Algae release "useful proteins, carbohydrates and metabolites."

[Scrubber_steve]

That's the point. It's a claim. Randy is purely asking for information to back up this claim.

Think about it. The entire reef keeping hobby has been founded on anecdotal evidence, hear say and misinformation.

To move forward from this, its nice to know why.

Yes, I agree. & Triton should have responded (too late now).

But,,, look at the key word used - >>>"useful"<<<

I think that evidence exists to back up this statement (in its context) & in the context of the statement, which is not over the top or anywhere near it, I would ask for evidence to disprove it!

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Algae release extremely vital elements into the water that are necessary for corals to grow at twice the rate, and with super intense coloration.

Now there's a statement that requires evidence to back it up!

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

What does Triton actually claim?
"A healthy algae refuge will consume animal waste by-products and some metals [while exporting useful proteins, carbohydrates and metabolites]."

That's it!
In the context of Triton's brochure, this is a minor side issue, & a very basic statement which many people would have heard well before Triton existed.
And in the context of claims made by many aquarium product manufactures - its a nothing burger!

Some enzymes at least play a positive role, as would carbohydrates. But there may not be all that much released into the water to make much difference.
Secondary metabolites are released as a stress reaction - e.g. deterrent against herbivores and pathogens, & would be surface concentrated for that purpose.

I agree it's not a big deal. On the testing side, Triton has been a lot more forthcoming with evidence and such (e.g., standard curves, limits of detection, etc.), and I just thought they might have something similar here.

But I guess the Triton "method" and its supporting hypotheses are more akin to other "methods", which largely amount to trial and error and use it if you like it, rather than "here's the reason we say what we do".

 

[Scrubber_steve]

I agree it's not a big deal. On the testing side, Triton has been a lot more forthcoming with evidence and such (e.g., standard curves, limits of detection, etc.), and I just thought they might have something similar here.

But I guess the Triton "method" and its supporting hypotheses are more akin to other "methods", which largely amount to trial and error and use it if you like it, rather than "here's the reason we say what we do".

I view their statement - "export useful proteins, carbohydrates and metabolites" as factual, but meaningless, and harmless advertising jargon.
"useful" ,,, specifically how, & to what?
They make no specific claims

 

[Jose Mayo]

Extraordinary affirmations require extraordinary proof ...

I believe that topics such as these, asking questions like these, should be more frequent and more watched in the hobby, at least to confront what is expected with what happens and that, in reality, for many, have been different things.

Let's go ahead!

Regards

 

[NY_Caveman]

Triton may still reply. They are considering the question just like we are.

 

[Bugger]

Maybe we should ask the red sea guys what there studies were like using energy a and b
Is there even a way to measure things like carbohydrates and aa in salt water from what a pound of cheatomorpha in salt water
Randy you already believe in amino acids so a simple study would help.
Maybe we could ask the BRS guys to do it

 

[Finhead]

Triton may still reply. They are considering the question just like we are.

If they have it advertised on there Methods page as a statment of fact why would they need to consider the question? Should they not know the answer since they state it as a fact and part of there Method.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

If they have it advertised on there Methods page as a statment of fact why would they need to consider the question? Should they not know the answer since they state it as a fact and part of there Method.

I don't believe they need to back up 'their' statement. What we have is people making assumptions from what they actually stated.

"export useful proteins, carbohydrates and metabolites."
The above elements would be utilized, in one way or another, in nature, & that makes them useful!

 

[Finhead]

I don't believe they need to back up 'their' statement. What we have is people making assumptions from what they actually stated.

"export useful proteins, carbohydrates and metabolites."
The above elements would be utilized, in one way or another, in nature, & that makes them useful!

That makes Zero sense, why wouldn't they need to backup there statements? It's part of the Method they promote.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

That makes Zero sense, why wouldn't they need to backup there statements? It's part of the Method they promote.

Because their statement is meaningless.
But, if you are arguing that the elements algae exude are not utilized in nature, & hence NOT "useful", you need to supply the evidence to back up your assertion.

I am basing my argument on what Triton has actually stated.

 

[Finhead]

Because their statement is meaningless.
But, if you are arguing that the elements algae exude are not utilized in nature, & hence NOT "useful", you need to supply the evidence to back up your assertion.

I am basing my argument on what Triton has actually stated.

Nope I am not stating anything one way or the other, if you read my posts I said. If they have it on there page as a statment of fact to there method they should have the answer to the question that was asked. They should not have to ponder it or consider it, they should know since they have it right on there page as a part of there system/method.

