Refugiums don't export nutrients?

[Reefin Dude]

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.

 

What information do you have to help us see your hypothesis that a phosphate refugium is not behaving in the way we hypothesize it does in the captive reef? Is Chaeto found in all trophic levels from oligotrophic to eutrophic?

 

The point of forums is to exchange information to further the hobby. We are just asking for references for your side of the hypothesis.

 

G~

[zooman72]

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?

- sorry, but I have never been a member of TRT, and am not the person you mention...

 

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.

- please note I have never accused anyone here of being "out of bounds" with regards to the user agreement, and I agree you never appeared to misrepresent or mislead anyone as to your ID and origin...

 

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.

- well, to be honest, you have not reached the level of FutureDoc, and your response here is quite humble and sincere it appears, and for that I appreciate it...

 

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.

- I whole-heartedly agree that information exchange is great, but must be tempered with a realization that other forum members may also be quite experienced and successful aquarists, and therefore may not take kindly to being repeatedly told what they are doing is wrong in the face of their continued success...

 

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

- I believe the problem stems from the repeated insistence that studies of natural systems should be easily extrapolated to captive systems such as ours, and that members' observations of patterns is circumspect because it does not fit the proposed model put forth regarding the weakness of refugium use, and that alternatives to your model cannot be functional for long...

 

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.

- and here lies the heart of the argument put forth in this thread - they do indeed need to be used correctly, and are not perfect for every system, but they are not being blindly recommended by regular forum members here that I am aware of. In fact, I and others have noted that they can indeed become detritus traps if not designed and maintained correctly...

 

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

 

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

- again, sorry, but I am not the person you believe to be, although I would love to be able to keep Portuguese man-o-wars in captivity! However, when I worked as a venomous reptile keeper at the Buffalo Zoo, I did care for king cobras and several rattlesnake species, as well as beaded lizards and Gila monsters, so I am not sure I would want to take a risk like that now that I have 3 boys at home!

 

G~

 

All told, this reply of yours is quite pleasant and personable, which I thank you for. I too hope I have not been too unbearable...

[zooman72]

What information do you have to help us see your hypothesis that a phosphate refugium is not behaving in the way we hypothesize it does in the captive reef? Is Chaeto found in all trophic levels from oligotrophic to eutrophic?

 

The point of forums is to exchange information to further the hobby. We are just asking for references for your side of the hypothesis.

 

G~

 

Aside from the numerous reports of anecdotal evidence supllied by various members, Bluprntguy noted a few throughout (and was ignored and minimized I believe) - I am just too lazy and tired to go back and look for them. There have also been a few I have read over the years in various "hobbyist-level" magazines online that have been pointed out as unreliable, even though they were approached and written scientifically by respected authors.

 

Again, I am not claiming any proof, just a hypothesis of a process used by many here to relative success...

[SpecimenB]

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.

 

Gracilaria sp. is pretty common in refugiums,

 

Consider that phosphorus bound to carbonate may be locked in live rock via calcification by coralline algae. (Forgot the study name but it basically deals with calcium carbonate bound phosphate being buried in a calcium structure as organisms calcify over a previously existing structure)

 

Fuges also do not exist in isolation making it difficult to prove or disprove their usefulness. One of your main arguments is that people "keep poo as pets", probably because of the slow flow rate in refugiums but consider that there usually elevated levels of detrivores that are capable of keeping nutrients in suspension. Bacteria play a large role in most marine systems and may or may not be harmful to aquarium inhabitants.

 

As with any hypothesis, you have to work a lot harder to prove your point as the existing standpoint is widely believed so it falls on you to thoroughly prove your hypothesis before you can start stating it as fact. Right now you have too many unanswered questions for the community to take you seriously. Good luck.

[danimal1211]

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?

 

When we can't test for part of the problem then you all go on to say that we can't test accurately enough for the other part of the problem, someone's going to throw a flag. Whether or not marine macro algae are constantly capturing, converting and releasing PO4 hasn't been shown by the research you provided. You also haven't shown anything other than personal testimony that stony corals won't thrive in these conditions. and the need to test below the concentrations found in natural seawater to detect these interactions is moot. Its happening at levels below what is already found on natural reefs around the world, they've had millions of years to crash but haven't (at least for these reasons). So the idea that Macro Algae can be used as a bio-indicator that a system contains unhealthy levels of nutrients only seems useful to cover up your hypothesis.

