Refugiums don't export nutrients?

[FutureDoc]

I really hate resorting to this, but in this case I think it's appropriate. You don't have any idea about what you are talking about, but you are masquerading this as though it's some sort of proven fact.

 

This is now the THIRD time that I've asked. Where is the data to support your FALSE claims?

 

"I think it has something to do with..." doesn't cut it.

Alongi DM, Boto KG and Robertson AI (1992) Nitrogen and phosphorus cycles. pp. 251-292. In: Alongi DM and Robertson AI (eds) Tropical Mangrove Ecosystems. Coastal and Estuarine Studies. 41. American Geophysical Union.

[xerophyte_nyc]

We as hobbyists CANNOT duplicate a real reef environment, there is just no way to achieve ULNS and at the same time feed our tanks the same quantity of food that coral avail themselves of in the oceans...

 

But lucky for us, it is not necessary to duplicate a real reef. Our tank inhabitants are highly adaptable, as evidenced by reefers everywhere. Algal export is just another tool available to help remove nutrients, as are skimmers and GFO.

 

What's the big deal with feeding our tanks more, and then harvesting algae as part of nutrient export? Why are we comparing our tanks to what goes on in the oceans, when we already know that this need not be duplicated to achieve relative success?

 

[FutureDoc]

Not sure why I'm playing thread mom here, but again this misses the terms.

 

First paragraph is stating that in a system where fuge algae is growing fast and nutrients appear low based on hobby kit testing and everything appears to be working.

 

Later on, talking about a true low nutrient system, where algae cannot increase it's biomass.

 

People need to stop taking this crap personally. Jumping up and down and claiming heretic won't work, it doesn't work for their side either. If there's anything I've learned in life it's that absolutists are always wrong. I think I've avoided saying I believe in one method or another, yet someone attacks what I say. Interesting, and not very helpful.

 

I like my refugiums. I make no pretense in running a ULNS.

 

Bingo. Algae can be, for specific system, a tool. Like any tool, there are correct ways and incorrect ways to apply it. Plank kinda tripped up on the generalization of the thread's topic but they were gunning for something that was, in the end, good.

[baldbean]

I'm new to the hobby, however I do run a refugium and no skimmer. My knowledge of chem is minimal at best, but I can report on what I SEE going on in MY system. My DT is 25 gallons (less due to rock and sand of course) and my fuge is 6 gallons (DIY, verticle not like a standard tank) with ONLY Chaeto. So my fuge is about 25% of my total water volume. I also do weekly 5 gal WCs if that matters.

 

The GHA I have goes through cycles depending on whether or not I trim my Chaeto. As my Chaeto grows, the GHA starts dying off and becomes easier to remove because I assume nutrients are being used up. After I trim my Chaeto the GHA looks revived a bit, but then eventually dies off as the Chaeto starts growing again.

 

Just my $0.02...

[FutureDoc]

LINK? or copy of relevant text?

http://www.agu.org/books/ce/v041/

 

You might have to pay for the article if you do not have access to library with a paid subscription/copy. Otherwise it is protected intellectual property... maybe you can find a "free-preview" somewhere.

[markalot]

Why are we comparing our tanks to what goes on in the oceans, when we already know that this need not be duplicated to achieve relative success?

 

What is relative success? I think the original definition that started this all on TRT was the goal of a very long lived reef tank, one where if defined steps of maintenance were performed the tank should survive forever. This was in contrast to the DSB folks who claimed their method was the best and then many DSB tanks started to have algae issues and then crash horribly fast regardless of what the owners did.

[xerophyte_nyc]

 

"fish removal" you have to feed your fish for them to gain mass in order to export their mass. Same principle with algae and just like the absurd example, there is waste as nutrients are not permanently bound in the organism that you are growing. It is basic ecology. More biomass, more nutrients and vice versa.

You make it sound almost as if we are purposely dumping excess nutrients into a tank so that we can watch algae grow for eventual export. I don't understand the fish removal analogy. And plants/ algae are much more efficient at incorporating nutrients and gaining biomass, than higher animals are.

