High Tide Aquatics

Specifically, which corals like nutrient rich water?

gmdcdvm

gmdcdvm

Supporting Member
BARcard
Hello,
My QT tank is slowly becoming a bit of a display tank. I feed the fish pretty heavily since one is a Copper Band butterfly that is still learning to eat something other than shrimp. I don't seem him graduating to the display any time soon. So, I thought about adding some sort of hardy coral that likes a lot of food/nutrients in the water. I am looking for specific coral recommendations not just general types. Let me know what you think.

Gerry
 
Macroalgae have not done well in there for some reason. I have a hammer and candy cane in there.
The NPS sounds interesting. Feed two to three times a day. Pretty heavy for a 60g tank.
 
gmdcdvm said:
Let me rephrase this, what corals like high nitrates and phosphates?
G
Click to expand...
That is how I ran my old tank, and my new one too. Everything was super happy, including my sps. I never could do well with millies though. P04 got up over .8 and nitrates over 80. Same answer. Softies and lps like really nigh nutrients, and some sps can do really well with them. NPS need small food particles which raise the po4 and no3 usually, but fish poop can feed them too.
 
i'd say everything as well. i feed all of my tanks (when i'm home) pretty heavily. Average 4x /day normally 5+. 40G, 80G, 150G. Corals are my nitrate/phosphate control.
 
iani said:
Also another thing to note, higher nutrients allows the coral to be able to take higher par as well.
Click to expand...
I have heard the same thing since getting into the hobby.

I have recently heard, specifically from Chris Meckley, the opposite about nutrients to par ratio. He seems to think that lower par require more nutrients. It was on a podcast with Adam on Beyond the Reef. His position is that with higher par, the zooxanthellae does most of the work for the corals nutrients. That makes sense to me.
 
ReyDeFarts said:
I have heard the same thing since getting into the hobby.

I have recently heard, specifically from Chris Meckley, the opposite about nutrients to par ratio. He seems to think that lower par require more nutrients. It was on a podcast with Adam on Beyond the Reef. His position is that with higher par, the zooxanthellae does most of the work for the corals nutrients. That makes sense to me.
Click to expand...

Chris Meckley is a lunatic IMO. Not saying he is right or wrong about this particular point, but I've never heard such a pompous, self-absorbed, immature, obnoxious reef "personality." I almost always skip podcasts when he's a guest, unless I want to listen to him angrily rant about Metal Halides being the only way to grow coral for the 17th time.
 
derek_SR said:
Chris Meckley is a lunatic IMO. Not saying he is right or wrong about this particular point, but I've never heard such a pompous, self-absorbed, immature, obnoxious reef "personality." I almost always skip podcasts when he's a guest, unless I want to listen to him angrily rant about Metal Halides being the only way to grow coral for the 17th time.
Click to expand...
Funny you say that. I was thinking the same thing about a week ago when I seen him in an interview. I was like. Daymn. Dudes got a really big head now. He’s kinda angry too. Lol. Small business will make you really angry and dislike people in general tho.
 
Last edited:
derek_SR said:
Chris Meckley is a lunatic IMO. Not saying he is right or wrong about this particular point, but I've never heard such a pompous, self-absorbed, immature, obnoxious reef "personality." I almost always skip podcasts when he's a guest, unless I want to listen to him angrily rant about Metal Halides being the only way to grow coral for the 17th time.
Click to expand...
But is he wrong? IDK That was mostly the reason for bringing that up. It's easier to keep saying the same things over and over because that's what we have been told. Hobbies and the internet have a fantastic reputation of regurgitation. A fair combination of true and false information. I mean...just having a discussion of nutrient ratios can cause folks to have an aneurysm. Coming into the hobby, EVERYTHING you see and hear is 5-10 NO3 and 0.05-0.01 PO4. Then you start diving a little deeper and asking folks with amazing tanks and it is nowhere near those numbers. So what is true and what is false?