 

You've been dismissive when asked to comment on Paul B.'s tank saying that he just keeps eutrophic species which isn't true. He keeps a mixed reef with SPS as well as LPS and softies. Its no secret much of the equipment and maintenance techniques seem out of the norm to the rest of us, but who else has been so successful for so long? He runs his UGF in reverse so whatever detritus is below the plates has plenty of time to be broken down and returned to the water column. This should be an absolute nightmare situation for any sessile invertebrates let alone delicate stonies.

[markalot]

I know my rules of the interweb are to not trust anyone who makes unfounded attacks on a person rather than the subject. At this point I think only a few users who have managed to keep the conversation on the subject of P. One of them likes vases.

 

I know I am not qualified to judge weather or not your technique, if we can call it that, will work or not. All I know is there are a bunch of reefing evangelists who espouse an idea, attack those who disagree, and then vanish into the ether. When that happens I assume their tank crashed and they've burned too many bridges to admit failure and try and learn what happened. Some of those vanished users are from the TRT crowd, many more are from the RC crowd. So what makes any of this different?

 

I'm watching over on TRT because a few users are trying some of these techniques, but it's going in fits and starts. Doc had a mini crash due to stray voltage, maybe, someone else just had a febreze incident, Invic is in the building stage. This is what moves the science, people actually trying new methods, but so many things can go wrong in a reef tank ... and when someone who feels like they are a competitor sees a problem they jump on it as failure.

 

I was not aware spanky was growing illegal corals, but I thought he worked for NOAA so he may have had a permit. Was this ever covered on TRT? If it's true, what differentiates him from anyone else who makes questionable, or illegal, decisions?

[Reefin Dude]

The keeping poo as a pet stems from the need for the detritus to be acted upon by the bacteria in order to release Pi. At this point the algae is able to make use of it. If the algae is growing, then there must be a source, bacteria releasing Pi somewhere in the system. The amount of this detritus in the system can determine the growth rate of the algae in the phosphate refugium.

 

Bacteria are the drivers for our system, good or bad. Without them our systems would not work at all. I think that our systems are bacterial driven and not critter driven.

 

The slow rates in phosphate refugiums help in collecting the detritus in an area for the bacteria to do their jobs. We are creating the perfect environment for the release of Pi. We are allowing the phosphate refugium to out compete the rest of the system for poo/detritus, in a hope that any unwanted organisms that use Pi will grow there instead of the display. It is the extra steps that are involved. If you want to simplify it, then yes the phosphate refugium is outcompeting the display for phosphate, but not in the manner that most people think. It is not the direct uptake of Pi from all of the various places in the system, but of the collecting of the free nutrient bound Po in an area that is allowed to decompose to provide the Pi for the algae that has been given the perfect environment for growth. Why not just leave the phosphate refugium empty and just collect the detritus that accumulates every week instead of letting it go through all of its steps to get to algae?

 

G~

[kismetsh]

I know my rules of the interweb are to not trust anyone who makes unfounded attacks on a person rather than the subject. At this point I think only a few users who have managed to keep the conversation on the subject of P. One of them likes vases.

 

I know I am not qualified to judge weather or not your technique, if we can call it that, will work or not. All I know is there are a bunch of reefing evangelists who espouse an idea, attack those who disagree, and then vanish into the ether. When that happens I assume their tank crashed and they've burned too many bridges to admit failure and try and learn what happened. Some of those vanished users are from the TRT crowd, many more are from the RC crowd. So what makes any of this different?

 

I'm watching over on TRT because a few users are trying some of these techniques, but it's going in fits and starts. Doc had a mini crash due to stray voltage, maybe, someone else just had a febreze incident, Invic is in the building stage. This is what moves the science, people actually trying new methods, but so many things can go wrong in a reef tank ... and when someone who feels like they are a competitor sees a problem they jump on it as failure.

 

Have you ever noticed that no matter what brand of "reef religion" is being practiced, when "believers" have a crash it is stray voltage, aerosols, my kid threw pennies in my tank, a non-believer broke in and poisoned my tank, etc. However, if a non-believer suffers a crash, no matter what reason is given it is pointed out by the zealots as an example that the method is faulty and a crash was inevitable..

