Refugiums don't export nutrients?

[brandon429]

your 11 hours here have been spent humbly and you were well received rather quickly it seems. at least Borneman made it a few years before armchair qtrbacks turned right? :] Id be interested in reading some of your posts at rc. he also made helpful contributions, and i dont think people make the leaps to all reefkeepers you are stating. if they do, who cares its not affecting me. the private trade of corals will never stop.

 

 

 

still though its good to read more about the algae release of phosphate into the water, where was the dissolved phosphate stored temporarily in the cell before release. and since you mentioned it, is there any data with specifics to common macro algae or ats mixed species since these would be our most common test subjects for these purposes?

[brandon429]

You know about the Truman Annex issue correct? You know he actively suppressed those who (respectfully and not so respectfully) question the ecology behind his methods (and withheld or dismissed accurate information about his method). Those two were outright ban-hammering/gleasting folks and information that turned out to be.... correct. You know that many of EB actions is one reason the CBD assault and other trade bans do not trust the hobby and believe we are a bunch of abusers. In my opinion EB should have served Federal prison time.

 

I am glad he help you out (serious, even those "questionable" individuals can do some good thing). Still, other action and dealing is why I think his name is the blackest out there.

 

Edit: Shimek, I have less of an issue. He is a benthic invert guy and that is "ok" but they really did oversell the DSB and aggressively attacked those who questions... don't know which was the 'active' partner there.

 

when I googled the word gleasting you wrote above I got this

 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gleasted

 

how were you meaning that word thats a new one on me

[Reefin Dude]

woohoo i got the mulitquote thing figured out on this site.

 

I know this is a point of semantics, but refugiums *don't* export nutrients. The nutrients are only "exported" when the macros are removed or harvested.

 

Rather than argue about the best method of exporting phosphate, limiting the means of import would seem to best action. However, the trend with most fuge driven tanks I've seen is to overstock and feed fish crappy, frozen food full of PO4 for no other reason than ignorance.

 

PO4 aggravates SPS because it stimulates zooxanthellae into a metabolic state that robs the coral of energy rather than supplying it. Even small amounts of PO4 can cause severe and rapid algae blooms in the open ocean. Can cause a real mess in enclosed tanks with SPS.

 

I've seen SPS tanks growing like crazy with nitrate levels in the 40-50 range. However, these tend to be older, established tanks where PO4 levels are, very, very low.

 

why limit the amount of phosphates coming in. the point is to feed the organisms you want to keep and not the ones you do not (algae). the object is to get any wastes out of the system before they have a chance to feed those undesirable organisms. nitrates are not nearly as toxic as people think they are. the reason why nitrates are emphasized goes back to the days when phosphate test kits did not exist in the hobby industry. the only indicator of eutrophication was nitrates. back then we were chasing the wrong nutrient. nitrate does not interfere with the calcium pump when performing photosynthesis in hermatypic organisms. i have seen SPS growing in the 80pm range. not that surprising.

 

An algae scrubber comes close, I would say 95-98% by mass can be removed and exported on a weekly basis. If someone uses macro algae in a fuge, you could theoretically export most of it regularly as well.

 

but what is causing the algae to grow in the first place? this is the point FD is trying to make follow the phosphate trail.

 

I'm still not understanding where this mysterious phosphate and algae are coming from. You also skipped over my question earlier.

 

If I have a tank with 1.0ppm of phosphate in the water and I stick in a clump of algae and the phosphate is reduced to 0.0ppm and the algae is removed, is the phosphate level of the tank still 1.0ppm?

 

In my tank, if I turn off the light on my algae scrubber and my refugium, phosphate rises - if I turn the lights back on, phosphate goes down, you're saying that it can't happen. You keep saying that phosphate is still in the system.

 

no, actually your phosphate levels are way higher than 1.0ppm system wide if you were to test the entire system as a whole. stop thinking of the water, but the entire system. the phosphates are coming from somewhere. the water is not the cause of the phosphates. it is just the carrier. nothing is exported until it is removed from the system. the fact that Pi is going up and down shows that there is not a net decrease in Pi or even P. it is in flux. flux from where if it is not from the bacteria or the algae?

 

Still nothing that indicates what you've claimed, which I've pointed out a number of times earlier today, and which you continue to ignore. If you have relevant sections of any of these that claim that algae re-releases phosphate into the water column, please provide, because you've failed to do so all day.

