Red Sea NO3:POX4X Real Time Review.

[john.m.cole3]

Would a little squirt of H2O2 help or hurt? Does it affect the carbon dosing?

@brandon429 can save this tank

 

[john.m.cole3]

What would be the rationale for adding it?

I don't think broadcast dosing H2O2 would help, but manual removal of the GHA would be my first piece of advice. removal of the rock containg the GHA and cleaning the culprit off would be the best bet IMO. How old is the tank?

 

[john.m.cole3]

This was some of the noteworthy things I found. They define a larger interaction.
Though you're somewhat correct, remember we're dealing with circumstances that have yet to be fully discovered. But the main part of it all? Methanol. (and algae/detritus consuming organisms that rely on methanol)

So please, I said it before, stop saying nopox is the same as vodka and vinegar. And your 'definitive' analysis couple years back, was not. The resolution was not at maximum, so it's like looking at something under a microscope and calling a 2000x magnification analysis "good enough" to determine 100% content analysis.

Oh, and as far as which is "stronger", bacteria or fungus, there's multiple areas of medical science reconsidering fungus being a bigger 'problem' than bacteria. Purely because of their survival rates and toughness compared to bacteria. Just a thought.


Eukaryotic methylotrophs, which are able to obtain all the carbon and energy needed for growth from methanol, are restricted to a limited number of yeast species. When these yeasts are grown on methanol as the sole carbon and energy source, the enzymes involved in methanol metabolism are strongly induced, and the membrane-bound organelles, peroxisomes, which contain key enzymes of methanol metabolism, proliferate massively. These features have made methylotrophic yeasts attractive hosts for the production of heterologous proteins and useful model organisms for the study of peroxisome biogenesis and degradation. In this paper, we describe recent insights into the molecular basis of yeast methylotrophy.

Prokaryotic methylotrophs can utilize a variety of C1-compounds (e.g., methane, methanol, methylamine), while eukaryotic methylotrophs can only use methanol as a carbon source, and methylamine not as a carbon source but as a nitrogen source. The latter group of organisms is limited to a number of yeast genera including Candida, Pichia, and some genera that were recently separated from Pichia, that is, Ogataea, Kuraishia, and Komagataella [5].
Since the first isolation in 1969 [6], methylotrophic yeasts have been studied intensively in terms of both physiological activities and potential applications. In the early 1970s, production of single cell protein (SCP) using methanol as a carbon source was studied intensively [7, 8]. These studies established a high-cell-density cultivation method although large-scale production of SCP from methanol was eventually found not to be economically feasible. The metabolic pathways involved in methanol assimilation and dissimilation and characterization of the enzymes have been described in Hansenula polymorpha (Pichia angusta) and Candida boidinii [9–12]. One major finding was the strong inducibility of these enzymes by methanol. A variety of genes encoding enzymes and proteins involved in methanol metabolism have since been cloned, and the regulation of methanol-inducible gene expression has been studied [13, 14]. Methylotrophic yeasts also have been used as model organisms for peroxisome biogenesis and degradation, because methylotrophic growth in yeasts is accompanied by the massive proliferation of peroxisomes, membrane-bound organelles that contain several methanol-metabolizing enzymes [15–17].

Methanol is oxidized to CO2 by methylotrophic bacteria and yeasts. Thus, methylotrophs play indispensable roles in the global carbon cycle between methane and CO2 called “the methane cycle.” A thorough understanding of the molecular basis of methylotrophy is needed not only to better understand the global methane cycle but also to permit more efficient use of methanol as a renewable carbon source.

