Refugiums don't export nutrients?

[zooman72]

 

Quote by zooman72

 

 

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?

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

Ok, internet smart guy, I am willing to teach you, just sign up for my Aquarium Science class like anyone else (I am tired of doing this s--t for free...), but why bother - you obviously know everything there is to know about the subject, and are feeding us crumbs to keep us interested, right? I mean, no one this forum has any idea what the hell they are doing, correct? I never claimed or intimated that phosphate is unproblematic in a reef aquarium, especially one housing and growing stony corals - I did point out it is not the only limiting factor to growth, which you are too stubborn to admit. Here is a thought, since we are so dense and stupid, go back to that other forum you frequented and continue to "spread the good word"...

 

I, like 99.9% of the other hobbyist keeping marine organisms, learned what they learned from the work of marine aquarium pioneers, meaning that few of us came up with anything original, we just used others' examples and techniques. I am not going to pretend that I laid the groundwork for succesfully keeping corals and deciphering the secrets of successful coral husbandry - and neither should you. Anything you are willing to contribute is not your original work, so please don't act like an expert here. I can go to my library or the internet and pull up dogma, principles and techniques too, but I have not claimed that anyone else's work is destined for failure and incorrect - hint, this is what has pissed some of us off. That, and the fact that some of us have been around long enough that we remember when nano-reefs were deemed impossible, foolish, and destined to fail in short order...

 

I can help you out though with something real simple - sentences start with capital letters. My freshmen know that I am sure.

 

Also, there are little quote and multi-quote buttons/ tabs that you can click on below each entry...just to help you out with the tricky quote function...

[xerophyte_nyc]

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~

 

Not necessarily a bad thing...in our little tanks, it would be convenient if growth of coral slowed down at some point otherwise we have to constantly prune them.

[xerophyte_nyc]

You can not prove that you have low phosphates in the system if you have growing healthy algae in the system. And I say system. Rock, sand, bacteria, etc. It if is excreting, and everything alive excretes, it is processing (incorporating and releasing) P. If P were limiting, the algae would not grow. Thus, no nutrients, no algae.

 

An ATS is a little different. Let's say in an ULNS, the nutrients are limited enough in the water column to keep algae from growing in the display tank. Now hook up a scrubber pre-loaded with some GHA, gave it ideal lighting, superior water flow where the boundary layer (which is limiting nutrient uptake in the display) is being constantly disrupted so that nutrient uptake can be up-regulated. This ATS environment is not necessarily ULNS anymore, it is a phosphate sink to some degree. Would this not help bind the small amount of Pi still floating around?

 

If I put a ball of Chaetomorpha into your tank, would it just recede away in a few weeks? Or would it hang around on meager sustenance?

[Grape Nuts]

If I put a ball of Chaetomorpha into your tank, would it just recede away in a few weeks? Or would it hang around on meager sustenance?

 

I think it would recede away but in the process of decaying release nutrients to feed upon and slow the process. Put 2 balls of chaeto in 2 containers of freshly mixed water and do weekly or daily water changes on one ball and don't change the water on the other. While at do a 3rd ball with water from your tank doing water changes with tank water. I would be interested in the results.

[brandon429]

 

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~

Compromise is a very subjective evaluation here. I run a mildly eutrophic system mixed with softs and sps/stonies that is truly long term with a huge dsb. The system gets the water changes and bed disturbance you guys have talked about and my only gripe is darker colors for sps. So they morphed color and zoox density to adapt and its a trade off, the growth is fine and the color is brown ish. But imo, every tank has a negative, even the ideal ones you guys describe imo its not a bad negative all things considered. It is very possible to run a mixed system long term just wanted to add. Nobody is trying to change the colors of Florida stag horn, golden browns are ok to some!

 

So much sps mass is fragged out of my system and many others i choose to define that as adaptability/thriving

[Nano sapiens]

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~

 

Certainly, one can create an environment that favors a particular type of coral and provides for their optimal growth. While that is fine for some, it's not preferable for others who prefer a mixed coral environment, which is what one often finds in nature. Many corals are 'compromised' in nature, as well, by having settled on less than idea locations. But they can still be healthy and colorful without growing 7" a year.

[danimal1211]

I think it would recede away but in the process of decaying release nutrients to feed upon and slow the process. Put 2 balls of chaeto in 2 containers of freshly mixed water and do weekly or daily water changes on one ball and don't change the water on the other. While at do a 3rd ball with water from your tank doing water changes with tank water. I would be interested in the results.

