Refugiums don't export nutrients?

[Subsea]

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~

I am somewhat confused about "Why have these areas, if you just remove the soloid wastes in the first place?" I thought that the question was "Are refugiums obsolete?"

With respect to what is the point of the refugium? My answer is to produce food for the inhabitants of my mixed garden reef. Just this past year, I have started keeping Sea Apples and other NPS. For me, this is the most labor free system that I have, yet it is the most rewarding for me to view. I consider that using detritus as a waste product to produce the food chain that sustains the reef tank is a useful method of reefkeeping. There are many methods that work superbly. This is my method of choice. I am not trying to win a point of view, I merely state what works for me.

[Subsea]

http://www.owp.csus.edu/glossary/facultative-bacteria.php

 

I prefer this definition of faculative bacteria as it is accurate for what happens in healty deep sand beds. The other link describes one distinct faculative bacteria that exists during fermentation. Not exactly applicable to the normal dsb.

[Subsea]

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~

 

With respect to material building up in the substrate, what material are you talking about? If you had said biomass increases, I agree. If you say, detritus builds up, I disagree. In a properly operating sandbed with appropiate janitors and detrivores, there will be no accumulation of detritus. Sandbed processes waste. Sandbed feeds reef. I like it that way. I can see a beauty in the natural processes. There is elegance in simplicity.

[brandon429]

I wish someone would take a huge lump of green hair algae, dessicate and pestle it into the finest surface area you can produce and dissolve that into known zero phosphate water, post the new phosphate measures that would be really helpful to know for this and future discussions. the worst possible outcome of phosphates taken back from algae would be a helpful quantification

 

publications may exist for P measures in common algae, Im talking a practical aquarist extraction compared to what we are talking about here, the donation of P into the environment by algae measured in some way that it makes sense to a passing reader

 

we are assuming that uncleaned detritus will contribute more than this one off run if allowed to accumulate and cycle phosphate.

[markalot]

With respect to material building up in the substrate, what material are you talking about? If you had said biomass increases, I agree. If you say, detritus builds up, I disagree. In a properly operating sandbed with appropiate janitors and detrivores, there will be no accumulation of detritus. Sandbed processes waste. Sandbed feeds reef. I like it that way. I can see a beauty in the natural processes. There is elegance in simplicity.

 

There is always waste, even the poo eaters poop. So what gives in the end?

[xerophyte_nyc]

There is always waste, even the poo eaters poop. So what gives in the end?

Some wastes leave in gaseous form...nitrogen ultimately can become nitrous oxide gas, carbons turn into CO2 gas, there are others. Phosphate has to be physically eliminated - water changes, skimmers, removing detritus...and some binds to rock and substrate. Eventually the rock and sand can become saturated. Growing organisms trap nutrients in their bodies. Algae can be pruned. Coral is fragged.

 

If all those things balance each other out, then nothing gives. If some aspect is out of whack, sooner or later something will give, aka tank crash.

[Subsea]

There is always waste, even the poo eaters poop. So what gives in the end?

Each successive level of sand bed critters processes waste to the next level of processing. It is called the food chain.

[markalot]

Each successive level of sand bed critters processes waste to the next level of processing. It is called the food chain.

 

A complete food chain, in an enclosed system? Mercy.

[Subsea]

The system is not completely enclosed. Oxygen and carbon dioxide exchange gases. Hobbiest adds food. Hobbiest removes nutrients by prunning macro.

[markalot]

Problem is, the macros have no roots. It's all about the substrate, not the water, IMO. I think this is where the Mangrove idea enters the picture, but the system is still not complete. You can delay, but you can't prevent. Again, IMO.

[xerophyte_nyc]

Problem is, the macros have no roots. It's all about the substrate, not the water, IMO. I think this is where the Mangrove idea enters the picture, but the system is still not complete. You can delay, but you can't prevent. Again, IMO.

 

Exactly. That's the biggest problem, IMO. You can't measure substrate capacity.

[Subsea]

Problem is, the macros have no roots. It's all about the substrate, not the water, IMO. I think this is where the Mangrove idea enters the picture, but the system is still not complete. You can delay, but you can't prevent. Again, IMO.

