the standard advice has had to be ignored. Cutting to the chase, the hair algae was so significant that nitrates and phosphates were bottomed out, both zero at all times. Folks say this happens, even state it as a good thing, but it appears they neglect to talk about the next bit.

Then cloudy water… To the best of my knowledge the nitrifying bacteria were starved, as ammonia was potentially being preferentially uptaken by the new ‘in-tank refugium’ before anything in the sump could get a bite at the cherry.

Simple test, pour some Dr. Tim’s bacterial starter into the sump just after feeding the tank and wait. Eight hours later, clear water again. Seemed to readdress the balance of nitrifying bacteria to hair algae. Put the sump back in the game so to speak and has continued since.

Next… Second set of evidence that bottomed out N and P is a bad idea was poor polyp extension on the corals (now placed on a frag rack to keep them clean). Do not think bottoming out nutrients is a good thing in any system. You want inputs and you want them going somewhere, but no availability is a slow slope towards failure.

I know the standard advice used to be to have 0 detectable nitrates and phosphates and people (including me) used to use pretty aggressive removal methods, but I thought that info had all changed the last few years with the knowledge that some are better, I believe the numbers you are aiming for seem about right.

Wet/dry doesn’t appear to be as detrimental in marine as is made out. Gassing off to atmospheric equilibrium, dissolving gases to atmospheric equilibrium… can’t really understand why they get such bad press, as the evidence so far is following the wet/dry system with a refugium is very efficient at nutrient export. Stable o2 and Co2 for the macroalgae in the refugium over 24 hours

I think this is similar to old advice about external filters and marine tanks (reef setups especially), they are seen as nitrate factories and that they are there bad.

I have no experience with either on a marine tank as I have always used live rock only as biofiltration and filter socks for mechanical.
 
Great thread, and great work on the hair algae (my worst nightmare in my reefs and I would often nuke with Fluconazole at the first sign just in case)

Thanks @Nick potts acting as the canary in the coal mine for anyone else starting out hopefully.

This is all new to me so steadily working out the relationships in the system. Looking around and new fake reef rock does appear to be an open invitation for bryopsis and other hair algae, simply want to know why.

The lack of N is possibly from the filtration crashing. No nitrification, no nitrate, just ammonia. Hair algae goes rampant as it is commonly transported in with livestock maybe, makes it a common occurrence? Hair algae becomes ammonia control with no benefits to other inhabitants.

The common explanation is the hair algae mops all the N up and that explains the consistent zero reading. Not quite buying that in this setup due to the cloudy water, spanks of bacterial decay. Could be either, could be both. Either way can rule out o2 as a factor because of the wet/dry.

I know the standard advice used to be to have 0 detectable nitrates and phosphates and people (including me) used to use pretty aggressive removal methods, but I thought that info had all changed the last few years with the knowledge that some are better, I believe the numbers you are aiming for seem about right.

Inputting with inorganic fertiliser skips the filtration process and gets straight to the end product. The response from the corals after input is rapid and obviously chaetomorpha benefits. Seems that relying on the breakdown of organics isn’t a good plan, similar to the planted side. You want to drive growth, not be led by it.

The question that has been looming up to now is when to run the refugium. It seems to work out better (clearer water/N and P mop up according to testing/healthier chaetomorpha) running the refugium over the photoperiod with a couple of extra hours tacked on. Eight hours for the display, ten hours for the refugium in total. Leave the remaining N and P for bacterial colonies throughout the night. Total speculation that this is how it would work.

Any suggestions welcome here as just playing and reacting so far, not much finesse to the process and far from informed.

I think this is similar to old advice about external filters and marine tanks (reef setups especially), they are seen as nitrate factories and that they are there bad.

I have no experience with either on a marine tank as I have always used live rock only as biofiltration and filter socks for mechanical.

I like wet/dry. It is consistent even if everything else isn’t. Even if you consider it a nitrate factory, there’s a refugium immediately after that section to take full advantage of that N.