Actually in my experience it wouldn't. My small 8g system has only corals and a few starving snails. It would definitely qualify as LNS. I have a baseball sized ball of chaeto. It doesnt grow much, but it does grow and I trim ab ittle every couple weeks. While I cant test for this silent Po killer, my hanna checker gives me a reading of .000 to .002 with a variance of +/- .004. My nitrates also test very low around .3 and .4ppm salifert.

[Nano sapiens]

i am lost on how your experience is counter to what i was saying about how substrates work and their is a slow migration of phosphates downward through the substrate. if this is not occurring then why is the detritus in the substrate instead of always on top? if the detritus was always on top, then why would stirring a substrate or a powerhead stirring the substrate create such a influx of nutrients into a system causing problems? the nutrients either work up, or work down. you can not have both. i put my money on downward.

 

after you clean the substrate you have opened up new binding sites in the calcium carbonate allowing more phosphates to bind to it and the process begins again. the more you siphon the more binding sites that can be opened up by bacteria. they are also getting a new source of carbon from the mixing of the substrate from cleaning.

 

G~

 

Not so difficult to understand.

 

Detritus is in the substrate because of advection caused by flow in the tank. Detritus contains a good deal of Phosphate. This mechanism moves detritus/phosphate deeper into the substrate as time goes by and is why we don't see much detritus on the substrate surface of a typical, healthy reef tank.

 

Phosphate will bind rather tightly to a calcareous substrate and is not easily liberated in the water conditions typical in a reef environment. In an old, mature sand bed, phosphate has had plenty of time to bind to all the sites it possibly can. I will conceded that relatively small amounts of phosphate can be liberated by biological action (bacterial & algal, mostly), but the majority is found in the detritus. That's why detritus removal is quite effective at keeping phosphate levels in check and why an old, well/often vacuumed substrate, is not deleterious to a reef tank, IMO (95% of my current nano substrate is over 14 years old).

[Reefin Dude]

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.

 

it gets kind of contradictory. we know that the bacteria produce the Pi from the detritus. what if we did not have the algae in the area. just let bacteria do its thing. wouldn't that feed the plankton and the bacteria in the water column? wouldn't that then be food for the corals? if this is such a good idea, then why have the algae? a better option than using the algae, would be to run the output from this settling tank through a carbon source, run it through a monster UV, then skim the living daylights out of it. using the skimmer as an export mechanism for the Pi released by the detritus. at least then there will be a constant removal of organic material.

 

Ok, internet smart guy, I am willing to teach you, just sign up for my Aquarium Science class like anyone else (I am tired of doing this s--t for free...), but why bother - you obviously know everything there is to know about the subject, and are feeding us crumbs to keep us interested, right? I mean, no one this forum has any idea what the hell they are doing, correct? I never claimed or intimated that phosphate is unproblematic in a reef aquarium, especially one housing and growing stony corals - I did point out it is not the only limiting factor to growth, which you are too stubborn to admit. Here is a thought, since we are so dense and stupid, go back to that other forum you frequented and continue to "spread the good word"...

 

I, like 99.9% of the other hobbyist keeping marine organisms, learned what they learned from the work of marine aquarium pioneers, meaning that few of us came up with anything original, we just used others' examples and techniques. I am not going to pretend that I laid the groundwork for succesfully keeping corals and deciphering the secrets of successful coral husbandry - and neither should you. Anything you are willing to contribute is not your original work, so please don't act like an expert here. I can go to my library or the internet and pull up dogma, principles and techniques too, but I have not claimed that anyone else's work is destined for failure and incorrect - hint, this is what has pissed some of us off. That, and the fact that some of us have been around long enough that we remember when nano-reefs were deemed impossible, foolish, and destined to fail in short order...

 

I can help you out though with something real simple - sentences start with capital letters. My freshmen know that I am sure.

 

Also, there are little quote and multi-quote buttons/ tabs that you can click on below each entry...just to help you out with the tricky quote function...

 

sure, where, when, and what are you Aquarium Science Classes?

 

sorry, where did i say that phosphates were the only limiting factor for growth in hermatypic organisms? there are lot of factors, but the one that is overlooked and is an ever present concern is Pi. it really is toxic to hermatypic organisms. please point me to a thread on Nano-Reefs that talks about what happens when phosphates get involved in the photosynthesis process in hermatypic organisms and i will reference here for everyone to read, i would expect you would have some good input in it.

 

why are you here if you do not want to do this for free?