 

I agree with the complexity of the relationship between processes in substarate and processes in the bulk water. They are independant but in some areas they are connected and in all cases they make up the eco system we call our reef tank. It is for this reason that I provide as many complex nutrient recycle process as I can. In my oldest system at ten years the 75 gallon display tank has a mature Jaubert Plenumn dsb using aroggonite 2mm-5mm. The mud/macro refugium has been in place for the samed ten years. When I purchased the system, it had an established "Miracle Mud" filter. I have added nothing to this system except detritus which enters in with unfiltered tank water. This mud filter is spongy to the touch and is essentially a sesspool crawling with micro inverts of all types. I harvest C. Prolifera and feed numerous fish. Nutrient recycling and nutrtient expor both happen with the prunned macro. Nutrient recycling happens within the system with the numerous spores being introduced to the main tank from the refugium. I really don't care about debatting the technical reason why. I provide good practice methods that are compatiable with each other. At different times each part of the method plays its role. If I set up my biodiversity properly everything works automatically with out intervention. As much as I can, I treat the system. I have been reefing for 40 years. Only this past year have I kept Sea Apples in my sytem. One year later, I have six apples in my garden. It gives me great pleasure to stir the top inch of sand bed and watch as filter feeders eat both bacteria and minute detrivores that are stirred up.

The discussion in this thread is as good as I have read in those 40 years. Only through respectful discussion of different ways to see this marvelous hobby will we as hobbiest rise to the challenge to improve.

La bonne temps roulee,

Patrick

[markalot]

Thanks Patrick.

 

I think we need to make sure we're all clear on the goals as well, since there are many many ways to run a reef tank.

 

1. On one extreme, if I can use that word, there is the goal of a clean algae free SPS system with very low nutrients, rapid SPS growth and great coloration. Great coloration is somewhat subjective, of course.

 

2. On the other extreme is the goal of a long lived system that might not be picture perfect but meets the hobbyists needs. Picture perfect is subjective.

 

Perhaps these two goals should meet, but I continue to think, in my brain, that while #1 can last forever with regular maintenance the tolerance for neglect (sometimes called real life intrusions) is much lower than #2.

 

I tend to lean toward #2 in the same manner that I like planted tanks, but not picture perfect algae free aquascapes.

 

And I ask this of everyone who says they have old tanks ... give us pictures so we can set expectations!

[xerophyte_nyc]

1. On one extreme, if I can use that word, there is the goal of a clean algae free SPS system with very low nutrients, rapid SPS growth and great coloration. Great coloration is somewhat subjective, of course.

 

I think there is no arguing that more labor is needed to achieve 1, than 2. You can make an argument that the primary difference between 1 and 2 is the level of P in the tank. N we can export well, more or less.

 

 

2. On the other extreme is the goal of a long lived system that might not be picture perfect but meets the hobbyists needs. Picture perfect is subjective.

 

Perhaps these two goals should meet, but I continue to think, in my brain, that while #1 can last forever with regular maintenance the tolerance for neglect (sometimes called real life intrusions) is much lower than #2.

 

Agreed. Most of us probably trend towards the lower/ middle end nutrient levels of 2. While a higher level of invisible Po in our tanks may not be directly detrimental to calcifying coral, the accumulation of detritus and saturation of Ca-substrate binding is an important consideration long term.

 

I tend to lean toward #2 in the same manner that I like planted tanks, but not picture perfect algae free aquascapes.

 

And I ask this of everyone who says they have old tanks ... give us pictures so we can set expectations!

[Reefin Dude]

 

 

Each successive level of sand bed critters processes waste to the next level of processing. It is called the food chain.

 

Every organism poos. At some point there is organic material that can not be converted. The most common problem is a lack of easily available elemental carbon for the bacteria. Eating another organisms poo is not very efficient. Just about everything of any use has already been removed by the other organism. Eventually you are left with bacterial flock. Dead bacterium.

 

 

 

 

Subsea- Do you have a good graphic showing how a waste management facilities work? Could you please point out the areas that are able to support life other than bacterial? At what point would you want to use the water coming from these facilities for your make up water or top off water? How often do the initial ponds need to be emptied of accumulated waste products?

 

 

A complete food chain, in an enclosed system? Mercy.

 

We can thank the "sand experts" for this thinking.

 

if this was actually the case, then we would be doing something that waste managers have not been able to do for 2000years.

 

The system is not completely enclosed. Oxygen and carbon dioxide exchange gases. Hobbiest adds food. Hobbiest removes nutrients by prunning macro.

 

As was discussed earlier in this thread. Algae uptakes Pi, it does not uptake Po, and in fact being an organism also releases Po as a waste product. The P cycle is very difficult to get ones head around. Our test kits only test Pi, it is missing over half of the P picture. The problem in our systems is generally not carbon, oxygen, or nitrogen. It is getting the P out in a manner that is as close to the P coming in without storing huge amounts of it in biomass or calcium carbonate.