Besides, N and P are so low thanks to export that here we are, dosing it intentionally. That deficit is only going to get worse once the tank is filled with corals. Stocking isn’t going to increase, just the clowns with no clean up crew. Better to know this early really.

The floss is the only mechanical filtration and equivalent to a filter sock. It’s one use only, but avoids any further energy or water usage to clean it. Also removal using static is very efficient.
 
The common explanation is the hair algae mops all the N up and that explains the consistent zero reading. Not quite buying that in this setup due to the cloudy water, spanks of bacterial decay. Could be either, could be both. Either way can rule out o2 as a factor because of the wet/dry.

Yep, when you get someone with hair algae, or any other algae really the first response from most is to test, then when they come back and say 0 N & P they are then told it's because the algae have used it up, usually followed by run more rowaphos, does vodka etc

The question that has been looming up to now is when to run the refugium. It seems to work out better (clearer water/N and P mop up according to testing/healthier chaetomorpha) running the refugium over the photoperiod with a couple of extra hours tacked on.
I would go with what works best for you on this one, I have run both and didn't notice any difference with the reverse schedule.

I like wet/dry. It is consistent even if everything else isn’t. Even if you consider it a nitrate factory, there’s a refugium immediately after that section to take full advantage of that N.

Besides, N and P are so low thanks to export that here we are, dosing it intentionally.

The floss is the only mechanical filtration and equivalent to a filter sock. It’s one use only, but avoids any further energy or water usage to clean it. Also removal using static is very efficient.

I think it's just one of those persistent bits of advice on the marine side, anything that adds more nitrate to the system, whether the system can export it just fine is bad.

I have seen some amazing reefs with parameters that would make most reefkeepers cry.

Good call on the floss, cleaning socks if not fun.
 
Yep, when you get someone with hair algae, or any other algae really the first response from most is to test, then when they come back and say 0 N & P they are then told it's because the algae have used it up, usually followed by run more rowaphos, does vodka etc

Have removed Rowaphos against all advice. When suggesting that the current problem is low P the conversation is then reframed into a conversation about the control of silicates. Guess some folks just like running as much media as possible.

Even if there is a leaching of silicates, not currently viewing some diatoms as a true evil for the system, but time will tell. No vodka for the tank, one more variable that isn’t monitored and far better use in a glass with ice. Besides, the tank gets a weekly 25% water change. Export across time for silicates. Bacterial colonies stable, not reliant on further input.

I would go with what works best for you on this one, I have run both and didn't notice any difference with the reverse schedule.

The bit that makes opposed running make sense is if you want pH control via Co2 uptake. Not got that option nor had any evidence it’s an issue with this setup so will keep going as is for a bit.

I think it's just one of those persistent bits of advice on the marine side, anything that adds more nitrate to the system, whether the system can export it just fine is bad.

Think the UKAPS community is in a better place because there’s an unspoken understanding that we deal in context specific knowledge. General theories of how your system is working consistently fall by the wayside so we’re guarded against supposed ‘rules’.

Falling back on the previous statement here, inputs with an intended destination. Then export (handful of chaetomorpha removed). At least growing chaeto well now 😆

I have seen some amazing reefs with parameters that would make most reefkeepers cry.

Like the planted side right? Learning that the marine side is no different.

Good call on the floss, cleaning socks if not fun.

Yeah… seems cost prohibitive in time and resources going with socks. Not to mention the other half would lynch me rinsing all that crud in the sink. It stinks! 😷
 
Hey @mort , thanks for the reply 🙏🏽

Quite the opposite, have moved it down to substrate level now. The coralline algae on the frag started turning steadily white. Parameters are good and steady so suspect too much light if anything. Flying blind with light settings, no PAR meter and very little data or reporting on the ONF units. It’s trial and error for now. Scraped some coralline off, ground it up and broadcast to spread the bet it will successfully take.
This is one of the frustrating things with marine, and not having a PAR metre.
Corals can take a while to reflect changes you make, so it's difficult to tell when settings are dialled in correctly. Ends up being a see saw affair until it settles
 
This is one of the frustrating things with marine, and not having a PAR metre.
Corals can take a while to reflect changes you make, so it's difficult to tell when settings are dialled in correctly. Ends up being a see saw affair until it settles

This is the only PAR readings on the ONF I’ve found specific to marine taken in a working tank. From Inappropriate Reefer on YouTube:

1636360102736.jpeg


His is a pendent style suspended, using only one 60cm unit, set at 75% blue to 25% white, 100% intensity.

