Jump to content
Cultivated Reef

Refugiums don't export nutrients?


Grape Nuts

Recommended Posts

xerophyte_nyc

Excellent read:

 

dissolved organic phosphorus excretion by marine phytoplankton

 

It is linked via my Google Drive, I downloaded this from the Journal of Phycology via my NYU Health Science account. I hope I'm not violating any copyrights, but it is for educational purposes.

 

If you really want to learn way more than you need to about the phosphorus cycle: Biogeochemical Cycling of Phosphorus in Marine Systems

 

"if bacteria are limited by other elements, such as C or N, then bacteria and phytoplankton could exist in a co-dependent relationship, with bacteria releasing enough soluble phosphorus during hydrolysis to support phytoplankton production"

 

"The short turnover times of soluble P suggest that studies of inorganic nutrient concentrations alone are insufficient for determining either nutrient limitation or maximal primary production. The potential for a substantial fraction of soluble P to also have rapid turnover times, indicates that organic P pools must be considered as well...This information is key for current ecological models of the food web in the upper ocean, especially since many of these models rely on inorganic P concentrations alone. Thus, primary production and particulate export rates could be much higher than currently estimated."

  • Like 2
Link to comment
  • Replies 602
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Good read, Albert.

 

Here's a link, to the link, provided in the article which is specific to phosphate in marine systems.

 

http://www.fishchannel.com/saltwater-aquariums/aquarium-frontiers/what-is-phosphate.aspx

 

Thanks. Yes I have that link as well, in fact I have quite a few others that deal with Phosphates but some are not as good as the one Posted and the one that you posted. I think I posted most of them to my thread not long ago.

 

I will have to have a look ...

  • Like 1
Link to comment

I have always enjoyed Randy's articles, too, along with Dana Riddle's. Their topics are great and I enjoy their writing styles.

 

Personally, I don't mind if they are 'mainstream' or make money off the hobby, as long as the information distributed is factual and beneficial.

 

I just watched the 'Red Sea Reef Care' video series and it doesn't get much more commercial than that. There are actually some interesting tidbits of useful info in there that can at least get one thinking.

 

So have I, and I am not sure either why most of those who were on RC have left (well I know why some have) and are apparently currently not putting out any articles. Bit of a mystery although the commercial affiliation of some was brought up indeed in several places. I noticed that Boomer is still on there and that some have posts on Manhattan Reefs sporadically.

 

However as you say, as long as the info produced is factual, whether they make money with and off them is not really that important.

 

Every Author who has published books on our Hobby has done exactly the same, and I see no reason why "they" should not, after all it takes a lot of time and and a lot of research to produce articles and books, and the financial risk of producing books in printed format is very high as fewer and fewer seem to get sold lately and for some time now.

 

I was talking to two authors not long ago and they have given up writing hobby books because they cannot justify spending the time it takes to produce good work, only to find out that they cannot make a living of it, and have to earn it by engaging in other ventures or endeavors.

 

Hopefully though things will turn around and we'll see some good information coming from them again soon.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

why is this still a thread?

 

LOL, it has taken on a life of its own, 'The thread that never dies!'.

 

Seriously, it's morphed to a good discussion about Phosphate, which is never a dull topic to marine aquarists.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

So have I, and I am not sure either why most of those who were on RC have left (well I know why some have) and are apparently currently not putting out any articles. Bit of a mystery although the commercial affiliation of some was brought up indeed in several places. I noticed that Boomer is still on there and that some have posts on Manhattan Reefs sporadically.

 

However as you say, as long as the info produced is factual, whether they make money with and off them is not really that important.

 

Every Author who has published books on our Hobby has done exactly the same, and I see no reason why "they" should not, after all it takes a lot of time and and a lot of research to produce articles and books, and the financial risk of producing books in printed format is very high as fewer and fewer seem to get sold lately and for some time now.

 

I was talking to two authors not long ago and they have given up writing hobby books because they cannot justify spending the time it takes to produce good work, only to find out that they cannot make a living of it, and have to earn it by engaging in other ventures or endeavors.

