Refugiums don't export nutrients?

[Subsea]

www.pnas.org/content/106/50/21013.full

 

www.pnas.org/content/106/50/21219.full

 

Heterotrophic marine bacteria assimilate organic P directly. They have more metabolic machinery to do this, compared to alkaline phosphatase which is needed to get P from rock. Alk p-ase assays underestimate the nutrient levels in the water.

 

Want more proof? Just look through the numerous FTS on this forum. Lots of nice looking macro. If nutrients were low, the macro would not grow. Yes we continually feed, and the macro continually exports a small amount. But it does not export what you import. An earlier referenced study demonstrates that unequivocally, where in a 4 hour period algae excreted P equivalent to 8% of bacterial P biomass. In a couple of days, the algae could supply all the bacterial P needs (in reality that would never happen, some sort of equilibrium would be established first).

 

Nobody here is suggesting that macro be abandoned as a means of export. We just need to understand that it is not terribly good at it. No organism assimilate nutrients well. It takes 6 pounds of high quality grain to give you 1 pound of beef. Not efficient at all. Algae is not different than other life on earth. There is waste being produced during growth. In the ocean this waste is washed away and P is buried into the ocean floor. Our reef tanks do not have those things so we have to do it ourselves.

 

 

Algae is differerent than a cow. As we get up into the efficiency of converting nutrients to biomass, to compare mammals to macro and micro algae assimilation efficiency is a travesty of truth.

[Griever]

You are right, it is not possible. It's not that algae is contributing to the net phosphorus in the tank. The point being made is that as the algae grows it is not assimilating enough phosphorus for there to be a net system export at the time it is harvested, because during the period it has been growing, more phosphorus enters the algae to be excreted, than enters the algae towards biomass. It's like having a 5 gallon bucket and you keep adding more and more water, there could be 100 gallons that spilled but when you check the bucket it is only 5 gallons even though you poured much more than 5 gallons. The only way for this to work would be to dump the bucket each time before it fills up.

 

However, when you take into consideration that some of this phosphorus that leaves the algae then contributes another food source for the system's bacteria, which in turn make more food for the algae, you then see how it can indeed be detrimental to keep the algae, if the goal is to reduce phosphorus appreciably. It is actually more work to try and remove organic phosphorus this way. If algae were eliminated completely, you are also cutting off a bacterial food source and thereby making it easier to lower P in the tank because you can try to get it all before it gets converted to Pi.

 

It's really about controlling the bacteria. If you could wipe out all the bacteria with a systemic antibiotic, you would see all the algae die because they can't get Pi from anywhere. But if you could kill all the algae in one shot, bacteria can still use P that is bound to the rock. It is harder to control bacteria. If you want a LNS, then don't feed the bacteria any more than is necessary.

 

This makes a lot more sense, and is very well explained. Thank you for directly answering my question!

 

Do you have some reading on the chemical reactions that are occuring in the Po to Pi cycle? I'd like to know more about the efficiencies of the reactions and any additional inputs/outputs of the cycle.

 

From reading some other posts, it sounds like one of the biggest potential drawbacks of using Macro or an ATS is that we're introducing an easy source of Pi for bacteria, so they're not working as hard to strip Pi out of what's been bound to the substrate and rock? This then extrapolates to years down the road when the substrate/rock is saturated and all of a sudden we have an excess of Pi with no where to go.

 

My question with this theory is when this 'crash' happens, why is it sudden and why doesn't the bacteria just increase in growth to keep up with the increase in nutrients? Why do bacteria work less hard to get to the Pi in rocks instead of doing both and increasing in colony size to match the available nutrients?

 

I think this is a great discussion. Lots of knowledge being challenged.

[xerophyte_nyc]

Algae is differerent than a cow. As we get up into the efficiency of convedrting nutrients to biomass, to compare mammals to macro and micro algae assimilation efficiency is a travesty of truth.

 

I was just showing that input ≠ output.

[Subsea]

Let us talk about the crash that everyone says eventually happens. Consider that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. When is eventually?