 

did i ever say that i came up with any of this? did i ever say that i know everything? we are all here to learn. we are here to exchange information. someone may or may not already have additional information about a given subject from independent research , or exchange ideas from other areas to help further the hobby. why are you here if not for the same purpose?

 

sorry if you did not noticed i had been doing the multi-quote option several times in this thread. that last time it did not work. i am not sure why, but it did not. i could not go back and fix it either, sorry for the trouble.

 

sorry, about the capital letter thing. it is throwback to when i was using ytalk back in the early 80's. If it makes you happy, I will use them. Not a big deal.

 

Not necessarily a bad thing...in our little tanks, it would be convenient if growth of coral slowed down at some point otherwise we have to constantly prune them.

 

That is understandable, but is that keeping the coral in its best health? If retarding the growth of a coral is a goal, then say it. That makes sense in this forum and in some situations. Keeping higher levels of Pi in the water column in order to retard growths in order to maintain the look of the system longer. Explain that what is going on is not optimal for the health of the coral, but has a specific purpose in this situation.

 

G~

[danimal1211]

it gets kind of contradictory. we know that the bacteria produce the Pi from the detritus. what if we did not have the algae in the area. just let bacteria do its thing. wouldn't that feed the plankton and the bacteria in the water column? wouldn't that then be food for the corals? if this is such a good idea, then why have the algae? a better option than using the algae, would be to run the output from this settling tank through a carbon source, run it through a monster UV, then skim the living daylights out of it. using the skimmer as an export mechanism for the Pi released by the detritus. at least then there will be a constant removal of organic material.

G~

 

I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but your still dodging many of the ?s that have been asked here. You arent shedding any new light on PO4 being an issue in reef aquauria. And your evidence against algae as a means for nutrient export have been anecdotal. Furthermore citing untestable organic phosphate is an argument from ignorance where if A and B aren't the problem, then it must be C.

 

For example it is well understood that if you let a filter sock or polyfilter go unchanged, the nutrients they catch will break down and leach nutrients. In a sense your telling us don't bother using the sock in the first place.

[xerophyte_nyc]

That is understandable, but is that keeping the coral in its best health?

 

Probably not. But I can argue that very few people keep their coral in good health - spawning is still a rare event in captivity. Reproduction is the ultimate sign of "health and happiness" in both zoology and botany because so many species will only do so when conditions allow it.

[brandon429]

asexual growth signifies that adapted condition as well. its positive mass acquisition, thats where a legit tank begins to me. if you can figure out how to maintain pastel and burning deep colors more power to you, but thats just the turbo version. said by a man slightly bitter about no sps pop heh

[jedimasterben]

Yeah, I was just so-so on refugiums and algae before the thread started, now I'm planning a bigger fuge with more algae!

I approve this message.

[zooman72]

sure, where, when, and what are you Aquarium Science Classes?

- if you are serious, and in NY state, send me a PM...

 

sorry, where did i say that phosphates were the only limiting factor for growth in hermatypic organisms? there are lot of factors, but the one that is overlooked and is an ever present concern is Pi. it really is toxic to hermatypic organisms. please point me to a thread on Nano-Reefs that talks about what happens when phosphates get involved in the photosynthesis process in hermatypic organisms and i will reference here for everyone to read, i would expect you would have some good input in it.

- who overlooks it? It is a limiting nutrient in coral reef ecosystems that inhibits calcification when found above natural levels, but has not been found to necessarily kill corals when elevated. You are welcome to look for threads if you like, but I don't find value in someones post count or participation in certain discussions.

 

why are you here if you do not want to do this for free?

- good question, and according to my wife I should already be off the damn computer. That, and I don't feel it would make any difference when you are so obviously "anti-refugium" - part of your sig on TRT is "friends don't let friend use refugiums"...so we get it, you don't like them and they are evil, but not to everyone...

 

did i ever say that i came up with any of this? did i ever say that i know everything? we are all here to learn. we are here to exchange information. someone may or may not already have additional information about a given subject from independent research , or exchange ideas from other areas to help further the hobby. why are you here if not for the same purpose?

- you are correct, we are here to learn and share info, but when you present as so close-minded to the fellow reef enthusiasts here, and denigrate their efforts, especially coming on over from TRT (not a bastion of value to some enthusiasts), did you think there would be no blowback?

 

- I picked up this quote from the reefaquariumguide.com, refreshing my memory of TRT and Borneman controversies: "There are too many glorified hobbyists with ego maniacal personalities that travel around or post on the internet for totally self serving reasons."