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijmicro/2011/101298/

Yeasts are ubiquitous in their distribution and populations mainly depend on the type and concentration of organic materials. The distribution of species, as well as their numbers and metabolic characteristics were found to be governed by existing environmental conditions. Marine yeasts were first discovered from the Atlantic Ocean and following this discovery, yeasts were isolated from different sources, viz. seawater, marine deposits, seaweeds, fish, marine mammals and sea birds. Nearshore environments are usually inhabited by tens to thousands of cells per litre of water, whereas low organic surface to deep-sea oceanic regions contain 10 or fewer cells/litre. Aerobic forms are found more in clean waters and fermentative forms in polluted waters. Yeasts are more abundant in silty muds than in sandy sediments. The isolation frequency of yeasts fell as the depth of the sampling site is increased. Major genera isolated in this study were Candida, Cryptococcus, Debaryomyces and Rhodotorula. For biomass estimation ergosterol method was used. Classification and identification of yeastswere performed using different criteria, i.e. morphology,sexual reproduction and physiological/biochemical characteristics. Fatty acid profiling or molecular sequencing of the IGS and ITS regions and 28S gene rDNA ensured accurate identification



Studies on the distribution of yeasts world-wide are presented in Figure 1. A truly marine yeast must be able to grow on or in a marine substrate. Direct examination of living marine invertebrates, however, has demonstrated the presence of parasitic and pathogenic yeasts [54,126,131] and, if such species have grown in situ in the animal and its native habitat, they could rightly be called indigenous marine species. So far, no physiological clues have been found to explain why marine-occurring yeasts are able to live in this special habitat. Salinity tolerance does not distinguish marine species from terrestrial species because almost all yeasts can grow in sodium chloride concentrations exceeding those normally present in the sea. Certain distinctive metabolic attributes of yeasts are associated with environmental distribution. Yeasts found in aquatic environments are generally asporogenous and oxidative or weakly fermentative. [119] Marine yeasts are reported to be truly versatile agents of biodegradation. [36,71] They participate in a range of ecologically significant processes in the sea, especially in estuarine and near-shore environments. Among such activities, decomposition of plant substrates, nutrient-recycling, biodegradation of oil/recalcitrant compounds and parasitism of marine animals are important. Biomass data and repeated observations of microhabitat colonization by various marine-occurring yeasts support ancillary laboratory evidence for the contribution of this segment of the marine mycota to productivity and transformation activities in the sea. [93]



Kriss and Rukina [73] also found plankton blooms in the Black sea and the Pacific Ocean to be locations of greatest density of yeast populations in the sea.



Yeast populations have been observed to decrease with increased distance from land [5] and certain yeast species frequently collected from seawater were obtained in the highest quantities from the vicinity of heavily polluted areas. [45] However, such facts could also indicate that the collected yeasts were merely contaminants from terrestrial sources, surviving passively in the sea. These incidents and the related arguments may very well question the statement that there are truly indigenous marine yeasts. Near-shore environments are usually inhabited by tens to thousands of cells/litre of water, whereas low organic surface to deep-sea oceanic regions contain 10 or fewer cells/litre, although local nutrient areas may foster concentrations of yeast cells that reach 3000–4000 cells/litre. Kriss and Novozhilova [77] reported that budding yeasts were observed by direct microscopic examination of water samples down to depths of 2000 m. This fact would be evidence for growth of yeasts in seawater; however, the collection technique with Nansen bottles used by Kriss and co-workers was questioned later, when such containers were found to be easily contaminated. [134] In a survey of marineoccurring yeasts, Kohlmeyer and Kohlmeyer [72] have compiled a list of 177 species that were isolated from water, sediment, algae, animals and other organic matter in the marine habitat. Of those, only 26 species were regarded as obligate marine forms. The most important genera of true marine yeasts are Metchnikowia, Kluyveromyces, Rhodosporidium, Candida, Cryptococcus, Rhodotorula and Torulopsis. From these studies it was found that marine yeasts do not belong to a specific genus or group, but that they are distributed among a wide variety of well-known genera, such as Candida, Cryptococcus, Debaryomyces, Pichia, Hansenula, Rhodotorula, Saccharomyces, Trichosporon and Torulopsis. The isolation frequency of yeasts falls with depth. Yeasts in the class Ascomycetes (e.g. Candida, Debaryomyces, Kluyveromyces, Pichia and Saccharomyces) are common in shallow waters, whilst yeasts belonging to the Basidiomycetes (Cryptococcus, Rhodosporidium, Rhodotorula, Sporobolomyces) are common in deep waters, e.g. Rhodotorula has been isolated from a depth of 11000 m. [99]