 

I have maintained dsb for 40 years. I now have numerous tank biothemes set up for years. My favorite system is a 75G Jaubert Plenumn dsb on top with a 30G eco-system mud/macro filter on bottom. It has been set up for ten years. Skimmerless with no water change performed in ten years. I use activated carbon consistently as chemical filtration. I feed heavily with much macro, softies, LPS, NPS, and a large crop of cannivore anemonies. This past year, I kept my first Sea Apple and now have ten in my orchid. Because of my choices of live stock (biomass or as some choose to say, "nutrients"), I aim to run high nutrients. All of my lagoon tanks run between 1ppm and 5ppm total nitrates. I do not ever measure phosphate. I use bioindicators. They do not make mistakes. I look at the bioindicators as a sign of dynamic equilibrium. The one constant in the universe is dynamic equilibrium. When we integrate manipulating certain parameters with a definite bioindicator targeted to thrive, we become successful reefkeepers and good stewards to the life in our tanks. For some, the accomplishment of this is an art. I enjoy maintaining multiple nutrient pathways to maximize complex food webs. I consider myself a sustainable farmer that enjoys this fascination we call reefkeeping. I certenly don't understand the micro details on how sand bed nutrient processes work. I employ what I do know. It works for me.

[xerophyte_nyc]

Let us talk about the crash that everyone says eventually happens. Consider that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. When is eventually?

 

That's the big question. Nobody knows. We can only make a guess based on other people's experiences, and try to come up with an explanation as to why it happened. Everyone's tank is so vastly different that we cannot make any rules about if/ when a tank crash is inevitable. Of course a high nutrient biotope is clearly much less likely to crash than a tank filled with Acropora that doesn't tolerate high nutrients.

 

 

I have maintained dsb for 40 years. I now have numerous tank biothemes set up for years. My favorite system is a 75G Jaubert Plenumn dsb on top with an eco-system mud/macro filter on bottom. It has been set up for ten years. Skimmerless with no water change performed in ten years. I use activated carbon consistently as chemical filtration. I feed heavily with much macro, softies, LPS, NPS, and a large crop of cannivore anemonies.

 

Obviously you know what you are doing. A DSB sinks lots of phosphorus. Most importantly, you have wisely chosen the creatures you want to enjoy.

 

This past year, I kept my first Sea Apple and now have ten in my orchid. Because of my choices of live stock (biomass or as some choose to say, "nutrients"), I aim to run high nutrients. All of my lagoon tanks run between 1ppm and 5ppm total nitrates. I do not ever measure phosphate. I use bioindicators. They do not make mistakes. I look at the bioindicators as a sign of dynamic equilibrium. The one constant in the universe is dynamic equilibrium. When we integrate manipulating certain parameters with a definite bioindicator targeted to thrive, we become successful reefkeepers and good stewards to the life in our tanks. For some, the accomplishment of this is an art. I enjoy maintaining multiple nutrient pathways to maximize complex food webs. I consider myself a sustainable farmer that enjoys this fascination we call reefkeeping. I certenly don't understand the micro details on how sand bed nutrient processes work. I employ what I do know. It works for me.

 

I don't know about others on this thread, but as for me, I never told anyone nor did I ever suggest to not use a DSB or a refugium or keeping macroalgae. This thread is about understanding the phosphorus cycle and how we think it pertains to our tanks.

 

YMMV

[brandon429]

NYC

would you summarize something for me I haven't got out of the thread yet, no links or graphs or anything, just a simple explanation as you've read the links about the actual mechanism of leaking phosphate after its been taken up by algae, what is the mechanism that gets the Pi back to bacteria. Im guessing it may be:

 

-a form of commensalism or mutualism where the bacteria are eating or lysing plant material to access it. In which case Im not sure how freely donated that would be

 

-inside the algae cell there are areas for the phosphate to reside, unbound in plant matrix, and an active pump at the cost of energy that puts it back out of the vacuole or whatever holding facility it was in to the surrounding water

 

-a self liberating system where phosphate truly bound as plant matrix is digested and exuded

 

 

any explanation other than a link would do me 20 pages of right justice thanks

B

[xerophyte_nyc]

Do you have some reading on the chemical reactions that are occuring in the Po to Pi cycle? I'd like to know more about the efficiencies of the reactions and any additional inputs/outputs of the cycle.