[FutureDoc]

I'm new to the hobby, however I do run a refugium and no skimmer. My knowledge of chem is minimal at best, but I can report on what I SEE going on in MY system. My DT is 25 gallons (less due to rock and sand of course) and my fuge is 6 gallons (DIY, verticle not like a standard tank) with ONLY Chaeto. So my fuge is about 25% of my total water volume. I also do weekly 5 gal WCs if that matters.

 

The GHA I have goes through cycles depending on whether or not I trim my Chaeto. As my Chaeto grows, the GHA starts dying off and becomes easier to remove because I assume nutrients are being used up and its dying off. After I trim my Chaeto the GHA looks revived a bit, but then eventually dies off as the Chaeto starts growing again.

 

Just my $0.02...

 

Yes, well unfortunately this is the problem with the algae and Ca based rockwork approach. It can pass the buck/kick the can like congress, but in a few years, this method has problems unless you do a massive detritus/organic removal. Basically you have two different buffers/sinks, the algae and the Ca and both are banking/releasing at varying rates. While it was not publicized, the Smithsonian tank sufference a major crash as the result of eutrophication around then end of 2009/early 2010... they believed in algae up until the point is caused a major crash. Now, you can make up for the use of algae with aggressive WC and detritus siphoning, but if a low nutrient system is the goal, then you are just making it more difficult.

 

Theoretically, algae could work if you did not use a Ca based rock/sand.... it will be a lot more unstable but then the theory of algae works better but is still nutrient rich

[markalot]

Bingo. Algae can be, for specific system, a tool. Like any tool, there are correct ways and incorrect ways to apply it. Plank kinda tripped up on the generalization of the thread's topic but they were gunning for something that was, in the end, good.

 

Well, I erred in saying algae export appears to be working, when I should have said working instead of implying it's not working. I think for most people here it does work. The target audience is, IMO, limited to those who claim running a ULNS requires a fuge. That audience might be pretty small, but I'm really not sure.

[xerophyte_nyc]

 

What is relative success

I don't know exactly, that's why I left it ambiguous, ha! What is long term success in reefing? 2 years? 10 years?

[dtitus1]

No one is saying they're using algae instead of mainenance, and if you are I feel sorry for you...

 

You should always be doing detritus removal and water changes, and if TRT people think skimmers are gonna make up for that they're off their rocker.

 

Also the smithsonian was undergoing renovation at that time period so I'm thinking they just took it down to remodel. How would you even know since it was closed?

[FutureDoc]

You make it sound almost as if we are purposely dumping excess nutrients into a tank so that we can watch algae grow for eventual export. I don't understand the fish removal analogy. And plants/ algae are much more efficient at incorporating nutrients and gaining biomass, than higher animals are.

 

In a way, yes. That is exactly what is happening with algae whether it is intentional or not, that is a bit more of a grey area. Basically, to grow algae, you must let imported items (food which is imported as mostly organic P) and then be processed by bacteria in order to convert it into inorganic P for algae. The trick is that when we allow detritus to stay in our tanks, it completes a nutrient loop whereby algae and bacteria can rotate Po (organic P) and Pi (inorganic P) between themselves. In our tanks, by keeping a large macro-algae population (algae-fuge), we must keep enough bacteria/Pi available for it to survive, more to grow. So, it needs that "extra" nutrient availability and that is why, if a hobbyist is keen would disrupt the nutrient cycle before it becomes available to algae by minimizing detritus. This is the ultimate reason why DSB do not work for P as it collect detritus and a lot of it. If you want a nutrient available tank (which is a lot higher than what our storny corals need) then algae is "ok" but kinda redundant. If you want a stony supportive environment, you want that Pi to Po cycle to be a small as possible. Algae makes that cycle huge.

[FutureDoc]

 

Yeah, a link to a book that requires a $25 fee isn't very useful. If you have access to this, you can copy and paste the relevant sections. If you don't then it does no one any good because no one knows what it actually says. Again, I'm calling BS, because you still can't provide any data proving your following claims:

• That macroalgae can't grow when there are low amounts of phosphates and can't absorb phosphate until it reaches some undefined level where the macroalgae finally starts consuming it.
• That macroalgae bounces phosphates around your tank like some kind of card game.