Yamasato et al. [156] conducted an ecological survey of yeasts from the Pacific Ocean and yeasts were isolated from the surface to a depth of 4000 m and were found belonging to the genera Rhodotorula, Cryptococcus, Debaryomyces and Candida. Cryptococcus and Rhodotorula species were predominant among yeasts isolated from deep-sea waters from Loma Trough, off San Diego, CA, USA. In samples collected off La Jolla, CA, USA, total yeast count varied in the range 0–1920 viable cells/l. [146] Fell and Castelo-Branco (146) reported observations on the distribution, ecology and taxonomy of yeasts isolated from the subtropical Atlantic near Miami, FL, USA and the warm temperature Pacific adjacent to La Jolla, CA, USA. From the open ocean waters of the Gulf Stream near Bimini, Bahamas, genera such as Candida, Rhodotorula, Cryptococcus, Debaryomyces and black yeasts were isolated. The distribution of species as well as their numbers and metabolic characteristics were found to be governed by existing environmental conditions.



http://dyuthi.cusat.ac.in/xmlui/bitstream/handle/purl/2035/Marine%20yeasts-a%20rewiew.pdf

Affecting algae?

1. Boidinii can grow on pectin and this ability depends on methylotrophy

Golden-brown algae (Chrysophyta). The Chrysophyta, or golden-brown algae and diatoms, are named for the yellow pigments they possess. These single-celled algae live both in freshwater and salt water. Their cell walls have no cellulose but are composed mostly of pectin



From <http://www.scienceclarified.com/A-Al/Algae.html>

Sulfate-limiting anaerobic conditions



Methanogenic archaea have an unusual type of metabolism because they use H2 + CO2, formate, methylated C1 compounds, or acetate as energy and carbon sources for growth. The methanogens produce methane as the major end product of their metabolism in a unique energy-generating process. The organisms received much attention because they catalyze the terminal step in the anaerobic breakdown of organic matter under sulfate-limiting conditions and are essential for both the recycling of carbon compounds and the maintenance of the global carbon flux on Earth.



Other energy-transducing enzymes involved in methanogenesis are the membrane-integral methyltransferase and the formylmethanofuran dehydrogenase complex.



Furthermore, the review addresses questions related to the biochemical and genetic characteristics of the energy-transducing enzymes and to the mechanisms of ion translocation.





http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12102556

you just LITERALLY bored the **** out of me... how do I unsubscribe from this thread?

 

[brandon429]

Top right button watch thread

I've only used it on one thread heh but it's handy

Y'all are cracking me up, op never came back after 1st page




Now I really want to know how this tank turned out

when you linked me here John this is what I noticed about the OP's tank, it begins the brainstorms I use in other threads to see if we can coax compliance:

Why is it that supposed tank wide nutrient issues only manifested here as low level algae growth directly on the rocks and not any other place? If I dumped stump remover in my already not ulns tank, I'd have green on the glass by tomorrow it would never select just for the rock. Green across the substrate...on the back wall etc.

Water column nutrient issues to me express in more than just one place. Laziness in my tank puts algae on the walls too

Wonder what it is about specifically the rock in this pic 1st page that makes it the locus for algae, all over the rock totally and low level, with no spots but full coverage. Going off no testing and pics only, the rock looked to be a source of concern for me, not the water, why did nobody po4 test that rock? Smash a corner off some, beat the sample into towel powder and put sample into a sample of water already known zero for po4, see if things change in a day or two after exposing all that test rock surface area to see if a hobby kit can pick up some phosphate