 

Google searches will usually give some decent links to scholarly works. I don't keep a bibliography of these things, maybe someone else here does?

 

 

From reading some other posts, it sounds like one of the biggest potential drawbacks of using Macro or an ATS is that we're introducing an easy source of Pi for bacteria, so they're not working as hard to strip Pi out of what's been bound to the substrate and rock? This then extrapolates to years down the road when the substrate/rock is saturated and all of a sudden we have an excess of Pi with no where to go.

 

That's the same take-home message I see. At that point when the substrate is saturated, the tank becomes like a BB system because the sand is no longer functional, its like having nothing there. The nice thing is that it's not difficult or expensive to replace the sandbed in portions periodically. But how often and how much? I don't know.

 

My question with this theory is when this 'crash' happens, why is it sudden and why doesn't the bacteria just increase in growth to keep up with the increase in nutrients? Why do bacteria work less hard to get to the Pi in rocks instead of doing both and increasing in colony size to match the available nutrients?

 

Good question. I don't have an answer. Based on other non-marine biologic systems, a common theme is tolerance to poor conditions, and then a sudden problem. For example: your coronary arteries continue to get clogged over time, without much warning, then all of a sudden - boom, heart attack.

 

I think this is a great discussion. Lots of knowledge being challenged.

 

Agreed. These forums are probably ahead of the mainstream hobby literature.

 

NYC

would you summarize something for me I haven't got out of the thread yet, no links or graphs or anything, just a simple explanation as you've read the links about the actual mechanism of leaking phosphate after its been taken up by algae, what is the mechanism that gets the Pi back to bacteria. Im guessing it may be:

 

-a form of commensalism or mutualism where the bacteria are eating or lysing plant material to access it. In which case Im not sure how freely donated that would be

 

-inside the algae cell there are areas for the phosphate to reside, unbound in plant matrix, and an active pump at the cost of energy that puts it back out of the vacuole or whatever holding facility it was in to the surrounding water

 

-a self liberating system where phosphate truly bound as plant matrix is digested and exuded

 

 

any explanation other than a link would do me 20 pages of right justice thanks

B

 

In that same study, IIRC they estimated that a 28% compartment of P in algae biomass is available from which P exchange occurs extracellularly. The rest I presume is bound to the cellular structure.

[xerophyte_nyc]

NYC

would you summarize something for me I haven't got out of the thread yet, no links or graphs or anything, just a simple explanation as you've read the links about the actual mechanism of leaking phosphate after its been taken up by algae, what is the mechanism that gets the Pi back to bacteria. Im guessing it may be:

 

-a form of commensalism or mutualism where the bacteria are eating or lysing plant material to access it. In which case Im not sure how freely donated that would be

 

-inside the algae cell there are areas for the phosphate to reside, unbound in plant matrix, and an active pump at the cost of energy that puts it back out of the vacuole or whatever holding facility it was in to the surrounding water

 

-a self liberating system where phosphate truly bound as plant matrix is digested and exuded

 

 

any explanation other than a link would do me 20 pages of right justice thanks

B

 

Here is a link to that article: http://horizon.documentation.ird.fr/exl-doc/pleins_textes/pleins_textes_7/b_fdi_55-56/010023665.pdf

 

 

"Organic excretion seems then to be related to the physiological condition of cells, but is as yet unexplained. We have been led to admit the existence of a separate compartment at isotopic equilibrium as the main source of excreted matter. Its average importance is 28% of P"

I would love to see some newer experiments or a follow up to this one, I just haven't looked hard enough.

[Subsea]

Actually the thread title is very misleading. However, it was provocative enough to bring a good dialogue together.

