wasp

TM you just said what I was thinking but was too afraid to say! 8)

There was that article posted the other day saying about how nitrate inhibits sps growth. Perhaps that may be behind the lack of growth Fay? Was it you said you are getting a denitrator?

Only part I couldn't figure out (must have lost it in the details) is if they used the aminos fed to them, rather than synthesis their own only. Anybody catch that part?

Good post!

All those can be broken down as part of the nitrogen cycle, so yes they could add to it. They may only need to be fed in tiny doses though so wouldn't have a big impact. But I don't know a heckuva lot about this scientific stuff, where's Feelers?

So I could answer without getting my head ripped off? Well MHO is that Layton was correct, long as export can cope with import, no worries. And the people who said it can take a while for a tank to adapt to higher feeding were also correct. Trouble is knowing what that point is, I guess your test kit and observation will tell you after it happens, it will obviously vary for each tank. However with a nitrate reading of 30 I would say even more feeding will only add to the situation, as the tank is already not coping. My 2 cents, now I better run away & hide!!! :lol:

Uh Oh!! :lol: I better not say anything some people get REALLY upset over that one Fay! :lol: :lol:

I'll bet the prodibio did do something, although not nessecarily visible, then zeovit just finished the job. Funny old world though, the way different results happen on different tanks from these products. Bit like they say on the weight lose advertisements "advertised results may vary" :lol:

Let's know how it goes TM, I am always interested in these boundary pushing experiments, done some good, and some harm, by my own constant urge to try new things. If you hike up to these levels, in about 2 weeks you should see obviously a lot of new tips forming etc. and you know it's working. Report back, I'll be interested. Just bear in mind you'll spend a lot more time cleaning pumps.

A bit hard to say accurately about growth because I only use an eyeometer, that's as scientific as I get. But i THINK i got no advantage by having ca anything over 440. Higher alk though has an obvious increase in growth, from my own rather unscientific testing I would say the higher you go, up to 12, the more growth. Don't bother going more than 12 though you'll start getting other problems. BTW I assume we are talking about SPS. Also, everything else has to be OK obviously or there won't be any growth regardless. And the other thing you get from these high alk levels is awesome coraline. If you run high alk, plus does a LOT of strontium, you will get an awesome purple colour in the coraline.

No. It is needed to slow it down but will not stop it altogether. The levels in your first post are really pushing the boundaries you would have a lot of precipitation. You could try it if you wish the corals will survive it, I have had levels even higher than that just to try it out. But it will be better with ca and mg and pH a bit lower, both for precipitation, and for the corals. You can go with an alk of 12 with no negative effects though, other than the influence on precipitation. BTW my own alk is often only around 6, Reef was over one day & nearly flipped when he saw it when we did some testing, I thought it was fairly normal.

It can be done, but you will be putting a lot in and your pumps will need cleaning a lot. Try alk 12, ca 450, mg 1350, you will get same or better growth, and less precipitation. pH would be better a bit lower too. Personally I wouldn't favour this, but if you want to go this way, that's what I would do.

Yes I just find it a bit strange that with all those clowns, there do not seem to be many living in the anemones.

Yes, thought it rather amazing to go sort out the ratios that were in the various organisms, sounds simple when you read it but must have taken a fair bit of work. Just even thinking of the idea to test for it! But then I'm no scientist. So, the next fascinating question is :- Redfeild found it remarkable that these elements existed in the water in exactly the right ratio as found in, and to sustain, the various life forms. So, is this an ideal ratio for living organisms for some chemical reason, and the water just "happens" to be the same, or have the organisms come to have this ratio, from living in this environment & adapting to it in the most efficient way?

Feelers can you give the reference for that paper?

Could be if it's getting plenty to eat it doesn't bother with them?

There is someone called seahorsemad, if you drop her a pm she seems to know all this stuff.

Doesn't sound good. What % of water have you changed out so far?

Could add a bit of interest for the fish, I might pick one up. How big are the shrimps by the time they come out, and are they "gutloaded"?

Mostly takes 6 weeks, but will sometimes take longer. Your ammonia cycle was a tad longer than normal, so perhaps the nitrite one will be longer also. Nothing much you can do at this stage, just hang in there, it will happen!

That kind of drop in a week is not at all unusual. As TM said there might be an issue with magnesium, but even in my own tank if the ca reactor is running a bit slow there could be a drop of that much. Magnesium is important as if there is not enough, the calcium just drops out of the water, the magnesium keeps it in solution. The correct amount of magnesium is 3 x the calcium. IE if you want calcium at 400, you would need magnesium at 3 x's that, 1200. What I do is have magnesium at 3 x calcium, plus a little bit just for safety. If you are moving more towards sps corals, your calcium and alkalinity usage will increase. BTW another thing that can increase calcium precipitation is increasing alkalinity. The higher the alkalinity, the more precipitation there will be.

That's the most mature thing you've said through your whole attack. Next time THINK before starting such juvenile behaviour. What about doing something useful and responding to the other thread with some info on the redfeild ratio. I know that is something you ARE good at, and I give you full credit for your knowledge in that regard.

I can assure you that is the case. Stop being so precious, as you have been told before, "it is not all about you". If I was quoting you, so what? But as I have repeatedly told you, I was not quoting you. You leapt to the wrong assumption again. Does that make you happy? I have mentioned before your overbloated opinion of yourself, your new avatar speaks volumes. And as I keep telling you I have no interest in continuing your bitter and twisted argument. You are obsessed with me. Get over it.