 

Hopefully though things will turn around and we'll see some good information coming from them again soon.

 

It would be a shame if the printed book becomes too expensive to produce. As much as I appreciate the 'instantaneousness' of info on the Web, there is something to be said for curling up with a good aquarium book and a cup of hot chocolate on a cold day :)

 

I'm still not clear on the whole RC fallout issue, but it appears that things got too personal. Shame to lose input from people who undoubtedly have much to contribute to the hobby.

 

Anyway, everyone clear on phosphate, macro algae and refugiums ;)

  • Like 2
Link to comment

It would be a shame if the printed book becomes too expensive to produce. As much as I appreciate the 'instantaneousness' of info on the Web, there is something to be said for curling up with a good aquarium book and a cup of hot chocolate on a cold day :)

 

I'm still not clear on the whole RC fallout issue, but it appears that things got too personal. Shame to lose input from people who undoubtedly have much to contribute to the hobby.

 

Anyway, everyone clear on phosphate, macro algae and refugiums ;)

 

Personally I don't think that the printed book is going anywhere and will stay around for those who really want it but, unfortunately, the price of owning one seems to keep going up.

 

I happened to notice the other day that Volume III of Delbeek and Sprung's book is now priced at $ 108.95, whereas the ones I own show $ 84.95 on the back cover.

 

According to the Publisher my new book will have to retail for $ 89.99 based on the latest info they have given me, and that is $ 20 more than what I was originally told ... so, yes, printed books will be around but "at a price" higher than what we were used to pay.

 

C'est la vie, as they say I guess.

 

This thread is, and has been and will remain I am sure, a very interesting thread. I also feel like it is nowhere near over yet ... more is still to come and from both sides of the fence IMO.

 

All life forms need phosphates but OTOH, too much of it is not a good thing for our aquariums and the life forms we need.

 

The key is and remains what the proper amounts of Po and Pi and all other forms of P are that we can identify and confirm as being present in our tank's water, and how they shift in type, chemically and biochemically morphing from one type to another and back, and so forth.

 

Whether we will get to the bottom of it all I do not know, but we are for sure going to come close as more is revealed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

To be honest I just can't recall if I see some I'll post them. What I can recall however is diving in the keys where there are areas that appear higher in nutrients due to greener water, especially on the gulf side, where you still see stony corals growing.

 

I have seen you try to discredit Bourneman's work several times in this thread, as well as blow off many of the other major contributors to this hobby by calling their articles "hobbiest grade" I understand he's had some serious personal issues, but he's made some MAJOR contributions to the hobby as do the rest of them. Its pretty arrogant to discredit the work of a scientist that way, especially when there's seemingly nothing for them to gain when it comes to Deep Sand Beds or refugium recommendations.

 

I read the link you provided on upwelling of nutrients on the GBR, how about going back to the article I posted. Why would he post that photo describing the Inner Reef as having higher nutrients as apposed to the outer reef if it was only a temporary situation? It wouldn't make sense. Do you not believe stony corals grow in the inner reef?

 

I've asked several times where you are getting your information that Phosphates are so detrimental to stony corals. We know that Inorganic Phosphates can inhibit growth, excess PO4 in the system can cause browning to SPS due to higher levels of Zoox algae within the tissue. But I've seen nothing close to claiming it causes sudden tank crashes or that these organisms are fighting against the zoax within them over control of phosphates. These are both claims you've made and haven't provided any research to back that up.

 

The Randy article. point number #5.

 

Calcification Inhibition by Phosphate

 

Wouldn't inhibiting growth be harmful to a coral?

 

Corals will grow wherever their required nutrients levels allow. In general the closer you get to land the higher the nutrients. The closer you get to shore the less likely you will see SPS. There are season variations in nutrient levels. That is what i was pointing out with that article. I just find it very hard to believe that those corals live there in that green water year round. If they did and this was the best thing, why wouldn't we all keep green water? We all seem to want to keep the clearest water possible. Do I believe that during a nutrient upwelling the water will turn green for a few days, sure. Will it kill the corals in that short time, no. Just like it would not kill the corals in our systems in that short time. Phosphates poisoning is a slow process. I just believe there is more story to that photo than Eric is telling us. It just doesn't seem to add up.

