Refugiums don't export nutrients?

[metrokat]

tl:dr of what Futuredoc is saying: Stony corals can't grow in tanks where algae have the ability to grow. Yay science!/quote]

Is my system defying science?!! Holy cow, where are those scientific American magazine people, they need to interview me stat.

[tibbsy07]

Algae and corals grow together in the wild. Just sayin.

[PODPIMP]

FWIW

 

For nutrient removal I would choose a quality skimmer over a refugium. Plain and simple a quality skimmer is more effective at removing organics. However, I am all for added water volume, increased surface area for bacteria, and a refuge for micro fauna. This is why I have a 30 gallon fuge on my 60 gallon tank. I don't see the point of sectioned-off sump refugiums that use a very small space to grow one poof of cheateo for a large system. IMO save that space for a better skimmer

 

As for the macros not growing in SPS tanks. I have experienced this. Maintaining a low nutrient level with a phosphate level of .01 or .02 would definitely slow the growth of my macros. Sometimes a GFO change would wipe out my macros completely. In an old tank I experimented dosing vinegar and the macros would not grow at all. My SPS colors were vivid but they had pastel colors that are typical in zeo-reefs.

[markalot]

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

 

You have a thread or pictures anywhere? I love to see older tanks!

[William]

I wonder if the proximity of the algae and the bacteria mitigate the effect of the p exchange. you also have to take into account the fact that both fish and inverts can excrete p as well as nitrogenous compounds in their urine or excretions that would not be removed by "vacuuming the detritus" or by agressive skimming (which i believe at its most effective can only remove 30-40% of organic matter from the water column). So based on your own logic (please let me know if I am straw-manning) you would still have accumulation of p in the system. you would also still have algae in your tank even if you started with dry rock, as im sure there are algal spores on the fish and coral you put in the tank..... I think we might be talking about an unattainable model (which I agree if it were done in the absolute manner you describe would work, but the ability of one to do that is questionable).

[Griever]

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.

 

So I have a few questions about your response, as some parts aren't exactly make sense to me. I admit that I'm no expert, but I do consider myself to be smarter than the average bear. I really do want to understand, so please don't think I'm just being argumentative.

 

For your first answer, you're basically saying that if I have a large algae biomass, it will release P in times when the nutrients are lower than its biomass can support. On top of this, it will start to die and decay, which would release more P into the tank. Organic P is transformed by bacteria, and so on and so forth. The part I don't get is that this doesn't really apply to the situation that I brought up, one where maintenance is good, nutrient levels are stable and algae is culled regularly. I could see the situation in point one occurring in a neglected tank, and see your point there, but in a well maintained tank, I see nothing by an additional source of P export.

 

As for point two, it's kind of silly, don't you think? What's the point of a skimmer if you do WCs and get all the detritus? What's the point of running GFO/Carbon if you do WCs and get all the detritus? These are just additional mechanisms that we employ to contribute to the overall stability and nutrient export of our tanks. Why can't algae harvesting contribute to this?

 

You claim that a system without algae would be higher nutrient than a system without, all other things constant. This just doesn't make sense to me. You have a higher alive biomass, with the same amount of materials put in the tank, where are these extra nutrients coming from?

[metrokat]

Algae and corals grow together in the wild. Just sayin.

And in my tank. Thriving I would actually say.

[zooman72]

You have a thread or pictures anywhere? I love to see older tanks!

 

Yeah, I was planning on a thread shortly (trying to get them photographed, but is difficult with LEDs, at least for me...) that would have combined my 15g column, 20L, and 29g gorgonian tank, but I may reconsider and just do a separate thread on the 20L as it is kind of a neat story - I eventually let encrusting gorgonian and GSP take over the tank, mimicking an old Amano freshwater aquarium where glossostigma was allowed to smother everything else...

[markalot]

Yeah, I was planning on a thread shortly (trying to get them photographed, but is difficult with LEDs, at least for me...) that would have combined my 15g column, 20L, and 29g gorgonian tank, but I may reconsider and just do a separate thread on the 20L as it is kind of a neat story - I eventually let encrusting gorgonian and GSP take over the tank, mimicking an old Amano freshwater aquarium where glossostigma was allowed to smother everything else...

