SPS coral and calcium

[Gregcoyote]

Lamark angel.

Thanks. I used to run ROX 0.8 carbon, but now I run bio pellets.

Is the Lamark Angel reef friendly? I have a large coral beauty that is, a large Flame, who is kind of and a black tail that I would catch if I could.

What did you see was the advantage of the bio pellets? Do you see it as a direct replacement to the carbon?

 

[Biocube14]

@CcCapt.. VERY nice tank.. One of the best ive seen.. I want my nano to look like that. That's why I need lighting help..

From what I've learned, many corals don't need to be fed.. From what I've seen many fed corals are very happy and flourishing.. No need to let a debate turn into a conflict.. Even when someone is wrong (not accusing anyone) people still learn from mistakes.. I really want Stoney corals so I'm trying to prepare and research. Good job everyone.

 

[Gregcoyote]

I think that there are corals that can do just fine without supplemental feeding, but they do get stuff from the water column even if you are not intentionally feeding them. IF you feed them as well, they grow faster in most cases. Anyone that has a thriving reef is their own expert and rightly so. There are multiple ways to get to the same destination in this hobby.

 

[Gti_Leo]

Aprox 22 years keeping a reef tank.

And yours.....

thats a sweet looking setup you have.

are you still using 10000k lamps like your sig stats, because that is really blue compared to that pic

 

[ccCapt]

Is the Lamark Angel reef friendly? I have a large coral beauty that is, a large Flame, who is kind of and a black tail that I would catch if I could.

What did you see was the advantage of the bio pellets? Do you see it as a direct replacement to the carbon?

The lamark is a perfect citizen. It's a genicanthus sp. angel and they are true plankton eaters. I've had it a little over 4 years now and it never touched a coral.
As far as carbon vs bio pellets, I ran carbon for many years and have only been running the bio pellets about a year or so. The only difference I see is in the long run the bio pellets are cheaper. I haven't noticed any change in either water quality or coral color/growth.

From what I've learned, many corals don't need to be fed.. From what I've seen many feed corals are very happy and flourishing..

I very rarely directly fed any of my corals. I'll get a bottle of ZooPlex and that last a year, but I do feed my fish pretty heavily. There have been studies done where corals were fed newly hatched brine shrimp and their growth was significantly faster than unfed corals.

are you still using 10000k lamps like your sig stats

I ran 175w Iwasaki 15k bulbs for many years but decided to give 250w XM 10k's a try. The colors are very close, but the 250's put out alot more heat and cost more to run. Those pics were using the Iwasaki 15K's. I do have pics comparing both bulbs and the difference is barely noticable. I also run 2x160w VHO SuperActinics.

 

[slitherbomb]

That lamark angel is beautiful. I just wish that there was a dwarf angel that is reef safe!!!!

 

[Gregcoyote]

The lamark is a perfect citizen. It's a genicanthus sp. angel and they are true plankton eaters. I've had it a little over 4 years now and it never touched a coral.
As far as carbon vs bio pellets, I ran carbon for many years and have only been running the bio pellets about a year or so. The only difference I see is in the long run the bio pellets are cheaper. I haven't noticed any change in either water quality or coral color/growth.

I very rarely directly fed any of my corals. I'll get a bottle of ZooPlex and that last a year, but I do feed my fish pretty heavily. There have been studies done where corals were fed newly hatched brine shrimp and their growth was significantly faster than unfed corals.

I ran 175w Iwasaki 15k bulbs for many years but decided to give 250w XM 10k's a try. The colors are very close, but the 250's put out alot more heat and cost more to run. Those pics were using the Iwasaki 15K's. I do have pics comparing both bulbs and the difference is barely noticable. I also run 2x160w VHO SuperActinics.

I use carbon to try to reduce coral toxins primarily, my fluidized sand filter and algae scrubber with skimmer keeps up with the organics. How would bio pellets replace carbon in my case, or would it. You have a densely populated SPS load, so teach me Yoda, this droid wishes to know.