 

I guess it it just human nature at work, but it is amusing nonetheless.

[Reefin Dude]

When we can't test for part of the problem then you all go on to say that we can't test accurately enough for the other part of the problem, someone's going to throw a flag. Whether or not marine macro algae are constantly capturing, converting and releasing PO4 hasn't been shown by the research you provided. You also haven't shown anything other than personal testimony that stony corals won't thrive in these conditions. and the need to test below the concentrations found in natural seawater to detect these interactions is moot. Its happening at levels below what is already found on natural reefs around the world, they've had millions of years to crash but haven't (at least for these reasons). So the idea that Macro Algae can be used as a bio-indicator that a system contains unhealthy levels of nutrients only seems useful to cover up your hypothesis.

 

You've been dismissive when asked to comment on Paul B.'s tank saying that he just keeps eutrophic species which isn't true. He keeps a mixed reef with SPS as well as LPS and softies. Its no secret much of the equipment and maintenance techniques seem out of the norm to the rest of us, but who else has been so successful for so long? He runs his UGF in reverse so whatever detritus is below the plates has plenty of time to be broken down and returned to the water column. This should be an absolute nightmare situation for any sessile invertebrates let alone delicate stonies.

 

In order for bioindicators to be completely useful to us, we need to determine exactly the limiting levels of an organism that is at the level we would like to keep our systems at. In several of the studies that have been shown, and in the link to the RFH article it seems that the level that algae starts to grow is 0.009ppm of Pi. Also from that article the level of Pi of ocean water is 0.005ppm. Do we have test kits that read to that accuracy? All of these trophic levels discussed oligotrophic, mesotrophic, eutrophic all have defining characteristics that help to determine where one starts and the other ends. Noting what organisms are most prevalent in these given areas is a good indicator. SPS need extremely low Pi levels in order to live. That is why they have evolved to live where they do. It is there competitive advantage. Other corals such as softies have evolved to be able to deal with these higher levels of Pi. When i get to work i will post the graphic showing the mechanism with which hermatypic organisms produce their skeletons. Hopefully that will show you how Pi become very problematic to these organisms when present. The oceans are full of micro climates. It is a very competitive area. Every niche is exploited to the best of a given organisms in a hope to survive. Several of these organisms will not survive if provided with an environment that was very close to their evolved environment. Have you done any searches for eutrophication and coral reefs, and the indicators that show that it is occurring?

 

I thought we discussed Paul B's tank. He stirs his substrate a few times a year in order to release the detritus in the substrate and get it out. Then every 10 years or so he takes out his plates and cleans under them. Go ahead and ask him what his maintenance schedule is. He has plenty of threads in most forums. He completely believes that detritus needs to be exported in order to have a successful tank long term. The color of the few SPS he has is not bright. They are growing, but they are pretty brown. It just points to that there is more Pi in the water column than the coral likes. The coral is not in as much control of the food going to the zoax as they want to be.

 

G~

[danimal1211]

G I do understand your point quite well, but as I said before many of us Nano keepers like our small tanks because of the ease of maintenance. I'm sure not everyone here is as dilligent in their upkeep, but most here at least preach it. The point I was getting at before is as dilligent as we can be, we can never get 100% of the detritus that accumulates. Nutrients will build up over time unless you have some other means of dealing with it. Macro algae helps in this reguard. My chaeto doesn't grow like a weed as it does for many others, but I know that when I trim it, I'm removing nutrients from the system.

 

Using prior TOTMs and the smithsonian crash as further proof of your hypothesis seems a bit arrogant. Did you do a post mortum on all those corals to determine built up PO4 was the culprit?

[Reefin Dude]

zooman72- Sorry, about identity confusion, thank you for clarifying.

 

G~

[danimal1211]

Sorry we were both typing at the same time. I'm not sure where the various SPS fit on the evolutionary tree as compared to other corals,. They may very well have been sensitive to higher levels of PO4 and therefore could only grow in the nutrient poor areas of the reef. It would also make sense that they evolved to be able to live in such a nutrient poor environment. But either way there are plenty of people keeping healthy growing SPS with great colors out there who use refugiums. It's always unfortunate to hear of someone's tank crashing, but accusing built up PO4 as The likely culprit seems irresponsible, when you aren't there to test if that was the case.