 

I would love to see it. I've got a collection of links of tanks, all of them here, that defy the "odds". I tend to prefer the wild overrun look anyway, and my goal is to someday be able to show a 4 or 5 year old tank that's alive, thriving, and completely out of control.

 

I could never do glosso ... I even paid good money for a co2 reactor thingy but did not have the patience to trim every few days (seemed like every few hours), so I learned to be happy with plants and hair algae.

[metrokat]

I didn't install a sump for nutrient export, I wanted a place for the display macros that I love so much. I like having a high nutrient system even though my phosphate tests 0.03. I know I have higher nutrients including phosphates which the macros enjoy, so do the SPS and my little maxima.

 

I also run GFO and have considered stopping it, which is why a thread like this and the discussion the ensues is awesome. I'm also about to install an oxidator and see what it can do for my tank.

 

This is how I look at it: I love to feed my corals and feed heavy, I am also overstocked in both fish and corals, this is a really full tank in every sense of the word like a natural reef would be. To help utilize the excess nutrients I have a sump that has a skimmer and runs GFO and carbon in a reactor. Then I have abundant macros (sorry no chaeto) which take up any nutrients the GFO did not eliminate. I still see a bit of cyano on some spots, mostly on frag plugs, and tips of SPS. I have turf algae that is also hanging in spots.

 

Even after doing all of that, the system is neither low in nutrients or ultra high. It seems to teeter with the right balance and I only know this judging by the colors of both my corals and macros, their growth and health too. Is phosphate never getting exported or banished? I hope not!! I need it.

[zooman72]

For nutrient removal I would choose a quality skimmer over a refugium. Plain and simple a quality skimmer is more effective at removing organics. However, I am all for added water volume, increased surface area for bacteria, and a refuge for micro fauna. This is why I have a 30 gallon fuge on my 60 gallon tank. I don't see the point of sectioned-off sump refugiums that use a very small space to grow one poof of cheateo for a large system. IMO save that space for a better skimmer

 

But some of us have chosen to use a skimmer combined with a refugium, and although the refugium can be used to increase water volume and harbor microorganisms, it can also be used to grow algae, and don't assume all that employ a refugium use a smaller one - my sump/ refugium space for a couple of my tanks is as large as the display itself. Even so, my smaller ones still seem to function quite effectively.

 

Another thing not stressed here by those using a refugium - they allow some of us to maintain additional fish, feed said fish more often, or reduce our maintenance schedule. This, combined with the adaptability of the organisms in our tanks, can be judged as being successful too, can't it? Hint: see Metrokat...and others!

[xerophyte_nyc]

I don't know who Bomber, Spanky or Plank are. I know nothing of this apparent hoopla that occurred on another forum involving some better known names in reefing. What I have seen is this:

 

Lots of interesting ideas and concepts being discussed, more or less pertinent to our aquaria and worthy of further review. Some emotions too, which is par for the course whenever anything remotely controversial is the topic.

 

But one thing stands out that really bugs the hell out of me. Several links to papers were offered to support some concepts. I decided to click one of those links to see what's up. The person providing the link said the paper demonstrates that macro algae are responsible for creating a high organic phosphate environment in water. Just look at the M&M section, what the authors did was culture sediment and bacteria for 5 days of agar plates to measure the amount of phosphate liberated into solution. Nothing related to macro algae. Yet it was used as evidence for something else.

 

And all I did was click one random link. How am I supposed to take a viewpoint seriously when there seems to be a blatant lack of understanding the literature being provided?

 

We all want to learn and understand things so we can have the healthiest aquaria possible, but when you cannot interpret literature it is counterproductive.

 

Tanks sometimes crash for reasons unknown to us, and it is important for the hobby that we elucidate the reasons. Seems to me that the phosphorus cycle at some point in the past, by a group of people, was thought to be the culprit. In science, almost any concept can be argued well by selective research. Literature usually evaluates very specific things. Then others some up their own ideas with support from the literature. But rarely are things black and white. There is always lots of room for interpretation. It is like that in medicine too. Do you really think there is good hard evidence that cholesterol leads to heart disease? Not really. That's just one of many examples. But it's the best we have. Science evolves.

