Refugiums don't export nutrients?

February 1, 2013

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?

It is all P. That is the point I am trying to be make. You can not have Pi without Po. If there is a testable value of Pi then there has to be Po in the system. If there is not any Po, then the tank is completely dead. There will not be any life in the system at all.

high levels of O2 is poisonous to animals. Here is another article that I am sure no one wants to read through, but I think it gets us started on what is going on in our corals. i think it will start to make the relationship with Pi and zoax more apparent and why the corals need to be calling the shots instead of the zoax.

Coral Bleaching: the synergistic effects of temperature and photoinhibition

How would you describe the symbiotic relationship between the coral and the zoax in SPS?

G~

February 1, 2013

The very article that you and futuredoc have been peddling to back up this claim said that the amount to organic phosphate excreted by freshwater algae is "insignificant", leaving the predominant ways algae returns phosphates to the natural ecosystem to be consumption of the algae by fish/invertebrates and die-out, neither of which typically happen to a great extent in a well maintained refugium.

For the 14th time, please show me the study that found a significant amount of organic phosphate is excreted by marine algae. The methods that you are preaching are not new. Certainly someone has studied this in the last two decades. If TRT has such a robust system to insure that claims are backed up with scientific facts, certainly you have something that scientifically proves the claims that you continue to repeat over and over and over.

Just because everyone can at least view the abstract: Lean and Nalewajko:

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/f76-169#.UQv1iL9JPnh

Second to last sentence: Significant amounts of dissolved organic phosphorus (DOP) were excreted.

In Alongi Boto & Roberson's diagram... FOLLOW THE ARROWS!

From Benitez-Nelson (page 122)

Regardless, the concentration of polyphosphates was found to vary season ally and with plankton speciation, with the highest concentrations measured in the late spring and during red-tide blooms. Polyphosphates are compounds used by organisms for energy storage . Watanabe et al., 1989 . Thus, increases in these compounds have been attributed to excretion by zooplankton and phytoplankton (Lorenzen, 1967) and cell death and rupture (Solorzano, 1978). (And in case you are thick phytoplankton is, although not limited to... algae)

Furthermore, how fast does P rotate within coastal waters (like in a near-reef environment?)

In coastal regimes, soluble reactive phosphorus turnover times are typically rapid, ranging from -1 h to just over a week (Pomeroy, 1960; Taft et al., 1975; Harrison et al., 1977; Smith et al., 1985; Harrison and Harris, 1986). So our point about you can not have your algae sitting around and being "inert" until you decided to remove it is accurate

Finally, many problems with the overall arguments presented by those not really interested in the ecology of algae have presented these logical fallacies... they, the person is not faulty, but rather, their arguments is and here is the "proof"

My critics have said "You positions are false until you can prove them "true" ie: algae ecreting phosphate is false until you prove it to be true (often completely ignoring the citations above). This is an argument from ignroance

Next, critics have argued that if I argue that if algae does release P back into the system, how much is released, and how much is trapped compared to the feeding amount. In the end, if I do not give "satisfactory" answers, the whole argument is "wrong". This is also a fallacy. See moving the goalposts . We know algae can and will release and excrete phosphate at the rate of between 8-50%. We have proved that algae excretes, it excretes a particular amount, and that the input/output varies per tank... just because we might not know specific hobbyist amounts does not discredit the previous work.

Many algae supports fall into the post hoc ergo protor hoc fallacy. Here it assumes that because a person added algae, and the tank is viewed as successful afterward that the tank is successful because of the algae. It is a very dangerous and appealing trap. It is really dangerous for newer tanks going through "the uglies" when resources are abundant and various colonization are in full effect. Many tanks are ugly with other algae/bacterial issues within the first 1-9 months. Assuming that adding algae in that timeframe and then the tank settles down could definitely be a post hoc ergo protor hoc fallacy

Next, and this is the BIG issue: argumetum ad populum This assumes that is many people believe in the benefits and application of algae for making reefs (and in particular stony reefs), Truth validity does not matter because many or most people believe it. This also negates, "lets take a poll and see who is right" as that is also a fallacy of the same nature. I am an avid social constructionist but argumetum ad populum by those critics claiming that all the people on the forum can't be wrong is still fallacious.

Finally, I think a lot of the critics here either misunderstand or intentionally distort the the argument that G and I make. The actively argue an strawman position instead of what G and I claim. We say that keeping algae with stony is not optimal, they say that we are saying you can't keep SPS with algae. We say it can not reduce P to zero/limiting levels, they say that we say they can not reduce P. It either stems from either an lack of understanding of the role of algae (forgivable), that folks wish to keep their fuges (meh, ok), or that folks bought into their fuges and are actively trying to twist evidence so that they do not look like they made a mistake.

People should look into what algae does, what it can't do and beyond the basic levels of nutrient consumption. Algae is not really a reef's friend providing conditionless benefits, it is a double edged sword that most folks do not know about the back edge while the leading edge is over praised. We need to look at algae in realistic terms and apply proper ecological and biochemical understand. Don't state what algae can't do, do not dismiss negatives from algae, and use the best information in context sensitive husbandry. That is all.

