|
10/04/2012, 03:02 PM | #101 |
Team RC Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NY
Posts: 17,749
|
No worries, I am not disagreeing, just clarifying.
At any rate, I think the thing that has been lost in this thread is that arguing the effectiveness of a method is different than arguing it's suitability for a given set of real world conditions. The former is pretty much looking at facts, the latter has a healthy dose of opinion. It's a fact that dosing N can help you reduce P in certain situations, without causing damage to the aquarium. Whether or not a specific person finds it an attractive option is obviously biased towards opinion, and hence it is a hard point to have a clean argument around.
__________________
Inconveniencing marine life since 1992 "It is my personal belief that reef aquaria should be thriving communities of biodiversity, representative of their wild counterparts, and not merely collections of pretty specimens growing on tidy clean rock shelves covered in purple coralline algae." (Eric Borneman) |
10/04/2012, 03:14 PM | #102 |
aka John K
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sudbury
Posts: 2,367
|
Same intention here, and I couldn't agree more
__________________
my reef ate my wallet Current Tank Info: 57G, RBTA's Zoa's and softies |
10/04/2012, 11:45 PM | #103 | |
Moved On
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Tampa Fl
Posts: 1,659
|
Quote:
I actually did not suggest feeding more(however I am in fact against very limited feeding to make up for filtration and husbandry flaws). I suggest two things depending on husbandry and N removal choice... If you are dosing carbon or running macro(or both)...cut it back...or if all N is removed through non dosing no macro and you still have P then you utilize bacteria strains that reduce ammonia and nitrite to up the N and use up the P. Balance the tank out. No need to add more N. |
|
10/04/2012, 11:55 PM | #104 | |
Moved On
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Tampa Fl
Posts: 1,659
|
Quote:
The way I see it, adding nutrients to a system already loaded with nutrients is like walking to the end of your driveway, turning left, going around the block, to get to your next door neighbors house on the right... logically one would just turn right instead. |
|
10/05/2012, 05:47 AM | #105 | ||
Team RC Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NY
Posts: 17,749
|
Quote:
Quote:
1) Add N 2) Tweak the system by adjusting strains of bacteria (not really sure how you would propose to do that - do you know which strains of bacteria are in your tank right now? or which have a different ratio of N:P uptake? Or which of those strains are or are not preferentially removed by your skimmer? Or what you would change in order to get one strain established vs another?), reducing the nutrient export methods already in place (which will surely reduce the export of N, but also P and other nutrients, so it sounds counter-productive) or otherwise "balancing the tank out." Now, you tell me - WHO is suggesting a simple turn to the right vs. running around the whole block?
__________________
Inconveniencing marine life since 1992 "It is my personal belief that reef aquaria should be thriving communities of biodiversity, representative of their wild counterparts, and not merely collections of pretty specimens growing on tidy clean rock shelves covered in purple coralline algae." (Eric Borneman) |
||
10/05/2012, 08:38 AM | #106 |
Moved On
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 220
|
It probably only seems complicated if you haven't tried it. You add small amounts regularly and then test as normal. It is really no different than carbon dosing in terms of how easy it is to implement and understand.
|
10/05/2012, 08:53 AM | #107 | |
Moved On
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Tampa Fl
Posts: 1,659
|
Quote:
Last edited by swcc; 10/05/2012 at 09:07 AM. |
|
10/05/2012, 10:53 AM | #108 |
Team RC Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NY
Posts: 17,749
|
I think you think it is easy because you're over-simplifying your preferred method and painting the opposing method as more difficult than it really is. But, to each his own. I'm not interested in further discussion because I don't think going through another circle is going to add any new information - unless you'd like to explain in more detail how exactly you would propose to adjust the bacterial strains in the aquarium to reduce export of N, or how you can grow less macro/dose less carbon in a way that reduces export of N without reducing export of P.
