Refugiums don't export nutrients?

[FutureDoc]

That seems to be your modus operandi for your entire time here...

 

Once again, you have your hypothesis, and many here have theirs, but you seems to be the only one claiming your hypothesis is fact, backed up with scattered references that do not directly support said hypothesis...and certainly do not prove it!

 

No, it is not an hypotheses .. and itis not a null hypothesis either. it is a theoretical framework supported with a wide array of peer-review journals which addresses for both internal and external validity. I am not saying that my argument is a "fact" I am saying that the "facts" support my argument and theoretical framework.

 

Sorry, whenever I do find a interesting article, I do post it because someone might actually care about understanding what is going on within our systems... they can follow the literature if they please. I have posted several, very specific quotes pertaining to very specific attributes of algae and the role of nutrient gain and export.

 

I have lead you to water... drink if you well or keep on spewing inaccurate conceptual theories of how a nutrient-loving organism can both grow and limit what it is dependent on for its growth.

 

Google NewYorkSteelo... popular youtube idiot that likes algae and no water changes

[xerophyte_nyc]

Even NYSteelo has had good growth for a few years and then the tank fails. We know the P is bind with the rock and eventually that reserve will fail. Actually NYSteelo is the perfect example of algae-culling tank failures.

 

On his website, "I am quite sad to report that after 3 years of this tank running and thriving, it suffered a major system crash as a result of a fire in my old apartment."

 

Are you saying this is a lie?

[zooman72]

No, it is not an hypotheses .. and itis not a null hypothesis either. it is a theoretical framework supported with a wide array of peer-review journals which addresses for both internal and external validity. I am not saying that my argument is a "fact" I am saying that the "facts" support my argument and theoretical framework.

- well, a little humility from you, but your facts are interpreted as valid by you, even though they address a disparate realm of environments, where many here have noted that may or may not be extrapolated to captive marine systems. You have also used many anecdotal statements throughout, all the while condemning them from others...

 

Sorry, whenever I do find a interesting article, I do post it because someone might actually care about understanding what is going on within our systems... they can follow the literature if they please. I have posted several, very specific quotes pertaining to very specific attributes of algae and the role of nutrient gain and export.

- but again, your articles do not address what is actually going on in our systems, they address what is happening in natural systems, which again, many have pointed out is quite a leap...

 

I have lead you to water... drink if you well or keep on spewing inaccurate conceptual theories of how a nutrient-loving organism can both grow and limit what it is dependent on for its growth.

- well, there goes the humility...

 

Google NewYorkSteelo... popular youtube idiot that likes algae and no water changes

- and I can link you to one of several pompous scientific lecturers who like to hear themselves talk, and refuse to acknowledge they may not have all the answers, or that alternatives may exist...

[Griever]

On his website, "I am quite sad to report that after 3 years of this tank running and thriving, it suffered a major system crash as a result of a fire in my old apartment."

 

Are you saying this is a lie?

 

Isn't it obvious? The inorganic P started the fire to hide its tracks.

[SpecimenB]

Utilization of dissolved organic phosphorus by different groups of phytoplankton taxa (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1568988311001107) Microalgae, worth taking a look if you have access through an attached institution.

 

Biology of the Red Algae (Page 152, Google book it)

 

Algae perfectly capable of utilizing organic phosphates without bacteria intermediate.

[zooman72]

Isn't it obvious? The inorganic P started the fire to hide its tracks.

 

 

[penfold2]

You are on the right track. We know that Pi directly inhibits coral calcification in high quantities. So high Pi is bad for stony system. The trick is that all (save minor amounts from when we put rock etc in our tank) Pi in our system was initially added as Po from our feeding of the tank. Since Pi can work back to being Po and vice versa it is important to note that our test kits can only assess Pi in the water column (and not very well at that) So we have an incomplete picture with P. The more Po you have in the system, the more bacteria can convert and the more algae can potentially feed on. That is why algae provided the carbon limited bacteria carbon... so it can convert more Po into Pi. Po is not really all that bad, but it is the fuel for the bad Pi. So limit Po, you will limit Pi production by limiting the bacterial mass that converts it. If you try to use growing algae, algae is providing carbon fuel to bacteria that create more Pi. While it removes Pi from the water column, it does not necessarily hold it and with its metabolism and cell death rates, it releases Po back into the water. Since we are constantly adding Po via the food for fish, limiting Pi to limit Po (or P in general) make less sense because you are waiting for bacteria to convert Po into Pi before you remove it. Plus Ca binds with P so...