He certainly has strong opinions, and I think he is far from just a personality in the industry. He is a very successful grower of corals. I don't think anyone can deny that. So his experience and wisdom, albeit, difficult to accept at times, should still be considered for our own observations and learning. He does know a lot. When someone grates you the wrong way, it is difficult to accept anything positive from them. He is not the only one stating metal halides are better either. The whole New vs Old mentality and how things come around full circle, seem to be happening with metal halides too it seems.
 
ReyDeFarts said:
But is he wrong? IDK That was mostly the reason for bringing that up. It's easier to keep saying the same things over and over because that's what we have been told. Hobbies and the internet have a fantastic reputation of regurgitation. A fair combination of true and false information. I mean...just having a discussion of nutrient ratios can cause folks to have an aneurysm. Coming into the hobby, EVERYTHING you see and hear is 5-10 NO3 and 0.05-0.01 PO4. Then you start diving a little deeper and asking folks with amazing tanks and it is nowhere near those numbers. So what is true and what is false?

He certainly has strong opinions, and I think he is far from just a personality in the industry. He is a very successful grower of corals. I don't think anyone can deny that. So his experience and wisdom, albeit, difficult to accept at times, should still be considered for our own observations and learning. He does know a lot. When someone grates you the wrong way, it is difficult to accept anything positive from them. He is not the only one stating metal halides are better either. The whole New vs Old mentality and how things come around full circle, seem to be happening with metal halides too it seems.
Click to expand...

I dunno, is he right? If I tell you there's a leprechaun living in the center of the sun, can you prove me wrong? I know from my own personal tank I used to run crazy PAR (800+ for 12+ hours) and had insanely high nutrients - things were great, growing great, beautiful tank. Does that make him wrong? Does Chris have a scientific paper that supports his claims, or just anecdote? Because my anecdote is different. There are experienced, successful growers of corals that have complete opposite viewpoints to Chris and think he's an idiot. Are they right?

Re: Halides there are FAR, far more people with successful coral farms that are NOT using Halides than those that are. Does that make Chris wrong? Maybe all kinds of lights work just fine, and the specific application is what matters? There are also people that live and die by T5s, and Radions. Some of the most beautiful tanks that exist in the hobby use LED lighting. So how can anyone say halides are "the best"?

I think 99% of the information out there is false, or at the very least not the full picture. There are examples of successful tanks that break nearly every dogmatic "rule" that exists in the hobby. So unless there's a scientific, peer-reviewed paper on the subject it's basically just anecdote and there are far too many variables not shared or not known or not understood to make many conclusions based on simple anecdotes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JVU
derek_SR said:
I think 99% of the information out there is false, or at the very least not the full picture. There are examples of successful tanks that break nearly every dogmatic "rule" that exists in the hobby. So unless there's a scientific, peer-reviewed paper on the subject it's basically just anecdote and there are far too many variables not shared or not known or not understood to make many conclusions based on simple anecdotes.
Click to expand...
This is so true: there are those still out there preaching the Redfield ratio (which has been proven to not apply to corals) or the 100:1 ration (M Paletta and others) and then there are those that carbon does and so have little/no nitrates but in theory the corals are feeding off of the increased bacteria population. Too many ways to reef to have any 'rules'.
 
ReyDeFarts said:
I have heard the same thing since getting into the hobby.

I have recently heard, specifically from Chris Meckley, the opposite about nutrients to par ratio. He seems to think that lower par require more nutrients. It was on a podcast with Adam on Beyond the Reef. His position is that with higher par, the zooxanthellae does most of the work for the corals nutrients. That makes sense to me.
Click to expand...
Logically this does sound true, but this is not what I was saying. What I meant was when you have higher nutrients your coral can handle higher light. With lower nutrients your coral will get bleached with too high of light.

I do not understand what this means " the zooxanthellae does most of the work for the corals nutrients."

From my understanding nutrients can only be used via Photosynthesis via zooxanthellae.
 
iani said:
From my understanding nutrients can only be used via Photosynthesis via zooxanthellae.
Click to expand...
Corals definitely eat foods that fit in their mouth too, so I wouldn't say that is the only way to get nutrients. Or do you mean used up after acquiring the nutrients? Maybe, I don't know coral physiology well enough there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top