 

I want to give another analogy. Way before reefing I was an avid collector of highly specialized succulents, little plants native to unique environments. One variety of cactus, in the genus Aztekium, was discovered growing in only one valley in Mexico, only found on sheer cliffs of almost pure gypsum. Hobbyists who got their hands on some specimens tried their best to duplicate the environment by supplementing gypsum. After all the plant must be adapted to requiring magnesium or a high pH, which gypsum has. Makes sense, there is logic behind it. Instead there was failure. Turns out, the real reason the Aztekium only grows in that one area has nothing really to do with magnesium or pH. Gypsum drains water exceedingly well. Almost nothing can grow in such a water deprived situation. But Aztekium could, because it grows very slowly. Other plants would easily out compete it in more favorable conditions.

 

In science, things often are not what they seem, no matter how logical it may be. Logic and deduction are human fabrications.

 

/rant, forgive me

[zooman72]

I would love to see it. I've got a collection of links of tanks, all of them here, that defy the "odds". I tend to prefer the wild overrun look anyway, and my goal is to someday be able to show a 4 or 5 year old tank that's alive, thriving, and completely out of control.

 

I could never do glosso ... I even paid good money for a co2 reactor thingy but did not have the patience to trim every few days (seemed like every few hours), so I learned to be happy with plants and hair algae.

 

Yeah, tried the whole high-tech planted aquarium route back when Amano became common knowledge, and while it looks great, those tanks can be more work than a reef!

[markalot]

This is how I look at it: I love to feed my corals and feed heavy, I am also overstocked in both fish and corals, this is a really full tank in every sense of the word like a natural reef would be. To help utilize the excess nutrients I have a sump that has a skimmer and runs GFO and carbon in a reactor. Then I have abundant macros (sorry no chaeto) which take up any nutrients the GFO did not eliminate. I still see a bit of cyano on some spots, mostly on frag plugs, and tips of SPS. I have turf algae that is also hanging in spots.

 

Even after doing all of that, the system is neither low in nutrients or ultra high. It seems to teeter with the right balance and I only know this judging by the colors of both my corals and macros, their growth and health too. Is phosphate never getting exported or banished? I hope not!! I need it.

 

I think most would agree, but argue anyway. This thread is full of a lot of assumptions and people talking past each other. No one likes to be told what they're doing is wrong, especially if it's working for them. It's a needlessly combative argument that really serves no purpose because we would all be fools to believe any one way is the right way without actual long term evidence, done with a reef aquarium, to prove it. We may have that at some point in the future, but even though it's been discussed for years in certain places I have yet to see any long term success with it.

[zooman72]

But one thing stands out that really bugs the hell out of me. Several links to papers were offered to support some concepts. I decided to click one of those links to see what's up. The person providing the link said the paper demonstrates that macro algae are responsible for creating a high organic phosphate environment in water. Just look at the M&M section, what the authors did was culture sediment and bacteria for 5 days of agar plates to measure the amount of phosphate liberated into solution. Nothing related to macro algae. Yet it was used as evidence for something else.

- good point, and one the poster did not want to discuss. It would be nice to see research with the actual organisms being pertinent here, instead of extrapolating evidence using vastly different organisms and conditions...

 

Tanks sometimes crash for reasons unknown to us, and it is important for the hobby that we elucidate the reasons. Seems to me that the phosphorus cycle at some point in the past, by a group of people, was thought to be the culprit. In science, almost any concept can be argued well by selective research. Literature usually evaluates very specific things. Then others some up their own ideas with support from the literature. But rarely are things black and white. There is always lots of room for interpretation. It is like that in medicine too. Do you really think there is good hard evidence that cholesterol leads to heart disease? Not really. That's just one of many examples. But it's the best we have. Science evolves.

- another good point, and kinds of reminds me of all the previously held positions that were once considered "factual", such as that nano-reefs should not be attempted and cannot be successful, which has been "proven" incorrect!

 

I want to give another analogy. Way before reefing I was an avid collector of highly specialized succulents, little plants native to unique environments. One variety of cactus, in the genus Aztekium, was discovered growing in only one valley in Mexico, only found on sheer cliffs of almost pure gypsum. Hobbyists who got their hands on some specimens tried their best to duplicate the environment by supplementing gypsum. After all the plant must be adapted to requiring magnesium or a high pH, which gypsum has. Makes sense, there is logic behind it. Instead there was failure. Turns out, the real reason the Aztekium only grows in that one area has nothing really to do with magnesium or pH. Gypsum drains water exceedingly well. Almost nothing can grow in such a water deprived situation. But Aztekium could, because it grows very slowly. Other plants would easily out compete it in more favorable conditions.