Also I never got to see how his rocks behave in a swish test. Swish test is nothing fancy it's just a detritus hunt~ take out a test rock and swish it hard in a bucket of clean water, try to get it to cast off detritus just to model how dirty the rest might be

nearly all rocks left plugged up with algae overgrowth are retaining phosphates and nitrates via detritus which needs to be dealt with

Pics are telling me to look at that rock more than the water as first go

He had tank cleaning avenues we didn't look at

I noticed his rock had no coralline, what a handy algae colonization excluder coralline turns out to be, helps us manage real estate. Grazers are absent or at least not matched here for OP, tank lights running on full on production mode, algae likes that too. Imo we are so engrained that all algae is a water table nutrient matter that we leave out other focuses that could be the swing vote too

It's not that I debate nutrient controls in algae wars, it's that there are five other issues here that if corrected might have been a big deal or at least as a multi prong approach for him.

For sure I'd have squirted some peroxide to clean off the rocks externally here, eventually opening up pores in it via plant killing, trying to begin the process of guiding it's retained crap back out of it (and thereby really hitting nutrients) by unplugging the plants from it. I'd have blued up the lights, less white, and go lower intensity while warring, these corals adapt to cloudy days on a reef and we can ramp the intensity back in time, his algae appreciated us not considering one single other factor vs no3 in the water.

I would have also advised in this case to not use preventatives as algae removers in reaction to having incomplete grazer balances and a fully bright tank with fish bioloading and zero hand guiding of substrate



Start preventatives when there is no algae

If algae comes use something other than a preventative on it


test kits are what you use to guide preventatives. Make the preventatives give you the ideal target params and stop relying on them for the algae beyond param management, grazers are supposed to be the other half of the equation. We are all to strung on nutrients as causatives I'm sure. We will starve our corals and stn them blaming virus and bacteria when in reality it's us seeing every algae tank as a water problem and making hungry corals go hungrier

It's not even about peroxide... the spot control work. it's about cellular kill of plant cells to lessen regrowth, even pasted Kent tech M will work as a direct treatment on most species (not dosed to the water, we can see everyone acts on the water this last two decades)

Fauna X algaecide also doesn't have to be dumped in a tank.. could have been external spot treat. Kalk paste too, so many good external spot treat options not even tried

we would have killed all the algae in 24 hours then made decisions based on growback

------------------------------------------------------



I keep this in mind about nutrient controls as only part of the pie: we can locate the most balanced/algae free tank in the world with scientific control over every algae param and if we just changed the lighting back to an overpowered out of date used set of 6000K MH plant bulbs lowered just above the water line, they'll be an algae farm in a week having nothing to do with anything other than lighting. I thumb typed all this on iPad nite ~ cramps hand

 

[Andylew]

I've been using npx for for 10 months since I started up my new reef a year ago, stick with it, If your corals aren't looking so well and all other params are fine increase a little or decrease as per test results! Test is best!

 

[john.m.cole3]

Top right button watch thread

I've only used it on one thread heh but it's handy

Y'all are cracking me up, op never came back after 1st page




Now I really want to know how this tank turned out

when you linked me here John this is what I noticed about the OP's tank, it begins the brainstorms I use in other threads to see if we can coax compliance:

Why is it that supposed tank wide nutrient issues only manifested here as low level algae growth directly on the rocks and not any other place? If I dumped stump remover in my already not ulns tank, I'd have green on the glass by tomorrow it would never select just for the rock. Green across the substrate...on the back wall etc.

Water column nutrient issues to me express in more than just one place. Laziness in my tank puts algae on the walls too

Wonder what it is about specifically the rock in this pic 1st page that makes it the locus for algae, all over the rock totally and low level, with no spots but full coverage. Going off no testing and pics only, the rock looked to be a source of concern for me, not the water, why did nobody po4 test that rock? Smash a corner off some, beat the sample into towel powder and put sample into a sample of water already known zero for po4, see if things change in a day or two after exposing all that test rock surface area to see if a hobby kit can pick up some phosphate

