Refugiums don't export nutrients?

[xerophyte_nyc]

Yes, but lets take that out to daily feeding. We have daily feeding and yet, not all of it makes it to the algae for removal. So we are looking at a slow overall increase (eutrophication).

 

Hmmm...not so sure about this. In my tank, albeit in a very limited time frame, my ATS has provided steady growth and harvest, while the presence of algae in the display tank has slowly been visibly reduced. There was also a handful of macro I had in my sump day one which grew quickly as the tank cycled and had minimal nutrient processing. But that macro too has noticeably receded. There is a finite amount of P, and it seems to be favorably assimilating into the ATS (and adsorbed into the substrate). If it was accumulating, I would expect to have visible evidence - nuisance algae. Or it could all be adsorbing into the sand.

 

There will come a point when algae growth in the display tank is reduced to a bare minimum, and I can then reduce the duration or intensity of the ATS lights. This is all theoretical. I can always add GFO to help. I can say that I comfortably feed my tank and support lots of fauna as evidenced by ample pods for my mandarin. I pollute the water column regularly but the ATS contributes to creating a healthy tank. Right now there is limited coral, but I do have an ORA green birdsnest frag that is growing fast and has encrusted its frag disk in short order, excellent PE and coloration. Maybe this species is more tolerant of "dirty" water, or maybe it hasn't been dirty long enough to show distress. We shall see.

 

I really do like the concept of the algae-P-bacteria cycle. Honestly. I'm trying to wrap my brain around it. I am far from understanding many things, and there are folks here who have forgotten more about aquaria than I know. But I still see some inconsistencies with phosphates, the way it has been presented to us, as it relates to aquaria.

[Nano sapiens]

if the flow is great enough, than cyano can not get a foothold, it keeps getting blown away. if the flow is high enough, then the Pi released from bacteria action at the top of the substrate is moved away, adding Pi to the water column. the phosphate levels in the substrate have to get really bad before algae can get a hold of in the substrate and start growing. another good indicator that the substrate is in need of refreshing or replacement.

 

have you notice people with substrates start using more and more GFO and other after the fact phosphates binders as the system matures in order to try and keep up with the substrates release of Pi from bacterial action. another good indicator that the system is reaching saturation is low alk only. all of the bacteria stripping the elemental carbon out of the water column. ever wonder why "reef specific" salts are so high in alk and Ca? it is not because of coral growth it is fighting the affects of all of that bacteria working on wastes.

 

G~

 

Personally, I do not subscribe to the idea that when the substrate has a 'bloom' of some sort, the substrate needs replacing. In nearly 5 years working with my Nano, I have found that the blooms are caused by excess nutrients in the detritus in the SB. I caused this condition myself initially with too much feeding/too little detritus export, then stirring up the SB after having left it undisturbed for too long. Once the nutrients are removed via vacuuming and WCs, however, the blooms inevitably disappear. What phosphate might leach from the substrate due to biological processes (if any) is not measurable.

 

I still use the same 1" depth aragonite substrate I started with (with maybe an additional half-cup added due to dissolution) and, even though it has had ample opportunity to bind Phosphates, there are no blooms as long as I remove the detritus regularly. The tank also has had consistent '0' inorganic phosphate (Salifert) for the years I've been regularly vacuuming and little micro or macro algae. And most importantly, the mixed corals are healthy, growing and colorful.

 

On a side note: I must point out that in scientific field studies, when a portion of a healthy reef is netted off to prevent herbivores from accessing the area, macro algae will grow and eventually out compete the corals. Obviously, algae can grow in very nutrient depleted water and herbivory is the main means of control.

 

Personally, I would consider using Macroalgae as a nutrient export tool (as well as a means of reducing nuisance algae in the display tank) if I had a large enough bio-load.

[xerophyte_nyc]

LR luckily does purge itself if good flow is around it, but turkeybasting every now and then is never a bad thing either. the bacterial migration channels need to kept open in order for the process to be ongoing.

Do you mean LR purges itself of detritus, or of weakly bound P?

[brandon429]

The current title of the thread has been negated it seems. They do export, efficiency is debated. Thought that might be a helpful sub summary lol.

[Nano sapiens]

^^

 

Yeah, that's true, but we all like to go on...and on... and on...