 

Is this the kind of BS that typically gets passed around at RC?

 

is this one better?

 

 

PHOSPHORUS LIBERATION BY AQUATIC MICROORGANISMS

 

it is the same process that allows true plants to uptake phosphates from the soil. i do not understand where the confusion comes from. if bacteria are not able to liberate phosphates from rock and sediments, then plant life can not exist. plants get their phosphates from the bacteria, which got them from the surrounding substrates.

 

Phosphorus Uptake by Plants: From Soil to Cell

 

i am just not sure what else to post to show that microbes are the driver for releasing phosphates from sediments to be used by other organisms.

 

Actually, they are quite accurate. Hanna Checker lists their accuracy at 4% of the reading or .04 ppm max (you incorrectly claimed it was .4 - that's a big difference). Red Sea makes a phosphate test that is listed as accurate to .02 ppm. It looks like Salifert's accuracy is .01 ppm. What you are doing is repeating something that you've heard before as if it were fact. It's not.

 

 

 

I understand that you are pointing me to peer reviewed articles. The point is that they don't say what you are claiming. Similar to the textbook that you posted earlier. It didn't say what you claimed. You still haven't provided anything that even remotely hints at the fact that algae releases phosphates into the water (unless it dies). Since you can't provide it, I don't think it exists.

 

Further, if it did exist, then I think that Randy Holmes-Farley probably would have looked into it and wouldn't have raved about the ability of macroalgae to export phosphates from our tanks.

 

All evidence points to BS.

 

the Pi limit for an oligotrophic environment is 0.009ppm, or if you were reading through the papers 0.1micromole of phosphates. how is a test kit that starts reading at 0.01 going to tell us if we are below 0.009ppm? ocean water is at 0.005ppm. reference for phosphate levels.

 

how long have you been in the hobby? from your discussion you were not around back in 2005 when the whole sand thing went down. there is a reason why only Randy is on RC anymore and Eric and Ron are not. have you read through the article you posted earlier about phosphates and foods. how he is talking about removing phosphates through different means? this is going into this. he realizes that what Eric and Ron said was wrong. you can not rely on organisms to remove phosphates. the chart that FD posted earlier showing the different export methods with respect to the phosphate cycle show which method removes what, and which miss what.

 

i am again lost on how you are confused on how algae release P? look at any college level phosphate chart. you see that there are arrows coming into and out of algae. both inorganic and organic. what else do you need to see? there is also the algae thread link on TRT that FD posted that gets into as much detail about how phosphates are used as energy, then released as waste. nothing is 100% efficient. not to mention the dead cels. here is a link to the Calvin cycle.

 

G~

 

G~

[brandon429]

randy is not on rc anymore he stopped posting a while ago always wondered why.

 

are you and doc saying that a refugium is outputting phosphate species we cant test for, and its accumulating?

[FutureDoc]

your 11 hours here have been spent humbly and you were well received rather quickly it seems. at least Borneman made it a few years before armchair qtrbacks turned right? :] Id be interested in reading some of your posts at rc

 

you wouldnt by any chance be anti peroxide would you?

 

still though its good to read more about the algae release of phosphate into the water, where was the dissolved phosphate stored temporarily in the cell before release. and since you mentioned it, is there any data with specifics to common macro algae or ats mixed species since these would be our most common test subjects for these purposes?

 

 

I have been around since 2004, was on RC till about 2009 and then found TheReefTank... I am over there most of the time (kinda the TRT's Mojo~) and I organize the "nano jam" and Reefing Education topics. I do a lot of nano-reefs but it is very ephemeral for me. If you are wondering, I am a disciple of Spanky(on TRT) or Bomber(on RC)'s methods, but in the end I like a shallow disposable sandbed. It was not until my aquatic ecology courses did a lot of Spanky/Bomber finally sink in.

 

Cant say I am anti-anything... I am slowly becoming anti-carbon dosing but I have a long love/hate relationship with that. I am a Ph.D. so I follow the science and when good science speaks, I follow. I am not quite the "algae expert", Invic on TRT has a much better grasp but we both have access to the academic resources (ie libraries) so we can discuss articles (it makes it kinda tough when not everyone has open access to the good stuff). I have no problems folks picking at my arguments, it will make me a better reefer and educator. Ask and if I do not know, I will find out. If good science says otherwise, I change my mind. I am a social constructionist but I believe not everything (ie the natural sciences) can be completely socially constructed.