__________________
Inconveniencing marine life since 1992 "It is my personal belief that reef aquaria should be thriving communities of biodiversity, representative of their wild counterparts, and not merely collections of pretty specimens growing on tidy clean rock shelves covered in purple coralline algae." (Eric Borneman) |
10/05/2012, 11:05 AM | #109 | |
Moved On
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Tampa Fl
Posts: 1,659
|
Quote:
Just like what happened in the member that had his skimmer off line for a few days...bacteria production increased to handle the organics not being removed by the skimmer and his P went to zero and his nitrate went to one. Ideally it is better to have zero of both(and you can easily do it), but it is better to run a tank with trace nitrate and zero P than the opposite which is what he is doing now. It is like what I did(and already explained)... I was dosing small amount of vodka daily...with zero nitrate and .03 Po4 all I did was lessen the amount of detritus I removed regularly(I keep my tank, overflow and sump very clean) and P went away without rise of N so...zero readable P and N by simply allowing for a little more bacteria to rise that reduce organics/ammonia/nitrite. So, my take is advance your husbandry skills and get to know your tank..achieve balance that way vs just dumping more nutrients into an already nutrient rich system. It is much more rewarding and your tank betters itself from your advanced knowledge of it. Last edited by swcc; 10/05/2012 at 11:42 AM. |
|
10/05/2012, 05:47 PM | #110 | |
Moved On
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 220
|
Quote:
FWIW the one guy in the world who is able to grow Acropora palmata is doing it in a system where the phosphate averages around 0.20 ppm, nitrate undetectable. |
|
10/05/2012, 06:05 PM | #111 |
aka John K
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sudbury
Posts: 2,367
|
I'm out, this detritis dosing thing seems to be over my head. Clearly I don't have the requsite husbandry skills
__________________
my reef ate my wallet Current Tank Info: 57G, RBTA's Zoa's and softies |
10/05/2012, 10:18 PM | #112 | |
Moved On
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Tampa Fl
Posts: 1,659
|
Quote:
|
|
10/06/2012, 01:09 AM | #113 | |
Moved On
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 220
|
Quote:
A bit of GFO on the system, or some nitrate additions, would lower it...but why bother if the corals look great? |
|
10/06/2012, 08:39 AM | #114 | |
Moved On
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Tampa Fl
Posts: 1,659
|
Quote:
I could care less about Sprung and Delbeek... I want levels in my tank as close as I can get to what my livestock would experience in nature...and that means hobby test kits should not be reading any Phosphate or nitrate and if they do it is a fail. My standard is maintaining undetectable readings. I believe that is the goal of the OP...unreadable Phosphate along with Nitrate in the water column. Last edited by swcc; 10/06/2012 at 09:15 AM. |
|
10/06/2012, 11:27 AM | #115 | |
Moved On
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 220
|
Quote:
Anyhow, it is pretty clear any further discussion here is meaningless. Different people have different approaches and you seem intent on characterizing this method as "bad", without having any experience with it or really even understanding how it works. |
|
10/06/2012, 11:28 AM | #116 |
Moved On
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Tampa Fl
Posts: 1,659
|
I have no problem because I keep my water clear and nutrient free.. and thus I recommend the same for longevity. bad is adding nutrient to chase away nutrient...good is bacteria and phyto production that is then removed by skimming. Why have nutrients testable in your water column.. it really only indicates the inability to keep water less close than nature provides for a healthy reef.