[FutureDoc]

D0pl1n: just not found the link under the video... missed it earlier... reading

 

xero: yes, controlled algae based systems work well for controlling other algae for as long as P does not become available elsewhere (like saturated rock issues... that is why some mature ATS systems can have severe HA issues before a crash. It happened with the Smithsonian's tank in late 2009/early2010. Good ATS works for algae control, it just is not the method for a low-nutrient system.However, even with a ATS based system, we are driving up biomass and while ATS exports more of the % of biomass than macro cultivation, the issue that enough Pi is available for the ATS to regrow is an issue (or rather a miss opportunity) Get the Po before and you might be able to starve the ATS a bit more.

The current title of the thread has been negated it seems. They do export, efficiency is debated. Thought that might be a helpful sub summary lol.

 

 

Haha, actually the don't. The hobbyist's hand removes it. Semantics...

 

Still, refugiums tend to push system towards nutrient enrichment. They convert P (inorganic P) into organic P which we can not test for in our tanks. If you want or do not mind a nutrient rich system, use algae, if you don't want nutrients, do not use algae... siphon, skim, and change the water.

[Grape Nuts]

The current title of the thread has been negated it seems. They do export, efficiency is debated. Thought that might be a helpful sub summary lol.

 

Like I said a couple hundred posts back, I should have added a QUESTION MARK to the thread title... How could you have missed that post? Either way I have learned more than I ever thought I could on this topic. Very compelling arguments from both sides and I truly appreciate everyone (almost) that has taken the time and effort to contribute. My 2 current tanks are fuge-less and the 3rd soon to be build will have no fuge either. However after my new system is up and running I plan to add some macros to my low light nano strictly for looks. The reason I posted the thread here at NR is because I new there were a lot of fuge guys here, I was one a while back, but I underestimated how passionate you guys were about your fuges. I mean it makes perfect sense to me... Or it did... I dunno... Glad to see everyone getting along so well.

[zooman72]

^^

 

Yeah, that's true, but we all like to go on...and on... and on...

 

Well, some of us more than others it seems...

[Polarcollision]

Since everyone is so passionate about this topic, anyone care to pick apart Brightwell Aquatics NeoZeo Method?

[nimavafi]

just turn this thread into a poll and call it a day...

[zooman72]

Still, no data to back up these sweeping, inaccurate statements.

 

Are you kidding - he has numerous scientific articles of non-aquarium environments that back up exactly what he trying to convince us poor noobs - our refugiums are "phosphate factories" because he says so! Oh, and look, this or that study of intertidal environments extrapolates perfectly with what he is trying to convince us of - he has scientifically proven that the chaeto used in a refugium in an aquarium "behaves" exactly like various algaes in natural settings - come on, he has pictures for crying out loud!

 

Please don't forget that everything else you do is destined for failure, you poor fool you, with your sand, infrequent (i.e. non-daily) water changes, refugiums and what not! Silly wabbit...

 

I mean, if his nutrient export methods are the be-all, end-all of success, they certianly cannot be applied if one is foolish enough to use a refugium - I mean, you cannot run a refugium without substrate, and if you do happen to do so, you certainly cannot do it and also do daily 1% water changes, right?!

 

 

Ok, Ok, I may have gone overboard, but this has become a little much to take - if you are going to claim scientific authority simply through extrapolation, then prepare for disagreement, let alone blatantly dismissing the merits of "hobbyist-grade observation" and anecdotal experience. If extrapolation is scientific proof, then further research is unnecessary - I thought that research literature bibliographies were meant to support the original research, not supplant the need for a separate hypothesis...

[nimavafi]

Since everyone is so passionate about this topic, anyone care to pick apart Brightwell Aquatics NeoZeo Method?

 

According to their documentation on the product:

 

"The role that microbes play in a zeolite filtration method is extremely important: they

convert nutrients existing in excessive concentrations into biomass, which is then (in

the case of planktonic bacteria, or “bacterioplanktonâ€) consumed by corals and other

suspension-feeding organisms and utilized in biological processes, and/or removed

from the aquarium by protein skimming. The process may be thought of as nutrient

recycling and export, and in that regard it provides some of the same benefits that a

refugium housing macroalgae provides"

[zooman72]

have you notice people with substrates start using more and more GFO and other after the fact phosphates binders as the system matures in order to try and keep up with the substrates release of Pi from bacterial action. another good indicator that the system is reaching saturation is low alk only. all of the bacteria stripping the elemental carbon out of the water column. ever wonder why "reef specific" salts are so high in alk and Ca? it is not because of coral growth it is fighting the affects of all of that bacteria working on wastes.