 

I remember when working as a herpetologist for a zoo (a long time ago...), and we had trouble with the breeding of certain dart frogs (with tadpoles being weak and not surviving long), which was attributed to various factors, but after much investigation and research, turned out to be the food being fed to the breeding adults was absent certain materials needed for proper egg development, and would not be significant until after the eggs had developed and tadpoles emerged. Now "spindly leg syndrome" is commonly recognized...

[Griever]

Yeah, tried the whole high-tech planted aquarium route back when Amano became common knowledge, and while it looks great, those tanks can be more work than a reef!

 

I respectfully disagree! All I do is replace my CO2 every 3-4 months and dose dry ferts three times a week. The system as a whole is so much more forgiving, freshwater fish and plants are no where near as sensitive to PH changes, Temp changes, etc, as saltwater, and that makes it much easier to maintain. Check out my tank thread for some pictures of my 'low maintinence, high tech planted'

 

Sorry for the derail!

[zooman72]

Well, I can disagree with your disagreement...

 

Remember, I did say "can", not "are always"...

[PODPIMP]

But some of us have chosen to use a skimmer combined with a refugium, and although the refugium can be used to increase water volume and harbor microorganisms, it can also be used to grow algae, and don't assume all that employ a refugium use a smaller one - my sump/ refugium space for a couple of my tanks is as large as the display itself. Even so, my smaller ones still seem to function quite effectively.

 

Another thing not stressed here by those using a refugium - they allow some of us to maintain additional fish, feed said fish more often, or reduce our maintenance schedule. This, combined with the adaptability of the organisms in our tanks, can be judged as being successful too, can't it? Hint: see Metrokat...and others!

 

Please tell me how your little fuges are effective. I haven't seen a little fuge do squat in anyones tank, including my own tanks. What type of corals do you have/had in your small fuge system displays. Which macro(s) are you using in the small fuge?

[JoeDigiorgio]

But I do stress size does matter. You cant filter a 40g aquarium with 2 dwarf sagittarias. You need to plant HEAVY. So I agree whn people say a basketball size will not be enough for a 300g aquarium. More like a yoga ball. Ha.

 

To see a difference you need a lot.

 

 

I stopped reading here, so excuse me if this is redundant...

 

 

Volume of macro is not as important as exposure. A comparatively small amount of macro, properly exposed to the entire volume of the tank via appropriate flow, will remove nutrients from the water effectively. In my opinion, a basketball sized ball of macro, properly exposed to the tank's volume, should be more than an appropriate amount to have in a fuge for a 300gal tank....post trimming.

[zooman72]

Please tell me how your little fuges are effective. I haven't seen a little fuge do squat in anyones tank, including my own tanks. What type of corals do you have/had in your small fuge system displays. Which macro(s) are you using in the small fuge?

 

I have a 9g Finnex frameless in my office at work running an AquaClear 70 (with a AC 20 impeller), with just a few (3?) small pieces of live rock and a clump of chaeto lit by a JBJ NanoGlo on top of the filter cover. The tank houses several Kenyan tree corals, a small ocellaris clown, yellow watchman goby, small hermit crab, and a single astrea snail. The fish are fed 3-4 days a week, and the tank receives a 2 gallon water change once a month (or every other month), and also has a small Whisper power filter with carbon and floss changed out monthly.

 

The AC70 grows chaeto so much that it grows out of the water and packs the internal space of the filter chamber, and a large clump of the algae is removed with the water change. Before employing the AC70 and chaeto, I had significant algae growth in the display, and now, with a relatively poor maintenance schedule and less than ideal layout, I have little to no algae growth in the display, but quite a bit in the AC70. One could say the tank has reached a relative "balance", but I personally have no doubt that the AC70 growing chaeto, which is harvested before it breaks down, keeps algae growth to a minimum in the display.