 

when I googled the word gleasting you wrote above I got this http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gleasted how were you meaning that word thats a new one on me

 

Yep, I am a avid football fan (PhD from Clemson) so I spend a lot of hours on ESPN... heck my students do so why not me?

[Reefin Dude]

your 11 hours here have been spent humbly and you were well received rather quickly it seems. at least Borneman made it a few years before armchair qtrbacks turned right? :] Id be interested in reading some of your posts at rc. he also made helpful contributions, and i dont think people make the leaps to all reefkeepers you are stating. if they do, who cares its not affecting me. the private trade of corals will never stop.

 

 

 

still though its good to read more about the algae release of phosphate into the water, where was the dissolved phosphate stored temporarily in the cell before release. and since you mentioned it, is there any data with specifics to common macro algae or ats mixed species since these would be our most common test subjects for these purposes?

 

i see you have been on here since 2002, where you also a member of RC back then? do you remember Bomber? do you remember the salt study by Shimek? what is being discussed here is nothing new and has been hashed out long before us. there is a reason why Shimek was booted from RC. some food for thought. look at pictures of a the outer reefs of the Great Barrier Reefs where all of the SPS call home. where is the sand? how did a benthic worm person become an expert in keeping oligotrophic environments when the organisms he studied are not a part of that environment? he absolutely is helpful in understanding the workings of a eutrophic environment and what he pushed is fantastic for creating the perfect environment for softies. it is not however the perfect environment for keeping SPS, and that is the problem. you can not keep poo as a pet and expect it not to feed the plants. how is it that we use manure in the garden for our plants, but think it is ok to keep in our systems if we do not want to keep algae? it all goes back to how the organisms have evolved to deal with the lack or surplus of phosphates.

 

G~

[FutureDoc]

Wait, I have met Stephen Gill.... when was that? I think I was working with another UNCW postdoc or was that just a reference... ugggg dang my stupid ability not to remember names/faces.

[brandon429]

yes I saw them

 

the greatest battles of all time were

 

eco aqualyzer threads

 

io salt mix thread that nearly got everyone fired and frayed lol

 

and pinch a puffer thread. admit that takes you back in time.

 

bomber is really smart I have some of his posts captioned in the peroxide threads he had used it a long time ago.

 

I never hacked on the old timers who laid groundwork man. the people getting the newest education are emboldened for sure and outcomes go awry but it never swayed me into turning on them. I still respect the crap out of them. it didnt strike me as implausible that Shimek might have read some things outside the scope of his sandbed work, still I just see it as a new generation hacking on the previous it doesnt change my stance much, the dudes never struck me as out to deceive. they sure had lots of experience imo

[Reefin Dude]

randy is not on rc anymore he stopped posting a while ago always wondered why.

 

are you and doc saying that a refugium is outputting phosphate species we cant test for, and its accumulating?

 

yes. we an only test for water soluble inorganic phosphates. our test kits can not test for any organic phosphates. those locked in amino acids and other compounds do not show up on our tests. it is these that are released by algae and all organism during their biological functions.

 

G~

[brandon429]

what is the net negative result of the accumulation of untestable phosphate species

[Reefin Dude]

i have an insane amount of Bomber/Spanky threads saved. unfortunately a lot of the really goods ones from RC were deleted back in 2005/6 when they had their big server issues. luckily Jerel called TRT home and a lot of the good discussion was done on TRT and those threads still remain. it was really good having a pathobiologist in the hobby for a while.

 

G~

what is the net negative result of the accumulation of untestable phosphate species

 

they eventually get converted back to Pi by bacteria.

 

G~

[brandon429]

how does the accumulation show on a macro level though in our tanks? more algae undesired etc ?

 

 

youd think those using ats and other forms of plant binding would start to see problems in one way or another, they just run their methods and get their results. i wouldnt have algae anywhere in my tank at anytime, naturalists on the other side of the coin hate that method to and huge battles ensue. we are all looney.

[xerophyte_nyc]

but what is causing the algae to grow in the first place? this is the point FD is trying to make follow the phosphate trail.

 

Feeding the reef --> fueling algal growth. Is there something wrong with feeding the tank? An ATS helps support N + P removal, but it is not and should not be the only mechanism of export.