 

G~

 

So everyone with a substrate in a reef tank is using GFO (I am not however...), and when they do, they must constantly increase the amount used? You should be more thoughtful of broad, sweeping statements...

 

This is then coupled with the doozy of "reef-specific" salts being high in Ca and Alk due to the need to fight the effects of bacterial growth - of course assuming one has enough wastes to feed said bacteria, right? That and it is not there for coral growth at all, correct?

 

Wow...........

 

Seriously, I can't take any more!

[rick12]

 

Still, no data to back up these sweeping, inaccurate statements.

 

I've also yet to see anything linked that even remotely indicates that adding algae to a refugium "pushes the system towards nutrient enrichment". I've yet to see anyone (other than our NR friend kgoldy, who might) suggest that you don't have to siphon, skim or change the water if you have a few macros in there.

 

Honestly, I'd really love to read your study showing that adding macros creates a nutrient rich environment, but so far it has been elusive . The circular argument where you make claims without any supporting documentation continues...

Lol, hardly have enough hours in a day to go throughout this thread, let alone supporting docs.

So the algae holds the nutrients, and if you harvest the algae you toss out the nutrients along with it? Thus reducing nutrients?

The algae pulls the nutrients and stores it so as long as there is algae you have a nutrient rich environment?

If you have no algae fuge, and rely on skimming, siphoning, and WC, then doesn't the nutrient still exist but it is in the rock and sand?

"Sigh"

[xerophyte_nyc]

If you have no algae fuge, and rely on skimming, siphoning, and WC, then doesn't the nutrient still exist but it is in the rock and sand?

"Sigh"

 

That's the problem with aquaria - nutrients will always be there unless you starve the tank. Minimal feeding is not necessarily a bad thing, depends on what you want to accomplish with your tank.

 

ULNS + ample feeding probably cannot coexist in a reef tank. We stock way too high to be able to resemble anything close to a real reef. Trying to attain an ULNS filled with SPS does not seem attainable without food restriction. Maybe coral growth/ health is less than ideal as a result? Maybe a dirty, well fed tank that can export efficiently can support great SPS growth?

[xerophyte_nyc]

To repeat, the gist of why macro-algae do not represent an ULNS, is that the mere ability to grow algae, by definition, precludes a low nutrient system - because if nutrients were indeed low, there wouldn't be algae. Therefore, utilizing the same said algae for nutrient export cannot effectively reverse the tank's course back to a low nutrient situation, because then there would be no algae to get you to that point.

 

How about this as a corollary:

 

If you successfully employ various strategies to attain an ULNS aquarium, for ex. skimming, siphoning and water changes, AND your tank does NOT support macroalgal growth, then you are not feeding enough for optimal SPS coral growth and health.

[brandon429]

Since everyone is so passionate about this topic, anyone care to pick apart Brightwell Aquatics NeoZeo Method?

thats very funny

 

 

Ive been wanting to point these rascals straight at Santa Monica's uas thread not out of meanness just for the hashing of opposing views

 

 

I fully support ats and any other method that builds coral mass

 

SM is a good writer it would be a good discuss

 

 

Enjoyed reading about organic and inorganic phoshate. Doc and reefer posting all this sunk it the heck in. Saw RHF write about it a lot, but it never stuck that well.

[Nano sapiens]

That's the problem with aquaria - nutrients will always be there unless you starve the tank. Minimal feeding is not necessarily a bad thing, depends on what you want to accomplish with your tank.

 

ULNS + ample feeding probably cannot coexist in a reef tank. We stock way too high to be able to resemble anything close to a real reef. Trying to attain an ULNS filled with SPS does not seem attainable without food restriction. Maybe coral growth/ health is less than ideal as a result? Maybe a dirty, well fed tank that can export efficiently can support great SPS growth?

 

Personally, I think the ULNS as the 'Holy Grail' has been taken a little too far (unless one has a SPS dominated or SPS specific tank).

 

Most of our tank environments are closer to an 'inshore reef' than a 'pristine oceanic reef', anyway. Most of the corals we have bought have been collected, or were cultivated from, stock originating from such higher nutrient reef waters, so they have a good chance of adapting to our aquarium environment.

 

One takeaway from this long thread is the notion of watching algae growth as opposed to relying strictly on a PO4 test kit. Whether one has a refugium with macroalgae, or not, the rapid growth of algae anywhere in a system is typically an indicator of an elevated PO4 situation.

