Question of Balance: Nutrients in = Nutrients out

[Subsea]

While nutrients in equals nutrients out is the long term goal of reef keepers, I prefer to grow up the biological filter until I am happy with the display. To that goal, I don't export with a skimmer or a water change. When the biological filter includes desirable corals, display marcos, NPS and LPS undulating with currents as if dancing in harmony to a natural rhythm, I like it like that. Each of us has a concept of what constitutes beauty. After more than 40 years, I never grow tired of it and appreciate each day to see more.
For me, Question of Balance, allows a blending of styles and techniques. When in harmony with the physical sciences, I find this hobby incredible easy but never boring.
Patrick

[Subsea]

In my early days of reef keeping, I worked a 28 day on and 28 day off schedule. Using an integrated system with Jaubert Plenums, DSB, mud filters and macro lagoon biotheme tanks, I allowed the biofilter to be the automatic control system. The biological filter adjusted the difference when nutrients in did not equal nutrients out. When I was gone, with no nutrient input, the biological filter reduced in size and feed the tank. When I was home, I feed the tank and exported nutrients as required.
It is all about balance and dynamic equilibrium.
Patrick

[Fredfish]

I happen to like that approach as well. To me, the more mouths and nutrient uptake organisms you have in your system, the more redundancy you have. If one population collapses, there are others to 'take up the slack'.

[Aquarist007]

How do you feel about the concept of more fish more adding of nutrients with carbon dosing being so easy to do now.
I agree with you that is all about equilibrium and homeostasis but that is even more
then it used to be. first I thought it was great to be able to reduce phosphates and nitrates undetectable then to strip who knows what out of the water through over skimming and running carbon, big water changes
I got what I wanted .. Crystal clear water with no algae
And I got what I didn't want.. A sterile tank with nicely coloured corals with no growth.
As beautiful as that tank is it far out out of biological equilibrium
I'm not the only one in this situation either.. Just smart enough to realize it and determined to change it

[jackson6745]

Originally Posted by capn_hylinur

How do you feel about the concept of more fish more adding of nutrients with carbon dosing being so easy to do now.

I can't tell you exactly why, but through experience I can tell you it is extremely effective when balanced properly.

[Subsea]

Originally Posted by capn_hylinur

How do you feel about the concept of more fish more adding of nutrients with carbon dosing being so easy to do now.
I agree with you that is all about equilibrium and homeostasis but that is even more
then it used to be. first I thought it was great to be able to reduce phosphates and nitrates undetectable then to strip who knows what out of the water through over skimming and running carbon, big water changes
I got what I wanted .. Crystal clear water with no algae
And I got what I didn't want.. A sterile tank with nicely coloured corals with no growth.
As beautiful as that tank is it far out out of biological equilibrium
I'm not the only one in this situation either.. Just smart enough to realize it and determined to change it

Scotty,
The title of Reef Aquarium, Volume 3 is "Science, Art, and Technology
Art is the balance.

[Aquarist007]

Originally Posted by Subsea

Scotty,
The title of Reef Aquarium, Volume 3 is "Science, Art, and Technology
Art is the balance.

I'm really trying to get a hold of a copy...very difficult

[Subsea]

Scott,
The ecology of a reef is nutrient rich, even the flats that support SPS. If it were not for diversity of herbivores coral reefs would be macroalgae dominant. Granted, the flats are not bathed in high TOC 24/7. At night and during upwelling of nutrient rich currents they receive high doses of nutrients. I suspect they dominate the flats because other corals flourish in nutrients 24/7. The point is to feed the tank. With excess TOC your tank requires more herbivores. If your CUC can reproduce in captivity, they will balance the nutrient input. The trick is not to rush the process of biological balance. Accept that algae is a good thing. Allow it to be the bioindicator to evaluate excess nutrients. Balance and beauty are both in the eyes of the beholder.
Patrick

[Nano sapiens]

Luckily for us, biological systems tend to balance themselves out given enough time and stability. Problem is that we human's are often too impatient and try to force the process...often with disasterous results.

Coral growth can be a bit of a dillema, especially in smaller nano tanks. Too much, too fast can wreck havoc in the coral population unless requent fragging is done. I have found that it is possible to have a relatively 'clean' tank, great coloration and slow-to-moderate growth by maintaining stability in everything including the food input frequency and amount fed with the use of only live rock and live sand.

Having a few fish in the tank really helps IMO and should aleviate any carbon limitation if numbers and feeding are adequate. However, I can see carbon dosing as being necessary when a system either dosen't have enough nutrient input and/or nutrients are stripped too aggressively.

And I don't mind a bit of algae as long as it isn't distractingly obvious

Ralph.

[reefgeezer]

I am at a loss here Patrick. Are you talking about using nothing to help manage nutrient levels that isn't living? No skimmer... no carbon dosing... no GAC/GFO... no etc.? Can you keep a lot of fish in a system like that?

[Aquarist007]

John, he has mentioned on other threads that he is carbon dosing

[reefgeezer]

So... carbon dosing with nothing to perform export. I read the carbon dosing skimmerless thread. I get the bacterial predation/feeding the invertebrates thing... but how much input can a system like this handle? Can the system handle a high fish population that is well fed?

[Subsea]

I have softies, macro and mud refugium. The only nutrient export is GAC and macro. I do not stock heavy fish load.

[reefgeezer]

Originally Posted by Subsea

I have softies, macro and mud refugium. The only nutrient export is GAC and macro. I do not stock heavy fish load.

Thanks Patrick. I'm rebuilding my system using some of the methods you employ (plus a big skimmer). The only substantial difference would be a heavier fish load and food input (thus the skimmer). That why I was asking questions.