 

 

There is an entire industry using algae for sewage waste removal, where N and P are exported through algal biomass and some of that is then converted into fertilizers and fuel. Do a google search for overwhelming info. To say that there is not a net intake of P into algal biomass would mean that the sewage treatment industry is smoke and mirrors.

 

The efficacy or practicality of algal export in a reef tank is arguable. But not the mechanism. 1-3% of algae biomass is phosphorus. Remove algae = remove some phosphorus. There is not that much phosphorus by weight in our tanks. It doesn't take much algae export to help make a dent in reduction.

[FutureDoc]

what is the net negative result of the accumulation of untestable phosphate species

 

 

 

 

how does the accumulation show on a macro level though in our tanks? more algae undesired etc

 

 

youd think those using ats and other forms of plant binding would start to see problems in one way or another, they just run their methods and get their results. i wouldnt have algae anywhere in my tank at anytime, naturalists on the other side of the coin hate that method to and huge peroxide battles ensure. we are all looney.

 

 

 

 

 

they eventually get converted back to Pi by bacteria.

 

G~

 

^ What G said.

 

If you speed up the process to insane levels, much of the P exchange between algae and bacteria can be seen with mammals and plants. We use O2 they use CO2 and we pass our "wastes" between us. But with bacteria and algae, the population shifts are faster and so is the P usage. So even with massive algae removal, the algae has allowed bacteria to increase in mass as well. So when your remove some of the algae, you have yet to disrupt the bacteria that is converting organic P (untestible waste of algae) back inorganic P. This can be seen when algae has been remove intially from a system and Pi becomes testable again. One assumes it is because of the lack of algae but it is because the algae is gone but their partners in crime remain. So with a constantly growing algae population, you also have constantly growing Po consuming bacteria. You are increasing the biomass of the tank and really creating a eutrophic system with unhinded algae and bacterial activity. This is not a SPS environment. Over time, Ca is taking a cut and unless bacteria in increasing and cleaving as fast as Ca can bind, then the rocks/sand become full...worse with a lot of detritus. Even with algae, aggressive skimming, GFO, and other removal methods can buy time, but it is like an object falling to earth or an object falling to earth with a parachute... the only difference is the time and impact when it finally "touches down"... and reaches "old tank". That is why a of folks who do the WC and big skimmer can go for years without issue but it is a unknown timepoint when the system reaches its nutrient high-limit. So, if you really want a lower-nutrient system for those stonies... you need to minimize the P cycle (it is not linear ending in algae), you need to minimize the bacteria and in that same process minimize the algae.

[xerophyte_nyc]

 

is this one better?

 

PHOSPHORUS LIBERATION BY AQUATIC MICROORGANISMS

 

 

No it's not, we are still trying to understand the mechanism behind algae re-releasing P back into the water column, where cellular death is not the cause. In fact, page 5 of this paper shows a nice little diagram illustrating the incorporation of P into algal biomass.

[FutureDoc]

Feeding the reef --> fueling algal growth. Is there something wrong with feeding the tank? An ATS helps support N + P removal, but it is not and should not be the only mechanism of export.

 

 

There is an entire industry using algae for sewage waste removal, where N and P are exported through algal biomass and some of that is then converted into fertilizers and fuel. Do a google search for overwhelming info. To say that there is not a net intake of P into algal biomass would mean that the sewage treatment industry is smoke and mirrors.

 

The efficacy or practicality of algal export in a reef tank is arguable. But not the mechanism. 1-3% of algae biomass is phosphorus. Remove algae = remove some phosphorus. There is not that much phosphorus by weight in our tanks. It doesn't take much algae export to help make a dent in reduction.

 

Go talk to Invic on TRT... he is in the waste processing industry.

 

Plus, the algae for fuel is not really worried about N or P, they are after carbon. Actually they would want to minimize both N and P from their fuel source if possible.

 

No one debates that removing algae has a net P removal from a tank... just as removing your fish, or even your corals. However, you are trying to remove P at a very limited stage for P... as P is not only in algae not does it stay there. In fact, bacteria might be a better P removing source and that is why carbon dosing is more effective that algae... the problem with carbon dosing is that it allows the rocks to slowly become P laden because the bacteria on the rocks gets lazy with a lot of "free carbon" around but CaCO3 does not stop binding. In the end, P is in a cycle, not linear with the end-stage being algae. If it was linear, then the algae method would be perfect.

 

No it's not, we are still trying to understand the mechanism behind algae re-releasing P back into the water column, where cellular death is not the cause. In fact, page 5 of this paper shows a nice little diagram illustrating the incorporation of P into algal biomass.