 

With respect to material building up in the substrate, what material are you talking about? If you had said biomass increases, I agree. If you say, detritus builds up, I disagree. In a properly operating sandbed with appropiate janitors and detrivores, there will be no accumulation of detritus. Sandbed processes waste. Sandbed feeds reef. I like it that way. I can see a beauty in the natural processes. There is elegance in simplicity.

 

Elemental phosphorus is the problem child here. Detritus build up. There is unfortunately no way to avoid this. Even those that have BB tanks have to remove the detritus. Those with substrates just hide it within the grains of sand. It is still there. The growth of biomass proves this. They have to have something to eat. What is elegant is calcium carbonates amazing ability to bind phosphates. That is what is truly amazing here.

 

I agree with the complexity of the relationship between processes in substarate and processes in the bulk water. They are independant but in some areas they are connected and in all cases they make up the eco system we call our reef tank. It is for this reason that I provide as many complex nutrient recycle process as I can. In my oldest system at ten years the 75 gallon display tank has a mature Jaubert Plenumn dsb using aroggonite 2mm-5mm. The mud/macro refugium has been in place for the samed ten years. When I purchased the system, it had an established "Miracle Mud" filter. I have added nothing to this system except detritus which enters in with unfiltered tank water. This mud filter is spongy to the touch and is essentially a sesspool crawling with micro inverts of all types. I harvest C. Prolifera and feed numerous fish. Nutrient recycling and nutrtient expor both happen with the prunned macro. Nutrient recycling happens within the system with the numerous spores being introduced to the main tank from the refugium. I really don't care about debatting the technical reason why. I provide good practice methods that are compatiable with each other. At different times each part of the method plays its role. If I set up my biodiversity properly everything works automatically with out intervention. As much as I can, I treat the system. I have been reefing for 40 years. Only this past year have I kept Sea Apples in my sytem. One year later, I have six apples in my garden. It gives me great pleasure to stir the top inch of sand bed and watch as filter feeders eat both bacteria and minute detrivores that are stirred up.

The discussion in this thread is as good as I have read in those 40 years. Only through respectful discussion of different ways to see this marvelous hobby will we as hobbiest rise to the challenge to improve.

La bonne temps roulee,

Patrick

 

Now we are talking about something else. Which is fine, but the production of food for the other critters in the system still points to the fact that the total amount of nutrients in the system is increasing. An organism is not going to produce spores that use up more than the total amount of material in the original organism. The original organism still needs to live. There is nothing wrong with this approach as long the aquarist knows that the total amount of nutrients in the system is increasing. Whatever is producing the "food" for the system also has to live and be thriving. This can be all and good as long as the other organisms wanting to be kept can also survive in this trophic level. Some organisms such as SPS have adapted to living in Pi limited areas, while sea apples are just the opposite they filter feed on the organisms leaving off of the Pi in the water column. They come from completely different environments. There is obviously a middle ground, but that is a compromise environment for the two organisms. The healthier one gets, the harder it is for the other to be healthy.

 

At some point something has to give. It sure would be great if our systems somehow managed to make matter disappear, but they do not.

 

G~

[Amphiprion1]

 

And I ask this of everyone who says they have old tanks ... give us pictures so we can set expectations!

 

My tank wasn't perfect, but was 14 years old at the time this pic was taken, having survived storms and hurricanes. I had it set up for 2 more years after the photo was taken--always had a refugium and, at the time, a protein skimmer. All corals, minus the Montipora, Pocillopora and Acropora were original and were roughly the same age. Clownfish in pic were 15 years old, added from a tank upgrade. Like I said earlier, it is what works best for me and was more practical.

 

[markalot]

Gorgeous, thanks for posting the pic. It looks perfect to me, I can only hope that I can keep a tank running for that long and look so good.

 

I'd call the hardware retro, but of course I'm sure it was brand new when you started.

[Nano sapiens]

Refugium, or no refugium, either way can work, but one still needs some form of waste product removal for long term health. In this 'mixed' 50g tank (no Mech/Chem filtration, no skimmer, 'empty' sump, so no refugium, 10% yearly WC, pure Kalkwasser top-off) I was removing ~30 'floater' mushrooms a month as well as monthly SB vacuuming. It was running continuously for nearly 10 years. Might not have been all that pretty, but it was nearly maintenance free'

 

[Amphiprion1]

Gorgeous, thanks for posting the pic. It looks perfect to me, I can only hope that I can keep a tank running for that long and look so good.

 

I'd call the hardware retro, but of course I'm sure it was brand new when you started.

 

Thanks!

 

Lol, I guess the equipment is retro by standards now, but yeah, that was cutting edge at the time. We had finally started moving away from plain maxijets.