 

[deepseadan]

Algae in the corals tissue makes sugars. Good for energy, but not as good for laying down new tissues. I agree that feeding does help, I have seen this in my reef. I use oyster and phytoplankton for this every other day.

Thanks for all the good info!

Greg, I use phyto-feast every day for copepod growth ect. I have a reef store about an hour away called Mystic Reef, and the store only sells corals. I've been watching their methods for a long time now, and spend quite a lot of time talking - debating, but I can't get over their sps success. They have thousands of small frags that they cut themselves, and the brothers write many articles for the magazine "Reef Hobbyists magazine". They're the ones who convinced me to start feeding sps. Since that day my sps success level went through the roof. I agree, feeding everyday may be overkill, but my system can handle it. Every other day would for sure be adequate. And to clarify a couple points from my earlier post (it was late when I wrote it), when I said meat eaters I meant zooplankton, like rotifiers, oyster ect. So small that you can't see with the eyes. I feed arctic pods for my fish and some lps and nps. But getting back to the phyto-feast type products, those reef store brothers say phyto-feast is to small for sps to feed on and since phytoplankton is plant matter, its not for sps anyway. It's more filter feeders like fans, copepods ect. Don't know if it's true, just wondering if you've noticed a difference either way with sps when using it? My experience is no difference so far. But with oyster feast and rotifiers I did notice a considerable positive effect. Have you tried the reef nutrition products? Seem to be amazing. Those mystic reef guys are also convinced that a marine snow product is great to. They explained it does something special with getting food already in the system and making it available for the corals. I just can't remember exactly for sure. Any experience with any of the snow products either? Last, to one comment by someone else, I do have personal experience growing sps for many years. I've also done research, but anything I say here on this forum is from personal experience. I don't say it unless I've tried it. I enjoy the entire reef hobby, but sps is what I really love. I know almost anyone can grow many lps and fish, but few do sps. When I have fellow reef buddies over and they see my tank full of sps branches and colors, they all say wow. Now I wish I could just learn how to tank a decent picture of the tank to share. Every one I take looks nothing like real life.

 

[ccCapt]

I use carbon to try to reduce coral toxins primarily, my fluidized sand filter and algae scrubber with skimmer keeps up with the organics. How would bio pellets replace carbon in my case, or would it. You have a densely populated SPS load, so teach me Yoda, this droid wishes to know.

I'm not sure the bio pellets replace what the carbon does as far as removing DOC's. The only way to really know would be if you had access to a Shimadzu 5000 TOC Analyzer (costs is about $10,000) and test the water that is filtered with carbon vs the water filtered by the bio pellets.
In my own personal experience, I see no difference using 1 or the other but also I found it's not good to run both. Running both, in my case, I think the water got too clean and I started seeing bleaching. Right now I only run bio pellets because it's cheaper and easier, plus I don't see any negative affects from not using carbon. Like many other things in this hobby, there isn't only 1 way to get good results.

If you want to read some very scientific and indepth studies on DOC's and TOC's, Google "Ken Feldman" from Penn State Univ. We are members of the same reef club and Ken has published many great studies, but be prepared for your head to start spinning. The studies are quite scientific.

 

[deepseadan]

I'm not sure the bio pellets replace what the carbon does as far as removing DOC's. The only way to really know would be if you had access to a Shimadzu 5000 TOC Analyzer (costs is about $10,000) and test the water that is filtered with carbon vs the water filtered by the bio pellets.
In my own personal experience, I see no difference using 1 or the other but also I found it's not good to run both. Running both, in my case, I think the water got too clean and I started seeing bleaching. Right now I only run bio pellets because it's cheaper and easier, plus I don't see any negative affects from not using carbon. Like many other things in this hobby, there isn't only 1 way to get good results.

If you want to read some very scientific and indepth studies on DOC's and TOC's, Google "Ken Feldman" from Penn State Univ. We are members of the same reef club and Ken has published many great studies, but be prepared for your head to start spinning. The studies are quite scientific.