[Subsea]

Originally Posted by reefgeezer

So... carbon dosing with nothing to perform export. I read the carbon dosing skimmerless thread. I get the bacterial predation/feeding the invertebrates thing... but how much input can a system like this handle? Can the system handle a high fish population that is well fed?

John,

Depends on the system.
Because I have chosen zero water change with a laissez faire maintenance schedule, the answer is no balance with high fish load. If the biological processes were extensive enough, with the right diversity, then the answer could be yes. Again it is balance. It depends on what you want to put into the equation. If I adapted high fish loads, the equation would change dramatically.

It really depends on the goals for the tank. I choose simplicity. In so doing, I limit my fish load.
Patrick

PS. The fish are the largest single contributor of excess nutrients in an ecosystem. Extensive biological filtration or other nutrient export methods are required. With many gallons in my systems and because of economy, I do not use water change as a nutrient balancing option. In so doing, I limit my fish load to balance the system.

[Aquarist007]

Originally Posted by Subsea

I have softies, macro and mud refugium. The only nutrient export is GAC and macro. I do not stock heavy fish load.

It's worth mentioning that GAC is very effective at removing bacteria and TOC

[reefgeezer]

Originally Posted by capn_hylinur

It's worth mentioning that GAC is very effective at removing bacteria and TOC

I'm probably in over my head here as I don't know too much about determining TOC. Here, I'll prove it...

I was under the impression that GAC trapped organics of a certain charge and that those captured organics would continue to breakdown to a point the nutrients bound in them would be released back into the water column.

I do agree that GAC makes a fine substrate for bacteria to grow. However, I also think the area available for growth is limited so the amount of bacteria it can support is limited. Those bacteria that do grow on the GAC are only exported when the GAC is changed.

Didn't there used to be a method where huge cylinders of "charcoal" were used to colonize a bacteria colony? I wonder what happened to that method?

[Aquarist007]

Originally Posted by reefgeezer

I'm probably in over my head here as I don't know too much about determining TOC. Here, I'll prove it...

I was under the impression that GAC trapped organics of a certain charge and that those captured organics would continue to breakdown to a point the nutrients bound in them would be released back into the water column.

I do agree that GAC makes a fine substrate for bacteria to grow. However, I also think the area available for growth is limited so the amount of bacteria it can support is limited. Those bacteria that do grow on the GAC are only exported when the GAC is changed.

Didn't there used to be a method where huge cylinders of "charcoal" were used to colonize a bacteria colony? I wonder what happened to that method?

There is reference here
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh...&postcount=438

[reefgeezer]

Originally Posted by capn_hylinur

There is reference here
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh...&postcount=438

I've seen reference to that study before and read it quite a while back. I'm not qualified to judge the assertions and would stipulate I don't comprehend most of the study. I wonder about the validity of using TOC measurement as a benchmark though. In the case of GAC, aren't the carbon containing organics still in the water column just not available to the test.

I'm not challenging Patrick's method. If I didn't want a lot of fish, I'd do much the same. I just want to probe the assumptions so that I can learn a little.

[Subsea]

John,
The us of GAC is a proven standard for not only removing TOC but many noxious chemicals which can not be readily removed by skimming or only diluted by water change. The misuse of GAC occurs when it is left in use for too long. Just as in using mechanical filter floss, if it stays in to long then it becomes a nitrate factory. GAC is not intended to be used to house bacteria, but if left in tank too long, it will. The proper use of GAC would be small amounts changed frequently.
Patrick

[Subsea]

John,
If I wanted a lot of fish, I would have to do partial water changes. No other changes would be required from my present maintenance, which is minimal.
Patrick

[Aquarist007]

Originally Posted by Subsea

John,
The us of GAC is a proven standard for not only removing TOC but many noxious chemicals which can not be readily removed by skimming or only diluted by water change. The misuse of GAC occurs when it is left in use for too long. Just as in using mechanical filter floss, if it stays in to long then it becomes a nitrate factory. GAC is not intended to be used to house bacteria, but if left in tank too long, it will. The proper use of GAC would be small amounts changed frequently.
Patrick

I agree with you totally. I haven't run gac in my system for awhile now. I keep some on hand in case of an emergency poison situation

[Subsea]

Originally Posted by reefgeezer

I've seen reference to that study before and read it quite a while back. I'm not qualified to judge the assertions and would stipulate I don't comprehend most of the study. I wonder about the validity of using TOC measurement as a benchmark though. In the case of GAC, aren't the carbon containing organics still in the water column just not available to the test.

I'm not challenging Patrick's method. If I didn't want a lot of fish, I'd do much the same. I just want to probe the assumptions so that I can learn a little.

John,
After your question on activated carbon application, I googled it. Inquiring minds want to know.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...qeUWfq934oQMvw

I found a two part series by Richard Harker on Fish Channel.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...lmH9C7619FlCUw

Harker in part 1, specifically narrows down organics removed to be DOC.

There are two parts to the discussion. No mention of bacteria removal comes up in any of the written literature.

There is much folklore and crowd sourcing of information on hobby forums. It is for this reason, I filter information from hobby forum threads. I do not get my technical scientific knowledge from hobby forums. I do get some practical application from hobby forum threds.
Patrick

[Aquarist007]

Originally Posted by capn_hylinur

I agree with you totally. I haven't run gac in my system for awhile now. I keep some on hand in case of an emergency poison situation

I should add that I'm in the process of building back micro organisms in my tank so I am not running carbon or uv sterilizer anymore and doing daily 2 per cent water changes.
If your not skimming then running gac would be a good idea

[reefgeezer]

Originally Posted by Subsea

John,
If I wanted a lot of fish, I would have to do partial water changes. No other changes would be required from my present maintenance, which is minimal.
Patrick

What would drive the need for water changes were you to have more fish in your system, excess nutrients or the loss of something that needs to be replaced?