New to Saltwater, 70g build
- Thread starter SaltyDwarfAngel
- Start date
In nearly all cases, algae will outcompete any coral for what it needs. Your coral will want/need to get nitrogen from ammonia, so you have to keep feeding your fish or else your corals can suffer. Macro algae can use no3 - micro algae generally cannot and the host has to use energy to convert no3 back to nh3/4 for your zoox to use. Both can use many form of phosphorous, including phosphate.
It is already too late to get rock that has surface bacteria, good algae and that kind of stuff on it. Ugly algae cannot grow where this stuff is. Dry rock is a petri dish for dinos and bad algae since it can move in faster than film bacteria, coralline and stuff can.
You are going to need consumers and lots of manual removal. Urchins have always worked the best for me.
Watch this if you have not. The duck and cat example needs seared into your brain.
It is already too late to get rock that has surface bacteria, good algae and that kind of stuff on it. Ugly algae cannot grow where this stuff is. Dry rock is a petri dish for dinos and bad algae since it can move in faster than film bacteria, coralline and stuff can.
You are going to need consumers and lots of manual removal. Urchins have always worked the best for me.
Watch this if you have not. The duck and cat example needs seared into your brain.
Not to highjack your thread too much, but this recent scientific article was really interesting to me, and related to points above by JDA
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-76759-2
TLDR: the main finding of the paper is that corals (e.g., acropora) grow way faster near islands with seabird colonies that are inputing high rates of N and P in the form of bird poop. They don't get into forms of N and P, but birds produce urea / uric acid in their waste, which lead to readily available N.
Regarding grazers and algae: I have dry rock in my new system, but also used a heavy does of live rock to help colonize it. The dry rock had a dino bloom but that was sped along by heaving grazing (mainly lots of snails) and now coraline is established on the dry rock. I also really like using urchins, but tend to add them later on, after coraline is established. Otherwise your urchins may hinder coraline establishment via their feeding and/or starve to death in a very new tank. I really like the aquacultured tuxedo urchins, especially the small ones that can get into crevices.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-76759-2
TLDR: the main finding of the paper is that corals (e.g., acropora) grow way faster near islands with seabird colonies that are inputing high rates of N and P in the form of bird poop. They don't get into forms of N and P, but birds produce urea / uric acid in their waste, which lead to readily available N.
Regarding grazers and algae: I have dry rock in my new system, but also used a heavy does of live rock to help colonize it. The dry rock had a dino bloom but that was sped along by heaving grazing (mainly lots of snails) and now coraline is established on the dry rock. I also really like using urchins, but tend to add them later on, after coraline is established. Otherwise your urchins may hinder coraline establishment via their feeding and/or starve to death in a very new tank. I really like the aquacultured tuxedo urchins, especially the small ones that can get into crevices.
Peer reviews and other comments on the sea bird article seem to indicate that what allows the birds to thrive is what makes the reef more healthy, not the bird's themselves - the article is too generic, did not cite the birds or any analysis of the poop which, etc. The fish available for food, healthy reefs and other parts of the ecosystem are the prize, not the actual bird poop. If the surrounding reefs did not have food to feed the birds and was not already nutrient rich, then none of this would matter. This is like saying that cow pies are the reason that pasture grass grows so well, instead of the nutrient rich soil that grows the grass for the cows to eat to make the pies.
This is a good reminder not to always trust or believe what you hear or read when it comes to the hobby. Most BRS videos are to sell products and are rarely completely accurate or offer any nuance to help people reef. Most reefers use data and studies like a drunk uses a lamppost... for support rather than illumination (Andrew Lang). The whole Vibrant thing from BRS should make people shudder about online videos and help. BRS was a huge proponent of dry rock for "no pests" yet dry rock grows the worst pests of all.
Please try and avoid any quick-action type of things when dealing with your algae. The unintended and long-term consequences are not often discussed in articles, videos or online, but can be devastating. No pesticides or magic in a bottle - just be smart, get some consumers and go slow. If you want to rehome your corals for a while, you can turn the lights off while your rocks develop things other than algae on them, but this does not work with coral, of course.
This article shows that low levels of urea can be used by some corals, but in levels more commensurate with what is already on the reef. Urea is preferred to nitrate since it is easier to convert to ammonium for the zoox to use. This study seems to contradict with the more generic seabird study is saying but also backed up the science that nitrate is of no use to zoox with the host spending MUCH energy to convert no3 back to nh[3,4].
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022098105005538
I know that I typed a lot, but just want to impress not to cut back on feeding the fish since the ammonia/ammonium from the fish waste is the only thing that for sure the corals can use for nitrogen... so don't think that the corals have enough "food" if you have no3 in the tank. The bottom line is that you have to keep importing food into your tank, but up the export of residual no3 and po4 and also get consumers for the algae.
This is a good reminder not to always trust or believe what you hear or read when it comes to the hobby. Most BRS videos are to sell products and are rarely completely accurate or offer any nuance to help people reef. Most reefers use data and studies like a drunk uses a lamppost... for support rather than illumination (Andrew Lang). The whole Vibrant thing from BRS should make people shudder about online videos and help. BRS was a huge proponent of dry rock for "no pests" yet dry rock grows the worst pests of all.
Please try and avoid any quick-action type of things when dealing with your algae. The unintended and long-term consequences are not often discussed in articles, videos or online, but can be devastating. No pesticides or magic in a bottle - just be smart, get some consumers and go slow. If you want to rehome your corals for a while, you can turn the lights off while your rocks develop things other than algae on them, but this does not work with coral, of course.
This article shows that low levels of urea can be used by some corals, but in levels more commensurate with what is already on the reef. Urea is preferred to nitrate since it is easier to convert to ammonium for the zoox to use. This study seems to contradict with the more generic seabird study is saying but also backed up the science that nitrate is of no use to zoox with the host spending MUCH energy to convert no3 back to nh[3,4].
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022098105005538
I know that I typed a lot, but just want to impress not to cut back on feeding the fish since the ammonia/ammonium from the fish waste is the only thing that for sure the corals can use for nitrogen... so don't think that the corals have enough "food" if you have no3 in the tank. The bottom line is that you have to keep importing food into your tank, but up the export of residual no3 and po4 and also get consumers for the algae.
A quick search shows there are actually at least a dozen studies showing increased hard coral growth rates due to seabird derived nutrients. Kind of a weird stretch to link the article I posted to misinformation in BRS videos... 
. I was merely trying to reinforce your point about nutrient levels needed for corals to thrive.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-41030-6
https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/sciadv.adj0390
Also, nitrate dosing in the home aquaria works just fine to increase N levels for coral growth. I agree that it appears ammonia is even better / preferred for zoox uptake, but folks were dosing nitrate with great success long before people starting dosing ammonia.
Totally agree with the good advice about algae consumers and feeding the fish substantially to provide nutrients for coral growth. Lots of good advice.
. I was merely trying to reinforce your point about nutrient levels needed for corals to thrive. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-41030-6
https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/sciadv.adj0390
Also, nitrate dosing in the home aquaria works just fine to increase N levels for coral growth. I agree that it appears ammonia is even better / preferred for zoox uptake, but folks were dosing nitrate with great success long before people starting dosing ammonia.
Totally agree with the good advice about algae consumers and feeding the fish substantially to provide nutrients for coral growth. Lots of good advice.