[Nano sapiens]

To repeat, the gist of why macro-algae do not represent an ULNS, is that the mere ability to grow algae, by definition, precludes a low nutrient system - because if nutrients were indeed low, there wouldn't be algae. Therefore, utilizing the same said algae for nutrient export cannot effectively reverse the tank's course back to a low nutrient situation, because then there would be no algae to get you to that point.

 

How about this as a corollary:

 

If you successfully employ various strategies to attain an ULNS aquarium, for ex. skimming, siphoning and water changes, AND your tank does NOT support macroalgal growth, then you are not feeding enough for optimal SPS coral growth and health.

 

Before this thread burst onto the scene, I'd been working for weeks to reduce a high PO4 condition from having a glutinous Dottyback and a keeper too willing to feed it . I've managed to reach a point where the visible Cyano has been eliminated and the macro algae has stopped growing, but is not dying. So far, no decrease in coral vigor, growth or color at this level of PO4 (whatever it truly is). In the long term, it will be interesting to see if a level of nutrients that precludes the growth of algae (a form of Bryopsis, in this case) will have any negative effects on the corals.

[FutureDoc]

Follow the P and find the answers... sigh, it is like teaching a cat how to give a ...

 

Multiple studies have been reference to understand the nature of algae, the nature of algae in relationship to P, how algae uses (consumes and excretes P), algae's role as a bio indicator, how P in Ca is access from substrate, and how hobbyist test kits can provide enough information. Sorry that it is not in "popular hobbyist magazine" and not approved by the parent company Spectrum brands or Central Pet. It is not like the peer-reviewed journals have lower standards.

 

If you do not get Liebig's minimum, the Calvin cycle, and you just want to spew out what false experts said "algae" can do without really understanding what algae does... well, gotta feel bad for your tank(s). Go, study trophic systems, the role of how building biomass and particularly how algae is not a good thing (especially for the stony corals we keep). But, you should try and stop tricking other hobbyist with an incomplete understanding of algae and suggest that application of algae is a good thing for a nutrient problem. Next, one might try and convince that roaches and rats are a great way to clean up food particles in a kitchen.

 

For the love of all that is salty... go read

"Phosphate Exchange and Organic Phosphorus Excretion by Freshwater Algae" by Lean & Nalewajko

 

Give you a hint, marine algae behaves is basically the same way. It is an old article... folks have known how algae behaves but for some reason we think the hobby can make algae do something that no other fields or waste treatment experts can't do!

 

As for my methods, I don't care when you change water and I am not advocating that folks should change a specific percent 1%, 2% or 100% but imports must equal export BEFORE it is incorporated into the biomass of the system My 1% is just my system and what I do for very specific reasons in my husbandry needs. In the end, you still have to export and exporting algae by growing algae is a false system as it requires nutrient gain to create nutrient export (or really hopeful equilibrium with both fingers crossed) . I don't care what methods folks use but I do care that misinformation about the "wonders of algae export" are poorly understood and folks who do not look at the empirical scientific evidence (and do not know what a spurious relationship entails) continue to preach away.

[penfold2]

ULNS + ample feeding probably cannot coexist in a reef tank. We stock way too high to be able to resemble anything close to a real reef. Trying to attain an ULNS filled with SPS does not seem attainable without food restriction. Maybe coral growth/ health is less than ideal as a result? Maybe a dirty, well fed tank that can export efficiently can support great SPS growth?

 

How about this as a corollary:

 

If you successfully employ various strategies to attain an ULNS aquarium, for ex. skimming, siphoning and water changes, AND your tank does NOT support macroalgal growth, then you are not feeding enough for optimal SPS coral growth and health.

 

This seems like a pessimistic, though not necessarily unrealistic, view. I would hope we do not have to choose between duplicating either the massive food input, or the very low P level of natural reefs, but maybe that's one of the limitations you come up against when attempting to cram an entire reef into a small glass box. I wonder how the anti-algae camp feels about heavy feeding. I remember Eric Borneman was a great believer in the idea that our corals are extraordinarily underfed. I know he hasn't been well received in this thread, but I think it's hard to disagree with him on that point.

[Nano sapiens]

Follow the P and find the answers... sigh, it is like teaching a cat how to give a ...

 

There are a lot of people posting in this thread. Sounds like you are responding to 'Blueprntguy'?

[FutureDoc]

There are a lot of people posting in this thread. Sounds like you are responding to 'Blueprntguy'?