 

You are on the right track but folks need to pay attention to the details.

 

My question is really about the efficiency of algae. If algae is efficient enough to assimilate Pi before it accumulates to any significant amount, then it wouldn't matter how much Po is being converted to Pi. I understand your point about being proactive and eliminating Po before it can enter the P cycle, but is that the only way to achieve low nutrient levels? Is algae really incapable of maintaining low Pi in the presence of significant Po?

 

Folks also seem to forget that algae releases other organic compounds to also limit calcification.

 

A bit of activated carbon is usually recommended when using algae in order to deal with yellowing compounds and secondary metabolites. It's an easy fix.

[Amphiprion1]

 

I agree that many hobbyist were light-years ahead of many aquariums. Smaller tanks show eutrophication much faster than large tanks so we got faster feedback. Still, I am shocked that one would ever suggest that someone can't know history unless they were a part of it. And are you asking for peer-reviewed hobbyist examples?

I'm doing nothing of the sort--only you are suggesting that. I just think it is funny that you are making broad presumptions that aren't even accurate. None of what you said is true enough to make the conclusions you did. You could only attack me and my supposed knowledge of aquarium history to try to disprove what I said. Those conclusions, as bluprntguy said, are pure conjecture and it would be exceedingly arrogant to say otherwise, given that you do not know enough of any of those instances to make that conclusion. I'm not saying I could even prove one way or another on any of those systems. If anything, this hobby has taught me enough not to shoot myself in the foot by making a statement that broad or subjective, especially without knowing more details involved. You have far more emotionally vested in the conversation than just proving or disproving science. You wouldn't have said any of that if you did not--and had younot, I would never have felt the need to ever say anything. Everything you said was great and fact based until that.

[JamesHL88]

Can this thread please just get silly now so I can understand it.

 

*gets the feeling they are arguing about something but doesnt know what.

[Reefin Dude]

Quote by xerophyte_nyc

"If we were to use silica based sand, then there are no P binding sites, giving us the ability to better clean the water column without a P sink.

 

Wonderful - now the bacteria can convert this into inorganic corn, and you will have an algae bloom in your tank."

 

yes and no. since the silica will not also bind phosphates, then the there is less volume for holding the phosphates. the phosphates in the substrate would only be bound by the bacteria. there will not also be an about equal amount of phosphates bound in the calcium carbonate matrix. the good news is that when the sand is siphoned of all detritus, then there substrate is back to "empty". i would not however recommend doing this. let the phosphate sink act like a sink.

 

Quote by JamesHL88

"Nah my tank can handle large poop loads thanks to my "P" sink. Ziiiiiing!!!!!!!"

 

which is exactly what we have been saying.

 

Quote by zooman72

 

"No, you did not say every system, but you made a broad sweeping statement without quantifying - next time, try "some" and others won't think you mean any and every system with refugiums use GFO...just saying...

 

And yes, I am quite aware of what is limiting for coral growth - do you? Anything the coral needs to grow (and calcify if it is a "stony" coral) can be a limiting factor - this means temperature, light, flow, pH, alkalinity, food, calcium, etc. This also means that whatever inhibits growth can be limiting as well, such as chemical inhibition from other corals, disease, and phosphate for example.

 

I figured you were a pompous ass after you posted...and "turd" was quite technical of you, sums up your work here so far..."