 

 

Well, that $25 is better off than a phosphate test kit since algae will tell you of phosphate for free. Any way, from Along et al. P. 270

 

 

"the turnover time for P uptake, utilization and excretion by living organisms is very short, on the order of minutes to tens of hours, depending on the rate of biological activity and the amount of available P. Once P is taken up and used in cells as phosphate, it is eventually liberated via excretion or through mineralization of detritus as phosphate. This means that all organisms have evolved efficient uptake mechanisms for a very small an virtually constant proportion of the earth's competitive cycle"

 

I also have some nifty images, but I cant seem to post them...

[jedimasterben]

No one is saying they're using algae instead of mainenance, and if you are I feel sorry for you...

I am. kgoldy is.

 

I also have some nifty images, but I cant seem to post them...

photobucket.com

imageshack.us

imgur.com

 

just to name a few.

[FutureDoc]

dang it, too small... actually if you click on it, it gets bigger.

btw, I know of those image hosting sites but they often lose things and I have not posted anything new there in a while.

Anyway, as you can see, P does move around, and if you increase it in one area (say algae mass) you will increase it elsewhere as well.

[Amphiprion1]

Yes, algae can/will exist in oligotrophic conditions... it is a survivalist. However, the biomass compare to what is suggested by keeping a algae-fuge is the issue. One can not intentionally grow algae (especially macro) and have anything other than a eutrophic or mesotrophic system. Algae is self-regulating and will grow to the level of nutrients present... but it can also nix its own biomass to survive in those low nutrient oligoptrohic environmets... but an oligotrophic environment will not support algae-growth in the same way we expect it to grow in our systems. Algae also has an relationship with bacteria that fuels bacteria so that bacteria frees up inorganic P for further algae growth. So, if one is planning a calcifying coral dominated tank, they want oligotrophic conditions... it will not prevent all algal existence but a algae-fuge is a method in the wrong direction as it does not actually create a low nutrient system and P bounces around every few hours.

 

Yes, algae is maintained by low nutrients (levels very difficult to execute in hobbyist tanks) and herbivors... but even when folks have a shoal of tangs, urchins, and the like, this only addresses algae... not the nutrients. I have seen a lot of high-nutrient displays with lots of tangs with 0 algae.... he actually fed the tank cultivated bryopsis. Could not host any calcifying corals to save their lives.

 

It is self-regulating in terms of adding biomass. However, algae have pooling mechanisms in place for times of lean P. The rate of uptake often increases in very low concentrations. It doesn't necessarily have to add much biomass to be reasonably effective at uptake. I'm not necessarily implying that algae are ultimately efficient, but more than what you are suggesting.

 

P exchange (organic) is also tightly cycled, so it isn't necessarily free for immediate use or detriment as you would suggest. Tight cycling in large quantities is one of the hallmarks of coral reefs and adjacent (including algal and higher plant) ecosystems that aid in their existence.

[FutureDoc]

Now, this is the question of where you want to remove P from the system... pick your circle... and if you are removing it before it gets to "algae" it prevents the algae-fuge method.

 

[FutureDoc]

It is self-regulating in terms of adding biomass. However, algae have pooling mechanisms in place for times of lean P. The rate of uptake often increases in very low concentrations. It doesn't necessarily have to add much biomass to be reasonably effective at uptake. I'm not necessarily implying that algae are ultimately efficient, but more than what you are suggesting. P exchange (organic) is also tightly cycled, so it isn't necessarily free for immediate use or detriment as you would suggest. Tight cycling in large quantities is one of the hallmarks of coral reefs and adjacent (including algal and higher plant) ecosystems that aid in their existence.

 

Algae can not "store" or "pool" resources... not sure if you intended this comment exactly how I read it but lets move on. It can be a tightly cycled process and therefore preventing the algae from getting it is an important factor. Algae's coping mechanism is to control its biomass and match that of the surrounding environment so in lean times, it decreases mass to survive and then in boom times it increases.. the algae-fuge is the example of that boom and is why although water test might say one thing, that in reality, algae is saying another.