 

- Another I thought described this thread quite well, from the same source, although I am paraphrasing: "The hobby doesn't need those who rush to publish unfounded hypotheses, rush to fill every niche that may place them in public view, and give advice about things they have no experience with."

sorry if you did not noticed i had been doing the multi-quote option several times in this thread. that last time it did not work. i am not sure why, but it did not. i could not go back and fix it either, sorry for the trouble.

- no trouble for me, I just thought it ironic for someone giving advice from a position of so-called superiority...

 

sorry, about the capital letter thing. it is throwback to when i was using ytalk back in the early 80's. If it makes you happy, I will use them. Not a big deal.

- see previous...

 

 

G~

I understand you are an admistrator over at TRT, so why come here to stir up trouble? Wouldn't you and your mods think it so?

- from gregt, one of your other administrators:

"Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Jury

I wasn't aware that there was a minimum number of posts required before ones thoughts became relevant. I figured that an argument was to be made based on it's own merits, not on an arbitrary figure like post count on a particular forum.

You missed the point. I was pointing out the irony of you bashing us for bashing someone else - as the only contribution you've ever made to the forum. As for the rest of your concerns, you've made your agenda clear so enough said. Its time for you to participate constructively or move along. Thanks in advance for your understanding."

 

Now reading up on you guys over there, I could make an argument that you should not be trusted to give any advice to those of us here at NR...this from a forum in 2007: "The Reef Tank" is run by GregT, Bomber (now going by the name of "Spanky"), and all of their former "minions" from Reef Central. For those of you who didn't follow the drama on RC 16 months ago, Bomber posted a picture of his tank which had some supposed illegal Caribbean corals in it. Eric Borneman called him on it. There was a big blow up that lasted for several days. In the end, Eric, Anthony Calfo, and Ron Shimek left RC (all 3 are now on the Marine Depot forums). GregT resigned from the staff of RC and started "The Reef Tank" along with Bomber and his gang. They have since made it their mission to attack and discredit Eric Borneman."

 

Now, I am not saying any of the above is true, but if someone believed it then, it still might make some believe it now...at least with regards to you and the "Docs" effort to join up here simply to argue refugiums...

[xerophyte_nyc]

Yeah, I was just so-so on refugiums and algae before the thread started, now I'm planning a bigger fuge with more algae!

 

Hooray for eutrophy! May I also suggest 1% daily water changes? What is that, 16 oz?

 

Joking aside, I think it would be constructive to pursue the issue of phosphates adsorbing into the substrates and how to manage that aspect of reefing. I may just start a new thread and go from there.

[FutureDoc]

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.

 

Actually, we can go down that road, kinda interesting as well. While most of the discussion has focused on the Po->Pi->Algae (and back)

 

If you follow my reference to Alongi, Boto, and Robertson, you will see that arrow.

 

So what is the issue when algae can get to both and it is exchanging both (if you consider cell death). Also, when are red algaes not as common on in out tank other than for display purposes. What evolutionary advantage/disadvantage is there to be had.

 

 

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?

 

Unfortunately that happened but that was also after is first nutrient related crash. NYSteelo has kinda acknowledged the roll/damage of P but still maintains that it will happen reguardless so systems are only expected to last 5-10years. He also preaches about AquaC skimmers.

 

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~

 

Yes, bingo. It is interesting that folks here really do not want to talk about trophic levels and how they apply to our tanks. Oh well.

 

I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but your still dodging many of the ?s that have been asked here. You arent shedding any new light on PO4 being an issue in reef aquauria. And your evidence against algae as a means for nutrient export have been anecdotal. Furthermore citing untestable organic phosphate is an argument from ignorance where if A and B aren't the problem, then it must be C. For example it is well understood that if you let a filter sock or polyfilter go unchanged, the nutrients they catch will break down and leach nutrients. In a sense your telling us don't bother using the sock in the first place.

 

Which question in particular? I will do my best. Might be tomorrow though, gettin' late .