 

lets pretend that i do not know how hermatypic organisms produce their skeleton and you need to explain it to me. i have already given you a massive hint, so it is not really fair, but let see how you do. lets figure out who is the pompous ass and who knows what is limiting for coral growth. i am game, are you?

 

Quote by xerophyte_nyc

"Between all the other info being thrown around back and forth on this thread, I come back to the idea of the substrate acting as a sink as the most important take home message.

 

That will likely be the only thing I will address in my own aquarium. I will probably do something like scoop out the top 1 or so inches of about 20% of my substrate, and every other month do the same for a different section, and the net result is 100% turnover of substrate bound P every year or so. "

 

i am confused? an ATS/"refugium" is just another phosphates sink, just not as effective since it is dealing with only Pi, and not some Po like the substrate is with all of its biomass exchanging Po and Pi constantly between the bacteria and the calcium carbonate.

 

Quote by penfold2

"One thing that keeps being brought up is the total amount of P in the system, as opposed to just the Pi dissolved in the water column. Are these other sources of P directly problematic, or is it just the fact that they can break down into free Pi? If they are not directly problematic, then isn't the issue just a matter of how efficient algae is at absorbing Pi? It wouldn't matter how much Po is in the system if algae is taking up Pi just as quickly as it is being produced.

 

I'm still working to keep up with all this, so tell me if I've got something wrong."

 

well this is what is really driving FD and i crazy here with all of this discussion about keeping ATS's. algae is fantastic at converting Pi back to Po through its biological processes. thus continuing the cycle of P throughout the system. the problem is that if the algae is growing than it is not uptaking the Pi as fast as the bacteria are creating it from Po from these various sources which include waste products from algae's biological functions.

 

some of these other sources of Po are more problematic than others. poo from animal wastes has already been stripped of most useful compounds, it is waste after all. so any Po from this is not going to be as good of a food source for other organisms as some nice fresh food. either way they both need to rot in order to produce Pi. i am not one to think that blowing poo around as a food source is as good as feeding often a good bit of blender mush. create an area where all of this collects, then just get rid of it all. who cares if it is left over food or left over poo.

 

Quote by Bluprntguy

"Actually, FutureDoc is indeed saying that the algae is pushing the system towards a nutrient rich environment:

 

"Algae uses inorganic P and relases organic P to bacteria to recyclAlgae uses inorganic P and relases organic P to bacteria to recycle"

"Algae also has an relationship with bacteria that fuels bacteria so that bacteria frees up inorganic P for further algae growth"

 

I'm too tired of this to find more.

 

 

May want to tell kgoldy that his stony corals aren't really growing in his tank with macroalgae and no water changes. http://www.nano-reef.com/topic/259616-kgoldys-reef-is-retiring. Maybe Long Island is in an alternate reality force field that allows him to grow stony corals and never change his water, for a year.

 

 

Reference for the Smithsonian System crash? I've done a google search for it and emailed them for information, but nothing comes up and the email back from the Smithsonian system simply said that their systems "did not have a "crash" or massive loss of life for many years." I'm guessing that this is an urban legend. Did your protege "Bomber" claim he worked a the Smithsonian AND falsify his credentials as well? "

 

what is being said is that since Po is released by the algae also, this just continues the Po cycle. to be used by bacteria again, to be converted to Pi. it is a cycle.

 

as for kgoldy's tank. seriously? do you know how fast SPS can grow? SPS are weeds. they grow wicked quick when given the right environment. here are two shots of Bomber's tank taken 9 months apart. the Acro in the foreground would have busted out of a nano in that amount of time. that is explosive growth. if you are able to keep SPS in a nano, without constant trimming then there is not explosive growth.

January 04.

 

 

September 04

 

 

kgoldy's tank is a very nice eutrophic tank. lots of softies. as i have said earlier. if i wanted to setup a eutrophic biotope, then i would follow your all's advice in a heartbeat. that is what you all setup your systems to be.

 

Quote by xerophyte_nyc

"What some of us here at NR are trying to support is that ULNS is not a prerequisite for stony coral growth, in an aquarium. Algae is just another tool to spin the wheel towards nutrient export. An ATS just spins that wheel faster than macro in a fuge.