[albertthiel]

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

 

Not sure whether this has been posted yet but Randy Holmes-Farley wrote an extensive although not exhaustive analysis on both organic and inorganic phosphates and their sources and much more in the reef aquarium, that IMO answers a lot of the questions that are debated here and also point out how they affect what happens in our reefs, and certainly clarify the complexity of the P issue:

 

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2002/9/chemistry

[markalot]

Thanks Albert, I've posted that a few times. It's been pooh-pooh'd by futuredoc and reefindude as complete rubbish because it's "hobbyist grade" and written by someone that evidently has stakes in algae sales or something.

 

I do not think they commented on that study. AFAIK Randy Holmes-Farley is pretty much universally respected in this hobby.

 

woah, I take that back.

 

 

I think RHF was being tricked into fuges and DSB... a lot of "sand experts" (Shimek and Eric Borneman) lead folks down a false road.

 

I don't think he was tricked into anything, especially considering he's a professional chemist working on human related phosphate drugs.

[zooman72]

SPS need extremely low Pi levels in order to live. That is why they have evolved to live where they do. It is there competitive advantage. Other corals such as softies have evolved to be able to deal with these higher levels of Pi.

 

G~

 

A couple of points though:

 

1) SPS (and to a degree some LPS) need the lower levels of Pi in order to calcify their skeletons. I know of one study that points out that higher phosphate levels do not kill the actual coral cells or their zooxanthellae.

 

2) Many reefs have an assemblage of both hard and soft corals, and the soft corals in these reefs are in the same microenvironment as the hard, stony corals. It seems to be a common misconception that all soft corals are found in areas of higher nutrient levels...

[tibbsy07]

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.

I wouldn't say this is contradictory. What you are suggesting is that we use man-made media reactors to do the same thing the algae are doing. If we let the bacteria do their thing, minus the algae, then you have to have specific equipment to handle the bioload and to remove the excess phosphates and nutrients, right? So you want to use a UV sterilizer and a bunch of manufactured items. I prefer to use a more natural set up, where the algae does SOME (not all, obviously) of the leg work, and I do water changes and run some sort of phosphate sponge (I have excess phosphates coming from somewhere - and no not algae, I just added chaeto to help, but my cyano problem has been a LONG time issue). It's simply a matter of taste and choice.

 

I don't really see the difference, except that you use technology and I don't. I think saying a fuge is a "bad thing" is silly and there really isn't any actual scientific data to support that claim. From what I've been reading here and other places, it seems that a fuge is a perfectly good idea and can help maintain a healthy tank. I don't see any problem NOT having a fuge, and using only technology and man-made objects to keep your tank, but I also don't see any reason to not have a fuge if you want one.

 

Someone made a claim here that "no long term tanks have fuges, all of them use bare bottoms, UV, skimmers, etc etc." I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that there are probably more reasons for this than simply having or not having a fuge. Having a sump with a fuge isn't a terribly expensive thing. Maintaining reactors, UV sterilizers, CO2 injectors, along with the power bill to accompany those things, is a much more expensive route. Not only is it expensive to get in to, it's also expensive to maintain. Many people can't afford that. I can't. So maybe the "long term beautiful tanks" are more about the money and ability to continually maintain the tanks for years and years, including the $$$$$, than whether or not people have a fuge. People who can afford that kind of tank probably can afford to purchase the best water, the best tanks, the best fish, the best everything. I could be wrong, but a lot of time "science" ignores the behavioral stuff, the personality stuff, the external variables. I'm guilty of it in my own lab and experiments sometimes. But I think that bringing it down to "fuge or no" is a bad way to try and determine how long a reef tank will last.

 

All I know is that I have seen some GORGEOUS tanks with fuges and without. I think it's all about the care you're willing to put it and what you can afford.

[zooman72]

Someone made a claim here that "no long term tanks have fuges, all of them use bare bottoms, UV, skimmers, etc etc."

 

As I noted earlier, I have had a 20L running continuously since 2004 with a fuge and a skimmer...

 

Again, not proof of anything, and purely anecdotal, but nevertheless, it exists and has done well enough for me that it continues to exist, and hopefully will be around for another 9 years...