 

Edit: Invic just posted an epic "P movement in a Marine Environment" article. It is open sourced to boot.

http://artsandsciences.sc.edu/geol/cbnelson/CBNHomePage/P%20review%20Paper%20Published.pdf

When it get to the methods, it is fierce.... get ready with mol conversions

 

Are you familiar with bio-indicators? In ecological practices, testing can be inaccurate much in the way home hobbyist test kits are and researchers can not always drag the lab with them. They can send samples away but even then those samples degrade. With bio-indicators, you take knowledge of various organisms' restrictions and apply them to the ecosystem. For example, if a creature can not survive in 15ppt salinity, and if it is present, then you can extrapolate that the water is less than 15ppt even without a refractometer. Now, if the organism is not there, unfortunately you can really confirm anything (because it could be limited by something else)... as it is a zero-test issue. Even with handy-dandy lab equipment, no one can really test for an absences of something and logically you can only concluded that the test is not refined or sensitive to test for it. Error also has a big role here but I digress. So with algae, if it is present, you can conclude that P is available (often above 0.005ppm) or at least there is a benthic or other nearby source if it is in the water column. So the concept to use algae as a means to limit P is fundamentally flawed because its existence as a bio-indicator suggest that P is available. Worst off, if algae is continuously growing, that means P is continuously available. While removing algae might help in a small amount, it really is not dealing with the issue of continual P loading. For example, lets say someone has credit-card debt. If they have debt and pay the minimum (because folks rarely remove all algae and not add any new additions) off in small amount monthly, then you have a reduction. But with algae, that payment during that month also includes new expenditures. So while you are making payments, you are also increasing the debt. What is worse with algae is that you are dependent on new growth to pay down the nutrient gain. That means to get more growth, you have to add more nutrients. Less nutrients, less growth but during that time algae is still processing back and forth with bacteria. In truly well maintain tanks, one should be able to kill off the fuge algae... and it happens. I see this a lot with folks that have big skimmers, frequent water changes and are often employing a BB system. So, it some down to this, why have algae unless you want a nutrient rich tank?

[brandon429]

because for some the natural waste levels generated by respiration from stocked animals plus added feed is easier taken care of by ats or similar plant binding. are the algae and bacteria transferring nitrate back into the water as well if removed before decay?

 

they may like the look of the sandbed and the increased fauna associated with it, worm tracks are cool to some, and they may not want the work of large water changes and big skimming and they may still want to keep mixed stony corals including sps.

my old chaetomorpha held tons of pods and was used as an oxygen pump in a sealed system, both algae and algae free systems are valid.

 

we think stony corals like the extra feed a refugium provides. its just one mode of reefkeeping vs another, if both systems consistently produce coral mass for export they are both valid.

[FutureDoc]

I understand you are an admistrator over at TRT, so why come here to stir up trouble? Wouldn't you and your mods think it so?

- from gregt, one of your other administrators:

"Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Jury

I wasn't aware that there was a minimum number of posts required before ones thoughts became relevant. I figured that an argument was to be made based on it's own merits, not on an arbitrary figure like post count on a particular forum.

You missed the point. I was pointing out the irony of you bashing us for bashing someone else - as the only contribution you've ever made to the forum. As for the rest of your concerns, you've made your agenda clear so enough said. Its time for you to participate constructively or move along. Thanks in advance for your understanding."

 

Now reading up on you guys over there, I could make an argument that you should not be trusted to give any advice to those of us here at NR...this from a forum in 2007: "The Reef Tank" is run by GregT, Bomber (now going by the name of "Spanky"), and all of their former "minions" from Reef Central. For those of you who didn't follow the drama on RC 16 months ago, Bomber posted a picture of his tank which had some supposed illegal Caribbean corals in it. Eric Borneman called him on it. There was a big blow up that lasted for several days. In the end, Eric, Anthony Calfo, and Ron Shimek left RC (all 3 are now on the Marine Depot forums). GregT resigned from the staff of RC and started "The Reef Tank" along with Bomber and his gang. They have since made it their mission to attack and discredit Eric Borneman."

 

Now, I am not saying any of the above is true, but if someone believed it then, it still might make some believe it now...at least with regards to you and the "Docs" effort to join up here simply to argue refugiums...

 

Wait, is that the same Eric Borneman that was involve in the Truman Annex issue... whereby is intentionally defrauded the government, was in possession of restricted corals, housed them is a wholesaler's warehouse, and that much of the coral was never accounted for? Wasn't EricB also arrested for other unrelated offenses? I remember him pointing the finger at everyone when he got the heat. The author of this "filth" http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-10/eb/index.php when the house of cards came crumbing down?

 

If folks are "really curious" this is the thread where the above quote by zooman has taken thing out of context

http://www.thereeftank.com/forums/f21/eric-borneman-goes-to-jail-166670.html

Take it for what you will. If you are unaware of the story of EB is really is what happens when power corrupts.