 

[kecked]

I feel stupid. Where do they get the carbon from. Duh. Was not thinking. This reminds me of discussions regarding testosterone boosters. And sleep apnea strips. Hey just send your money to me. I promise I’ll use it as I see fit.

 

[gpwdr]

Hi Randy,
I see there is no response from the Triton guys.
I have been running the full Triton system for 3 years now. I practically never throw out any algae from the refugium. Different algae dominate thru different periods. I guess a lot of other aquarist harvest the algae on a regular bases.
My sulfur levels are high, maybe its from not harvesting the algae?

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Nope I am not stating anything one way or the other, if you read my posts I said. If they have it on there page as a statment of fact to there method they should have the answer to the question that was asked. They should not have to ponder it or consider it, they should know since they have it right on there page as a part of there system/method.

Triton's statement itself is a factual generalisation that is indisputable but meaningless to the aquarist because they make no specific claims, such as the exudates are 'vital' or 'necessary' or 'will increase the rate of growth of corals'. It isn't false or misleading, but designed to provoke assumptions from the reader.

Randy's original question was "What is the basis for saying these these released chemicals are useful? Is there any supporting evidence?"

Aminos are useful, and here's another example of useful enzymes that applies to algae filtration specifically.

And Yes, Triton should have responded, by now, just out of courtesy.

 

[ShawnSaucier]

I wish I had a better understanding of all of the chemistry/biological terms being used within this thread.
But from an outsiders view, I can see where an algae bed makes sense. When I picture a perfect setup in my head, I think of mimicking all aspects of the ocean including intercostal environments (larger amounts of plants and algae’s) and cryptic environments ( sponges, worms, etc). Trying to mimic this in a balanced fashion is what we essentially all hope to do.
I’ve been dipping my toe in the Triton Kool Aid, switching sumps with a large mixed fuge (chaeto and multiple reds)upgrading dosers, etc. but haven’t switched to the additives yet as they seem scarce at the moment. But some of the changes I have noticed since slowly making the conversion are minimal. The largest change though has been my skimmate. I run a little wet, but it went from a tea color to a black green and if I go more than 2 days without cleaning, man does it stink like high heaven. At first I thought the skimmer was just pulling extra, but after reading this it makes me feel like there might be more sulfur (?) in the water. Maybe it’s being caught be the skimmer due to its placement after the fuge?
I’m going to sit back down in the corner and let the big boys talk now.. Cliff Notes needed. Lol

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Triton's statement itself is a factual generalisation that is indisputable but meaningless to the aquarist because they make no specific claims, such as the exudates are 'vital' or 'necessary' or 'will increase the rate of growth of corals'. It isn't false or misleading, but designed to provoke assumptions from the reader.
.

I guess I'd question that a bit. Are "carbohydrates" added to a tank "useful"? In what way?

Most people reading their claim would read "useful" and "beneficial" as the same, but I agree that technically it is not. I would hope the explanation is not that it is useful for something that we do not actually consider desirable (like feeding cyano).

If adding carbohydrates is generally useful, why do so few people actually do it in other ways? Many people are not thrilled with the results they see when they add sugar. I wasn't.

 

[Sallstrom]

Maybe the carbohydrates feeds the sponges? Or feed the coral that feed the sponges that feeds the corals
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep18715
https://www.semanticscholar.org/pap...elen/5a87b5b1b15fd8225f748ba04e097b54578662e6

 

[jack_aubry]

OK I am going to take a stab at this. First let me preface this by saying I have am a molecular/evolutionary biologist and I have never kept a reef tank. I have been researching and seriously planning a reef tank in the future, but as a semi-nomadic post-doc a large reef tank is not really in the cards at the moment. So my thoughts on this topic are from my knowledge of metabolism and available research of keeping a reef tank not from hands on experience.

1. There are far too many generalities on both sides of this debate for the concrete support people are asking for. If you are after specific answers you need to ask a well defined question.

Starting with "useful proteins, carbohydrates and metabolites" this is undoubtedly a vague statement, but I would not say meaningless. I will get to why I think that is a valid statement later. Another vague statement is "a variety of benthic macroalgaes" this is an even more nebulous. Conservatively, there are several hundred species that could be called benthic macroalgae and could grow under typical reef tank parameters. Even if you define this as the typical fuge species Cheto, Caulerpa, Gracilaria, Ulva, and Sargassum there are still several dozen species to consider. These groups are not even very closely related to each other and even within geniuses there are millions of years of divergence. It would be extremely unlikely if these species behave identically or even similarly. Lumped together as macro algae it is difficult to make specific claims, but I do not think this is problematic. Again will explain later.