WC, skimmers, media, algae... They all do the same thing in the end, which is ultimately export of P. It is still debatable how bad Po in the water column is, and it is debatable how bad it is to feed Po to bacteria.
But the majority of P can be successfully exported using the above methods. Whether nutrient rich or not, a steady state can be reached.

The real x-factor, as I see it, is the P that is trapped in the substrate. That is the ticking time bomb. Depending on what other export methods are employed, will determine when that bomb goes off. It would appear that in a nutrient rich environment that happens sooner.

Who wants to discuss?"

 

when zooman72 starts teaching us about coral skeleton building the importance of having a very low Pi level will become pretty obvious when keeping hermatypic organisms.

 

how bad is Po in the water depends on what you want to feed your critters. do you want to feed them floating around Po laden poo, or do you want to feed the Po laden food that you added?

 

G~

 

 

P.S.-ARGH!!! what happened? why did all of the Quote boxes go away?

 

 

 

that is going to be confusing as all get out i bet. i will see if i can fix it when i get home.

 

Sorry, not sure what happened.

 

P.P.S.- fixed as well as i can using the edit tool.

[Amphiprion1]

Can this thread please just get silly now so I can understand it. *gets the feeling they are arguing about something but doesnt know what.

It's starting to get crazy and, unfortunately, I got baited into contributing to it. I got my point across. I'm sorry, N-R, not for pointing out what I saw and saying something about it, but for derailing everything.

[Grape Nuts]

So has anyone been swayed by this thread, in either direction, even a just a little, from their previous understanding of refugiums?

[danimal1211]

Ugh tried to get through it all. I would like to know how you are testing for Po if its the silent killer you keep alluding to. If you can't test for it how do you know its the problem. It seems to me your husbandry is not that far off from what most do here. One of the great long kept assertions here at NR is that frequent large water changes are all but essential to keeping a sub 40 gallon tank. The beginners maintenance articles discuss syphoning the sand bed frequently. Not overstocking your tank another good one. We just have the added benefit of macros to help export nutrients, which has already been proven that they do. They may convert Po into PI, they may even release some back into the water. This goes back to maintenance though and not overfeeding.

[brandon429]

Algae uses inorganic P and relases organic P to bacteria

 

for the people testing and detecting a phosphate drop after adding macro or ats, wouldnt the above register again as a spike if they tested several times throughout the day or is it too small to matter?

[brandon429]

my thoughts are if its just being xferred between plant and moneran and not avail in the free water table then its bound and problem algae aren't getting to it...

[Reefin Dude]

the problem is that out test kits are not sensitive enough. we need to see into the 0.001 resolution to see changes in Pi.

 

there is no way to test for Po, that is another problem. it is P bound inside organic material, not loose floating around. it would be like testing the phosphate content of you. it would not be very pleasant.

 

now if only those recommended practices would make their way to the larger tank communities we would all be in a better place.

 

algae is a half day late and $.50 short to the phosphate party, with GFO being a day late and a $1.00 short.

 

algae is only exporting P when it is actually removed from the system. until that point some of the P is getting bound in the biomass, but some is also being passed through from energy production. how thorough do you want to be in removing P. what biotope is being emulated.

 

G~

[tibbsy07]

So has anyone been swayed by this thread, in either direction, even a just a little, from their previous understanding of refugiums?

Nope. Until I see a large body of actual scientific research that supports not using a refugium, I don't see a reason to not use one. It adds water volume, provides extra filtration, a safe haven for copepods and a nice extra display (if you have a nice fuge).

[Reefin Dude]

my thoughts are if its just being xferred between plant and moneran and not avail in the free water table then its bound and problem algae aren't getting to it...

 

until it becomes available. P is always being converted back and forth between Po and Pi and back again depending on who has it. there is no guarantee that it is going to stay where it is. it is a valuable commodity. every living thing wants/needs it in one form or another. the object is to keep it from getting to the algae.