 

I suspect my goals are much different than the main stream hobbiest. The intellectual/scientific is mostly irrelavant to me if I have mastered the processes to control the nutient sink and extract what I require for target biomass growth.

[brandon429]

NYC there are two neat takeaway points on that link and explanation, thanks for providing. One is that bound phosphate isn't released, its a compartmentalized release not that it matters but at least that helps me understand the plant isn't digesting itself.

 

I guess thats the part we are benefitting from, the binding of Pi into plant matrix until degredation releases it.

 

and lastly, I forgot to see what species was involved in the study and if its the 3 or 4 major kinds we use in our hobby

[Nano sapiens]

That's the same take-home message I see. At that point when the substrate is saturated, the tank becomes like a BB system because the sand is no longer functional, its like having nothing there. The nice thing is that it's not difficult or expensive to replace the sandbed in portions periodically. But how often and how much? I don't know.

 

 

Good question. I don't have an answer. Based on other non-marine biologic systems, a common theme is tolerance to poor conditions, and then a sudden problem. For example: your coronary arteries continue to get clogged over time, without much warning, then all of a sudden - boom, heart attack.

 

We are getting into a very interesting area that needs more study when we start looking at long-term tank setups and how nutrients are used/cycled. I suspect we'd see some interesting surprises.

 

What is interesting to me is that you can have completely different tanks setups that can properly function for a very long time. Whatever the setup, 'balance' and 'equilibrium' would be the catch phrases that come to mind. ,

 

I can speak to shallow SB systems since I have used this method exclusively for nearly 30 years. I'll go out on a limb and posit that much of the phosphate liberated by bacterial activity in the substratum is absorbed by the resident detritus. If this detritus is regularly exported out of the system, along with some phosphate removal via nuisance algae removal and assimilation by other living organisms, the effect can be a nicely balanced system that wouldn't need to have the substrate replaced. In this scenario, system balance and health is ultimately dependent on the aquarist's tank feeding and waste removal regimen.

[Subsea]

 

We are getting into a very interesting area that needs more study when we start looking at long-term tank setups and how nutrients are used/cycled. I suspect we'd see some interesting surprises.

 

What is interesting to me is that you can have completely different tanks setups that can properly function for a very long time. Whatever the setup, 'balance' and 'equilibrium' would be the catch phrases that come to mind. ,

 

I can speak to shallow SB systems since I have used this method exclusively for nearly 30 years. I'll go out on a limb and posit that much of the phosphate liberated by bacterial activity in the substratum is absorbed by the resident detritus. If this detritus is regularly exported out of the system, along with some phosphate removal via nuisance algae removal and assimilation by other living organisms, the effect can be a nicely balanced system that wouldn't need to have the substrate replaced. In this scenario, system balance and health is ultimately dependent on the aquarist's tank feeding and waste removal regimen.

 

AMEN. Thank you brother. I like "more than one way to skin a cat". It provides the stimulis to keep this a passion for 40 years. I will soon transfer threads that I have started on this website, into a subforum which is my company, Aquaculture Ranch. It is a LLC registered in Texas as a maraculture facility with zero discharge, using Trinity Aquifier unfiltered water. All makeup goes straight into tanks with no filtration. In some cases I hold water in containment for various reasons with makeup held in quasai settling basins. At this time, I have well over 20K containment with surface containment available to 2 million gallons. Remember, the Texas Hill Country is going thru a 200 year drought. Il fait Chaud.

 

Without a doubt, this thread has contained enormous information. It is up to each of us to apply that information to how we maintain and view this wonderfully complex eco system. You can go from the micro to the macro to the hostistic and view it as a community in harmony, hopefully.

 

I look forward to more discussions of this caliber. If people have ears to hear, they will listen. This is my introduction to members on this thread of my new community sponsorship of Nano Reef.

 

La bonne temps roulee,

Patrick Castille

Mgr. of Aquaculture Farms, LLC

[brandon429]

its sista!