Bio pellets are a pure carbon based polymer plastic that is used for the culture of bacteria which consumer nitrate and phosphate. They work very well by the way, so well that I had to stop using the because my skimmer was going crazy with bacteria and I kept getting bacteria blooms. But for people with major nitrate and phosphate issues, they probably would be great. I don't though. Some people add vodka to try and culture the same bacteria, but the bio pellets are a controlled far more effective way of eliminating no3 and po4. Activated carbon is completely different, it absorbs chemicals, and tds (total dissolved solids) like bio waste ect. I don't use carbon anymore, I use a large refugium with micro algae to reduce nutrients and tds. I "think" it still leaves some tds in the water but keeps it under control. I also "think" the reef likes a tiny amount of tds, and carbon pulls everything out. No proof though on how much bio waste or tds is left, just better coral health and growth.

 

[ccCapt]

Activated carbon is completely different, it absorbs chemicals, and tds (total dissolved solids)

TDS? You may want to read this....
Feature Article: Granular Activated Carbon, Part 1: Modeling of Operational Parameters for Dissolved Organic Carbon Removal from Marine Aquaria — Advanced Aquarist's Online Magazine
"The precise chemical species that GAC removes have not been determined. Rather, the catchall phrases "DOC" (dissolved organic carbon) and/or
"marine humic/fulvic acids" are frequently employed to categorize the uncharacterizable (Holmes-Farley, 2004; Bingman, 1996; Rashid, 1985; Romankevich, 1984). In fact, both descriptors have little intrinsic meaning and give no insight into the actual chemicals involved."

And the 2nd part of that great article on carbon.
Feature Article: Granular Activated Carbon, Part 2: Modeling of Operational Parameters for Dissolved Organic Carbon Removal from Marine Aquaria — Advanced Aquarist's Online Magazine

 

[deepseadan]

Hmm, guess I've always just thought of carbon on the water purification side, not saltwater side. If you don't mind me asking, what was your summary of the article. It seemed to just confuse me even more. It almost seemed their goal was to use find the correct amount of carbon to reduce doc by 90%.

 

[ccCapt]

Haha....Ken's articles have a tendancy to do just that. Extremely scientific but somewhat confusing. The general conclusion of that article is using a high grade carbon and changing it often will result in lower DOC's.

Carbon has a very minor effect on dropping the TDS in water simply because the pore size is too large to catch most of the dissolved solids. This is why a RO membrane is so effective in reaching a 0 TDS state. It's small pore size catches virtually all the dissolved solids.

And back to why I am trying bio pellets instead of carbon. There is always more than 1 way to accomplish something. We are trying to get lower TOC's (total organic carbons) in our tanks. GAC is 1 way, as proved in that article. Carbon dosing (running bio pellets) is another. If you want a little more head spinning, read this....
Feature Article: Bacterial Counts in Reef Aquarium Water: Baseline Values and Modulation by Carbon Dosing, Protein Skimming, and Granular Activated Carbon Filtration — Advanced Aquarist's Online Magazine
"The bottom line with respect to the carbon dosing hypothesis is clear; the basic tenets of this theory appear to hold up to experimental scrutiny; carbon dosing does increase water column bacteria populations, and skimming does remove some bacteria with their attendant nutrient loads. Thus, the underlying science behind this approach to nutrient export appears valid."

 

[Ibrahim]

That lamark angel is beautiful. I just wish that there was a dwarf angel that is reef safe!!!!

The cherub and African flameback are reef safe

 

[Gregcoyote]

Wonderful information and thanks. I feel I have my dissolved solids and organics well under control. As I mentioned, my goal was to remove toxins produced by the corals themselves and activated carbon was the only way I knew to do this other than massive water changes. I may be worrying about it too much, but as I increase my coral load, I wanted to be sure I was doing the right thing. Because I work in emergency management, I tend to go for a "belt and suspenders" approach to everything. The bio pellets might replace my fluidized sand filter at some point as I am worried about the affects a power outage could have on the sand filter.

 

[ccCapt]

Sounds like you have everything under control.

 

[Gregcoyote]

I have a long way to get back to where I use to be with SPS.