Of course further discussion is meaningless(and really has been from the start). You believe that adding poop to your high nutrient tank is a viable way to proceed vs becoming better in husbandry and achieving an ULN system instead. There is no logic to your cause. Not to mention your phosphate levels are horrible anyways... If you want to suggest anything.. it would be to show that holding high phosphate levels are not as bad as people believe and you could post pictures of your tank and others to show them such is true and you methodology(start a thread it might be very interesting to learn from your experiences). for those that are trying to rid their tanks of detectable phosphate and nitrate, I believe I have better knowledge on the matter... as I do not have detectable nitrate and phosphate and have succeeded in maintaining this. You do not, and really should not be arguing methodology on how to achieve zero testable phosphate when you can't yourself make that claim. Last edited by swcc; 10/06/2012 at 12:05 PM. |
10/09/2012, 10:02 PM | #117 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 44
|
So I don't know who to respond to in this thread but the discussion is exactly what I am looking for and heres why:
I am not set up for a traditional ULN tank, I am trying to go more "natural" with less mechanical items. I currently have a 100 gallon long with a 40 gallon sump comprised of a DSB some LR rubble and a massive amount of Cheato. I have three items plugged in, my lights, my heater and my pumps (ignore the controller, probes, etc). No skimmer, no reactor, no UV, no ozone, no bioballs, no filter socks, no foam blocks, nothing. I do very minimal water changes (only when I set up a quarantine tank for new arrivals) and only add carbon once every two months when the water yellows. It sits for two weeks and the water is clear as day. Performance: Undecided, it has been up for 8 months with moderate sps, lps and clam growth. The softies are going crazy as everyone expects. Fish seem happy. Tank parameters: Nitrates: 0 Nitrites: 0 Phosphates: .07-.15 depending on the amount of cheato harvest Ammonia: 0 As you can see the DSB, LR and cheato are working, I rarely vacuum detritus as it seems the snails, stars and worms tend to hang out in the accumulation more than other areas. I assume I am nitrate limited in my Cheato growth as I can't get P down to near zero. It causes small algae blooms on the glass that need to be cleaned weekly. Another item that seems to be coming true is the theory that the more P in the system, the "browner" your zooanthelle colors become. As I don't do water changes, nutrient export is limited to chaeto harvest which requires more P than NO3. I would love to dose NaNO3 or KNO3 if that would add ONLY nitrates to the tank and could help add a bit of color into some of the more dull corals by reducing P. Adding fish would add more nutrients in the form of food and waste (could work but seems more risky in this type of system). For me and my setup, which seems more unique than most, I think dosing the above items would work if done in a structured manner with continual testing of parameters. Where would I go to get NaNO3 or KNO3 and which would be more preferred (i.e. which one adds less Na/K to the tank)? I am happy to try and report back the results Thanks for the topic. |
10/09/2012, 10:31 PM | #118 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Torrance Ca
Posts: 118
|
Andex23
I went to amazon and purchased 1 lb of NaNO3. It cost ~$10. It was 99.5% pure. I was thinking if I only add 0.1ppm nitrate per day the the amount of impurity should be close to nil. I have not started adding NaNO3 yet as I am still doing some research. I think chaeto systems are perfect for nitrate addition. The chaeto needs more nitrate than we have and the LR and DSB is taking too much of it out. I was also thinking if one had an ATS then one would need no additional nitrate because the more the ratio of N:P changes a different kind of algae will grow. Kind of self compensating. I like you have chaeto. I would like collaborate with you on how to execute this. What do you think about 0.1 ppm per day? |
10/10/2012, 06:57 AM | #119 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: denmark kopenhagen (København, christiania!!)
Posts: 22
|
zandex23, i had a system just like that but with a skimmer, worked a charm for more then a year, and my tangs loved the cheato, great waste to food converter! there was i little bit of phosphate, but the tank looked great!! so i did'nt chase it since it was quite low, stable and the tank did'nt seem to mind in any by me detactable way.
It crashed totally when i went to the US for 2 months and my wife 'took care of the tank', never got it back up, DSB can be very volatile, i siphoned it all out and cleaned it but it took to long to get back op and running. I had to reduce the bioload and after a while the values started stabalizing again, but then i decided to buy a 250 gallon and run that one as a 'gadget tank' huge DIY redox controlled sulphur reactor, 3 other reactors and 2 skimmers. I'm setting up a new marine tank soon, with less gadgets, dosing carbon and any other limiting factor to keep it ULN, otherwise only skimmers, flow and light. Could there be any biologial way of adding more nitorgen compared to phosphate in the form of what kinds of animals you keep? herbivore/carnivore, vertabrate/invertabrate? If the phosphates introduced are in are what you feed the tank there might be a difference in plant based food versus meat based, more important maybe some of the phosphates are bound in metabolites in different ways in the poo of different animals that can be skimmed out? (I know i have asked this before and im sorry if it annoys anyone, id just really like to know!)