 

of course we are talking about the whole system. Your inability to consider comments that do not support your agenda are an obstacle to an exchage of ideas. Your simplistic evaluation that direct detritus removal is the only sussessful paridine to control phosphate is a broken record. Put more cards on the table.

 

It is not the only successful paradigm, it does however go after the source of the phosphates. It is just a matter of knowing what each export method actually can export and where it stands in the phosphate cycle. The reason why I keep asking whether or not we are talking about the whole system is that you seem fixated on Pi levels. Which have little to do with the actual total P of the system.

 

What cards would you like me to show?

 

Is there more than one way to skin a cat, sure, but the object is still to skin the cat. Using algae as a nutrient export will only get you a bald cat. The hair will still grow back because you have not gotten rid of the source of the hair, the skin. Remove the detritus (skin), then see how much hair will grow. It is just the discussion about going after the source of the phosphates. Taking it one step further than just reading a test kit result. Actually understanding what that test kit result actually means.

 

There is nothing wrong with keeping a substrate or algae in a system if they are what is found in the trophic level wishing to be emulated. If one is interested in keeping an ULNS then removing the source of the unwanted nutrients is more efficient than going after the nutrients after they have been released. That is all I am saying.

 

thats a great link. this phenomena of algae leaking phosphates is new to the scene, its not discussed in fact we know its been discussed oppositely

but that doesnt mean science doesnt change, its still unfolding the explanations for it are getting better but still not perfect. its been so hard to get clear and concise facts on certain mechanisms I think even doc and dude will agree our specifics are tbd. the shared nature of phosphate Ive appreciated reading.

 

these guys have been against Randy due to his afiliation with mainstream reefing if I get the vibe correctly but what I like most about his articles is after I read them twice I begin to understand and they are all like that. rhf is best reef chemist we know. unfortunately hes not on RC anymore who knows why. if anything thinks he is, pls post a recent thread he responded to

 

This is nothing new. It has just been avoided because it goes against the current thinking of how to maintain some systems. The thinking that a single type of setup will maintain the whole range of trophic levels is a bit misleading, that is all.

 

The point of forums is to hopefully get as much information out there as possible and let others follow their own interest down a rabbit hole for their own benefit and hopefully bring the information back to the rest of the community. Do not just believe what everyone says. Think for yourselves.

 

I believed for several years that the "phosphate refugium" was the greatest thing ever. It seemed to make perfect sense. Put food in, then it vanishes, critters are eating it. Of course, everybody knows that. I just started reading down more and more rabbit holes about phosphates and how organisms populations are determined by available resources. If you take these bits all together the theories that make "phosphate refugiums" work fall apart. Some other mechanism must be going on.

 

I have nothing against what Randy says that deal with chemistry. He is absolutely someone i listen to and read when it comes to the actual chemistry that is going on in a system. As I have mentioned in this thread earlier about the Randy article is that it seems very complete, but it does not go into water changes at all with respect to phosphate export. He goes through a good number of the others, but not the one that is the most beneficial. We all agree that we need to empty out detritus whenever we can. Why was this omitted? Even if this is an "obvious" answer, then why not go more deeply into it? Why not go into discussing all of the places detritus can hide?

 

G~

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...
xerophyte_nyc

Re: Foam Fractionation, something I have posted on other threads but worth repeating here as it has relevance:

 

 

This article sheds some light on what a skimmer removes. (2010 Feature Article: Elemental Analysis of Skimmate: What Does a Protein Skimmer Actually Remove from Aquarium Water? By Ken S. Feldman)

 

In this study, they fed a tank daily for 7 days and collected all the skimmate produced for elemental analysis.

 

The daily aquarium food contained ~42mg PO4.

There was ~74mg of PO4 total collected by the skimmate after 7 days, which averages to about 10mg daily.

 

The experimental skimmer is removing almost 25% (10 out of 42mg) of PO4 that has been added on a daily basis. That would be the equivalent of doing a 25% daily water change for nutrient export. It is hard to argue this is not significant, with regards to phosphorus export. This does not replace good husbandry, but certainly supplements it.

