Refugiums don't export nutrients?

[FutureDoc]

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.

 

The hand that removes the algae is the remover. While algae is in the tank, it is acting as a P exchanger along with bacteria, pods, worms, snails, and Ca-based material. Actually, a lot of breakout-hair algae issues can also read negitive for PO4 since our tanks can only read inorganic phosphate and not even to the level that they become limiting.

 

Removing algae does remove phosphare from a tank. But it requires that you keep P in a tank for a while so it to get to the algae.Gorowing algae just means you are going P as well.

 

Fuges are not bad, just mis-applied and their ability to create a low nutrient system is misleading and contradictory by algae's very existence and we can't remove it fast enough.

[tibbsy07]

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.

 

What? If pods are "bad" but you have something keeping them in check, then it doesn't matter. The biomass of the pods doesn't have to "grow" to meet the mandarin's growth. Sure the numbers of pods increase, but the number of pods being eaten grows, too, so the balance is maintained. Or if the balance gets out of whack and you need more mandarin power, you add another one. With the chaeto, you just have to have enough to pull the phosphate out.

 

We're also not talking about some creature consuming another creature. We're talking about microbial metabolism and photosynthesis. Mandarins will stop eating when they are full. Algae just grows. That's it. If there is a constant supply of phosphate, they will continually use it until it runs out. But the bacteria and algae are each undergoing growth, producing their respective phosphate "Waste" that the other party then uses.

 

Ultimately the fuge is a natural filtration source. Is it the only one someone should use? I think that depends on what they are trying to keep. I'm going to get a skimmer for my tank and have that with the fuge. I'll bet the macro grow really well, and I'll bet I get a BUNCH of skimmate.

 

The point here is that nothing is perfect. Use what works for you. But if you think you are going to be a good "scientist" and "educate" people by telling them that a fuge doesn't work and is a bad idea, you are a fool. As scientists we are trained from making sweeping definitive statements like that. If grad school has taught me anything, it's that being open to paradigm shifts and new techniques is a great thing. If it works for someone and it's not inherently flawed, and the science supports it, go for it. The science supports the concept of a fuge, whether or not most people do it correctly. Is it a cure for poor water? Nope.

 

There are plenty of SPS keepers that have fuges. There are plenty that don't. If it works for you, stick with it, but don't say that yours is the only way to do it "correctly"

 

I'm done.

[metrokat]

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?

I just sell the macro when it gets stuffed eating the phosphate. I would say my fuge is 100% 'exporting' nutrients. I just don't pay duty or go through customs.

[Reefin Dude]

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

 

Thank you for that reference again. Also of note in that reference is bullet point #5- Calcification Inhibition by Phosphate. I believe this was another point of contention with what was being said. How Pi levels can negatively affect corals.

 

 

 

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.

 

Looking at the article Albert posted look at bullet point #12-Phosphate Export by Skimming. Please notice what type of phosphates are being removed by skimming and which ones are not. We need to look at the entire P cycle and not just Pi in order to get a complete picture of what is going on in our systems. You could test and entire cup of skimmate for Pi and read zero because the phosphate is organic, but we know that there are phosphates in there. If you let it sit long enough, then test the skimmate the Pi level will be off the charts. What is going on here and why do we not think that it is going on in our systems? It is written in an article that is apparently approved by all reading this thread. Confused?

 

Still on that article. Why is siphoning/water changes not listed as an export method in the article? Most of us agree that is an important part of nutrient control? From what I have read from several people on here it is an important part of the regular maintenance in keeping nano's also. Does anybody want to post another article about what phosphates siphoning/water changes remove since the ones FD and I keep posting are rejected?

 

G~

[penfold2]

In order to grow, algae must absorb more P than it excretes. So as long as we are harvesting algae before it dies, algae growth will always result in a net reduction of Pi in the water column. And as I see it, this Pi is all we really care about. P that is locked away (even if only temporarily) in detritus or algal or bacterial biomass is unable to impact coral calcification. The real question is, to what extent is algae able to reduce Pi in the water column? Are properly designed and maintained algae filters able to drive P down to 0.1ppm, 0.01, 0.005? I don't understand why there is so much emphasis on total P within the system when Pi is the only real concern for coral calcification.