[markalot]

Since its relevant again to the discussion, "bomber" aka "spanky" evidently falsified his credentials while he was posting on reefcentral, presumably to

 

- snip -

 

Hopefully that won't be what happens here on NR.

 

Nothing IS happening here. My position is I don't trust anything I read on most message boards. RC is a strange beast with what seems to be an odd way of moderating, but in the end I think they do what they do because of the incredible traffic they get. The best way to handle an out of control flame war with a group of volunteer mods is to take the thread down.

 

I also don't know anything about spanky, and I've heard every reason under the sun for why some people have left RC. Randy Holmes-Farley continues to post at RC, so he hasn't left.

 

I do continue to notice one trend that does disturb me ...

 

Let me give you a hint.

 

Every time I see that I read "the solution is so obvious I'm not going to bother to point it out". Spanky did this on numerous occasions when he was active on TRT (he also vanished into the ether). It seemed to be contagious. It's a conversational technique designed to convey ... what?

 

I do not want to insult anyone, but perhaps raise the flag that the above phrase is like chalk on a chalkboard to ... well, at least me.

[Reefin Dude]

Sorry we were both typing at the same time. I'm not sure where the various SPS fit on the evolutionary tree as compared to other corals,. They may very well have been sensitive to higher levels of PO4 and therefore could only grow in the nutrient poor areas of the reef. It would also make sense that they evolved to be able to live in such a nutrient poor environment. But either way there are plenty of people keeping healthy growing SPS with great colors out there who use refugiums. It's always unfortunate to hear of someone's tank crashing, but accusing built up PO4 as The likely culprit seems irresponsible, when you aren't there to test if that was the case.

 

 

I am not saying that it can not be done. I am trying to discuss that what is going on is not what it seems. The phosphate refugium is producing a water column that has low Pi levels, yes. I am not denying that. The phosphate refugium is clouding the picture though because we are looking at only the Pi and not all P. I am suggesting we look at the whole system view instead of a water quality only view since the system is a system and it all works together. If we look at total P in the system then we see that the tank is becoming more nutrient rich. The phosphate are building up. The increase in total biomass is an indicator of this. Is this what we want in our systems? I do not. You may, but at some point the total amount of P needs to stop increasing.

 

Pretty much all of the equipment available is used to counter the affects of eutrophication. I am just saying look at where the majority of P is located and go after it there instead of waiting for it to pass into another form.

 

Pleas read through the RFH article that Albert posted and read through the part about how organic phosphates are not able to be tested directly. It all plays together with thinking of our systems as systems instead of just looking at the water column.

 

A couple of points though:

 

1) SPS (and to a degree some LPS) need the lower levels of Pi in order to calcify their skeletons. I know of one study that points out that higher phosphate levels do not kill the actual coral cells or their zooxanthellae.

 

2) Many reefs have an assemblage of both hard and soft corals, and the soft corals in these reefs are in the same microenvironment as the hard, stony corals. It seems to be a common misconception that all soft corals are found in areas of higher nutrient levels...

 

 

Higher Pi levels does not kill the zoax, they actually like it. It is the coral that is hurt by the zoax being so happy. The more zoax the more O2 production inside the coral. Not a good thing. It is the interaction with Pi and the zoax, that causes the problems with hermatypic organisms. We have to look into what the coral and the zoax get out of the symbiosis to get a clearer picture of how increases in Pi affect the health of the entire organism and to see how they have adapted to live in these oligotrophic environments.

 

There is leeway with any organisms and the variability in environmental factors they can survive in. As our testing kits show, we are right on the edge of the the Pi level of an oligotrophic environment. It makes sense that this is the sweet spot for keeping a variety of different corals together. just enough, but not to much. Is it the healthiest to all, probably not. Can it be done. Obviously yes. Are these systems right at the tipping point for algae growth? I would say yes, and the number of threads discussing algae problems would also point to this.