 

The researchers concluded that most of the nutrients being exported are microorganisms (dead or living?) that have concentrated nutrients into their guts. Food is not being removed directly.

Link to comment

Re: Foam Fractionation, something I have posted on other threads but worth repeating here as it has relevance:

 

 

This article sheds some light on what a skimmer removes. (2010 Feature Article: Elemental Analysis of Skimmate: What Does a Protein Skimmer Actually Remove from Aquarium Water? By Ken S. Feldman)

 

In this study, they fed a tank daily for 7 days and collected all the skimmate produced for elemental analysis.

 

The daily aquarium food contained ~42mg PO4.

There was ~74mg of PO4 total collected by the skimmate after 7 days, which averages to about 10mg daily.

 

The experimental skimmer is removing almost 25% (10 out of 42mg) of PO4 that has been added on a daily basis. That would be the equivalent of doing a 25% daily water change for nutrient export. It is hard to argue this is not significant, with regards to phosphorus export. This does not replace good husbandry, but certainly supplements it.

 

The researchers concluded that most of the nutrients being exported are microorganisms (dead or living?) that have concentrated nutrients into their guts. Food is not being removed directly.

 

Very interesting study, thanks for posting it.

Link to comment
Reefin Dude

That article is a great read. Skimmers are great at removing organically bound PO4. This is why a good skimmer is so important for those that want to carbon dose.

 

G~

Link to comment
  • 2 years later...

Sorry to bring up an old thread - I'm strongly considering a refugium (no skimmer) for my 30G display tank (currently only has CUC but plan for mostly LPS, some SPS and 5 fish)

 

Would the macro (cheato only?) still grow if no phosphate or nitrate was present? The fuge section would take up around 70% of my sump and by volume the entire sump would hold more water than the display.

Link to comment
jedimasterben

Would the macro (cheato only?) still grow if no phosphate or nitrate was present?

No.

Link to comment

Chaeto require phosphates and nitrates as well as high light. If you plan on using the refugium as biological filtration/nutrient removal, you'll need a decent sized fuge with a heavy duty grow light. It sounds like your fuge will be the right size, but the whole point of the fuge is to grow macro via nitrates and phosphates so that then you trim the macroalgae away, removing the those excess nutrients from the system. If you don't have those, then your macro will struggle to grow, and there isn't really a point in having a fuge because there isn't any excess nitrates or phosphates to remove anyways.

Link to comment

So potentially the fuge could be a waste of time and space? With a low bio-load how likely is it that nutrients will become insufficient to grow macro? (I know; how long is a piece of string) haha.

Link to comment
jedimasterben

So potentially the fuge could be a waste of time and space? With a low bio-load how likely is it that nutrients will become insufficient to grow macro? (I know; how long is a piece of string) haha.

Most refugiums are superfluous in that they are very insufficiently sized, but in your scenario, the macro will only grow as much as it is able to. If you get some and you notice its growth slowing down or any of it dying back, trim it up.

Link to comment

Perhaps I should wait until I add my first fish and monitor the levels before deciding. If I opt for a refugium I would either need to re-arrange the sump baffles (lots of work) or buy a new sump specifically designed for the refugium with 30% more volume. That's slightly defeating the purpose of doing this which is to 1) reduce noise and 2) save money without replacing my broken skimmer.

 

I could also implement a up flow algae scrubber for little cost and no changes to my sump.

Link to comment
jedimasterben

Perhaps I should wait until I add my first fish and monitor the levels before deciding. If I opt for a refugium I would either need to re-arrange the sump baffles (lots of work) or buy a new sump specifically designed for the refugium with 30% more volume. That's slightly defeating the purpose of doing this which is to 1) reduce noise and 2) save money without replacing my broken skimmer.

Oh, you don't have a skimmer? That's another thing entirely - without some form of nutrient export you will have an increase in organics and nutrients. I've run skimmerless before, just be sure to run a good quality carbon and keep your refugium well-lit.