Get further in...

 

'A significant positive correlation was observed between biomass and the concentration of soluble P in solution"

 

Mo algae, mo P....

[xerophyte_nyc]

... you need to minimize the P cycle (it is not linear ending in algae), you need to minimize the bacteria and in that same process minimize the algae.

 

How?

[FutureDoc]

How?

 

You know all those crazy BB reefers... they were on to something. Minimize matter, minimize detritus. Skimming address a good chuck of the dissolved matter, water changes can get the rest, for those solid out of suspension (detritus) you need to siphon them out. Less matter, less bacteria.

[Griever]

Get further in...

 

'A significant positive correlation was observed between biomass and the concentration of soluble P in solution"

 

Mo algae, mo P....

 

So I understand what you're saying about binding P into organic components, which are then excreted by algae. I guess my question is, if you are doing regular water changes, and removing detritus from the sand-bed, wouldn't the addition of an algae filled area be of benefit? Where else would the PO4 go, if it wasn't uptaken by the algae? Into your rock/sand-bed, correct?

 

It seems to be that having an additional mechanism to remove P through harvesting and removing algae can be nothing but a good thing. I don't see the negative side. It may be a miracle cure to get rid of having to do maintenance but is there a negative to running it alongside those other maintenance techniques?

[xerophyte_nyc]

Get further in...

 

'A significant positive correlation was observed between biomass and the concentration of soluble P in solution"

 

Mo algae, mo P....

 

Unless I am completely missing something, this study is inoculating fungi and bacteria from sediments onto agar plates, and then incubating for 5 days using methods from terrestrial studies. No photosynthesis here. This paper looks at bacterial influence on P bound within sediments. Bacterial biomass --> increase in P sol

 

Where is the algae data?

[FutureDoc]

So I understand what you're saying about binding P into organic components, which are then excreted by algae. I guess my question is, if you are doing regular water changes, and removing detritus from the sand-bed, wouldn't the addition of an algae filled area be of benefit? Where else would the PO4 go, if it wasn't uptaken by the algae? Into your rock/sand-bed, correct?

 

It seems to be that having an additional mechanism to remove P through harvesting and removing algae can be nothing but a good thing. I don't see the negative side. It may be a miracle cure to get rid of having to do maintenance but is there a negative to running it alongside those other maintenance techniques?

 

Ahh, good question. Two part answer. The first is more direct. The primary thing is that algae will adjust its biomass to match the levels present. Think about how after a water change and a glass scrapping, algae might be slow to recover on the glass but without a WC, it can be fast to recover. So algae slows reproduction in a "good husbandry tank" and discards some phosphates from the ATP cycle. More importantly when this slow down happens algae decay picks up and bleeds nutrients into the tank. Double P shot into the tank. The decay continues until the biomass falls into balance with nutrient levels. So you end up with a increase in nutrient levels in the tanks. Bacteria would increase greatly while the decay is in full swing. More bacteria, more algae fuel. This converts the Po into Pi faster and allowing the balance to establish rather fast. Algae is diabolical!

 

Part two, the less direct answer... why would you need algae if you are doing regular water changes, getting the detritus, and doing all the other things right? Doing the other things right can help delay the "algae master plan to take over the world... aka your tank" That is why you see system that do not do water changes or siphon decline first, while those who are siphoning the detritus, changing the water can weather the storm for a very long time. However, algae is still holding the low-nutrient system back so low nutrient system would be even lower without algae. Sometimes algae is a lot like humans, if the environment is not to our liking, we change the environment... and algae can do that in out tanks.

[brandon429]

Im curious if Adey as an early pioneer of plant based systems ever wrote on the subject

 

 

for sure he would know about inorg p and it would be neat to see applications in aquarium studies involving it youd think hed be a decent source for any commentary on algae tanks at least.

[xerophyte_nyc]

You still have not shown any data or studies showing that algae release more phosphate that they consume. Why can't you point to one single study showing this? Not a single study. Ever.

 

That's because it would violate the laws of physics. There is lots of P in flux, but there is still a net assimilation of P into algae. It may not be much, but it is there. Up to 3% of algal biomass is phosphorus.

 

This concept of Po in the water column, and its impact on bacterial growth, is very interesting. That is worth further exploration. But until there is a definitive consensus on how to manage P, I will continue using my ATS in the battle to reduce phosphates.