Also I never got to see how his rocks behave in a swish test. Swish test is nothing fancy it's just a detritus hunt~ take out a test rock and swish it hard in a bucket of clean water, try to get it to cast off detritus. nearly all rocks left plugged up with algae overgrowth are retaining phosphates and nitrates via detritus --I know Randy we already chatted about nitrate not having a chemical binding affinity to caco3 like po4 does but I'd want to see this OPs detritus locked in that rock. Pics are telling me to look at that rock more than the water as first go

He had tank cleaning avenues we didn't look at

I noticed his rock had no coralline, what a handy algae colonization excluder coralline turns out to be, helps us manage real estate. Grazers are absent or at least not matched here for OP, tank lights running on full on production mode, algae likes that too. Imo we are so engrained that all algae is a water table nutrient matter that we leave out other focuses that could be the swing vote too

It's not that I debate nutrient controls in algae wars, it's that I see five other issues that if corrected might have been a big deal or at least as a multi prong approach for him.

For sure I'd have squirted some peroxide to clean off the rocks, eventually opening up pores in it via plant killing, trying to begin the process of guiding it's retained crap back out of it (and thereby really hitting nutrients) by unplugging the plants from it. I'd have blued up the lights, less white, and go lower intensity while warring, these corals adapt to cloudy days on a reef and we can ramp the intensity back in time, his algae appreciated us not considering one single other factor vs no3 in the water.

I would have also advised in this case to not use preventatives as algae removers in reaction to having incomplete grazer balances and a fully bright tank with fish bioloading and zero hand guiding of substrates. Wait, that's every case I can think of not just this one

Use preventatives consistently. Don't change, alter, spike them etc if a little green gets through the grand blockade, just hand guide the rest, use a chem cheat at that point and you get tons of mileage, or get matched grazers like the oceans do and require no cheats. I wouldn't have exclusively used peroxide here, it would have been a multi purpose tool. Do not alter or begin using preventatives when you see algae, act on the algae directly.

Start preventatives when there is no algae


test kits are what you use to guide preventatives. Make the preventatives give you the ideal target params and stop relying on them for the algae beyond param management, grazers are supposed to be the other half of the equation. We are all to strung on nutrients as causatives I'm sure. We will starve our corals and stn them blaming virus and bacteria when in reality it's us seeing every algae tank as a water problem and making hungry corals go hungrier

It's not even about peroxide... the spot control work. it's about cellular kill of plant cells to lessen regrowth, even pasted Kent tech M will work as a direct treatment on most species (not dosed to the water, we can see everyone acts on the water this last two decades)

Fauna X algaecide also doesn't have to be dumped in a tank.. He could have lifted those two pillar rocks out in the air, droppered that stuff on targets a section at a time, and had all that algae dead fast, affecting zero non targets for the sole purpose of not using preventatives as removers. Some people have a scape much less accessible, he could have spot treated to head off full coverage.

For fun we would have killed all the algae in 24 hours so we get good looks, and then all this retro nutrient chasing might have helped because it would be stopping *growback* not removing a bunch of mass meant for a parrotfish to wipe out in one rasp.

------------------------------------------------------

I wouldn't think for one minute that solely spot treating would have cured his issue, this invader was allowed to set in the growback would have come likely. The spot treating combined with the other angles was my take on the matter, I saw only one angle tried so far.

Keep this in mind about grand nutrient controls, we can locate the most balanced/algae free tank in the world with scientific control over every algae param and if we just changed the lighting back to an overpowered out of date used set of 6000K MH plant bulbs lowered just above the water line, they'll be an algae farm in a week having nothing to do with anything other than lighting. I thumb typed all this on iPad nite ~ cramps hand

and that's why I summoned your presence, bro. so, you DON'T think spot treatments are the way to go here? would spot tretments combined w/ regular rock cleaning, and a nutrient binder media be a better multi-faceted approach?

 

[john.m.cole3]

The issue is that NoPoX is a bandaid, not resolving the origin of the problem...