 

Please note that I have no illusions that this method employed by me here would work with more challenging corals (i.e. SPS), but that was the goaof the tank - flowing, moving simple corals in a simple tank which requires little effort on my part. However, increasing the maintenance schedule on the tank (i.e. water changes) would allow for more challenging corals one would anticipate. Also, this tank in its current state has been running for going on 2 years...and was previously in a 5.5g tank for almost 2 years, but the corals got too big...

[metrokat]

I think most would agree, but argue anyway. This thread is full of a lot of assumptions and people talking past each other. No one likes to be told what they're doing is wrong, especially if it's working for them. It's a needlessly combative argument that really serves no purpose because we would all be fools to believe any one way is the right way without actual long term evidence, done with a reef aquarium, to prove it. We may have that at some point in the future, but even though it's been discussed for years in certain places I have yet to see any long term success with it.

True. I listed what seems to be working for me right now, it could very well turn to soup tonight.

[tibbsy07]

Please tell me how your little fuges are effective. I haven't seen a little fuge do squat in anyones tank, including my own tanks. What type of corals do you have/had in your small fuge system displays. Which macro(s) are you using in the small fuge?

I think this is going to be a very difficult thing to answer for anyone... How do you KNOW that the little fuge for a little tank had no effect? Did you actually take any measurements? Did anyone else? You can only base stuff on what you see, so maybe you didn't see any change in your tank. Maybe it didn't work for you. Maybe other people do see effects? I don't think that adding more water to a system is bad, and I don't think that utilizing macro algae to bring balance to a small system is a bad idea. Maybe it's not NEEDED, sure, but I haven't seen any tanks that a fuge seems to hurt. Every tank I've followed on here with a fuge looks great and healthy.

[FutureDoc]

So I have a few questions about your response, as some parts aren't exactly make sense to me. I admit that I'm no expert, but I do consider myself to be smarter than the average bear. I really do want to understand, so please don't think I'm just being argumentative.

 

For your first answer, you're basically saying that if I have a large algae biomass, it will release P in times when the nutrients are lower than its biomass can support. On top of this, it will start to die and decay, which would release more P into the tank. Organic P is transformed by bacteria, and so on and so forth. The part I don't get is that this doesn't really apply to the situation that I brought up, one where maintenance is good, nutrient levels are stable and algae is culled regularly. I could see the situation in point one occurring in a neglected tank, and see your point there, but in a well maintained tank, I see nothing by an additional source of P export.

 

As for point two, it's kind of silly, don't you think? What's the point of a skimmer if you do WCs and get all the detritus? What's the point of running GFO/Carbon if you do WCs and get all the detritus? These are just additional mechanisms that we employ to contribute to the overall stability and nutrient export of our tanks. Why can't algae harvesting contribute to this?

 

You claim that a system without algae would be higher nutrient than a system without, all other things constant. This just doesn't make sense to me. You have a higher alive biomass, with the same amount of materials put in the tank, where are these extra nutrients coming from?

 

No, I am saying that a system without algae will have a lower nutrient system that one with algae.

 

As to the first part, you have to add a "baseball" or large clump of algae at some point correct (to start off)? If you add that to a properly maintained low-nutrient system, you then you will see the algae biomass match the tank and likely die-off to a point and maybe completely. This will trigger the bacterial population and the algae is betting on boosting the bacterial population so that it might free u some inorganic phosphate. So, in that "cullled" regularly scenario, you are still having an active algae releasing organic P byproduct as a result of the Calvin cycle and you also have them excreting glycollate (a carbon source for baceria)... so you are feeding a bacterial mass as well, which algae-removal just can not address. With the Ca based rocks/sand, you have a three-way race of sorts and you have "two sinks". Algae can not get all the P and hold P, the rock will grab some and then the bacteria will process/reprocess back to the algae. It (can) happen in a tight cycled, but here is the trick.... when you have Ca-based rocks and algae in the same system you are banking P in two directions and it also becomes a question of where the bacteria decide to go after their carbon source. So even in a well maintained tank, because you have to keep the P level elevated to keep growing algae, you are also providing the rock ample binding material. You are filling up both of the sinks but only draining one. If bacteria can consume carbon from algae byproducts, it can take less energy that breaking ionic bonds with Ca. This is one reason why many who stop vodka dosing will have an algae bloom on the rocks a few weeks afterwards, the bacteria is switching from the C in the water to the C bound in the rocks and releases P.