February 1, 2013

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.

I was talking about O2 within the coral tissue, not the system. Yes hypoxia is a major concern in eutrophication. This is a huge reason why it is so important to get the detritus out. It is the bacteria converting Po to Pi that is using up all of the O2 in the system and converting it to CO2. Normal decay processes. Here comes the corrector. Use algae. We all know what it does. The crutch is that the algae has to be lit continuously in order to keep the level acceptable. In the dark algae performs normal respiratory functions and produces CO2. If the Po is removed, or kept to a low level, then the risk of hypoxia goes way down. Low pH and low alk are all signs that a system is become more eutrophic. The bacteria are using up the alk for a carbon source to convert the Po to Pi, and in the process producing CO2.

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.

It is not the water that is the problem. We have to clean the system. Water is just a travel media for the P to move around. It is not the source. The detritus is the source. We keep fixating on the water parameters and not on the P levels of the entire system. The water parameters will only mirror the system parameters when all of the nutrient sinks are full and the next biggest phosphate sink is the water itself.

G~

February 1, 2013

I was talking about O2 within the coral tissue, not the system. Yes hypoxia is a major concern in eutrophication. This is a huge reason why it is so important to get the detritus out. It is the bacteria converting Po to Pi that is using up all of the O2 in the system and converting it to CO2. Normal decay processes. Here comes the corrector. Use algae. We all know what it does. The crutch is that the algae has to be lit continuously in order to keep the level acceptable. In the dark algae performs normal respiratory functions and produces CO2. If the Po is removed, or kept to a low level, then the risk of hypoxia goes way down. Low pH and low alk are all signs that a system is become more eutrophic. The bacteria are using up the alk for a carbon source to convert the Po to Pi, and in the process producing CO2.

It is not the water that is the problem. We have to clean the system. Water is just a travel media for the P to move around. It is not the source. The detritus is the source. We keep fixating on the water parameters and not on the P levels of the entire system. The water parameters will only mirror the system parameters when all of the nutrient sinks are full and the next biggest phosphate sink is the water itself.

G~

I siphon my sand bed when I do water changes. I have cyano on every imaginable source in my tank. It's not covered in cyano, but the cyano are not limited to sand bed or the rock.

Again, I'm not saying that algae will remove all the phosphates. Far from it. That diagram shows that water changes are the best removal tool. I'm not arguing that phosphates and detritus aren't the major problem (nitrogen uses up oxygen, too). All of these things are problematic. What I'm saying is that the argument that a fuge doesn't help is foolish. Can one entirely rely on a fuge? No. Is a fuge necessary? No. Does it help? Sure.

The issue isn't black and white, and so we shouldn't be trying to make it that way. Making blanket statements that "fuges don't work" is a bad thing. Fuges can and do work. So do skimmers and UV sterilizers.

February 1, 2013

More distractions! "I'm not winning this argument because you keep changing the rules!"

An infographic and a one paragraph abstraction aren't really proof of anything and it's disappointing and frustrating that you continue to rely on these. I think it's reasonable that people would expect some sort of information backing up your claims since they are completely contradictory to existing science and well accepted husbandry practices. They also completely contradict the real life experiences that most people have in this hobby as well as the recommendations of numerous people that most people would consider "experts".

"Winning" is not the goal, education is the goal. Better hobbyist knowledge-base is the goal. And unless you have tigers' blood and Adonis DNA, and are not a high priest Vatican assassin warlock, you are not "WINNING" (see charlie sheen if you do not get the reference) ) I don't really care about convincing you of anything, I just don't want the next new hobbyist googling and getting your bad information without accurate information paired with it. I will let them follow thing down the rabbit hole and decide.

So, if these academic studies are completely contradicting the home hobbyist and they are contracting these "experts", whats next? Do you not see the problem? Rather than thinking the majority of biology and aquatic ecology is "wrong" maybe the hobbyist is not accurately observing the processes and these hobby "experts" recommendations are not really all that great (or accurate). The hobbyist should stop and think: Why are these articles saying something completely different from the claims of the "experts". Is there an explanation of why these articles suggest something different from what I am seeing (am I seeing/testing clearly). Follow the data, follow the claims, follow the truth. That is all.

February 1, 2013

I'm about over this conversation as nothing about it has been productive. I'm gonna go watch my tank ever so slowly slip into eutriphication.

February 1, 2013

Again, this isn't true. If you had thought about it or "looked into it", you'd have something to share with others. But again, all you really have shared here are your personal opinions with no data that any reasonable person would believe backs it up and some data that directly conflicts what you claim. You constantly repeat the same line over and over, and continue to ignore requests to provide the information to back it up.

Should I even bother to request this for a 15th time?

Here is this graphic again.

Follow the arrows to see what export method removes what types of P from the system.

I am just asking for you to follow the arrows to see all of the different phosphate cycles in our system.

The graphic above shows this by the arrow and the foot note to #2 describing excretion and hydrolysis. The Calvin cycle also explains the conversion of phosphates and the byproduct of photosynthesis. Hydrolysis is also a part of the Calvin cycle.