[andrewk529]

Two concepts to consider while reading this thread: Confrmation Bias & Positive Results Bias

[nimavafi]

 

I actually don't agree with water changes being a significant export method. If you have any doubt, I'll gladly come over and take a dump in your pool every morning.

 

Well at least that poo pet will have ample swimming room.

 

thanks for the laugh Blueprnt

[Nano sapiens]

I actually don't agree with water changes being a significant export method. If you have any doubt, I'll gladly come over and take a dump in your pool every morning. You can do 1% water changes like Mr. Doc suggests in the afternoon. Do you think that will keep your pool clean? You are leaving 99% of my crap in the water everyday after your 1% water change, and I'm going to come over tomorrow and take another dump. In order for water changes to be a successful export method, they need to be significant enough to reduce enough of the pollutants more than they will increase before the next water change. It's really difficult to estimate what the amount of water would have to be in order to have a significant impact, but it's probably more water than most people change.

 

Suctioning out detritus is a different story, but you certainly can't get all of it during a water change, so a likely majority of it is left in the tank after every water change.

 

I agree, typical WCs (10-20%/week) are not all that effective at phosphate removal in the long run.

 

Detritus removal can be substantial if done consistently and the tank is designed where one can easily get to the buildup areas. True, getting all of it is not possible, but with only WCs and detritus removal (no macro algae, GFO, skimming, etc.) it is quite possible to keep Pi at '0' (typical test kit reading). Such tanks do require a disciplined approach (realistic bio-load, careful feeding, algae removal and general good husbandry).

[xerophyte_nyc]

 

Fuges are not bad, just mis-applied and their ability to create a low nutrient system is misleading and contradictory by algae's very existence and we can't remove it fast enough.

Who is (exclusively) using a fuge/ algae/ ATS to CREATE a low nutrient system? Nobody really here on NR that I can tell. As you have pointed out many times already, it is not possible to use some macro in a tank to do so.

 

Algae's non-existence in an aquarium does not define ULNS. If I came to your house and delivered a big clump of Chaeto and put it into your tank and left, it would probably hang around for a long time. But your tank is still ULNS via other methods. And if you were to trim some strands off every once in a while, you are helping export P a little bit. Keep doing that until there's no more algae. Our systems are closed and artificial, so at any point in time even if I have ULNS, I can add a fuge and cultivate some algae, can't I?

 

The point you and reef dude keep pushing is really this : if your aquarium supports algae growth, then keeping it around and pruning it is not, in and of itself, enough to assist in P removal. But remember we have artificial systems. I can go to the pet store or to the ocean and get some extra algae, and put it into my tank to do its thing. That is NOT the same thing you are preaching. The extra algae which is there does a great job of competing with the nuisance algae, at the very minimum.

 

The real mystery, despite the questionable references you offer, is still how much and HOW QUICKLY is Po really being excreted. That 8% paper incubated algal samples for about 10 hrs total, if I recall. If we rely on that, it means about 20% +/- of daily Pi intake is excreted as Po. Not perfect, but still effective for export. If there is enough algae biomass in the system, then it would shrink quickly. Because fuges tend to be small, there is never enough algae to process lots of P, but it is still contributing. It's basic math. Mathematics cannot be argued. It is always right.

 

So you are right, most of us do not have enough algae to get to ULNS...but if we did have a huge ball of macro attached to our system, and it was pruned regularly, it would export P and dwindle in biomass until it reaches a stasis that can be supported by the existing nutrients.

[xerophyte_nyc]

Tibbsy, your avatar keeps freaking me out!

 

What? If pods are "bad" but you have something keeping them in check, then it doesn't matter. The biomass of the pods doesn't have to "grow" to meet the mandarin's growth. Sure the numbers of pods increase, but the number of pods being eaten grows, too, so the balance is maintained. Or if the balance gets out of whack and you need more mandarin power, you add another one. With the chaeto, you just have to have enough to pull the phosphate out.