[Reefin Dude]

You mean Frosted Flakes are not part of a complete breakfast along with my toast and OJ? Are you calling Tony the Tiger a liar?

 

lol. No. Tony the Tiger is not a liar when it comes to breakfast, but having Frosted Flakes only for lunch and dinner also can become a problem.

 

Reefer Dude,

To further make the point of macro algae uptake of phosphate with a net loss of total phosphate when macro is exported, I say this. If inorganic phosphate in substrate is converted to organic phosphate in the water column and is then assimilated in macro algae biomass, when the macro is prunned and removed what form of phosphate left the system. You would probably say organic phosphate left the system. I am an engineer. The fact that inorganic phosphate in substrate has decreased thru bacteria or macro enzyme action means that total inorganic phosphate is less. When I remove macro, would you concur that the total phosphate has been decreased? I would. You have consistently railed against macro as a phosphate export mechanism. In the above sceanario, please explain how macro is not a phosphate export method. Remember, no bs.

Patrick

 

Are we talking about within a substrate, water column, or entire system? Phosphates get converted back and forth depending on the organism which is utilizing at that time. Testing for Pi is not a good indicator of total P in a system. A low Pi reading just means that the P is being utilized by other organisms or into the calcium carbonate matrix. It does not mean that the total P in the system is going down. To know this one just needs to look at what is in the substrate. If there is any detritus or organisms in the substrate, then there is an increase in total P in the substrate and not a decrease in total P in the substrate.

 

Algae is not an efficient phosphate export method. Does it remove the P that is bound within its structure yes. Nobody is denying that. Only that bound P. Algae is however converting Pi to Po, then excreting the Po. Very little P is actually removed when removing the algae. The majority of the Pi taken up by the algae is converted to Po and not maintained in the algae structure. It just seems like algae are helping with removing P because we are only testing for Pi not for Po. We are only seeing a very small amount of the P in total system with these test kits. If we really want to remove P from our systems we need to after the various waste products of the organisms we have in our systems. We go after the detritus before it has a chance to be converted to Pi we are efficient with the removal of total P in the system.

 

The inner reef zone is characterized as having higher levels of nutrients due to its proximity to land and fresh water run off, again not ground breaking information. The photo was of the inner reef, those corals live and have lived for milliions of years in those conditions. No it's not a close up picture to see what their colors look like, but the density of stony corals should be more than enough evidence that they are thriving in that environment. If you think the integrity of the photo is somehow in question, I can't help you there. I didn't take it, and can't for the life of me think why borneman would falsify it. I'm at work I'll try and post more later.

 

Do not get me started on what Borneman did with the Truman Annex and the corals that he contaminated and also sold off instead of the job he was hired to do by the government. I was just saying that at certain times of the year there is are influx of deep ocean nutrients that come up in the GBR. Have you ever seen a picture other than that one that show SPS corals in green water? I am just wondering if that picture was taken during one of these upwelling events. I would be interested to see if you can find any more turbid/green water pictures of the GBR.

 

G~

[danimal1211]

Do not get me started on what Borneman did with the Truman Annex and the corals that he contaminated and also sold off instead of the job he was hired to do by the government. I was just saying that at certain times of the year there is are influx of deep ocean nutrients that come up in the GBR. Have you ever seen a picture other than that one that show SPS corals in green water? I am just wondering if that picture was taken during one of these upwelling events. I would be interested to see if you can find any more turbid/green water pictures of the GBR.

 

G~

To be honest I just can't recall if I see some I'll post them. What I can recall however is diving in the keys where there are areas that appear higher in nutrients due to greener water, especially on the gulf side, where you still see stony corals growing.

 

I have seen you try to discredit Bourneman's work several times in this thread, as well as blow off many of the other major contributors to this hobby by calling their articles "hobbiest grade" I understand he's had some serious personal issues, but he's made some MAJOR contributions to the hobby as do the rest of them. Its pretty arrogant to discredit the work of a scientist that way, especially when there's seemingly nothing for them to gain when it comes to Deep Sand Beds or refugium recommendations.