[Amphiprion1]

If you are wondering, I am a disciple of Spanky(on TRT) or Bomber(on RC)'s methods, but in the end I like a shallow disposable sandbed. It was not until my aquatic ecology courses did a lot of Spanky/Bomber finally sink in.

I figured just from your assertions that you were somehow affiliated with Bomber. It is almost the same spiel verbatim, really. When things in tanks didn't work quite like Jerel said they should, there was always a lot of gum flapping, empty stares and eye/mouth/ear covering. I don't have a Ph. D., but I've also taken aquatic ecology courses (does phycology also count?) and Jerel's tutelage has still not exactly permeated. Maybe I'm either dense, stupid, or that head injury is catching up with me. Either way, I never felt he got the bigger picture (ecologically speaking) nor did I ever agree with his methodology (i've tried it and still don't). I even attempted it in several LFS systems for years with damn near unlimited resources and felt that those were some of the most expensive, labor-intensive, finicky and unstable systems I've ever had. They "worked," but at what I'd consider a net loss considering everything that went into them. I also like good science, but I also know what works, practically speaking.

 

As for this thread, I think a few other members addressed most of everything else I had to say on the matter, which was neither addressed here nor on the TRT thread.

 

No offense, but I'll bow out, especially when Bomber is involved, as it makes it hard for me to take matters seriously anymore. You are free to assume what you'd like about me, but I suspect many (maybe most?) of the people here weren't around for that comedy of errors on RC. That doesn't mean I don't respect you or your research into phosphorus cycling, dynamics and kinetics, so please don't take it as such. Have a great day and thanks for your time.

[zooman72]

Yeah, this was a fun read, what with "lazy bacteria" and "diabolical algae", peer-reviewed scientific articles/ papers and PhD's expousing "facts".....almost brings me to tears...

 

 

What some of our "new" intellectually-gifted friends have seemingly glossed over is that science (and more importantly to them I would have thought) starts with observation - many have observed that aquariums with macroalgae stock in a sump/ refugium can be run quite well and for a significant amount of time. Now, when aquarists see that it is possible to do so, what are they to think? Is it magic or luck?

 

One thing not emphasized here with regards to the use of sumps/ refugiums is that they must be maintained in some fashion to be effective - i.e. that detritus should be removed or filtered out before it can settle out (ex: filter socks), and the algae should be harvested regularly. All of the blather here in this thread about limiting phosphate import, cycling and leaching missed the point of the OP's intent/ question - can refugia using algae result in a net export of nutrients/ phosphate, and the answer is simply: if done correctly, of course.

 

Lots of people have their dogmatic beliefs, but I find it hard to reason with those that fail to see things simply when it works. Reading some of these posts reminded me of the climate change debate for some - let's see, take a bunch of stored hydrocarbons from within the planet and release them back into the atmosphere, but nothing will happen - global warming is a myth, and there are papers to "prove" it.

 

See, I am also a college biology professor, and two of my favorite sayings are: 1) biology is the science of exceptions, and 2) there is more than one way to skin a cat (a little folksy, but the point remains). Too many people get caught up in absolutes in this hobby. While some have come on here to "convert" some poor soul with a refugium, maybe they should instead try to figure out how in the hell some of us on here are doing well with "reef" tanks, maintaining and growing various species of corals, in the presence of fish needing to be fed, and using refugiums successfully enough to have systems that don't "crash" after a year or two. Especially in light of all this "new evidence"...

 

I have had a 20L running continuously since 2004, and while it is quite simple in comparison to many other aquariums, it has used a refugium the entire time and has never "crashed" - I simply maintained it as needed and tried not to make too many bone-headed mistakes along the way. According to what I read throughout this thread, I am an anomoly. If it had crashed, it would have been due to a ticking time-bomb of phosphate "overload"... , especially since I have not done what certain others have now "proven" I should have done - no sand, no algae, no refugium, no feeding of fish, strip phosphate from the water immediately, etc.

 

I am sorry for the rant, but it is late, and I am grumpy - not that others beliefs differ from mine, but that something as simple as nutrient export has to be so damn argumentative. I would think that with access to so many successful examples using multiple approaches that this would be obvious by now... - one can be successful using one of several paths.

 

Oh, and I am also grumpy when I see names of people who have contributed in some form or fashion to the hobby denigrated by someone I have never heard of, but I digress...