Sorry, i am not able to find a free copy of the following article. I will keep trying.

DISSOLVED ORGANIC PHOSPHORUS EXCRETION BY MARINE PHYTOPLANKTON1,2

Is this some alternate reality thread? how is an article about temperature and photoinhibition even tangentially related to the current discussion. Is your claim that a refugium full of algae creates more oxygen in my water than your massive skimmer? DISTRACT! DISTRACT! Don't look behind the green curtain!

Where's the study showing that algae excretes phosphates?

Actually, yes I am. The release of O2 by plants and algae is an active reaction; taking in CO2, and releasing O2. A waste product of photosynthesis. A skimmer is an equilibrium reaction fighting across the surface tension of of water. We all know how hard it is to keep the pH up if there is a film on the surface of the water. Isn't a film on the surface of a skimmer bubble something we want? Doesn't that show it is working? If the bubble is covered in organic material how can it be as efficient at equalizing the CO2/O2 concentrations between the water and the atmosphere. I am confused I though one of the big reasons to run an algae driven phosphate refugium or ATS was to help keep algae up by removing the built up CO2 and adding O2 in the process.

G~

February 1, 2013

Actually, yes I am. The release of O2 by plants and algae is an active reaction; taking in CO2, and releasing O2. A waste product of photosynthesis. A skimmer is an equilibrium reaction fighting across the surface tension of of water. We all know how hard it is to keep the pH up if there is a film on the surface of the water. Isn't a film on the surface of a skimmer bubble something we want? Doesn't that show it is working? If the bubble is covered in organic material how can it be as efficient at equalizing the CO2/O2 concentrations between the water and the atmosphere. I am confused I though one of the big reasons to run an algae driven phosphate refugium or ATS was to help keep algae up by removing the built up CO2 and adding O2 in the process.

G~

So I run algae in my tiny little rear-chamber fuge, not to remove CO2 and produce a ton of O2. I do water changes for that kind of thing. The idea I'm utilizing is what we do in microbiology all the time - selection, or at least a spin on the idea. I'm basically putting in a controlled macroalgae, that will provide some small benefit to the tank in terms of nutrient levels, but the real purpose is that it's to create a controlled symbiotic relationship with the bacteria that establishes direct competition AGAINST nuisance algae. I'm selecting for the algae I want and selecting against the kind I don't want. I'm putting in and establishing a macro algae that is easy to control and remove so that IT is happy and grows well, utilizing the excess nutrients BEFORE a nuisance algae can take hold. That's the idea, anyways. I don't have a sump so my water volume isn't really any better and I don't think that my "fuge" is really contributing nutrients to my tank. It's not big enough. Other people may experience a nutrient export, though. It depends on the size of the fuge and the size of the tank.

February 1, 2013

I just read that article, 8% was the experimental avg of Po excretion, which the authors admit was similar to other older experiments. They also referenced other publications that show some of this Po can also be quickly reabsorbed by algae.

8% has statistical significance and satisfies scientific merit. But what is the clinical significance? There is none. If this were a drug approval would only be granted on basis of other surrogate markers not survival. In other words, 8% has academic value but no practical value.

Do you really think you are the only one that has fancy letters after your name? Based on this and some other references you have made that I noted, I have to seriously question the validity of your PhD degree, or call into question the institution that awarded it to you.

Just because everyone can at least view the abstract: Lean and Nalewajko:

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/f76-169#.UQv1iL9JPnh

Second to last sentence: Significant amounts of dissolved organic phosphorus (DOP) were excreted.

In Alongi Boto & Roberson's diagram... FOLLOW THE ARROWS!

From Benitez-Nelson (page 122)

Regardless, the concentration of polyphosphates was found to vary season ally and with plankton speciation, with the highest concentrations measured in the late spring and during red-tide blooms. Polyphosphates are compounds used by organisms for energy storage . Watanabe et al., 1989 . Thus, increases in these compounds have been attributed to excretion by zooplankton and phytoplankton (Lorenzen, 1967) and cell death and rupture (Solorzano, 1978). (And in case you are thick phytoplankton is, although not limited to... algae)

Furthermore, how fast does P rotate within coastal waters (like in a near-reef environment?)

In coastal regimes, soluble reactive phosphorus turnover times are typically rapid, ranging from -1 h to just over a week (Pomeroy, 1960; Taft et al., 1975; Harrison et al., 1977; Smith et al., 1985; Harrison and Harris, 1986). So our point about you can not have your algae sitting around and being "inert" until you decided to remove it is accurate

Finally, many problems with the overall arguments presented by those not really interested in the ecology of algae have presented these logical fallacies... they, the person is not faulty, but rather, their arguments is and here is the "proof"

My critics have said "You positions are false until you can prove them "true" ie: algae ecreting phosphate is false until you prove it to be true (often completely ignoring the citations above). This is an argument from ignroance

Next, critics have argued that if I argue that if algae does release P back into the system, how much is released, and how much is trapped compared to the feeding amount. In the end, if I do not give "satisfactory" answers, the whole argument is "wrong". This is also a fallacy. See moving the goalposts . We know algae can and will release and excrete phosphate at the rate of between 8-50%. We have proved that algae excretes, it excretes a particular amount, and that the input/output varies per tank... just because we might not know specific hobbyist amounts does not discredit the previous work.