 

 

A TRT member posted how he felt he received some inaccurate information as well as some good information from this particular thread. They asked us to take a look. I know TRT has some uniquely self-enforced high standard relating to scientific "backing it up", but cross- forum exchanges should be encouraged. G and I are more concerned about addressing ideas, not people unless those people were involved in issues like Eric B. We have been called "dangerous" and "disingenuous" and that is rather poor form. We have developed a conceptual framework that works within the scientific literature, not against it. We know that the hobby research is not up to par and not even close (even home experiences are woefully bad as the systems we employ can give a false "all is good" feedback while in reality it is slipping away (like a frog in a pot on the stove). There are a few half-decent hobby items but nothing sturdy.In this vacuum of hobby knowledge we have to look to the next best thing: scientific literature about the reefs and the organisms we collect. Extrapolate the useful items (because we know that the same rules apply, even if the scale does not) and we go from there.

[brandon429]

Doc I read that just now its not as bad as you make it. so he wants to be opinionated we are all like that.

 

His favorite way of reefkeeping doesnt change mine, its great to get everyones view and bend it into a shape that works. I saw nothing meant to misdirect me. I picture posting to him in his old rc forum saying

 

 

Hey Eric

If I decided to set up a bare bottom tank and focus on cleanliness and just coral growth and coloration not so much benthic diversity, you think it will work? he would say sure and then maybe try to convince me why a dsb would be better. and I would see the difference in the two modes not being a serial hater. come on man you write well it does no good to remain in this mode.

 

the repeated discussion of Pi, our new favorite acronym on nr, and Po, is great quit taking away from that with hate type

 

Eric is ok, we are aquaculturing lots of things now we werent back then its not as spiraling bad as you paint it man. in his book corals there is a picture of heliopora or whatever the blue skeleton sps was grown onto a bare bottom tank I dont think the practice was his favorite but it was acknowledged in print

 

I used his book and descriptions to memorize helpful things when first starting, it was positive, this should be added to simply counterbalance his poorer choices you have no trouble lauding. dude you got some skeletons just be thankful you never attained that level of success so people get off on downing you. much easier to type digitally vs get published it seems to me. but I still like your Pi talk it was helpful too. I will never confuse inorganic and organic p again, gracias.

[FutureDoc]

Faulty edit post, sorry. Getting the hang of RN format

[zooman72]

Wait, is that the same Eric Borneman that was involve in the Truman Annex issue... whereby is intentionally defrauded the government, was in possession of restricted corals, housed them is a wholesaler's warehouse, and that much of the coral was never accounted for? Wasn't EricB also arrested for other unrelated offenses? I remember him pointing the finger at everyone when he got the heat. The author of this "filth" http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-10/eb/index.php when the house of cards came crumbing down?

- I wasn't defending Borneman's actions, although I do like his book, and it still seems the subject "gets a rise out of you" still...although none of this has anything to do with Borneman...

 

If folks are "really curious" this is the thread where the above quote by zooman has taken thing out of context

http://www.thereeftank.com/forums/f21/eric-borneman-goes-to-jail-166670.html

Take it for what you will. If you are unaware of the story of EB is really is what happens when power corrupts.

- bull, I took nothing out of context - I was pointing out the actions of your administrators and moderators when Chris Jury questioned their "taste" in gloating over Borneman's legal issues...

 

A TRT member posted how he felt he received some inaccurate information as well as some good information from this particular thread. They asked us to take a look. I know TRT has some uniquely self-enforced high standard relating to scientific "backing it up", but cross- forum exchanges should be encouraged. G and I are more concerned about addressing ideas, not people unless those people were involved in issues like Eric B. We have been called "dangerous" and "disingenuous" and that is rather poor form. We have developed a conceptual framework that works within the scientific literature, not against it. We know that the hobby research is not up to par and not even close (even home experiences are woefully bad as the systems we employ can give a false "all is good" feedback while in reality it is slipping away (like a frog in a pot on the stove). There are a few half-decent hobby items but nothing sturdy.In this vacuum of hobby knowledge we have to look to the next best thing: scientific literature about the reefs and the organisms we collect. Extrapolate the useful items (because we know that the same rules apply, even if the scale does not) and we go from there.

Really - "I know TRT has some uniquely self-enforced high standard relating to scientific 'backing it up'"...what is this magical unique self-enforced high standard? What is this "conceptual framework that works within the scientific literature"? You extrapolate "the useful items" as you see fit - is this the standard you mention? Man, if bulls--t where money, you would be doing alright...

 

Where has any member of this forum worked against the scientific literature? Here comes that "superiority" feeling again - "the truly intellegent are those that know what they don't know"...