It’s irrelevant as using two sit on top 60cm units a few inches from the waters surface here. The overlap across the footprint from two units will change those PAR readings quite substantially.

Did have access to an Apogee MQ-510 when this setup was freshwater. Not anymore though. But those figures are meaningless with the change in balance of blue and full spectrum LED’s.

ONF do have a preset mode for marine that runs for 11 hours. Ramp up and down, very blue at dawn and dusk with high intensity white at midday. Seem’s like a really bad idea.

Sticking with 8 hours, 80% blue to 20% white, 75% intensity on the two units for the foreseeable. Can’t justify shelling out on a PAR meter that will only get used once if we’re being honest. Likely to sit in a box thereafter.
 
This is the only PAR readings on the ONF I’ve found specific to marine taken in a working tank. From Inappropriate Reefer on YouTube:

View attachment 176986

His is a pendent style suspended, using only one 60cm unit, set at 75% blue to 25% white, 100% intensity.

It’s irrelevant as using two sit on top 60cm units a few inches from the waters surface here. The overlap across the footprint from two units will change those PAR readings quite substantially.

Did have access to an Apogee MQ-510 when this setup was freshwater. Not anymore though. But those figures are meaningless with the change in balance of blue and full spectrum LED’s.

ONF do have a preset mode for marine that runs for 11 hours. Ramp up and down, very blue at dawn and dusk with high intensity white at midday. Seem’s like a really bad idea.

Sticking with 8 hours, 80% blue to 20% white, 75% intensity on the two units for the foreseeable. Can’t justify shelling out on a PAR meter that will only get used once if we’re being honest. Likely to sit in a box thereafter.

That's a good shout on that balance, I also go way down on the whites, think I'm 85% blue, 15% white right now. 15% red. No idea if it's optimal, just seems to have balanced out at that lol
 
That's a good shout on that balance, I also go way down on the whites, think I'm 85% blue, 15% white right now. 15% red. No idea if it's optimal, just seems to have balanced out at that lol

There’s all sorts of other factors specific to the tanks location too… close to patio doors, overspill from the 1200 RGB’s into this tank.

The patio doors are an easy solve, keep the blinds pulled over in the mornings. The 1200 has its photoperiod in the middle of the marine tanks photoperiod so effectively acts like midday.

The point being that even with white set further down there’s alternative sources of light entering the tank. Could probably go more blue as you have @Aqua360 and still have some red peak through the amalgamation of light sources.

Being honest, having exact PAR and spectrum data at each location in the tank wouldn’t make one bit of difference quite frankly… I’ve not a clue what the end users (the corals) will grow optimally under. Just aiming to get experienced and a little more familiar with this setup for now.

Big on Gonioporas so likely they will be the main species in the display. So far adequate flow and target feeding phytoplankton have mattered more to it than lighting. Work in progress and fun finding out, that’s what a hobby is about right?
 
Being honest, having exact PAR and spectrum data at each location in the tank wouldn’t make one bit of difference quite frankly… I’ve not a clue what the end users (the corals) will grow optimally under. Just aiming to get experienced and a little more familiar with this setup for now.

Big on Gonioporas so likely they will be the main species in the display. So far adequate flow and target feeding phytoplankton have mattered more to it than lighting. Work in progress and fun finding out, that’s what a hobby is about right?

Par is certainly useful for placement but not something I have ever measured. I can tell you with 2 ONF's there isn't anything you won't be able to keep :) and if anything you will have to be careful what goes at the top of t he tank.

Goni's are lovely corals, but as you say food seems to be far more important, it's been a while since I looked into them but from I remember they like lots of it.
 
Back
Top