Many algae supports fall into the post hoc ergo protor hoc fallacy. Here it assumes that because a person added algae, and the tank is viewed as successful afterward that the tank is successful because of the algae. It is a very dangerous and appealing trap. It is really dangerous for newer tanks going through "the uglies" when resources are abundant and various colonization are in full effect. Many tanks are ugly with other algae/bacterial issues within the first 1-9 months. Assuming that adding algae in that timeframe and then the tank settles down could definitely be a post hoc ergo protor hoc fallacy

Next, and this is the BIG issue: argumetum ad populum This assumes that is many people believe in the benefits and application of algae for making reefs (and in particular stony reefs), Truth validity does not matter because many or most people believe it. This also negates, "lets take a poll and see who is right" as that is also a fallacy of the same nature. I am an avid social constructionist but argumetum ad populum by those critics claiming that all the people on the forum can't be wrong is still fallacious.

Finally, I think a lot of the critics here either misunderstand or intentionally distort the the argument that G and I make. The actively argue an strawman position instead of what G and I claim. We say that keeping algae with stony is not optimal, they say that we are saying you can't keep SPS with algae. We say it can not reduce P to zero/limiting levels, they say that we say they can not reduce P. It either stems from either an lack of understanding of the role of algae (forgivable), that folks wish to keep their fuges (meh, ok), or that folks bought into their fuges and are actively trying to twist evidence so that they do not look like they made a mistake.

People should look into what algae does, what it can't do and beyond the basic levels of nutrient consumption. Algae is not really a reef's friend providing conditionless benefits, it is a double edged sword that most folks do not know about the back edge while the leading edge is over praised. We need to look at algae in realistic terms and apply proper ecological and biochemical understand. Don't state what algae can't do, do not dismiss negatives from algae, and use the best information in context sensitive husbandry. That is all.

February 1, 2013

Ok, here is what I'm getting out of all of this.

Fish eat something, then they shit it out. Shit breaks down into organic phosphate. Bacteria goes 'oooh, a piece of phosphate!' and eats it, then shits it out, now as inorganic phosphate. Algae then goes 'oooh, a piece of phosphate!' and eats it, then shits out between 8 and 50% of it as organic phosphate. Bacteria eats that, and the cycle continues.

Ya know, it looks to me like there is a net uptake of phosphate. Prune the algae before it dies back (which is easy to do), and BAM, that phosphate is gone from the system, and there is a net loss of phosphate, which is the goal and one of the reasons that people use algae.

Wasn't the original argument that refugiums don't export nutrients?

February 1, 2013

I just read that article, 8% was the experimental avg of Po excretion, which the authors admit was similar to other older experiments. They also referenced other publications that show some of this Po can also be quickly reabsorbed by algae.

8% has statistical significance and satisfies scientific merit. But what is the clinical significance? There is none. If this were a drug approval would only be granted on basis of other surrogate markers not survival. In other words, 8% has academic value but no practical value.

Do you really think you are the only one that has fancy letters after your name? Based on this and some other references you have made that I noted, I have to seriously question the validity of your PhD degree, or call into question the institution that awarded it to you.

Wow, outright ad hominem. Oooook.

BTW, it is from a top 25 public research university (and is not too shabby in football either).

Statistical significance is still key. It still rejects the null (ie algae does not release P). Following along with the "mobility" of the P particles, this is important. P moves around that is one of the undermining facts for algae to bind and "hold" P for hobbyist removal.

The "practical" clinical significance question is again moving the goalpost, but lets run with that (since it appears to be the next question). So, how effective is algae at removing P (how much change does the treatment cause)? That is the interesting because it is unproven (not true or false, it's just unknown). We might be able to guess/extrapolate the P mass from a removed clump of algae, but we do not know the P bound in the system. So it is a simple equation (assume algae removal is X) of ?-X=? There really is no mechanism for the hobbyist (it could be done in the lab and they can't be bothered) for determine that clinical significance and I am unaware of any research on the topics. So where does this lead? Well back to the trophic framework actually.

So how effective can algae be at removing something from a system in which it itself is dependent for growth... and that growth is the factor for effectiveness for removal?

February 1, 2013

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~

For those interested here is another article on Pi and Po with a number of internal links that will be of interest and a section on Macro Algae ....

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-09/rhf/index.php

February 1, 2013

each and every one of you is derelicting your work duties on this thread, I know i am

so, none of yous are 8-5 guys huh just kicking it at home? in between calls I zip over here to check to see how the marine algae are leaking p04 back into the system and have seen something about hydrolysis so far, w try to read further. sure wish someone would just clip and sentence and post it tho...

February 1, 2013

Wow, outright ad hominem. Oooook.

BTW, it is from a top 25 public research university (and is not too shabby in football either).