 

G~

[nimavafi]

So has anyone been swayed by this thread, in either direction, even a just a little, from their previous understanding of refugiums?

I see the point they are trying to make. If I was going to setup a SPS-only tank I would go FutureDoc and ReefingDudes route - BB, big skimmer, no sand, no ATS, no fuge. But SPS-only is just not what I would want to deal with.

 

 

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/4/aquarium -this is convincing me more, which is incorporating the theories FD and RD are purporting.

 

 

 

 

Edit: link fixed

[Reefin Dude]

ok, so how many crashed tanks does it take? shall we go through all of mine over the past 25+ years of reefing since the late 80's. how about the TOTM from Advanced Aquarium that i have personally seen crash from old tank syndrome from nutrient overload. has anybody not noticed how many of the TOTM's from the various sites are no longer running after the 5-7 year mark?

 

how much data does one need to realize that there is a problem. how about all of the threads on here and other forums about algae?

 

what do you all think is the most commonly asked question on nano-reefs?

 

G~

[tibbsy07]

until it becomes available. P is always being converted back and forth between Po and Pi and back again depending on who has it. there is no guarantee that it is going to stay where it is. it is a valuable commodity. every living thing wants/needs it in one form or another. the object is to keep it from getting to the algae.

 

G~

So in that sense, wouldn't a fuge be a good idea? If you add macros to the fuge and give them a perfect growing environment, then they are more apt at being able to utilize the P coming from the bacteria before any nuisance algae would. They are already established and are simply waiting for more nutrients to come their way. The nuisance algae hasn't gotten a hold in the tank yet and so growth is more of a struggle for them.

 

You know, like super old trees in a dense forest that prevent newer, smaller trees and plants from growing because they block out the sun and their root systems pull in more water faster than the smaller ones can.

[Reefin Dude]

I see the point they are trying to make. If I was going to setup a SPS-only tank I would go FutureDoc and ReefingDudes route - BB, big skimmer, no sand, no ATS, no fuge. But SPS-only is just not what I would want to deal with.

 

bingo.

 

it is all about creating a system to match the trophic level of the organism one wants to keep. you can not design one system to house all of the different types of corals and all of them to be happy. they may survive, but they are not all going to thrive. they are going to be compromised.

 

G~

[danimal1211]

Well I couldnt say if I'd personally keep up with 20% weekly water changes on a 300g tank, especially factoring in the time to turkey baste the rocks and syphon. The one article that was posted that mentioned marine macro algae releasing P, it said as much as 20% . So even if this is the case when I trim the growth off my chaeto, I'm still removing 80% of the Pi that that portion has stored. Further more if this remaining 20% were converted to Po, it would then be available to my corals to consume (sounds like a plus). As long as I'm careful how I feed and keep up with maintenance, I don't see how your non-refugium system is functioning better than a properly maintained system with one.

[xerophyte_nyc]

following up on "excretion" along with bacteria... Lemasson and Pages (1980) Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science

[Later on]

In the case of the populations studied here, the excreted DOP represents at least 8% of gross P-uptake. This is not negligible and would justify a closer study. We can imagine two ways of excretion; the first would correspond to the physiological condition of the cell, and involve a compartment readily exchangeable with around 28% of the biomass, while the second would involve a compartment more closely linked to internal metabolism. " (p. 521) [please note that the rate is liked to metabolism... thus my "it depends" answers".

 

I would still like a follow up to this. When was this 8% measurement taken? What was the time interval from zero to measure? That is an important piece of information that is missing.

[Grape Nuts]

I see the point they are trying to make. If I was going to setup a SPS-only tank I would go FutureDoc and ReefingDudes route - BB, big skimmer, no sand, no ATS, no fuge. But SPS-only is just not what I would want to deal with.

 

 

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/4/aquarium - this is convincing me more, which is incorporating the theories FD and RD are purporting.

Nice little nano. Fixed the link: http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/4/aquarium