 

I will make you an offer - TRT can keep its "no refugiums" stance, and preach over there all its wants, but NR can keep its "refugiums can be a useful reef-keeping tool if employed carefully" stance.

[FutureDoc]

Doc I read that just now its not as bad as you make it. so he wants to be opinionated we are all like that.

 

His favorite way of reefkeeping doesnt change mine, its great to get everyones view and bend it into a shape that works. I saw nothing meant to misdirect me. I picture posting to him in his old rc forum saying

 

 

Hey Eric

If I decided to set up a bare bottom tank and focus on cleanliness and just coral growth and coloration not so much benthic diversity, you think it will work? he would say sure and then maybe try to convince me why a dsb would be better. and I would see the difference in the two modes not being a serial hater. come on man you write well it does no good to remain in this mode.

 

the repeated discussion of Pi, our new favorite acronym on nr, and Po, is great quit taking away from that with hate type

 

Eric is ok, we are aquaculturing lots of things now we werent back then its not as spiraling bad as you paint it man. in his book corals there is a picture of heliopora or whatever the blue skeleton sps was grown onto a bare bottom tank I dont think the practice was his favorite but it was acknowledged in print

 

I used his book and descriptions to memorize helpful things when first starting, it was positive, this should be added to simply counterbalance his poorer choices you have no trouble lauding. dude you got some skeletons just be thankful you never attained that level of success so people get off on downing you. much easier to type digitally vs get published it seems to me. but I still like your Pi talk it was helpful too. I will never confuse inorganic and organic p again, gracias.

 

If EB wants to chat tanks, I would not have an issue at all. I would rather enjoy that discussion. I bet there would be some agreement and some fierce debate. I still am not happy with the events surrounding his "work" ... some folks were just getting into the academic environment when this broke and there is some un-mended fences. I know what kind of damage that does to a "young researcher" trying to break into the NOAA loop who might also be a hobbyist.

[FutureDoc]

Really - "I know TRT has some uniquely self-enforced high standard relating to scientific 'backing it up'"...what is this magical unique self-enforced high standard? What is this "conceptual framework that works within the scientific literature"? You extrapolate "the useful items" as you see fit - is this the standard you mention? Man, if bulls--t where money, you would be doing alright...

 

Where has any member of this forum worked against the scientific literature? Here comes that "superiority" feeling again - "the truly intellegent are those that know what they don't know"...

 

I will make you an offer - TRT can keep its "no refugiums" stance, and preach over there all its wants, but NR can keep its "refugiums can be a useful reef-keeping tool if employed carefully" stance.

 

TRT does not have a "no fuge" stance. In fact, I have not seen a "stance" other than to be a community of hobbyist exchanging ideas. Many forks have a "algae cultivation can not achieve nutrient reductions that favor stony coral biotopes. If you want a nutrient rich tank, algae is "ok" (redundant and an after-the-fact nutrient issue but still, "ok"). And the literature supports this. The whole framework of trophic status of aquatic environments supports it and is the base for managing out pools of water reguardless of size.

 

As for the other stuff posted, that arguments is just internet troll-speak and are not on topic... clean it up.

[zooman72]

TRT does not have a "no fuge" stance. In fact, I have not seen a "stance" other than to be a community of hobbyist exchanging ideas. Many forks have a "algae cultivation can not achieve nutrient reductions that favor stony coral biotopes. If you want a nutrient rich tank, algae is "ok" (redundant and an after-the-fact nutrient issue but still, "ok"). And the literature supports this. The whole framework of trophic status of aquatic environments supports it and is the base for managing out pools of water reguardless of size.

 

As for the other stuff posted, that arguments is just internet troll-speak and are not on topic... clean it up.

Ah, finally, the "troll" tag comes up - let's see, I have been on here since 2004, remaining civil and helpful throughout - you just showed up and are trying to "throw your knowledge of reef aquariums around" - who's the troll? Several members, including me, have called you on your dubious "proof", and yet you ignored them, or tried to bury them with BS. You and G have also continued to sprinkle in little "jabs" at those of us who disagree with your premise - see: "If you want a nutrient rich tank, algae is "ok" (redundant and an after-the-fact nutrient issue but still, "ok")"...

 

One of your own TRT administrators revels in his "anti-refugium stance", and your "literature support" you so desparately cling to has been pointed out to be circumspect at best with regards to its applications to captive reefs. Once again, and please take serious note - you have no proof of your premise, it is simply your hypothesis, which is no better and no worse than any other hypothesis (say, refugiums have value) that has not been directly and correctly studied and concluded to a significant end.