 

We're also not talking about some creature consuming another creature. We're talking about microbial metabolism and photosynthesis. Mandarins will stop eating when they are full. Algae just grows. That's it. If there is a constant supply of phosphate, they will continually use it until it runs out. But the bacteria and algae are each undergoing growth, producing their respective phosphate "Waste" that the other party then uses.

 

Ultimately the fuge is a natural filtration source. Is it the only one someone should use? I think that depends on what they are trying to keep. I'm going to get a skimmer for my tank and have that with the fuge. I'll bet the macro grow really well, and I'll bet I get a BUNCH of skimmate.

 

The point here is that nothing is perfect. Use what works for you. But if you think you are going to be a good "scientist" and "educate" people by telling them that a fuge doesn't work and is a bad idea, you are a fool. As scientists we are trained from making sweeping definitive statements like that. If grad school has taught me anything, it's that being open to paradigm shifts and new techniques is a great thing. If it works for someone and it's not inherently flawed, and the science supports it, go for it. The science supports the concept of a fuge, whether or not most people do it correctly. Is it a cure for poor water? Nope.

 

There are plenty of SPS keepers that have fuges. There are plenty that don't. If it works for you, stick with it, but don't say that yours is the only way to do it "correctly"

 

I'm done.

[xerophyte_nyc]

 

We need to look at the entire P cycle and not just Pi in order to get a complete picture of what is going on in our systems. G~

Agreed, but can we also aggressively remove Pi so fast that it drives Po --> Pi to completion at an accelerated rate? Or is some of that Pi reaching other harmful sinks like coral skeleton faster than algae, media or substrate can bind it?

 

Is there any data out there that discusses competition for Pi between coral, GFO, algae, and calcium carbonate?

[xerophyte_nyc]

Suctioning out detritus is a different story, but you certainly can't get all of it during a water change, so a likely majority of it is left in the tank after every water change.

 

You could attach a filter sock to the end of the siphon, shut the pumps and blast away with a baster and gather some junk in that sock as you siphon around. When you finish, dump the water back into the tank and clean the sock. Nice way to remove detritus without mixing a new batch of water.

[JamesHL88]

Zzzzz... Zzzzz...

 

This thread has too many words.

[penfold2]

Agreed, but can we also aggressively remove Pi so fast that it drives Po --> Pi to completion at an accelerated rate? Or is some of that Pi reaching other harmful sinks like coral skeleton faster than algae, media or substrate can bind it?

 

Is there any data out there that discusses competition for Pi between coral, GFO, algae, and calcium carbonate?

 

This is kind of what I was getting at earlier. Can algae take up Pi efficiently enough to make Po relatively inconsequential?

[Reefin Dude]

Yeah, and how people with refugiums and algae don't have any inorganic phosphate because its been absorbed by the algae.

 

Some of it is. Are we finally good with references for algae not being 100% efficient with phosphate uptake? There is still the problem of why is the algae growing in the first place. If the algae was an effective way of removing phosphates, then wouldn't the algae have a hard time growing back after each pruning session? If the system is a mixed reef, then having the algae as a bioindicator is not a bad thing.

 

In order to grow, algae must absorb more P than it excretes. So as long as we are harvesting algae before it dies, algae growth will always result in a net reduction of Pi in the water column. And as I see it, this Pi is all we really care about. P that is locked away (even if only temporarily) in detritus or algal or bacterial biomass is unable to impact coral calcification. The real question is, to what extent is algae able to reduce Pi in the water column? Are properly designed and maintained algae filters able to drive P down to 0.1ppm, 0.01, 0.005? I don't understand why there is so much emphasis on total P within the system when Pi is the only real concern for coral calcification.

 

How often does someone rebuild their nano's? I would do my 1G MacQuarium once a year to get it back to a base state of P. As long as the system is rebuilt in time to remove all of the P that is building up in the system before it can overwhelm the algae, then yes you are fine with using algae in the manner you are suggesting, but it is not a way to maintain a trophic level in the entire system. The total P in the system is still going up. Detrital removal will still need to happen in order to maintain or help in going to a lower nutrient level. Algae removal alone will not suffice.