 

I read the link you provided on upwelling of nutrients on the GBR, how about going back to the article I posted. Why would he post that photo describing the Inner Reef as having higher nutrients as apposed to the outer reef if it was only a temporary situation? It wouldn't make sense. Do you not believe stony corals grow in the inner reef?

 

I've asked several times where you are getting your information that Phosphates are so detrimental to stony corals. We know that Inorganic Phosphates can inhibit growth, excess PO4 in the system can cause browning to SPS due to higher levels of Zoox algae within the tissue. But I've seen nothing close to claiming it causes sudden tank crashes or that these organisms are fighting against the zoax within them over control of phosphates. These are both claims you've made and haven't provided any research to back that up.

[Subsea]

lol. No. Tony the Tiger is not a liar when it comes to breakfast, but having Frosted Flakes only for lunch and dinner also can become a problem.

 

 

Are we talking about within a substrate, water column, or entire system? Phosphates get converted back and forth depending on the organism which is utilizing at that time. Testing for Pi is not a good indicator of total P in a system. A low Pi reading just means that the P is being utilized by other organisms or into the calcium carbonate matrix. It does not mean that the total P in the system is going down. To know this one just needs to look at what is in the substrate. If there is any detritus or organisms in the substrate, then there is an increase in total P in the substrate and not a decrease in total P in the substrate.

 

Algae is not an efficient phosphate export method. Does it remove the P that is bound within its structure yes. Nobody is denying that. Only that bound P. Algae is however converting Pi to Po, then excreting the Po. Very little P is actually removed when removing the algae. The majority of the Pi taken up by the algae is converted to Po and not maintained in the algae structure. It just seems like algae are helping with removing P because we are only testing for Pi not for Po. We are only seeing a very small amount of the P in total system with these test kits. If we really want to remove P from our systems we need to after the various waste products of the organisms we have in our systems. We go after the detritus before it has a chance to be converted to Pi we are efficient with the removal of total P in the system.

 

 

Do not get me started on what Borneman did with the Truman Annex and the corals that he contaminated and also sold off instead of the job he was hired to do by the government. I was just saying that at certain times of the year there is are influx of deep ocean nutrients that come up in the GBR. Have you ever seen a picture other than that one that show SPS corals in green water? I am just wondering if that picture was taken during one of these upwelling events. I would be interested to see if you can find any more turbid/green water pictures of the GBR.

 

G~

of course we are talking about the whole system. Your inability to consider comments that do not support your agenda are an obstacle to an exchage of ideas. Your simplistic evaluation that direct detritus removal is the only sussessful paridine to control phosphate is a broken record. Put more cards on the table.

[Subsea]

of course we are talking about the whole system. Your inability to consider comments that do not support your agenda are an obstacle to an exchage of ideas. Your simplistic evaluation that direct detritus removal is the only sussessful paridine to control phosphate is a broken record. Put more cards on the table.

I should have qualified, please put some different cards out there.

[albertthiel]

Perhaps you are not familiar with Nano tanks, but many deploy a small army of herbivores/omnivores. Hermit crabs, amphipods, snails, some small blennies, etc. Any of these will eat various types of micro algae and/or various types of macro algae.

 

I'm not referring to any particular article at this point, just elaborating on a theme you have continuously mentioned that a ULNS tank should have no algae if detritus is removed regularly, thus negating the need for Macro algae in a refugium. I agree with you, but I am also pointing out that algae is processed in any tank that has organisms that consume it, to a lesser or greater extent, and the PO4 is then removed via detritus removal.

 

In a system that maintains a higher nutrient level, then additional macro algae harvesting can be a beneficial tool.

 

This was fun and I hope everyone enjoys their nano reefs...whatever type they are

 

For those involved in this discussion and the pros can cons and Pi and Po, here is a link to an interesting article of what the Phosphate cycle includes and how it progresses from one state to the next and so on :

 

http://www.skepticalaquarist.com/phosphate-cycle

[Nano sapiens]

Good read, Albert.