Statistical significance is still key. It still rejects the null (ie algae does not release P). Following along with the "mobility" of the P particles, this is important. P moves around that is one of the undermining facts for algae to bind and "hold" P for hobbyist removal.

The "practical" clinical significance question is again moving the goalpost, but lets run with that (since it appears to be the next question). So, how effective is algae at removing P (how much change does the treatment cause)? That is the interesting because it is unproven (not true or false, it's just unknown). We might be able to guess/extrapolate the P mass from a removed clump of algae, but we do not know the P bound in the system. So it is a simple equation (assume algae removal is X) of ?-X=? There really is no mechanism for the hobbyist (it could be done in the lab and they can't be bothered) for determine that clinical significance and I am unaware of any research on the topics. So where does this lead? Well back to the trophic framework actually.

So how effective can algae be at removing something from a system in which it itself is dependent for growth... and that growth is the factor for effectiveness for removal?

Top public research university really means nothing anymore. Ethical violations are a dime a dozen in science now. It's sad but true - and the biggest culprits are typically from major research institutions... Also, if we're talking about the 1976 article - that's almost 40 years ago. A lot has changed since then. They are also talking about freshwater. You can't extrapolate data from one system to a completely other system.

For your last point though, I must be misunderstanding you? We're not talking about an organism that gets full like we do when we eat. Microbes and macroalgae eat what they want when they want. If the nutrients are there, they will use them and grow. Phosphates are important for growth. The algae use them to grow. There is a finite amount of phosphate available. The more they use, the less available, but the more they grow.

The article albert linked is great, by the way. It explains the phosphate cycle as well as export mechanisms, with citations from as recent as 2001. Not great, but better than 1976.

February 1, 2013

I siphon my sand bed when I do water changes. I have cyano on every imaginable source in my tank. It's not covered in cyano, but the cyano are not limited to sand bed or the rock.

Again, I'm not saying that algae will remove all the phosphates. Far from it. That diagram shows that water changes are the best removal tool. I'm not arguing that phosphates and detritus aren't the major problem (nitrogen uses up oxygen, too). All of these things are problematic. What I'm saying is that the argument that a fuge doesn't help is foolish. Can one entirely rely on a fuge? No. Is a fuge necessary? No. Does it help? Sure.

The issue isn't black and white, and so we shouldn't be trying to make it that way. Making blanket statements that "fuges don't work" is a bad thing. Fuges can and do work. So do skimmers and UV sterilizers.

What I find is that the advocates of "Fuges do not work" are relying on theoretical papers and studies that were not conducted on closed systems such as the ones kept by Hobbyists, and do not take the empirical evidence into consideration that has been reported over and over again, and that confirms that they do indeed assist in improving the water quality.

We will never get the "perfect" water quality, if there is such a thing, but we can certainly utilize all, or as many, available methods to come as close as possible.

Writing off refugia based on some anecdotal evidence, or some theoretical writings, is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, or banning a particular medications because certain side effects have led to the death of a number of people. If the benefits outweigh the negatives IMHO those have to be taken into account, and where it in this case relates to our aquariums.

It is all good and well to engage in high-falutin exposes in certain posts, and use nice sounding Latin expressions, but that is not going to get anyone closer to admitting that in some cases fuges may not work for certain aquariums, but that in most cases they DO work for the majority of hobbyists. let's no forget that no two aquariums are the same and that what happens in one may not be happening in another and that therefore all the "generalizations" made in some of the post just do NOT apply IMO.

This is not IMO a yes/no issue ... and that is what I perceive certain posters are trying to make it.

Just my two cents.

February 1, 2013

Admittedly, I've quit paying attention to most of the posts from Mr. Dude and Mr. Doc as they seemed to be just the same thing over and over. Where did the 8% - 50% finally come from?

Next, critics have argued that if I argue that if algae does release P back into the system, how much is released, and how much is trapped compared to the feeding amount. In the end, if I do not give "satisfactory" answers, the whole argument is "wrong". This is also a fallacy. See moving the goalposts . We know algae can and will release and excrete phosphate at the rate of between 8-50%. We have proved that algae excretes, it excretes a particular amount, and that the input/output varies per tank... just because we might not know specific hobbyist amounts does not discredit the previous work.

February 1, 2013

Your argument distilled: A cruise ship floats on water ---> A cruise ship is made of steel ---> a steel airplane will float.

Where did the data come from though? Did FutureDoc just make it up?

Yes indeed: error in logic as you point out.

Same error as in :

The pants fit in the suitcase

I fit in the pants

So I fit in the suitcase

This whole thread has IMO not proven anything yet ... The evidence that is being used by a few is not applicable to small reef systems where processes that take place cannot IMO be compared to what happens in nature or what can be theoretically demonstrated but just does not hold up when it comes to closed systems, especially as small as nano reefs and their fuges

February 1, 2013

Where did the 8% - 50% finally come from?

Wen, Vezina & Peters (1997) p. 54

Our results showed that about half of the P04 taken up was excreted, whereas Kuenzler (1970) found that 20% of fixed P was returned to the aquatic environment by a marine alga

Lemasson and Pages (1980) Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science (p.521 I think*)

In the case of the populations studied here, the excreted DOP represents at least 8% of gross P-uptake.