 

I don't mind debate or critique (that is how we move the hobby forward), but I do not care for the dismissive-ness (if you dont care, don't post and I try to keep my hobby related posting at a higher level than my football-forum posting). If one has a counter point, make it, and support it. Either through empirical and replicatble evidence than minimize the variables (ie research,not posting to a tank build as the results can be spurious or mis-attributed ) or at least stand on the literature's shoulders. We might not be able to prove one husbandry's approach via ecology, marine biology or limnology literature, but when the claims are contrary to what the ecology and biochemistry suggest, then it should be corrected.

 

If there was empirical evidence for using algae (in any form) as a means to combat and prevent eutrophication, I would be all for it. If Pi was a precursor to how P is introduced into our tanks biological functions, then algae might have a shot. But in each case, we must allow for eutrophication and P processing before we can address nutrient removal and even then, it is flawed since P is not linear ending in Pi in algae. It is treating, covering up the eutrophication "disease" rather than addressing the root cause.

 

Some people just cry "foul" even if they do not know what they are crying about.

[FutureDoc]

It's a shame that you can't quote any of these mysterious studies and they ones that you do link to turn out to say exactly the oposite that you claim. For the love of all that is salty, go read an article about... Freshwater plants! You continually make this claim but you can't provide one single link to prove that it's true. Again, something that you continue to proclaim without providing any information to back it up. The information that has been provided by others on this thread shows, through scientific studies, that many types if macroalgaes thrive in low phosphate systems, so it's not necessary to have high concentrations of inorganic phosphate for macroalgae to grow. I've asked you to provide this information numerous times over the course of a few days and you continue to regurgitate the same statements back without providing any back-up information. If you have access to all these studies that are behind the paid firewalls that you continue to link to, then I'd suggest that you copy and paste the relevant sections. So far, you haven't backed up ANY of your claims with anything that even remotely makes your case. You just repeat the same things, which leads me to the only rational explanation that you simply don't have anything to back up your case.

 

Which says the opposite? Please cite the page number and context please?

 

You think algae are "plants" how cute.

 

The study said that algae "thrive" in low P environments but this does not address the fact that algae prefer and are a bio-indicator for higher nutrients and that is why they say

 

"On the basis of observations made in this study, it may be suggested that distributions of macro-algae species in oligotrophic coral reef systems depend in part on patterns of benthic nutrient availability and water flow, on the nutrient requirements of individual species, and on the mechanisms by which those species acquire nutrients."

 

So, in that study, algae was dependent on benthic sources (like our rock and sand) or in high flow were the concentration might be low, but the high turnover allows more particles to pass by... think, it is like the algae growing on the powerhead when it does not grow elsewhere. Use your critical reading skills.

 

I have quote from the text several times. You just complain about not having a direct link. I give you the link and information (which if you look for access you can find it via a library) then you claim about it being not being open access and say I should "cut and paste" more.

 

However, by your own very logic, where are your sources? (And do not make me giggle with early 2000 Borneman, Shimek, or RHF articles from the DSB days).

[FutureDoc]

You mean like this one, from UMTAS, published in 2011, that I published way back on post 72, and which you subsequently ignored? http://www.umt.edu.my/dokumen/UMTAS2011/LIFE%20SC/Poster_LIFE_SC/LSP71%20-%20Siti%20Hajar%20Ahmad.pdf

 

It says algae uptakes and grows with the availability of nutrients (N+P)? And I quote (from the first paragraph... and stomach the first sentence):

 

 

"Nutrient is the most important factor that controls the growth, productivity, biochemical content, reproduction, development, morphology and distribution of seaweed [1]. Opportunistic seaweed has the ability to take large amount of nutrients and grow well in nutrients rich environments. It also has the ability to take many forms of nutrients simultaneously and contains a large internal nutrient storage. One of species that has the ability to grow and colonize rapidly when the condition is favorable is Ulva. It can be found in many parts of the world and often as an abundant species in the estuary. This species can be used to improve water quality in an integrated culture with fish, shrimp and abalone [2]. However, the high growth rate of Ulva has also caused environmental problems in the beaches area by initiating ecological phenomena of 'green tide' characterised with large-scale growth when there is a high nutrient content in the environment [3,4].

So basically you take a eutrophic-environment organism, place it in an eutrophic environment and watch it go... however the association of this organism's growth is a bio-indicator of a hyper-eutrophic event looming which is an ecological disaster.

Could not have proven my point better.