 

[john.m.cole3]

Manual removal first, nutrient export second, better husbandry third, followed by nutrient control last... of course... IMO (BTW NoPoX falls inline w/ nutrient control)

 

[brandon429]

Agreed I would have gone about this reverse. Since it was accessible, lift out rocks and spot treat all algae externally then algae is dead in two days then we begin growback prevention work, predictably retreating again if needed during the process.

The spot targeting is a two day kill, decisive, to starve this as first go only via water or any additive targeting nutrients is weeks of waiting and is coral starving too in many cases imo

Andy's nice tank above started with no pox vs reacted with it, better approach for any preventative imo. Not that no pox was the reason his tank looks nice, but that's the right preventer mentality vs reactive I thought.

I would have had a tank cleaning component, a peroxide component or some comparative algaecide, and then the water table work if indeed the nutrients tested poorly on a believable kit.

 

[john.m.cole3]

Agreed I would have gone about this reverse. Since it was accessible, lift out rocks and spot treat all algae externally then algae is dead in two days then we begin growback prevention work, predictably retreating again if needed during the process.

The spot targeting is a two day kill, to starve this as first go only via water or any additive fit nutrients is weeks of waiting and is coral starving too in many cases.

I would have had a tank cleaning component, a peroxide component or some comparative algaecide, and then the water table work if indeed the nutrients tested poorly on a believable kit.

Gone about this in reverse as far as reactive or preventative measures?

 

[john.m.cole3]

I was implying reactive measures, but if you think/have a better plan I'm all ears. @brandon429 , you helped me w/ my algae issues so I will take your advice here

 

[brandon429]

In reaction to the algae id have spot treated first, maybe again if needed, began considering which grazer set I'm missing, and adjusted my preventative measures solely off growback but never the ability to kill algae purposefully allowed to reside. I can only see the OPs tank as something that could have been killed off pretty quickly, he only had two rocks worth to attack. I'd have ramped up the water table tinkering only if growback was really marked

 

[dacianb]

After years trying sugar, vodka, vinegar and never happy with it, now I am in 5th month of Nopox dosing. I am not using any other absorbing media, reactors, etc, not even activated carbon - just Nopox and skimmer. Never added Reef energy or similar in my tank. Rather a heavy bioload in a RS Reefer 350 tank. SPS, LPS and zoas as corals.

My experience with:
- Dropped the NO3 from 40-50 range to nothing in 3 weeks - no argues, works.
- An acan coral 90% died during this massive NO3 drop - probably starting with low dose and increase is recommended.
- BTA was grumpy and half closed in same period - probably due to same reason - now acan and bta fully back.
- first week lot of algae blooms (white water) and then, next weeks some white deposits on pumps, tubes, etc. - will go away once dosing is reduced. Stopping and starting a pump brought lot of white flakes in tank, but tangs, blennies and coral beauty angel eat those voraciously, so I am happy.
- once get to 0.00 NO3 I saw my sand become red and I panicked. Flow changes, siphon the sand - nothing worked. Next day, pink tint on sand was back. Then I understood that Nopox, in order to reduce No3 and PO4 needs both in same time. If NO3 is 0.00 doesnt work anymore and PO4 starts building up.
I reduced the dose in a way to keep constant 0.25-0.50 NO3 in tank and never going to 0.00 anymore. In few days red tint of sand cleaned and since 2 months or so I have no issues at all.
Nothing grows on my sand or rock and I have to add every other days algaes for fishes and cuc because rocks are so clean.

I saw on this thread tons of high level scientific argues which, honestly I can even follow. I dont have either chemistry or biology PHD. This is my experience, works and I shared here for others.

 

[Andylew]

Manual removal first, nutrient export second, better husbandry third, followed by nutrient control last... of course... IMO (BTW NoPoX falls inline w/ nutrient control)

Very true John, I had issues after first 6 weeks with hair algae, ident all the issues, removed as much as I could myself, got some true Mexican turbo snails, they did the rest! Started using npx after 2 months and havn't looked back! Having said all that nothing good happens early in a reef tank, after about 10 months the magic started to happen for no other reason than the tank maturing!