 

 

 

One more thing - if you want to "clean up" something, try cleaning up your spelling - a man of your stature should certainly know how to proofread...and if you don't like me pointing out your blather, stop posting that blather in the first place.

[Reefin Dude]

I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but your still dodging many of the ?s that have been asked here. You arent shedding any new light on PO4 being an issue in reef aquauria. And your evidence against algae as a means for nutrient export have been anecdotal. Furthermore citing untestable organic phosphate is an argument from ignorance where if A and B aren't the problem, then it must be C. For example it is well understood that if you let a filter sock or polyfilter go unchanged, the nutrients they catch will break down and leach nutrients. In a sense your telling us don't bother using the sock in the first place.

 

I am sorry I do not understand the confusion about untestable organic phosphates. It is just not possible to test for them without destroying the material that they are in, whether it is a plankton or a pile of poo. All we can do is follow the bacteria. I am not trying to avoid any questions, or point the finger at other places. Following the phosphate cycle and its interactions is not easy.

 

Did I ever say not to use filter socks? They are fine, and can be very useful in small systems like those discussed here. Where space is at a premium and having specifically designed settling tanks is not practical. Socks need to be cleaned very often in order to avoid the break down and leaching of Pi like you said. Being in a well oxygenated area, this can happen pretty quickly.

 

 

I understand you are an admistrator over at TRT, so why come here to stir up trouble? Wouldn't you and your mods think it so?

- from gregt, one of your other administrators:

"Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Jury

I wasn't aware that there was a minimum number of posts required before ones thoughts became relevant. I figured that an argument was to be made based on it's own merits, not on an arbitrary figure like post count on a particular forum.

You missed the point. I was pointing out the irony of you bashing us for bashing someone else - as the only contribution you've ever made to the forum. As for the rest of your concerns, you've made your agenda clear so enough said. Its time for you to participate constructively or move along. Thanks in advance for your understanding."

 

Now reading up on you guys over there, I could make an argument that you should not be trusted to give any advice to those of us here at NR...this from a forum in 2007: "The Reef Tank" is run by GregT, Bomber (now going by the name of "Spanky"), and all of their former "minions" from Reef Central. For those of you who didn't follow the drama on RC 16 months ago, Bomber posted a picture of his tank which had some supposed illegal Caribbean corals in it. Eric Borneman called him on it. There was a big blow up that lasted for several days. In the end, Eric, Anthony Calfo, and Ron Shimek left RC (all 3 are now on the Marine Depot forums). GregT resigned from the staff of RC and started "The Reef Tank" along with Bomber and his gang. They have since made it their mission to attack and discredit Eric Borneman."

 

Now, I am not saying any of the above is true, but if someone believed it then, it still might make some believe it now...at least with regards to you and the "Docs" effort to join up here simply to argue refugiums...

 

I guess this makes you Galleon/Alfalfa from TRT then, correct? A lot of the information I have learned over the years was from the conversations between you, Jerel, and several other members of various forums during the early 2000's. There was a lot of good information being worked out about how phosphates are really handle in our systems compared to what the hobby literature was saying at the time. Are you saying you have changed your views on how phosphates interact in the marine environment?

 

My first post I made sure to introduce who I was on TRT. Sorry if I was not clear enough. A member of both forums pointed the thread out and was hoping for some clarification from both sides. I am also sorry if you feel that I am here to stir up trouble. I feel I have stayed easily within the user agreement here, or even at TRT. What blowback was I not going to expect? I told everyone who I was from the beginning.

 

Sorry, if I came across as all high and mighty. It was not my intention. My intention was to get a conversation going about the phosphate cycle and how it relates to keeping algae, and how populations are determined by limiting factors such as available resources. Have we not been providing references we used to get to our decisions? We can all just bicker about nothing or exchange information about why you believe what you do. We are just asking you to provide the sources you used to come to your conclusion. Unless everyone has the same information, then there is little chance of anybody being able to see all sides of a problem in an equal manner.

 

If there is not exchange of information across forums, then every forum is just going to be its own closed minded good ole' boy network.

 

What have we said that is not true with respect to the phosphate cycle, or to the bacterial processes involved?

 

You are correct I do not like "refugiums", at least in the current hobby definition for the reasons discussed in this thread. Can they be useful, yes, but like any tool they need to be used correctly to be useful. They should not be on all systems, or recommended to everyone without the knowledge of how they work and what the pros and cons are.

 

A question for you if you are so inclined to answer.

 

Where you ever able to keep Physalia physalis alive long term in captivity?

 

G~