 

Here's a link, to the link, provided in the article which is specific to phosphate in marine systems.

 

http://www.fishchannel.com/saltwater-aquariums/aquarium-frontiers/what-is-phosphate.aspx

[brandon429]

thats a great link. this phenomena of algae leaking phosphates is new to the scene, its not discussed in fact we know its been discussed oppositely

but that doesnt mean science doesnt change, its still unfolding the explanations for it are getting better but still not perfect. its been so hard to get clear and concise facts on certain mechanisms I think even doc and dude will agree our specifics are tbd. the shared nature of phosphate Ive appreciated reading.

 

these guys have been against Randy due to his afiliation with mainstream reefing if I get the vibe correctly but what I like most about his articles is after I read them twice I begin to understand and they are all like that. rhf is best reef chemist we know. unfortunately hes not on RC anymore who knows why. if anything thinks he is, pls post a recent thread he responded to

[Subsea]

What a great read. This article is on the mark with this complicated cycle. When describing the interaction of cynobacteria with phosphate, it supported my hypothesys that my most potent defense against phosphate accumulation in my sandbed was direct vacumining of red cynobacteria mats. It is the closest that I come to a partial water change. The tank is ten years old with no scheduled water change and no skimming. The author brought up an interesting point between the bacteria enzyme biochemical relationship that had a stabalized feed back circuit. Is not this a marvelous world that we have stumbled into. I love this topic. As a deepwater subsea engineer, I was in charge of designing and troubleshooting underwater blowout preventer control systems in 10K feet of water. At its time, only the military had more advanced controls. We used fiber optics and acoustic signals to interface with mutiplexing controls systems. We in the oilfield had simplistic feedback circuits compared to the bugs in the sandbed. I also like the affirmation that when I stir my sandbed to feed my Sea Apples, there is a net reduction in sediment phosphate. I like it when complex food webs recycles nutrients.

 

All the other points, I already knew after 40 years of reefkeeping. It is comforting to not be the only person with the same opinion. I had not considered the iron phosphate relationship. The precipatation of phosphate with introduction of iron is of tremendous importance to me. My makeup water from the aquifier is high with dissolved salts: magnesium, calcium, iron, both sulfate and sulfide. My 5 stage RO/DI/carbom filter provides drinkable water and ice. When using hot water, the sulfide smell is very bad. Nothing like squeaky claen from the shower smelling like a rotton egg. The point to make here is that my maraculture facility makeup water brings in high concentrations o iron, magnesium, calcium and sulfur. These are all major nutrients for most biomass uptake of the desirable inhabitants in our reef tanks. Everything in moderation is usually a good rule, but I see this influx of nutrients from makeup water as a reduced expense. For the average reefer this is an oximoron. I am in the business to grow things. Because of different desired results, we look at all of this information from many different shades of grey.

[FishBrawler]

Refugiums are important to aquariums in

It says somewhere (cant find the exact place) that they provide food for the animals specifically corals. The algae produce organ food that the despence in the water. Now this doesn't sound like filtration, but I do feel that the amount of harvested algae will outway the amount that they add back in. I do not think that one should use this solely as filtration though! As stated in the same book, it is under filtration.

[FishBrawler]

Found a section that is close but it isnt the same section.

[Nano sapiens]

 

 

these guys have been against Randy due to his afiliation with mainstream reefing if I get the vibe correctly but what I like most about his articles is after I read them twice I begin to understand and they are all like that. rhf is best reef chemist we know. unfortunately hes not on RC anymore who knows why. if anything thinks he is, pls post a recent thread he responded to

 

I have always enjoyed Randy's articles, too, along with Dana Riddle's. Their topics are great and I enjoy their writing styles.

 

Personally, I don't mind if they are 'mainstream' or make money off the hobby, as long as the information distributed is factual and beneficial.

 

I just watched the 'Red Sea Reef Care' video series and it doesn't get much more commercial than that. There are actually some interesting tidbits of useful info in there that can at least get one thinking.

[danimal1211]

Thanks for the link Albert.