 

[ryecoon]

As of right now I am still holding off on dosing NO3O4X until I complete a Nitrate test tomorrow evening. As of right now the algae is not as vibrant as it first was but I do have a much more noticeable amount of hair algae. I'm going to give it another week but at this point it starting to encroach on the corals and I'm not entirely sure how comfortable I am leaving it alone. I have been considering ordering a Pygmy Sea Hare to deal with the algae but I'm willing to give it more time. Polyp extension on the corals has decreased a but on the majority of corals. So just sitting here in the low point of my aquarium.

Do you have HA on the sand and windows?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

- once get to 0.00 NO3 I saw my sand become red and I panicked. Flow changes, siphon the sand - nothing worked. Next day, pink tint on sand was back. Then I understood that Nopox, in order to reduce No3 and PO4 needs both in same time. If NO3 is 0.00 doesnt work anymore and PO4 starts building up.
I reduced the dose in a way to keep constant 0.25-0.50 NO3 in tank and never going to 0.00 anymore. In few days red tint of sand cleaned and since 2 months or so I have no issues at all.
.

That part in particular very interesting (at least to me) and not unexpected result (since cyano can potentially get its nitrogen from N2 while nothing else in the tank can). Thanks for posting it!

 

[dacianb]

That part in particular very interesting (at least to me) and not unexpected result (since cyano can potentially get its nitrogen from N2 while nothing else in the tank can). Thanks for posting it!

Actually RS recommend this in their manual. Even for Coral coloration (low nutrient system) - they said if NO3 goes under 0.25 to reduce the dosing until back to 0.25.

 

[brandon429]

Dacian I fully believe the nutrient control aspect of npx you mentioned on your tank worked to create that balance. It can be tricky to copy that across tanks, walking the line of starving algae and not corals, but when it works it's golden. You are describing a nice balance and tune for your tank and that's a possible outcome for several nutrient control systems like algae scrubbers, good results from carbon dosing or pellet/reactor systems etc

Much of my cleaning and direct access practice comes from having a small tank easily accessed and taken apart to clean as needed, it's understandable for larger tanks how a greater demand for controls via the water keeps the tank enjoyable so it's not worked on as much.

At least if someone reading still has algae issues after their nutrient controls were in place already we've added another set of control options so they don't feel the need to only do more water stripping, good to add options

 

[dacianb]

Dacian I fully believe the nutrient control aspect of npx you mentioned on your tank worked to create that balance. It can be tricky to copy that across tanks, walking the line of starving algae and not corals, but when it works it's golden.

Much of my cleaning and direct access practice comes from having a small tank easily accessed and taken apart to clean as needed, it's understandable for larger tanks how a greater demand for controls via the water only keeps the tank enjoyable so it's not worked on as much.

At least if someone reading still has algae issues after their nutrient controls were in place already we've added another set of control options so they don't feel the need to only do more water stripping, good to add options

Agree with you. Reason I really dont think my corals will starve are the tangs and my heavy feeding regime (at least the kole's tang "toilet" is near a flow pump - a massive blast of poo is spread all over the tank and those guys have quite some "production"). Together with high flow, this nutrient is spread all over the tank in few seconds and all corals extend a lot in their "feeding regime". After minutes, water is perfectly clear again. Still have 3 types of euphyllia, acan and zoas - those will show starvation symptoms probably way before sps. At least on zoas I have an explosion of new heads in last weeks and from one day to another seems that new ones grows. Euphyllia are also looking better than ever.
I dont say that never will use those coral food or other supplements, but for the moment I have only few corals and my target is to balance the tank. Then will add more and more corals and probably will have to start supplementing things.
Another remark is that once tank stabilize, even without changing the bioload and feeding, Nopox required to keep certain NO3 level is lower and lower. Every couple of weeks I lower the dosing with 0.5 ml for same 0.5NO3 level.

 

[brandon429]

Well written!