 

I wouldn't say this is contradictory. What you are suggesting is that we use man-made media reactors to do the same thing the algae are doing. If we let the bacteria do their thing, minus the algae, then you have to have specific equipment to handle the bioload and to remove the excess phosphates and nutrients, right? So you want to use a UV sterilizer and a bunch of manufactured items. I prefer to use a more natural set up, where the algae does SOME (not all, obviously) of the leg work, and I do water changes and run some sort of phosphate sponge (I have excess phosphates coming from somewhere - and no not algae, I just added chaeto to help, but my cyano problem has been a LONG time issue). It's simply a matter of taste and choice.

 

I don't really see the difference, except that you use technology and I don't. I think saying a fuge is a "bad thing" is silly and there really isn't any actual scientific data to support that claim. From what I've been reading here and other places, it seems that a fuge is a perfectly good idea and can help maintain a healthy tank. I don't see any problem NOT having a fuge, and using only technology and man-made objects to keep your tank, but I also don't see any reason to not have a fuge if you want one.

 

Someone made a claim here that "no long term tanks have fuges, all of them use bare bottoms, UV, skimmers, etc etc." I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that there are probably more reasons for this than simply having or not having a fuge. Having a sump with a fuge isn't a terribly expensive thing. Maintaining reactors, UV sterilizers, CO2 injectors, along with the power bill to accompany those things, is a much more expensive route. Not only is it expensive to get in to, it's also expensive to maintain. Many people can't afford that. I can't. So maybe the "long term beautiful tanks" are more about the money and ability to continually maintain the tanks for years and years, including the $$$$$, than whether or not people have a fuge. People who can afford that kind of tank probably can afford to purchase the best water, the best tanks, the best fish, the best everything. I could be wrong, but a lot of time "science" ignores the behavioral stuff, the personality stuff, the external variables. I'm guilty of it in my own lab and experiments sometimes. But I think that bringing it down to "fuge or no" is a bad way to try and determine how long a reef tank will last.

 

All I know is that I have seen some GORGEOUS tanks with fuges and without. I think it's all about the care you're willing to put it and what you can afford.

 

The amount of money/resources we spend on masking the affects of eutrophication are incredible. They all go after the Pi and not total P. The chart that FD posted earlier with the circles and the phosphates cycle show the various methods we use for controlling phosphates and which phosphates they go after. The skimmer and the siphon go after P in both forms, with the siphon being the most effective. If anybody takes anything out of this thread, I hope that it is the various forms of P that are in our system and where they exist and which P the various removal methods we employ remove.

 

I am pretty sure nobody said all long term tanks were BB only. BB systems lay everything out in the open. Detritus is easily seen, it is not able to hide. The aquarist is always aware of where they stand on the amount of P that can be converted to Pi. Very little of the detritus is hidden. One can visual tell what the potential P level is in the entire system. Being able to remove the detritus at will keeps any hidden areas from building up unbeknownst to the aquarist. The system is not relying on the calcium carbonate in a substrate to act as the heavy lifting phosphate sink, that is the aquarist job with the siphon. You can absolutely have a long term system with a substrate. It just needs to be cleaned, which it seems that those here have figured out. Which is something that I have not found on other forums. Others feel that it is important to never touch a substrate. We all must clean up after our pets, regardless of the size of them.

 

Your cyano issue. Where is the cyano growing? Cyano wants to be as close to its nutrient source as possible since it is a bacteria. Has the discussion about how P is changed to Pi helped point you to where to look to find out where the cyano is getting its Pi from?

 

G~

[HecticDialectics]

Thanks Albert, I've posted that a few times. It's been pooh-pooh'd by futuredoc and reefindude as complete rubbish because it's "hobbyist grade" and written by someone that evidently has stakes in algae sales or something.

lol Ill go ahead and take Randy Holmes Farley's opinion and experience over some no name college kids any day.

[tibbsy07]

I am not saying that it can not be done. I am trying to discuss that what is going on is not what it seems. The phosphate refugium is producing a water column that has low Pi levels, yes. I am not denying that. The phosphate refugium is clouding the picture though because we are looking at only the Pi and not all P. I am suggesting we look at the whole system view instead of a water quality only view since the system is a system and it all works together. If we look at total P in the system then we see that the tank is becoming more nutrient rich. The phosphate are building up. The increase in total biomass is an indicator of this. Is this what we want in our systems? I do not. You may, but at some point the total amount of P needs to stop increasing.

 

Pretty much all of the equipment available is used to counter the affects of eutrophication. I am just saying look at where the majority of P is located and go after it there instead of waiting for it to pass into another form.