Link to comment

Oh, you don't have a skimmer? That's another thing entirely - without some form of nutrient export you will have an increase in organics and nutrients. I've run skimmerless before, just be sure to run a good quality carbon and keep your refugium well-lit.

Tank is 2 months old and skimmer died this week (also 2 months old and didn't really pull anything out the tank but again, low bio-load).

 

I've looked at replacing it but that's going to cost £250 for a good quiet model and honestly I'd rather not bother! I should note that half of my LR is in the sump too (tank build in signature)

 

So without a skimmer, in your experience is there more chance of the macro staying alive and exporting nutrients? I've just added a small amount of rowaphos to help with diatoms and green algae spots on my LR but other than LR and filter floss, that's all I have right now.

Link to comment

Tank is 2 months old and skimmer died this week (also 2 months old and didn't really pull anything out the tank but again, low bio-load).

 

I've looked at replacing it but that's going to cost £250 for a good quiet model and honestly I'd rather not bother! I should note that half of my LR is in the sump too (tank build in signature)

 

So without a skimmer, in your experience is there more chance of the macro staying alive and exporting nutrients? I've just added a small amount of rowaphos to help with diatoms and green algae spots on my LR but other than LR and filter floss, that's all I have right now.

Apologies if you've already figured this out but I just wanted to put my thoughts together.

 

A new tank will show algae, diatoms, sudden pod explosion, etc. The cure is time. Granted, there are exceptions, like if your tank exploded with GHA or aiptasia, there is a valid reason for instituting export and control. But unless you're having a nightmare of a problem, and/or your tests are showing excess nutrients, rowa phos, carbon dosing bio-pellets etc are not needed.

 

Systems can be balanced with or without extra equipment, biological, mechanical or chemical controllers. You should aim for that balance, but this can only be achieved with time. Even if you have reactors and a refugium and a skimmer - it doesn't mean you won't have problems related to nutrients - whether high or low. A balance is key.

 

Now, logically speaking, you have stated many times that you have a low bioload, so why the added export and control for a low nutrient system? Are you afraid you will wake up one day to a crazy nasty tank?

 

Refugiums are fantastic - provided they are not undersized for your tank. If you decide to have one and can't grow chaeto - try xenia. If that doesn't work, put a nice light over it and grow some frags.

Link to comment

The points you have made are definitely valid and I do understand your thoughts. The rowaphos was added through a long search of wether the diatoms can be helped along with rowaphos being able to absorb silica which seems the cause of diatoms in new tanks.

 

Bio-load is low because I have 2 snails and 2 shrimp. When I do add fish and start feeding the tank the load will of course increase. My goal at this point is to be prepared. I don't want to end up adding fish and corals where 3 months down the line I need a way to remove nutrients other than water changes. The tank is very empty at this point so any changes can be made much easier without harming the livestock. By many guidelines I need more LR to help with filtration, that and no skimmer or nutrient export can in short time become a problem once stocked. I'm just preparing for it.

 

Interesting point with Xenia. I found that out earlier today but never knew they are capable of as much nutrient export. (relative to tank size and refugium size of course)

Link to comment

I understand, but you also run the risk of having a low nutrient system and not be able to grow coral.


What I'm saying is that having the controls does not mean you won't have problems.

Link to comment
jedimasterben

Bio-load is low because I have 2 snails and 2 shrimp. When I do add fish and start feeding the tank the load will of course increase.

Bioload has nothing to do with livestock - it is only determined by the amount of food you put in the tank. If you are not putting any food into the tank, your bioload can be nothing other than zero.

Link to comment

Bioload has nothing to do with livestock - it is only determined by the amount of food you put in the tank. If you are not putting any food into the tank, your bioload can be nothing other than zero.

 

True but I want to keep the livestock alive so it's almost certain I will be adding food.

 

"start feeding the tank the load will of course increase"

I understand, but you also run the risk of having a low nutrient system and not be able to grow coral.

What I'm saying is that having the controls does not mean you won't have problems.

 

Ok so would you personally just leave it as is for now and wait to see what the nutrients are when I have stock?

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recommended Discussions


×
×
  • Create New...