Algae is versatile. There is the relationship the excretion rates are tied to ambient P availability. Ie, if there is enough to grow, they pass around more, if there is not enough to grow, they pass around less.

Top public research university really means nothing anymore. Ethical violations are a dime a dozen in science now. It's sad but true - and the biggest culprits are typically from major research institutions... Also, if we're talking about the 1976 article - that's almost 40 years ago. A lot has changed since then. They are also talking about freshwater. You can't extrapolate data from one system to a completely other system.

For your last point though, I must be misunderstanding you? We're not talking about an organism that gets full like we do when we eat. Microbes and macroalgae eat what they want when they want. If the nutrients are there, they will use them and grow. Phosphates are important for growth. The algae use them to grow. There is a finite amount of phosphate available. The more they use, the less available, but the more they grow.

The article albert linked is great, by the way. It explains the phosphate cycle as well as export mechanisms, with citations from as recent as 2001. Not great, but better than 1976.

Ethical violations are common, look at the marine hobby industry. Eric B is the prime example. More and more research is being tied to industry dollars and that is putting more and more pressure with academic independence. At least we know that so and so Prof at McGill, U. of Hawaii. etc is not tied to the aquarium hobby industry like Borneman, RHF, Shemik, Sprung. Right now, the biggest ethical scandals with with institutions are wiithin the private realm (Tulane, George Washington, Emory, and Bucknell). Still, this is admissions type stuff and does not apply generally to most academic researchers.

There is a reason why a lot of the research is older (first Lean is a pioneer/godfather of much of the research) and even RHF is quoting a lot of 1970's stuff. Why? Because this is when research addressed the topic and flushed it out with the broad strokes and now is is very common, accepted knowledge. You do not see physicist re-hashing Newton in the same way. Sure, there might be tweeks and conditions but the major stuff is fairly in place, no need to re-do the work and waste resources.

If you have growing algae bio-mass, then there never is a finite amount of P. That is the whole point!

February 1, 2013

Ding ding ding! Future Doc got it! Finally!

You're right, we don't know the P in the system we don't know exactly how well algae binds it, so what is the solution? Regular pruning no matter what!!

You use a skimmer to remove Po and you empty it regularly, right? What if I told you a skimmer doesn't export P, you say to me no way, when I dump the skimmate down the toilet I flush away P. But what if I wait too long to empty the cup, some overflows and goes back in the system.

The missing variable all along is frequency of export. You empty the skimmate when it looks full.

I empty my algae when it looks full. Maybe I wait too long and let too much P reenter making it inefficient.

But if I prune my algae every day, even just a little there will be a NET P EXPORT!

As nutrients are used up, the algae will no longer gain mass because it needs the P to grow, but I am still exporting a little at a time until the algae vanishes because there is not enough P.

So there you have it. Riddle solved. Prune your macro every day. How much? Don't know. If 8% Po is excreted daily, then that is how much needs to be removed. If you have a nutrient rich tank, you will need a lot of macro to start with because the math won't work if you just let a smaller amount stick around longer prior to pruning.

Having not enough algae is like not having a skimmer big enough for the tank. That's why a refugium doesn't always export - because there's not enough algae! And it's not being pruned often enough.

It's simple math actually. The answer was right under our noses all along, we just needed future Doc to guide us.

Wow, outright ad hominem. Oooook.

BTW, it is from a top 25 public research university (and is not too shabby in football either).

Statistical significance is still key. It still rejects the null (ie algae does not release P). Following along with the "mobility" of the P particles, this is important. P moves around that is one of the undermining facts for algae to bind and "hold" P for hobbyist removal.

The "practical" clinical significance question is again moving the goalpost, but lets run with that (since it appears to be the next question). So, how effective is algae at removing P (how much change does the treatment cause)? That is the interesting because it is unproven (not true or false, it's just unknown). We might be able to guess/extrapolate the P mass from a removed clump of algae, but we do not know the P bound in the system. So it is a simple equation (assume algae removal is X) of ?-X=? There really is no mechanism for the hobbyist (it could be done in the lab and they can't be bothered) for determine that clinical significance and I am unaware of any research on the topics. So where does this lead? Well back to the trophic framework actually.

So how effective can algae be at removing something from a system in which it itself is dependent for growth... and that growth is the factor for effectiveness for removal?

February 1, 2013

Ding ding ding! Future Doc got it! Finally!

You're right, we don't know the P in the system we don't know exactly how well algae binds it, so what is the solution? Regular pruning no matter what!!

You use a skimmer to remove Po and you empty it regularly, right? What if I told you a skimmer doesn't export P, you say to me no way, when I dump the skimmate down the toilet I flush away P. But what if I wait too long to empty the cup, some overflows and goes back in the system.

The missing variable all along is frequency of export. You empty the skimmate when it looks full.

I empty my algae when it looks full. Maybe I wait too long and let too much P reenter making it inefficient.

But if I prune my algae every day, even just a little there will be a NET P EXPORT!