 

Pleas read through the RFH article that Albert posted and read through the part about how organic phosphates are not able to be tested directly. It all plays together with thinking of our systems as systems instead of just looking at the water column.

 

 

 

Higher Pi levels does not kill the zoax, they actually like it. It is the coral that is hurt by the zoax being so happy. The more zoax the more O2 production inside the coral. Not a good thing. It is the interaction with Pi and the zoax, that causes the problems with hermatypic organisms. We have to look into what the coral and the zoax get out of the symbiosis to get a clearer picture of how increases in Pi affect the health of the entire organism and to see how they have adapted to live in these oligotrophic environments.

 

There is leeway with any organisms and the variability in environmental factors they can survive in. As our testing kits show, we are right on the edge of the the Pi level of an oligotrophic environment. It makes sense that this is the sweet spot for keeping a variety of different corals together. just enough, but not to much. Is it the healthiest to all, probably not. Can it be done. Obviously yes. Are these systems right at the tipping point for algae growth? I would say yes, and the number of threads discussing algae problems would also point to this.

 

 

The amount of money/resources we spend on masking the affects of eutrophication are incredible. They all go after the Pi and not total P. The chart that FD posted earlier with the circles and the phosphates cycle show the various methods we use for controlling phosphates and which phosphates they go after. The skimmer and the siphon go after P in both forms, with the siphon being the most effective. If anybody takes anything out of this thread, I hope that it is the various forms of P that are in our system and where they exist and which P the various removal methods we employ remove.

 

I am pretty sure nobody said all long term tanks were BB only. BB systems lay everything out in the open. Detritus is easily seen, it is not able to hide. The aquarist is always aware of where they stand on the amount of P that can be converted to Pi. Very little of the detritus is hidden. One can visual tell what the potential P level is in the entire system. Being able to remove the detritus at will keeps any hidden areas from building up unbeknownst to the aquarist. The system is not relying on the calcium carbonate in a substrate to act as the heavy lifting phosphate sink, that is the aquarist job with the siphon. You can absolutely have a long term system with a substrate. It just needs to be cleaned, which it seems that those here have figured out. Which is something that I have not found on other forums. Others feel that it is important to never touch a substrate. We all must clean up after our pets, regardless of the size of them.

 

Your cyano issue. Where is the cyano growing? Cyano wants to be as close to its nutrient source as possible since it is a bacteria. Has the discussion about how P is changed to Pi helped point you to where to look to find out where the cyano is getting its Pi from?

 

G~

 

I agree on cleaning up after our pets, I just happen to think a fuge will aid in that clean up.

 

As far as my phosphate issue - the cyano is on the koralia nano, the LR, the sand bed, the rear wall, the mag cleaner, the return nozzle, on my corals, pretty much everywhere.

[danimal1211]

G, i don't think you see where we're all getting frustrated. I would agree we need to find a way to test for organic phosphates and would be more than happy to change my views on how to design and maintain a healthy thriving reef if there was significant evidence that the current system is failing. But it very much seems you've drawn your conclusion, then went out searching for research papers that back that conclusion up. Again was a cause of death in any of the tank crashes you mentioned determined to be elevated levels of organic or inorganic phosphates? As for the symbiotic relationship between zoothanthellae and corals, I would again agree it needs to be further studied. Where's the evidence that increased O2 is now detrimental to corals. I would certainly think otherwise as they live in water at or near O2 saturation. If the biomass of zoothanthellae is now getting too large wouldn't this result first in decreased growth, followed by browned out corals long before a tank crash?

[Reefin Dude]

Nothing IS happening here. My position is I don't trust anything I read on most message boards. RC is a strange beast with what seems to be an odd way of moderating, but in the end I think they do what they do because of the incredible traffic they get. The best way to handle an out of control flame war with a group of volunteer mods is to take the thread down.

 

I also don't know anything about spanky, and I've heard every reason under the sun for why some people have left RC. Randy Holmes-Farley continues to post at RC, so he hasn't left.

 

I do continue to notice one trend that does disturb me ...

 

Let me give you a hint.