 

If you want a nutrient rich tank, then algae-removal can cap the P with reasonable success but remember, you have to keep P high enough for algae. If P is truly limited, the algae would disappear. Algae/ATS mechanisms could potentially work for as long as there was no Ca to bind within a system, but the water would be very high in organics (glycol/Po) .

 

Much of the problem with the "test kits" which are inaccurate for our purposes. We fail to use algae as a bio-indicator to P build-up. Any decent ecologist will tell folks that the presence of increasing algae is a indicator of increasing P.

 

Follow the P... follow it along. It does not stay in the algae, find how/why algae uses the P, find why algae releases the P.

 

People said "look how great my DSB worked" and point to their tanks as an example... and we know that a DSB does not work long for a healthy, low nutrient tank.

[brandon429]

What I've gathered so far is nobody debates the uptake of organic phosphate because we can test for that. Without decay, any transfer supposedly back and forth between cell and water does not overtake net fixation and benefit in that regard.

 

Its the inorganic phosphate in debate, and we still don't agree on how that will manifest. Pauls 40 year old tank does not factor Pi into his care methods, so it seems that's a nice long term model to show who cares about Pi in a practical sense? I don't need to measure or concern with either phosphate in my old tank...just looking for a helpful summary.

[Reefin Dude]

So I have a few questions about your response, as some parts aren't exactly make sense to me. I admit that I'm no expert, but I do consider myself to be smarter than the average bear. I really do want to understand, so please don't think I'm just being argumentative.

 

For your first answer, you're basically saying that if I have a large algae biomass, it will release P in times when the nutrients are lower than its biomass can support. On top of this, it will start to die and decay, which would release more P into the tank. Organic P is transformed by bacteria, and so on and so forth. The part I don't get is that this doesn't really apply to the situation that I brought up, one where maintenance is good, nutrient levels are stable and algae is culled regularly. I could see the situation in point one occurring in a neglected tank, and see your point there, but in a well maintained tank, I see nothing by an additional source of P export.

 

As for point two, it's kind of silly, don't you think? What's the point of a skimmer if you do WCs and get all the detritus? What's the point of running GFO/Carbon if you do WCs and get all the detritus? These are just additional mechanisms that we employ to contribute to the overall stability and nutrient export of our tanks. Why can't algae harvesting contribute to this?

 

You claim that a system without algae would be higher nutrient than a system without, all other things constant. This just doesn't make sense to me. You have a higher alive biomass, with the same amount of materials put in the tank, where are these extra nutrients coming from?

 

there is not point to a skimmer either. going back to the graphic FD posted several pages ago showing where phosphates are located and what methods remove what forms of phosphates and from where. if aggressive siphoning is used, then there is no reason to have a skimmer either. again removing the detritus removes the phosphates while they are still locked up in organic form before being released by bacteria into water soluble inorganic phosphates, which can then be bound by calcium carbonate or used by algae. i do suggest to anybody to use a properly sized skimmer if possible on their systems. the skimmer is the ONLY filter we currently have that removes organics from the water column in a continuous basis. when the nutrients are in the skimmer cup, they have been exported. nothing else does this except for the siphon. when a siphon is used the material removed stays removed. GFO, algae, phosphate binder du jour, whatever. the nutrients are not removed until the material is removed. until that point the system is still becoming more eutrophic, regardless of what the test kits say. simple logic here. if food is going in, but nothing is coming out, then the system is becoming more nutrient rich.

 

I wonder if the proximity of the algae and the bacteria mitigate the effect of the p exchange. you also have to take into account the fact that both fish and inverts can excrete p as well as nitrogenous compounds in their urine or excretions that would not be removed by "vacuuming the detritus" or by agressive skimming (which i believe at its most effective can only remove 30-40% of organic matter from the water column). So based on your own logic (please let me know if I am straw-manning) you would still have accumulation of p in the system. you would also still have algae in your tank even if you started with dry rock, as im sure there are algal spores on the fish and coral you put in the tank..... I think we might be talking about an unattainable model (which I agree if it were done in the absolute manner you describe would work, but the ability of one to do that is questionable).