As nutrients are used up, the algae will no longer gain mass because it needs the P to grow, but I am still exporting a little at a time until the algae vanishes because there is not enough P.

So there you have it. Riddle solved. Prune your macro every day. How much? Don't know. If 8% Po is excreted daily, then that is how much needs to be removed. If you have a nutrient rich tank, you will need a lot of macro to start with because the math won't work if you just let a smaller amount stick around longer prior to pruning.

Having not enough algae is like not having a skimmer big enough for the tank. That's why a refugium doesn't always export - because there's not enough algae! And it's not being pruned often enough.

It's simple math actually. The answer was right under our noses all along, we just needed future Doc to guide us.

Bingo. Doesn't mean fuges don't work, it just means most people don't have a fuge that will actually support their tanks.

Wen, Vezina & Peters (1997) p. 54

Our results showed that about half of the P04 taken up was excreted, whereas Kuenzler (1970) found that 20% of fixed P was returned to the aquatic environment by a marine alga

Lemasson and Pages (1980) Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science (p.521 I think*)

In the case of the populations studied here, the excreted DOP represents at least 8% of gross P-uptake.

Algae is versatile. There is the relationship the excretion rates are tied to ambient P availability. Ie, if there is enough to grow, they pass around more, if there is not enough to grow, they pass around less.

Ethical violations are common, look at the marine hobby industry. Eric B is the prime example. More and more research is being tied to industry dollars and that is putting more and more pressure with academic independence. At least we know that so and so Prof at McGill, U. of Hawaii. etc is not tied to the aquarium hobby industry like Borneman, RHF, Shemik, Sprung. Right now, the biggest ethical scandals with with institutions are wiithin the private realm (Tulane, George Washington, Emory, and Bucknell). Still, this is admissions type stuff and does not apply generally to most academic researchers.

There is a reason why a lot of the research is older (first Lean is a pioneer/godfather of much of the research) and even RHF is quoting a lot of 1970's stuff. Why? Because this is when research addressed the topic and flushed it out with the broad strokes and now is is very common, accepted knowledge. You do not see physicist re-hashing Newton in the same way. Sure, there might be tweeks and conditions but the major stuff is fairly in place, no need to re-do the work and waste resources.

If you have growing algae bio-mass, then there never is a finite amount of P. That is the whole point!

If you have a growing bio-mass of algae, it IS producing phosphates, sure, but there are bacteria that will utilize it, and they do so rapidly. Microbes are AMAZING at nutrient utilization. What I'm saying is that as long as BOTH algae and bacteria are growing, they are using up all available phosphates in the system - unless you have a major unbalance. Sure they are both continually producing the phosphates, but they are also continually using them, so the cycle just continues.

February 1, 2013

Yes, we do not know... but having algae growing in our system for a story-reef biotype, we know there is to much.Growing algae means excess P. Algae serves more as a P-meter rather than a P remover. If you have a big pile of actively growing algae, you have a lot of P in the system... we might not know the exact amount but we know that it is a lot.

Unlike a skimmer (which actually does actively remove P from the system), the algae keeps it in play while the algae is in the water. Excretion rates (on top of algae die off) depend on the amount of P available in the system for uptake. If uptake increase, excretion increases. If uptake decrease, excretion decreases. If algae grows, there is more uptake, more excretion, more nutrients, more need for fixed mass "export". If algae starves, (other than its death-release) there is less uptake, less excretion, less nutrients, and need for export.

Acutally, for algae to work, you must export the moment of mass increase otherwise the negative effect of P compound. Since P cycles in as little as a hour, even once a day is not enough... once a day is better than once a week but still.

This is one reason why carbon dosing and skimming work for ULS and algae does not. The skimmer is exporting P from the system the moment (or within 30 or so minutes) of the biomass increase, it is disrupting the P cycle. Algae pruning every day does not disrupt it. Now, the long term effect of carbon dosing in relationship to CaCO3 structures is still undefined.

You just can prune algae fast enough to make it effective. If one could skim algae, then that would be better.

February 1, 2013

Bingo. Doesn't mean fuges don't work, it just means most people don't have a fuge that will actually support their tanks.

If you have a growing bio-mass of algae, it IS producing phosphates, sure, but there are bacteria that will utilize it, and they do so rapidly. Microbes are AMAZING at nutrient utilization. What I'm saying is that as long as BOTH algae and bacteria are growing, they are using up all available phosphates in the system - unless you have a major unbalance. Sure they are both continually producing the phosphates, but they are also continually using them, so the cycle just continues.

Yes. To support a growing biomass, you must have a large nutrient pool to support the biomass. That, that is why G and I are talking about. For example, lets say that "pods" are "bad" for a tank. One method would be to use a mandarin ton control the pod population and then we just remove the new mandarin biomass. Ok? So, mandarins are munching down pods and growing... can mandarins really remove all the pods and still gain biomass? No. If they eat up all the pods, they will eventually lose biomass (starve out). So, if you have a healthy, sustainable and growing mandarin biomass, you have a growing sustainable pod population. But, remember "pods" are "bad". This is what we are getting to... some coral environments desire uber-low P levels and are mostly absent with algae. That is why G and I argue that fuges work against those trying to emulate low nutrient environments for stony corals. Not that all fuges are bad (I know G is a bit more resistant than I am), but they are over applied and recommended for the wrong eco-types. In small nano-tanks, water changes are very small in total volume needed to reduce nutrients. It does not take much to siphon water and detritus to get low nutrient types of parameters without algae. I see algae serving larger eutrophic system whereby large volume water changes are extremely costly but nano system just do not have that issue.