__________________
icarus was i base jumper ahead of his time... Current Tank Info: pradator reef tank Last edited by steenmillinder; 10/10/2012 at 07:06 AM. |
10/10/2012, 12:45 PM | #120 |
Moved On
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Tampa Fl
Posts: 1,659
|
seems some of you are not familiar with the law of conservation of mass.
|
10/10/2012, 02:31 PM | #121 |
Team RC Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NY
Posts: 17,749
|
andex, you might want to test for K as there is the potential it is limiting chaeto growth as well - read the last few pages of the stickied turf scrubber threads as some people relying on ATS are finding that dosing K allows more algae export and hence P can be brought closer to zero.
2hands, your ATS assumption is based on an "ideal" algae always being avaialble and ready to take over the screen - in practice I don't think this is true (see above comment ).
__________________
Inconveniencing marine life since 1992 "It is my personal belief that reef aquaria should be thriving communities of biodiversity, representative of their wild counterparts, and not merely collections of pretty specimens growing on tidy clean rock shelves covered in purple coralline algae." (Eric Borneman) |
10/10/2012, 05:09 PM | #122 | |
Registered Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,609
|
Quote:
I was thinking more about Sponge Power.... Mo |
|
10/10/2012, 06:58 PM | #123 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Belmont, CA
Posts: 337
|
Honestly I think the theory is sound but I question the value of chasing 0.00 phosphate.
In my tank I measure 0.00 - 0.08 ppm phosphate (using hanna meter). I used to add GFO whenever it was above 0.04ppm, and that would always bring it down to 0.00ppm. Then I got lazy and stopped. Nothing changed. I still measure 0.00 - 0.08ppm phosphate. It seems to cycle slowly between those numbers over the course of a few weeks or so. There's apparently some sort of internal cycle going on in my tank. Something happens when phos gets high that brings it down. Or maybe I've reached an equilibrium @ ~0.04 ppm and the perceived fluctuation is just measurement error. I'm not sure, but at the end of the day I haven't seen any difference on my livestock when the phos measures "high". The only time I saw an impact was when I added too much GFO & the level dropped rapidly (livestock did NOT like that). So I'm just not sure that maintaining exactly 0.00 or whatever number we decide is "optimal" matters as much as we think. I also think people may falsely attribute a change to something they did. When I used to add GFO I assumed this was needed to bring down my phos, but then I found that if I do nothing it happens anyway. So what does the GFO do for me? |
10/11/2012, 05:06 AM | #124 | |
Registered Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: South Euclid, OH
Posts: 4,281
|
Quote:
When you see good growth & color and algae is manageable that's when it's important to test. Then you can focus in on where your tanks balance & sweet spot is. Most of the time when people focus on that number is when it's really high or they're having problems. Ten different things are done & one may be adding GFO. I would think more often than not, if husbasndry/export were improved you have changed your bacterial balance & the chemical control isn't needed. GFO use gives you instant feedback on lower PO4 numbers on a meter, but the long term & more beneficial results take weeks to show up. As far as there being a flucuation in the reading there can be hundreds of variables that effect that. Is the sample taken in the same spot everytime, same time of day, after a water change, or before or after some minor change? Those are just a few examples & then there's also the error of the meter...........it's not like those tubes are lab grade either & another 50 or so variables in the equipment & how the test was done or how much reagent got into the tube and on & on.
__________________
80g Rimless Acropora System reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2197142&page=31 Ed Last edited by Big E; 10/11/2012 at 05:12 AM. |
|
10/11/2012, 05:49 AM | #125 |
Moved On
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Tampa Fl
Posts: 1,659
|
I believe the whole idea of phosphate control in aquariums was to help control algae...not necessarily for coral health. fresh water aquariums also look at phosphate control as well.
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|