[Subsea]

Every organism poos. At some point there is organic material that can not be converted. The most common problem is a lack of easily available elemental carbon for the bacteria. Eating another organisms poo is not very efficient. Just about everything of any use has already been removed by the other organism. Eventually you are left with bacterial flock. Dead bacterium.

 

 

 

 

Subsea- Do you have a good graphic showing how a waste management facilities work? Could you please point out the areas that are able to support life other than bacterial? At what point would you want to use the water coming from these facilities for your make up water or top off water? How often do the initial ponds need to be emptied of accumulated waste products?

 

 

 

We can thank the "sand experts" for this thinking.

 

if this was actually the case, then we would be doing something that waste managers have not been able to do for 2000years.

 

 

As was discussed earlier in this thread. Algae uptakes Pi, it does not uptake Po, and in fact being an organism also releases Po as a waste product. The P cycle is very difficult to get ones head around. Our test kits only test Pi, it is missing over half of the P picture. The problem in our systems is generally not carbon, oxygen, or nitrogen. It is getting the P out in a manner that is as close to the P coming in without storing huge amounts of it in biomass or calcium carbonate.

 

 

Elemental phosphorus is the problem child here. Detritus build up. There is unfortunately no way to avoid this. Even those that have BB tanks have to remove the detritus. Those with substrates just hide it within the grains of sand. It is still there. The growth of biomass proves this. They have to have something to eat. What is elegant is calcium carbonates amazing ability to bind phosphates. That is what is truly amazing here.

 

 

Now we are talking about something else. Which is fine, but the production of food for the other critters in the system still points to the fact that the total amount of nutrients in the system is increasing. An organism is not going to produce spores that use up more than the total amount of material in the original organism. The original organism still needs to live. There is nothing wrong with this approach as long the aquarist knows that the total amount of nutrients in the system is increasing. Whatever is producing the "food" for the system also has to live and be thriving. This can be all and good as long as the other organisms wanting to be kept can also survive in this trophic level. Some organisms such as SPS have adapted to living in Pi limited areas, while sea apples are just the opposite they filter feed on the organisms leaving off of the Pi in the water column. They come from completely different environments. There is obviously a middle ground, but that is a compromise environment for the two organisms. The healthier one gets, the harder it is for the other to be healthy.

 

At some point something has to give. It sure would be great if our systems somehow managed to make matter disappear, but they do not.

 

G~

After reading your points, I realized the what you call increasing nutrients, I call increasing biomass. Coral, fish, macro, bacteria, janitors and detrivores all increase in mass. That is where the detritus goes. At some point, the biomass uses up all the available space and every thing crashes. I think that before the tank runs out of available water, the hobiest would have done something like prunning and removing biomass.

 

Skimmerless with no water changes for ten years..

[Subsea]

Some years back, Purina funded research that stacked pigs three tiers high. Only the first tier at the top was feed food. The second and third tier eat pig droppins from the above tier. The second tier gained the most weight with the bottom tier equal to the weight of the top tier.

By eating deritus the second level of pigs gained more weight than the first level which eat prepared food. Who was your source of info about eating another organisms poop not being efficient?

[xerophyte_nyc]

Some years back, Purina funded research that stacked pigs three tiers high. Only the first tier at the top was feed food. The second and third tier eat pig droppins from the above tier. The second tier gained the most weight with the bottom tier equal to the weight of the top tier.

By eating deritus the second level of pigs gained more weight than the first level which eat prepared food. Who was your source of info about eating another organisms poop not being efficient?

 

So I guess the 2nd level pigs were eating food that had a higher % of absorbable nutrition since it has already passed through some enzymatic degradation?

 

Reminds me of a sick movie called "Human Centipede".

[Subsea]

 

So I guess the 2nd level pigs were eating food that had a higher % of absorbable nutrition since it has already passed through some enzymatic degradation?

 

Reminds me of a sick movie called "Human Centipede".

 

Correct. Enzyme processes in the above tier started the process to make waste food for the next tier. In a similiar way, organism in dsb process waste for the next tier of micro organisms.

La bonne temps roulee,

Patrick

[albertthiel]

Correct. Enzyme processes in the above tier started the process to make waste food for the next tier. In a similiar way, organism in dsb process waste for the next tier of micro organisms.

La bonne temps roulee,

Patrick

 

For Enzyme action on Marine Macro Algae check out this article ...

 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2989956

[Subsea]

Albert,

In my early years in this marvelous hobby, your website provided much insight into this passion of reefkeeping that has carried me on this journey that has lasted 40 years. I thank you for being a leader in providing understanding and knowledge. If you travel to Austin, Tx you have an open invite to tour my facility, AquacultureRanch. I always show Southern Hospitality, Cajun style.

La bonne temps roulee,

Patrick