February 1, 2013

Yes, we do not know... but having algae growing in our system for a story-reef biotype, we know there is to much.Growing algae means excess P. Algae serves more as a P-meter rather than a P remover. If you have a big pile of actively growing algae, you have a lot of P in the system... we might not know the exact amount but we know that it is a lot.

Unlike a skimmer (which actually does actively remove P from the system), the algae keeps it in play while the algae is in the water. Excretion rates (on top of algae die off) depend on the amount of P available in the system for uptake. If uptake increase, excretion increases. If uptake decrease, excretion decreases. If algae grows, there is more uptake, more excretion, more nutrients, more need for fixed mass "export". If algae starves, (other than its death-release) there is less uptake, less excretion, less nutrients, and need for export.

Acutally, for algae to work, you must export the moment of mass increase otherwise the negative effect of P compound. Since P cycles in as little as a hour, even once a day is not enough... once a day is better than once a week but still.

This is one reason why carbon dosing and skimming work for ULS and algae does not. The skimmer is exporting P from the system the moment (or within 30 or so minutes) of the biomass increase, it is disrupting the P cycle. Algae pruning every day does not disrupt it. Now, the long term effect of carbon dosing in relationship to CaCO3 structures is still undefined.

You just can prune algae fast enough to make it effective. If one could skim algae, then that would be better.

Algae is a P monitor, that's for sure. But it's also a remover - why else would phosphate test kits NOT work when people have breakouts of algae? The algae uses it before anything can be registered in the test kit - sure we're talking Pi, but that's what the algae are using anyways. It does serve as a remover and a monitor.

I'm going to just throw this out there that the free pdf in the reef keepers article shows clearly, definitively that macroalgae in sufficient amounts can remove phosphate from a tank, if taken care of. If one takes cares of their macro as another organism in their tank and they trim it regularly and give it the best environment, they will reap the benefits. Most people just don't do enough of this.

But here's why I have chaeto. I'm not looking to have the chaeto fix any phosphate problem or any excess nutrient issue that I may be having. Like I said in an earlier post, I use water changes to take care of those big issues. I'm using the chaeto to select AGAINST other algae by the chaeto being happy and healthy. I have an established and healthy macroalgae that is now in direct symbiosis with the bacteria in my tank. This, in theory, will select FOR the chaeto (as it's already established, growing and utilizing as much of the available nutrients as possible) and select against the nuisance algae, as the nuisance algae still hasn't gotten hold. Colonization is much more difficult to do in the presence of other organisms. That enough is a reason to have the chaeto.

Ultimately you aren't "educating" me or other people here by eliminating what you call false information about fuges. Fuges aren't bad. They aren't a cure, but they aren't a problem either (unless you screw it up). I think it's very obvious that you are drawing different conclusions from the papers than other people are. Don't use a fuge if you don't want to. I will continue to use mine and enjoy it.

February 1, 2013

Yawn. Back to the unfounded sweeping statements without any facts to back them up.

And what about enzymatic processes that take place, and what about phosphatase ? And what about the totally different make-up of small aquarium water versus the seawater, and what about the types of substrate used .... all of those affect what happens with uptake and whatever release there may be ...

http://atarazanas.sci.uma.es/docs/tesisuma/1663732x.pdf Phosphatase and macro algae

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2989956 Enzyme Action in Marine Algae

There is far more to all of this IMHO that what those who started this thread are discussing as up to this point I do not see that anything has been proven.

February 1, 2013

Yawn. Back to the unfounded sweeping statements without any facts to back them up.

^ while completely ignoring the other 498 post before it.

Sign In

Refugiums don't export nutrients?

Recommended Posts

Reefin Dude

Link to comment

FutureDoc

Link to comment

Reefin Dude

Link to comment

tibbsy07

Link to comment

FutureDoc

Link to comment

danimal1211

Link to comment

Reefin Dude

Link to comment

tibbsy07

Link to comment

xerophyte_nyc

Link to comment

jedimasterben

Link to comment

FutureDoc

Link to comment

albertthiel

Link to comment

brandon429

Link to comment

tibbsy07

Link to comment

albertthiel

Link to comment

jedimasterben

Link to comment

albertthiel

Link to comment

FutureDoc

Link to comment

xerophyte_nyc

Link to comment

tibbsy07

Link to comment

FutureDoc

Link to comment

FutureDoc

Link to comment

tibbsy07

Link to comment

albertthiel

Link to comment

FutureDoc

Link to comment

Archived

Recommended Discussions

Home

Library

Forums

Journals

Gallery

Sponsors