 

I'm not at all. When organic phosphates become inorganic phosphate in my tank it is removed by my macroalgae and/or my filter media. I'm glad my skimmer is getting some of it before it is converted into inorganic phosphates though.

 

I actually don't agree with water changes being a significant export method. If you have any doubt, I'll gladly come over and take a dump in your pool every morning. You can do 1% water changes like Mr. Doc suggests in the afternoon. Do you think that will keep your pool clean? You are leaving 99% of my crap in the water everyday after your 1% water change, and I'm going to come over tomorrow and take another dump. In order for water changes to be a successful export method, they need to be significant enough to reduce enough of the pollutants more than they will increase before the next water change. It's really difficult to estimate what the amount of water would have to be in order to have a significant impact, but it's probably more water than most people change.

 

Suctioning out detritus is a different story, but you certainly can't get all of it during a water change, so a likely majority of it is left in the tank after every water change.

 

I only grouped them together because they both require the siphon. I also agree that water changes are a poor nutrient export method. What method of nutrient export do you think is the most efficient and why? Just curious because you are interested in pooing in peoples pools. If removing the poo is so desirable from a pool keeping aspect then wouldn't it be for our systems? would you let the poo sit in the pool until it decomposed enough to feed algae in the pool? Why would such an important removal method be ignored in the RFH article? I do not know, i am asking. I obviously think that siphoning the detritus is the most efficient way to remove nutrients.

 

G~

[markalot]

Baby Ruth.

[xerophyte_nyc]

Zzzzz... Zzzzz...

 

This thread has too many words.

 

Corn is a natural depressant. You are not exporting it quick enough.

[nimavafi]

Why would such an important removal method be ignored in the RFH article? I do not know, i am asking. I obviously think that siphoning the detritus is the most efficient way to remove nutrients.

 

G~

Probably because it is GAAP (Generally Accepted Aquarium Principles) to try and siphon out detritus. It is discussed in almost every [good] "Beginner's Guide" and instructed to do it as part of the water change process. The RHF article is written for an active aquarist that already knows the beginners basics and is curious dive into the more technical/advanced topics outside of say, the "nitrogen cycle".

[xerophyte_nyc]

I guess this thread will be meeting its maker...

 

"Refugiums don't export nutrients" was the title. As far as phosphorus and algae goes, this statement is, in theory, correct. Algae in an aquarium does not indiscriminately keep using all the inorganic P (Pi) in the water column. That would kill it because at some point the Pi could run out - this is a survival strategy. Therefore, algae will use Pi at a rate below what can sustain it, based on the levels in the water column.

 

If Pi levels in the water column remain pretty steady (through consistent feeding methods) then algae will reach a steady state - it won't keep gaining biomass.

 

There are other things going on as well which complicate matters: algae also release some organic phosphorus (Po) as they reach a steady state in metabolism, and bacteria can preferentially use that Po instead of consuming Po bound to rock and sand (calcium carbonate). The danger here is that by slowing down bacterial cleavage of Po-Ca, it allows the rock and sand to more quickly reach saturation after which it can no longer bind Po. There is no way to measure this process, and this might eventually lead to a tank crash.

 

Algae (macro, refugium or ATS) can work as a buffer in a reef tank, and as a competitor with nuisance algae for Pi to help reduce it in the display. But macroalgae cannot, on its own, reduce phosphorus levels in the tank. At best it can keep it away from nuisance algae. At ULNS tank levels of Pi, algae are in a starvation mode. This is their lower limit for growth.

 

There are other reasons for having macro besides Pi export. Esthetics, pods, etc. But the aquarist must use other methods for P export.

 

That is my understanding. Peace out y'all. x

[Reefin Dude]

Sorry, a really busy weekend.

 

 

Agreed, but can we also aggressively remove Pi so fast that it drives Po --> Pi to completion at an accelerated rate? Or is some of that Pi reaching other harmful sinks like coral skeleton faster than algae, media or substrate can bind it?