 

even if you start with dry rock you are going to have phosphates. again calcium carbonate is a fantastic phosphate binder. dry rock is mined from land. all of the phosphates that the LR absorbed before becoming land based are still in there. who has seen the threads about people having algae problems from Marco rock? the rock is not bad, it is just full of phosphates from being on the bottom of the sea. looking up the phosphate cycle helps here. seeing how phosphates are ultimately exported from the ocean and seeing where phosphate mining occurs helps in getting ones head around this.

 

but to add to your statement. yes all animals will be producing waste. waste with significant amount bound phosphates in them waiting to be liberated by bacteria. the object is to get this out before the liberation can occur. how unattainable it is, depends on the design of the tank from the beginning. is the tank designed for detrital removal or for detrital collection? is the system designed properly for a certain trophic level?

 

FWIW

 

For nutrient removal I would choose a quality skimmer over a refugium. Plain and simple a quality skimmer is more effective at removing organics. However, I am all for added water volume, increased surface area for bacteria, and a refuge for micro fauna. This is why I have a 30 gallon fuge on my 60 gallon tank. I don't see the point of sectioned-off sump refugiums that use a very small space to grow one poof of cheateo for a large system. IMO save that space for a better skimmer

 

As for the macros not growing in SPS tanks. I have experienced this. Maintaining a low nutrient level with a phosphate level of .01 or .02 would definitely slow the growth of my macros. Sometimes a GFO change would wipe out my macros completely. In an old tank I experimented dosing vinegar and the macros would not grow at all. My SPS colors were vivid but they had pastel colors that are typical in zeo-reefs.

 

the slow growth in the SPS is because the phosphate levels are above the 0.009ppm of an oligotrophic environment. with the ocean levels being 0.005ppm. with the GFO pushing the levels of phosphates below the threshold of algae in the water column (not in the entire system). this is why test kits are not a good indicator of the trophic level of the system. algae is.

 

any increase in biomass is an indicator that there is an increase in total nutrients in the system. this is the hard part of this whole concept. we are so fixated on test results, but the test results show very little of the entire picture. we say we are keeping phosphates low, but we are looking at only water soluble Pi, not Po at all. hard to get a whole picture on a system if we are not even looking at half of it. again use the organisms in the system as an indicator. if the population of an organism is growing, then there must be something feeding it. what is it? if everyone starts out with dry sand and dry LR, the worms start showing up, then pods, then algae, then sponges, ... where is all of this material coming from to support all of this biomass? if everyone is trying to only add enough food to feed the critters they bought, then what is feeding all of these other critters?

 

Adey, Shimek, et a. they all looked at the water column, and not at the entire system when tracking phosphates. they know phosphates were a problem and looked for ways to remove them from the water column, but not from the entire system. yes the water column looked good with test kits, but the increase in sheer biomass shows that the entire system is becoming more eutrophic and not less.

 

Algae and corals grow together in the wild. Just sayin.

 

in certain biotopes yes. others no. macro algae is not found in oligotrophic biotopes. any search using eutrophication and coral reefs will bring up a good amount of articles on how algae is the first sign that a healthy reef is in trouble. sounds a lot like "old tank syndrome" doesn't it.

 

tl:dr of what Futuredoc is saying: Stony corals can't grow in tanks where algae have the ability to grow. Yay science!/quote]

Is my system defying science?!! Holy cow, where are those scientific American magazine people, they need to interview me stat.

 

certain stoney corals can not grow in tanks with algae. this goes back to looking at the system as a whole instead of what the test kits show. we all use biomarkers, we just do not realize it. when SPS start browning or receeding from their basses, we increase the lighting, we use more GFO, we increase flow, we skimm more. these are all ways to get the detritus out from corals, or mask the affects of eutrophication on the corals. if we did none of these things, then the SPS would die because the nutrient levels in the tank have become to high for the SPS to perform photosynthesis.

 

I would love to see it. I've got a collection of links of tanks, all of them here, that defy the "odds". I tend to prefer the wild overrun look anyway, and my goal is to someday be able to show a 4 or 5 year old tank that's alive, thriving, and completely out of control.

 

I could never do glosso ... I even paid good money for a co2 reactor thingy but did not have the patience to trim every few days (seemed like every few hours), so I learned to be happy with plants and hair algae.

