Reef Central Online Community

Go Back   Reef Central Online Community > General Interest Forums > Advanced Topics
Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

Notices

User Tag List

Reply
Thread Tools
Unread 10/04/2012, 03:02 PM   #101
der_wille_zur_macht
Team RC Member
 
der_wille_zur_macht's Avatar
 
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)
der_wille_zur_macht is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/04/2012, 03:14 PM   #102
jimmyj7090
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
jimmyj7090 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/04/2012, 11:45 PM   #103
swcc
Moved On
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Tampa Fl
Posts: 1,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by der_wille_zur_macht View Post
The point of the thread is that the N you need IS NOT already there. Hence, you add it.

Same thing as carbon dosing, really. We can easily export nutrients by exporting bactiera, plankton, or algae growth. (skimmers, turf scrubbers, macro algae in a refugum, etc). If the ratio of nutrients in our system is not the same as the ratio exported, AND we wish for any of the non-limiting nutrients to be reduced to zero, then we MUST add more of the limiting nutrient, or make a change the the other inputs or exports to/from the system (i.e. food) such tht the limiting nutrient is added in a higher ratio compared to the nutrient we want to reduce further. You are essentially proposing the latter, whcih is fine, though it strikes me as indirect, since you likely will have no hard data to support a specific adjustment (i.e. if you are limited by N being zero and want to reduce P by .05, how much more of a given kind of food do you need to add? Are there even foods that contain an N:P ratio that will allow you to make this adjustment?)

The alternative, proposed in this thread, is to simply add the exact amount of the exact nutrient you need. This strikes me as easier, since you can mathematically calculate the amount of a given nutrient you need and figure out excactly how much of a given chemical to dose; and further, there won't be any unintended changes in other nutrients as you WILL get when trying to adjust a single nutrient by adding or removing something that contains ALL nutrients (i.e. food). But, to each his own.

It has now become fairly common for people to add carbon since it limits bacterial growth, which can be easily exported via a skimmer. Adding carbon lets you reduce other nutrients by exporting more bacteria. I would not be surprised if it was soon fairly common to add other nutrients. For example, some people using turf scrubbers for export are finding the scrubber is limited by iron or potassium. These people are directly dosing these specific nutrients in order to remove the limitation and allow the scrubber to remove more N or P. Or, as suggested in this thread, people already dosing carbon may find bacterial growth limited by N. If they're already dosing carbon, dosing N too isn't really a quantum leap.

It seems that part of your objection is your view that nitrogen is a "pollutant" in our tanks. While it certainly can be, that is a narrow view compared to it's larger role. Granted, it is a view that the hobby has about many nutrients - but sometimes advancements in a hobby require a change or broadening of the point of view. Take planted freshwater aquariums as an example. It is fairly common in that niche hobby to dose a wide range of nutrients (nitrogen, potassium, carbon, phosphate). Sure, these things may all technically be "pollutants" in the sense that they CAN contribute to poor health in the livestock, but dosing them in an intelligent manner can clearly lead to improvements in the overall environment in the aquarium. If the planted freshwater community refused to see them as anything except "pollutants" then the hobby would never have reached the point it is at today.
the N you need is already there. Everyone has bacteria at work on ammonia nitrite and nitrate.. It is in the quest to limit N by dosing carbon/using macro... P is left over. If you have P left over... well...lower the reduction of N...why add N vs utilizing what is already being produced in the tank?
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.


swcc is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/04/2012, 11:55 PM   #104
swcc
Moved On
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Tampa Fl
Posts: 1,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by der_wille_zur_macht View Post
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.
I prefer to consider this a discussion vs argument... I think logically vs emotionally...so
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.


swcc is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/05/2012, 05:47 AM   #105
der_wille_zur_macht
Team RC Member
 
der_wille_zur_macht's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NY
Posts: 17,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by swcc View Post
The way I see it, adding nutrients to a system already loaded with nutrients
This tells me you don't understand the basic premise of this thread, which is in reference to tanks where export of P is limited because N is zero in the water column. The N "you need" IS NOT already there. What this thread is proposing is to simply add the N you need. What you're proposing is to alter the system on a grander scale in order to change the amount of N required (which, I understand in concept, but I honestly don't know how you'd actually do that in practice with any degree of confidence other than just randomly changing things until it worked out).

Quote:
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.
Let's look objectively at the two methods proposed here and then decide which one fits which half of your analogy. An established system with nutrient export methods in place is not able to lower P because the nutrient export methods are limited by N being zero. You have two options:

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)
der_wille_zur_macht is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/05/2012, 08:38 AM   #106
jazzman7838
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.


jazzman7838 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/05/2012, 08:53 AM   #107
swcc
Moved On
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Tampa Fl
Posts: 1,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by der_wille_zur_macht View Post
This tells me you don't understand the basic premise of this thread, which is in reference to tanks where export of P is limited because N is zero in the water column. The N "you need" IS NOT already there. What this thread is proposing is to simply add the N you need. What you're proposing is to alter the system on a grander scale in order to change the amount of N required (which, I understand in concept, but I honestly don't know how you'd actually do that in practice with any degree of confidence other than just randomly changing things until it worked out).



Let's look objectively at the two methods proposed here and then decide which one fits which half of your analogy. An established system with nutrient export methods in place is not able to lower P because the nutrient export methods are limited by N being zero. You have two options:

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?
I am suggesting turn to the right vs running around the block...because I am not suggesting you add nutrients to reduce nutrients when they are already being produced in the tank. Tell me how carbon dosing works or macro algae can grow without N? It is already there and the aquarist has overdone the reduction thus leaving behind P... Solve the source of the problem... it is easy to do.