Is there any data out there that discusses competition for Pi between coral, GFO, algae, and calcium carbonate?

 

Of those entities listed algae is the last and least efficient at uptaking P. GFO and calcium carbonate are binding reactions. If the Pi is available and there is an available binding site the Pi will bind. There are not any studies I know of, but some deductive reasoning will get us close. Look at what organism has the fastest growth rate. This will give us a good indicator as to which organism will need more of a given resource, assuming all else is equal, which obviously is a big assumption, but not a bad one to make here considering the need for P by both organisms.

 

To discuss corals we need to look at how the symbiosis works with the corals. If one looks at the symbiosis as only a place of hiding for the algae, then one would think to treat the corals as plants, and therefore the same nutrients that help the algae should help the corals. If we think of the corals and the zoax as nutrient traders, then things get significantly more complicated. SPS corals come from nutrients deserts. This would indicate that these organisms have a tight hold on their nutrients and they work together in order to feed each other. I am curious to know how you all think the coral/zoax symbiosis works.

 

You could attach a filter sock to the end of the siphon, shut the pumps and blast away with a baster and gather some junk in that sock as you siphon around. When you finish, dump the water back into the tank and clean the sock. Nice way to remove detritus without mixing a new batch of water.

 

A new batch of SW would help replenish other elements. I guess this could be done, but if I go through the trouble or removing water, then I am not going to go put dirty water back in. You may be removing the solid wastes, but some of the liquid wastes are still going to get back into the display if you reuse the water.

 

This is kind of what I was getting at earlier. Can algae take up Pi efficiently enough to make Po relatively inconsequential?

 

No, if it did, then it would die off.

 

Probably because it is GAAP (Generally Accepted Aquarium Principles) to try and siphon out detritus. It is discussed in almost every [good] "Beginner's Guide" and instructed to do it as part of the water change process. The RHF article is written for an active aquarist that already knows the beginners basics and is curious dive into the more technical/advanced topics outside of say, the "nitrogen cycle".

 

That does not make sense. Look at the year of the article also. This was right in the wheelhouse of the DSB craze where we were stil being told not to touch our substrates. I think the article deliberately omitted solid waste export because it went against the predominant theories of the time. I think he was playing nice with the other experts at the time. It is an article about phosphates, a pretty extensive one. If everyone here believes that I should siphon out the pool of the turd that Bluprntguy put in there, then shouldn't this method be explained in detail? If we all agree that this turd should be removed from the pool, then why should we leave solid wastes in our systems for the algae? Remove the turd, remove the resources for the algae before they become available. If one removes the solid wastes, which of the other phosphate removal methods would need to be utilized? I just do not see how the best method for nutrient export would be omitted.

 

I guess this thread will be meeting its maker...

 

"Refugiums don't export nutrients" was the title. As far as phosphorus and algae goes, this statement is, in theory, correct. Algae in an aquarium does not indiscriminately keep using all the inorganic P (Pi) in the water column. That would kill it because at some point the Pi could run out - this is a survival strategy. Therefore, algae will use Pi at a rate below what can sustain it, based on the levels in the water column.

Do they remove phosphates yes, do they do it as well as we think they do, know. They release a significant amount of P also. They are not a dead end street for P that finds its way to the phosphate refugium. I am really sorry, that slight detours in threads make you feel that a thread has lost its usefulness. P is a very complex cycle, it is not as simple as anybody thinks it is, and taking the title to this thread at face value is probably more detrimental to the hobby, then abstract aggression that goes on in the thread instead of any useful discussion.

If Pi levels in the water column remain pretty steady (through consistent feeding methods) then algae will reach a steady state - it won't keep gaining biomass.

 

If the point of the algae is to be used as a biomarker, then yes, you are correct. If the thought is to use the algae for nutrient export, then it is not going to be very helpful at all.

 

There are other things going on as well which complicate matters: algae also release some organic phosphorus (Po) as they reach a steady state in metabolism, and bacteria can preferentially use that Po instead of consuming Po bound to rock and sand (calcium carbonate). The danger here is that by slowing down bacterial cleavage of Po-Ca, it allows the rock and sand to more quickly reach saturation after which it can no longer bind Po. There is no way to measure this process, and this might eventually lead to a tank crash.