 

Every time I see that I read "the solution is so obvious I'm not going to bother to point it out". Spanky did this on numerous occasions when he was active on TRT (he also vanished into the ether). It seemed to be contagious. It's a conversational technique designed to convey ... what?

 

I do not want to insult anyone, but perhaps raise the flag that the above phrase is like chalk on a chalkboard to ... well, at least me.

 

Sorry, I will stop doing this here. It helps to get people to think about what else could be going on. There are a lot of interrelated processes going on. A lot of time we get fixated on one aspect and do not realize how it affects other areas of the entire system.

 

Jerel/Spanky/Bomber helped several us to ask questions and not just believe what is said on the internet. I also always thought that phosphate refugiums were the way to remove phosphates. It was not until I thought about how can the organism be around if it is supposedly removing all of the resources needed to live. I started looking into how the resources came to the algae that it started to make more sense and why algae is not the most efficient way to remove P from a system. The point is to always ask why and get to a understanding that make sense.

 

G~

[brandon429]

Nothing IS happening here. My position is I don't trust anything I read on most message boards. RC is a strange beast with what seems to be an odd way of moderating, but in the end I think they do what they do because of the incredible traffic they get. The best way to handle an out of control flame war with a group of volunteer mods is to take the thread down.

 

I also don't know anything about spanky, and I've heard every reason under the sun for why some people have left RC. Randy Holmes-Farley continues to post at RC, so he hasn't left.

 

I do continue to notice one trend that does disturb me ...

 

Let me give you a hint.

 

 

 

Every time I see that I read "the solution is so obvious I'm not going to bother to point it out". Spanky did this on numerous occasions when he was active on TRT (he also vanished into the ether). It seemed to be contagious. It's a conversational technique designed to convey ... what?

 

I do not want to insult anyone, but perhaps raise the flag that the above phrase is like chalk on a chalkboard to ... well, at least me.

 

please link to any recent post from Randy Ive been trying to reach him

[tibbsy07]

G, i don't think you see where we're all getting frustrated. I would agree we need to find a way to test for organic phosphates and would be more than happy to change my views on how to design and maintain a healthy thriving reef if there was significant evidence that the current system is failing. But it very much seems you've drawn your conclusion, then went out searching for research papers that back that conclusion up. Again was a cause of death in any of the tank crashes you mentioned determined to be elevated levels of organic or inorganic phosphates? As for the symbiotic relationship between zoothanthellae and corals, I would again agree it needs to be further studied. Where's the evidence that increased O2 is now detrimental to corals. I would certainly think otherwise as they live in water at or near O2 saturation. If the biomass of zoothanthellae is now getting too large wouldn't this result first in decreased growth, followed by browned out corals long before a tank crash?

One of the big problems with eutrophication is hypoxia, or the lack of oxygen. Oxygen is great for our systems. So I'd definitely have to agree with you here - more oxygen is good.

 

Sorry, I will stop doing this here. It helps to get people to think about what else could be going on. There are a lot of interrelated processes going on. A lot of time we get fixated on one aspect and do not realize how it affects other areas of the entire system.

 

Jerel/Spanky/Bomber helped several us to ask questions and not just believe what is said on the internet. I also always thought that phosphate refugiums were the way to remove phosphates. It was not until I thought about how can the organism be around if it is supposedly removing all of the resources needed to live. I started looking into how the resources came to the algae that it started to make more sense and why algae is not the most efficient way to remove P from a system. The point is to always ask why and get to a understanding that make sense.

 

G~

 

I don't think anyone is saying that algae is the best and most efficient way to remove phosphates from a system. I think we're saying it is one way and that it DOES work, even if it's a small amount. It's also highly affordable. The best way, even according to the diagram posted is a regular water change with siphoning... AKA cleaning up after your pets. But, that diagram shows that algae can help.

 

Eutrophication is a slippery slope to be used to define our tanks. Especially when we're using freshwater information for a marine system. Freshwater ich is different from marine ich, so we alter some of how we treat it depending on the tank, right? Eutrophication in our tanks is a bit of an exaggeration, I think. And no one, again, is arguing that if you get eutrophication that algae will solve the problem. That's not the case at all. Once you have it, you've GOT to use other methods to clean the water. What we're saying is that a fuge is one way of preventing severe eutrophication, as the symbiosis between the bacteria and the algae is a good one.