Last edited by swcc; 10/05/2012 at 09:07 AM.
swcc is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/05/2012, 10:53 AM   #108
der_wille_zur_macht
Team RC Member
 
der_wille_zur_macht's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NY
Posts: 17,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by swcc View Post
it is easy to do.
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)
der_wille_zur_macht is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/05/2012, 11:05 AM   #109
swcc
Moved On
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Tampa Fl
Posts: 1,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by der_wille_zur_macht View Post
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.
I already did explain it all. Key is that y'all are trapped into thinking P will rise, yet, any tank with nitrate water column readings has a lower value of P than redfield, so more P is being utilized than being given off vs nitrate. This happens through the bacteria responsible for ammonia and nitrite reduction.
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.
swcc is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/05/2012, 05:47 PM   #110
jazzman7838
Moved On
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by swcc View Post
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 an aside from the main topic, but I disagree that this holds true for all tanks. It may for yours. I've never had much of a problem with SPS corals looking awesome and growing like gangbusters in water with undetectable nitrate and say 0.05-0.10 ppm phosphate. Never had the opposite situation happen. I think it is tough to make broad sweeping statements like "it is better" based on the experience of a few tanks that differ in a thousand important ways.

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.


jazzman7838 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/05/2012, 06:05 PM   #111
jimmyj7090
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
jimmyj7090 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/05/2012, 10:18 PM   #112
swcc
Moved On
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Tampa Fl
Posts: 1,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzman7838 View Post
It is an aside from the main topic, but I disagree that this holds true for all tanks. It may for yours. I've never had much of a problem with SPS corals looking awesome and growing like gangbusters in water with undetectable nitrate and say 0.05-0.10 ppm phosphate. Never had the opposite situation happen. I think it is tough to make broad sweeping statements like "it is better" based on the experience of a few tanks that differ in a thousand important ways.

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.
.05 to .10ppm phosphate??.. guess nitrate for P reduction does not actually work in the first place.


swcc is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/06/2012, 01:09 AM   #113
jazzman7838
Moved On
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by swcc View Post
.05 to .10ppm phosphate??.. guess nitrate for P reduction does not actually work in the first place.
What evidence makes you believe that that concentration of phosphate is "bad"? I ask because numbers for "acceptable" phosphate concentration that are so prevalent in the hobby are completely arbitrary. Know how Sprung and Delbeek came up with 0.05 ppm as a number to try and stay under? They made it up. Completely arbitrary. So why is 0.005 ppm better than 0.05 ppm? Both are orders of magnitude higher than the phosphate concentration on a wild coral reef.

A bit of GFO on the system, or some nitrate additions, would lower it...but why bother if the corals look great?


jazzman7838 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/06/2012, 08:39 AM   #114
swcc
Moved On
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Tampa Fl
Posts: 1,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzman7838 View Post
What evidence makes you believe that that concentration of phosphate is "bad"? I ask because numbers for "acceptable" phosphate concentration that are so prevalent in the hobby are completely arbitrary. Know how Sprung and Delbeek came up with 0.05 ppm as a number to try and stay under? They made it up. Completely arbitrary. So why is 0.005 ppm better than 0.05 ppm? Both are orders of magnitude higher than the phosphate concentration on a wild coral reef.

A bit of GFO on the system, or some nitrate additions, would lower it...but why bother if the corals look great?
OK so let me get this...you do not dose nitrate?
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.
swcc is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/06/2012, 11:27 AM   #115
jazzman7838
Moved On
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by swcc View Post
that means hobby test kits should not be reading any Phosphate or nitrate and if they do it is a fail.
But why? Please explain why it is a "fail". Do your corals look bad? Algae problems? Corals not growing quickly? Or are you just chasing numbers? I can post photos of atrocious looking tanks with algae scrubbers and "zero" nitrate and phosphate concentrations, and photos of awesome looking tanks (like Joe's tank that I posted earlier) with PO4 up above 0.10 ppm...

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.


jazzman7838 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/06/2012, 11:28 AM   #116
swcc
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.
swcc is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/09/2012, 10:02 PM   #117
andex23
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.


andex23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/09/2012, 10:31 PM   #118
2hands
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?


2hands is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/10/2012, 06:57 AM   #119
steenmillinder
Registered Member
 
steenmillinder's Avatar
 
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.
steenmillinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/10/2012, 12:45 PM   #120
swcc
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.


swcc is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/10/2012, 02:31 PM   #121
der_wille_zur_macht
Team RC Member
 
der_wille_zur_macht's Avatar
 
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)
der_wille_zur_macht is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/10/2012, 05:09 PM   #122
Moser
Registered Member
 
Moser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by ormet View Post
Zeostart3 test positive for Nitrates. According to a post on another forum that talks about Nitrate dosing.

And i agree, many may be doing it without knowing.
Hmm, Zeostart3 is a mix of carbon sources like VSV. Not sure why you should get a nitrate reading from it......
I was thinking more about Sponge Power....

Mo


Moser is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/10/2012, 06:58 PM   #123
Fryman
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?


Fryman is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/11/2012, 05:06 AM   #124
Big E
Registered Member
 
Big E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: South Euclid, OH
Posts: 4,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fryman View Post
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?
Yep..........chasing that number down to some mythical perfect water quality level is pointless. A number like that is a guideline. People would be better off getting in that range & let the corals tell them what's best. You can tell way more by really looking at your corals every day.

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.
Big E is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/11/2012, 05:49 AM   #125
swcc
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.


swcc is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2024 Axivo Inc.
Use of this web site is subject to the terms and conditions described in the user agreement.
Reef CentralTM Reef Central, LLC. Copyright ©1999-2022
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.