 

This is what people see when they stop carbon dosing. Bacteria are having a field day with all of the carbon in the water column and thus not going after the P on the calcium carbonate. Using the Po released by the algae. Any Po that does get to the calcium carbonate binds and stays there because the bacteria have much easier fish to fry in the water column. Stop dosing, then the bacteria go after the phosphates in the LR because the readily available carbon source is not there anymore. Carbon dosing makes the system phosphate limiting, while our systems tend to be carbon limiting by nature. The greatest concentrations of phosphates are now on the calcium carbonate. An easier fish to fry, then trying to hunt them down in the water column without a readily accessible form of elemental carbon.

 

Algae (macro, refugium or ATS) can work as a buffer in a reef tank, and as a competitor with nuisance algae for Pi to help reduce it in the display. But macroalgae cannot, on its own, reduce phosphorus levels in the tank. At best it can keep it away from nuisance algae. At ULNS tank levels of Pi, algae are in a starvation mode. This is their lower limit for growth.

 

There are other reasons for having macro besides Pi export. Esthetics, pods, etc. But the aquarist must use other methods for P export.

 

That is my understanding. Peace out y'all. x

 

I think that it is more accurate to say that a phosphate refugium is outcompeting the display for detritus. I know it sounds like it is splitting hairs, but it helps in thinking about better ways to keep nutrients under control. If one thinks of Pi instead of total P, they can be going after the wrong P and not actually getting anywhere with respect to lowing the total P in the system.

 

G~

[Subsea]

I have been at this hobby for 40 years and am the caricature of Old School. In addittion to a BS in Marine Engineering, I have the highest waste water certification available. I teach people how to stir shit and I got paid to do it. In the last ten years, this hobby has evolved to the point that scientist can learn from dedicated hobbiest that pursue knowledge. I have seen much coorporation between academia and reef hobbiest. The discussion in this thread is a good indicator on how complex this hobby is. When Martin Moe, PhD in marine biology, said in 1970 is as true then as it is today, "This hobby is not rocket science, it is more complicated".

 

La bonne temps roulee,

Patrick

[Dmarmontello]

Best thread I have followed in a long time... but my head hurts.

[Subsea]

When getting certified in waste water treatment, I was made aware of a study which showed how when bacteria were stressed, the net reaction was a massive increase by bacteria in uptake of phosphate from the water column. This was put into practice with a Shriver patented process in munincipal activated sluge methods. By turning off oxygen input, as oxygen gradient went faculative just before anerobic, the air was turned on. According to this study during the 1970's, the stressed bacteria took up phosphate to repair themselves. Maybe so. In reading SamGamble on Jaubert Plenumn, there are two distinct denitification bacteria. The bacteria which live in the faculative zone are 100 times more productive with denitrification than the sulfide bacteria that live in the absence of oxygen. I have used Jaubert Plenums for twenty years. I have used mud/macro refugiums for ten years. Without a doubt, the combination of these two methods requires minimal maintenance on my part.

When the biofilter is also the incubator of everything in the bottom of the food chain and the refugium becomes a natural zooplankton generator. As you may guess, if this thread was a poll, my vote is long live the refugium.

 

La bonne temps roulee,

Patrick

[Reefin Dude]

What facultative means biologically.

 

Some information on what a facultative lagoon is and how they operate. Not sure I would want these areas in my system. These are the areas that are helping with the transformation of Po to Pi. The question again is why have these areas if you just remove the solid wastes in the first place.

 

Lets say the these areas were producing plankton. It would still not be net loss of matter from these areas. It takes nutrients to make nutrients. No organism is 100% efficient, let alone better than 100% efficient. Material is still building up in the substrate.

 

G~

[tibbsy07]

Tibbsy, your avatar keeps freaking me out!

Bubbles is hilarious and so I like having him as my avatar. I have it for my twitter account, too. Keeps me laughing.