 

TRT actually has a great algae "can and can't do thread" if you are interested. Good references too... but it is still building.

http://www.thereeftank.com/forums/f77/algae-whats-under-the-hood-how-does-it-do-and-what-cant-it-do-198321.html

[FutureDoc]

What is the percentage of consumed phosphate vs. what is excreted back into the water column by macroalgae and what is the process? If the phosphate cycle for algae is completed by the algae dying (which is what I suspect), then we already agree on this. You have to remove the algae from your system before it dies so that it doesn't return the phosphates to the water.

It depends on a lot of things. But piggy-backing off of Amph said, when the nutrients are "rare" the cycle tighten, with a booming algae populations, even if the P is not in the water column as inorganic P, it is relatively available and thus it is passed back and forth. Kinda just like some human economy, during the boom time, we feel free to exchange money, but as soon as we get a sense that things are not good, we close up.

[Veng]

If there's anything I've learned in life it's that absolutists are always wrong.

That's an absolute.....

[markalot]

Now, this is the question of where you want to remove P from the system... pick your circle... and if you are removing it before it gets to "algae" it prevents the algae-fuge method.

 

I have no problem with that explanation, but who the hell wants to change the water and suck out all the detritus every few days? We still need a pick of Geoff's contraption for automating this.

 

Remove the matter before it's liquified because once in the water column just about everything gets a bite before the refugium or algae scrubber does, to put it at a level my third grade brain can handle.

 

So when it comes right down to it ... fine, let's say I think you are absolutely correct. Now give me a way do do this that still makes the hobby fun! I also have my doubts that there's anything wrong with letting it get broken down, BUT IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOUR GOALS ARE. The subject falls down on itself because people only hear : You're doing it wrong!

[Veng]

Now, this is the question of where you want to remove P from the system... pick your circle... and if you are removing it before it gets to "algae" it prevents the algae-fuge method.

Your image is wrong. GFO does not belong as a circle around the dissolved phosphates. It should exist as GFO, just like algae does as they both process the water column and bind the phosphate into some sort of removable solid. Furthermore, the phosphate is still there in the system till you remove it. It is actually EXACTLY like algae in that respect.

[FutureDoc]

It would only prevent the algae fuge method if you removed every tiny molecule of phosphate before it had a chance to pass by the algae. This is both impractical and impossible.

Actually, it is very possible We have to focus on getting to P before it gets to be inorganic... which means you go after it in the organic stage. What converts Po to Pi? Bacteria... this we limit bacteria's biomass and their food source (detritus) the best we can. Limit bacteria converting Po, you limit Pi production, and then you are looking at a true low nutrient system. Stop feeding the bactera as much, less P... algae like to feed bacteria when it can too. So it pays doubletime. Look at Alongi's graph and look at the stages and cycles... the more you disrupt it with WC, siphoning, and skimming the better off the low-nutrient system can be for the hobbyist.

[Veng]

Actually, it is very possible We have to focus on getting to P before it gets to be inorganic... which means you go after it in the organic stage. What converts Po to Pi? Bacteria... this we limit bacteria's biomass and their food source (detritus) the best we can. Limit bacteria converting Po, you limit Pi production, and then you are looking at a true low nutrient system. Stop feeding the bactera as much, less P... algae like to feed bacteria when it can too. So it pays doubletime. Look at Alongi's graph and look at the stages and cycles... the more you disrupt it with WC, siphoning, and skimming the better off the low-nutrient system can be for the hobbyist.

You saying there are alternative ways to control P does not mean that refugiums don't work or are bad.

[FutureDoc]

Your image is wrong. GFO does not belong as a circle around the dissolved phosphates. It should exist as GFO, just like algae does as they both process the water column and bind the phosphate into some sort of removable solid. Furthermore, the phosphate is still there in the system till you remove it. It is actually EXACTLY like algae in that respect.

 

GFO addresses phosphate (inorganic at that) in the water column... not in other places. Yes, you have to remove the GFO for it to actually export but because the energy requirement to break the GFO/Pi bond is so great and bacteria is lazy, it is removed for all intensive purposes. It is just not totally remove until you replace the media.

 

 

You saying there are alternative ways to control P does not mean that refugiums don't work or are bad.

 

 

 

Never said that fugess don't work or are bad. I just say they can not actually get to a low nutrient environment... they kinda give a false reading. The nutrients are still there and since not ALL of the algae is removed, it can't be low nutrient by definition.