 

are they defying the odds if one looks at the system approach in stead of looking at the water values? these tanks all will have a huge phosphate sink somewhere in them. find the phosphate sink, and you have your reason why these systems seem to defy odds. one must also look at the trophic level wanting to be emulated to determine if the odds are actually being defied, or the system was setup nicely to emulate it. the conditions needed to have a long term successful softie tank are far from the same conditions needed to have a long term SPS oligotrophic tank.

 

Ca reactors are another device used to counter the affects of eutrophication. the more bacteria in the system, the more carbon it needs to its job of breaking down all of the organics. it gets the carbon from the alk in the system. this is why people carbon dose. to give the bacteria another source of easily available carbon besides the alk, that the corals and other organisms need.

 

I don't know who Bomber, Spanky or Plank are. I know nothing of this apparent hoopla that occurred on another forum involving some better known names in reefing. What I have seen is this:

 

Lots of interesting ideas and concepts being discussed, more or less pertinent to our aquaria and worthy of further review. Some emotions too, which is par for the course whenever anything remotely controversial is the topic.

 

But one thing stands out that really bugs the hell out of me. Several links to papers were offered to support some concepts. I decided to click one of those links to see what's up. The person providing the link said the paper demonstrates that macro algae are responsible for creating a high organic phosphate environment in water. Just look at the M&M section, what the authors did was culture sediment and bacteria for 5 days of agar plates to measure the amount of phosphate liberated into solution. Nothing related to macro algae. Yet it was used as evidence for something else.

 

And all I did was click one random link. How am I supposed to take a viewpoint seriously when there seems to be a blatant lack of understanding the literature being provided?

 

We all want to learn and understand things so we can have the healthiest aquaria possible, but when you cannot interpret literature it is counterproductive.

 

Tanks sometimes crash for reasons unknown to us, and it is important for the hobby that we elucidate the reasons. Seems to me that the phosphorus cycle at some point in the past, by a group of people, was thought to be the culprit. In science, almost any concept can be argued well by selective research. Literature usually evaluates very specific things. Then others some up their own ideas with support from the literature. But rarely are things black and white. There is always lots of room for interpretation. It is like that in medicine too. Do you really think there is good hard evidence that cholesterol leads to heart disease? Not really. That's just one of many examples. But it's the best we have. Science evolves.

 

I want to give another analogy. Way before reefing I was an avid collector of highly specialized succulents, little plants native to unique environments. One variety of cactus, in the genus Aztekium, was discovered growing in only one valley in Mexico, only found on sheer cliffs of almost pure gypsum. Hobbyists who got their hands on some specimens tried their best to duplicate the environment by supplementing gypsum. After all the plant must be adapted to requiring magnesium or a high pH, which gypsum has. Makes sense, there is logic behind it. Instead there was failure. Turns out, the real reason the Aztekium only grows in that one area has nothing really to do with magnesium or pH. Gypsum drains water exceedingly well. Almost nothing can grow in such a water deprived situation. But Aztekium could, because it grows very slowly. Other plants would easily out compete it in more favorable conditions.

 

In science, things often are not what they seem, no matter how logical it may be. Logic and deduction are human fabrications.

 

/rant, forgive me

 

i provided links to papers showing various stages of the phosphate trail and how phosphates and substrates interact. i found papers that were more scientific in nature because was what seemed like people wanted. i can find simpler paper and articles if you like, but finding them in the hobby literature is touch because the hobby is still fixated with only looking at the water soluble phosphate part of the cycle and not the entire cycle. i am sorry if i said they were pointing to an exact answer you were looking for. i never said that macro was responsible for creating a high phosphate water column. i said that if the algae is growing, then the water column is high enough in water soluble phosphates to support it. the algae is not removing phosphates from the source, they only have access the phosphates that are available to it. algae has to wait for the phosphates to first get processed by the bacteria, then it can "use" it. it all goes back to only looking at half of the phosphate trail. you are only looking at the phosphates that are testable. not looking at the entire phosphate cycle. it is this thinking that gets people to feed less and use more after the fact phosphate binders instead of just removing the problem in the first place. we NEED to feed our animals. this includes the corals. they NEED organically bound phosphates. if we are only looking at the water soluble inorganic phosphates we can test for, then we are assuming that this is what the corals are feeding on, instead of the actual food we are putting into the tank. we need to be looking at the entire P cycle, not just what is easily tested for.

 

G~