The algae diversity ties directly into the idea of allopatric chemical inhibition, but again this is vague. Of the hundreds of hard and soft coral species and the possible interactions between the many algae species, undoubtedly there are macro algae that produce compounds which may be detrimental to some coral species. These effects would likely be species specific and concentration dependant. So how much of the harmful algae to the amount of water in the system and how sensitive a coral species is to a particular compound, and how long the compound persits in the water before breaking down. I have a colleague that found that Ulva lactuca inhibited growth of other algae species, but a similar species Ulva intestinalis had no effect. As is this work is not publishable, but I think warrants further study. I use this as an example of how different species can be even in the same genus.

Benthic marco algae do not exist as a single organism. They are dependant on a diverse microbial community basic metabolites. This relationship is complex and poorly understood, but we do know it is not possible to culture macro algae axenically (with out over live forms). So these bacteria are critical for algae survival. Meaning every macro algae comes with a metabolically diverse bacterial community. It does seem that some of these bacteria species a grenalists colonizing multiple algae species others seem more specific to particular algae species. This microbial community is similar to my actual work which looks at the evolution of pathway losses and the associations that form because of those losses. Basically we (we as in the scientific community not me personally) have found that it is often cheaper to scavenge pre-made compounds from the environment rather than make them yourself. If a particular compound is available often enough the species may lose the ability to produce that compound completely. Similar to why humans have 9 essential amino acids at some point the ancestor of humans could make all 20 AA, but over time those amino acids were expensive to make and available in the diet so the ability to make them was lost. Now if we don't get enough of all nine you become malnourished. It turns out such loses are very common in the ocean. Called the "leaky membrane hypothesis" we see in phytoplankton that many species are missing critical pathways, but they survive and thrive so they must be getting them from their environment. Again generalizing to all coral and all symbiodinium when we have so few transcriptomes for either is not possible, but I would guess that there are similar pathway holes in many coral species. These holes have to be filled from by scavenging metabolites produced by other organisms.

OK with that in mind this is why I think "useful proteins, carbohydrates and metabolites" is perfectly valid, not just marketing, and vague for a reason. We know that macro algae are releasing lots of metabolites into the water. You can test that for yourself culture some marco algae in a container and you can smell, taste, feel a difference in the water or read some of the papers cited. Macro algae are polysaccharide rich and a rich polysaccharide mucus is secreted to keep their surfaces clean, a diverse community of bacteria feed on these polysaccharides and convert it to other compounds including vitamins and amino acids. In the end a rich metabolite soup is released into the water. By having "a diverse community of benthic macro algae" you do two things. First, you increase the metabolic diversity from both the algae metabolism and the individual bacterial communities. Second, any coral harmful metabolites produced will be less, because there will be less algae material to produce it. Third, increasing diversity increases the chance that some microbe will break those compounds down, because an inhibitory compound for one organism is a carbon source for another. We know this soup of metabolites will be circulating the tank and we know that coral can uptake things from seawater. Already I think Tritons claims are valid, but the argument of amount remains. How much macro algae is enough to get a significant benefit from an algal metabolic soup? Triton does give very specific parameters for both fuge size and system turnover which is helpful. But to truly answer how much is enough will depend a great deal on the organisms in the tank and their metabolic needs. As the end user you could play with the amounts of algae and supplement different products to see what effects there might be. Given the diversity in reef tanks even if they conducted the exact rigorous science expected it would not mean much to you tank in the end.

After all that Tritons claim are pretty basic and consistent with their reefing philosophy, replicate the ocean. Since we can't support phytoplankton communities in a tank as in the ocean the natural substitute is macro algae. Basic biology supports their claim. As to the specifics of it and the details. Every system will vary

I am not a Triton employee or even a reef tank owner this is just my opinion as a biologist.

 

[Jose Mayo]

Not infrequently, the term "useful" is used to mean that it is "good" and the term "harmful" to mean that it is "bad" ... regarding the uses and effects of substances in general, some may be useful to all , useful to some, useful to some and harmful to others, harmful to some and harmful to all (which does not deplete the combinations). If I use and intend that the term "useful" be understood as "all that is utilized", it seems to me that I am abusing the interpretation of the common, but ... in poetry everything is allowed, in advertising it is also not important, perhaps .

From all that has been said, I would think the best advice is "keep an eye on it".

Obviously, in the complex interactions of a naturally nutrient-poor environment, such as the coral reef, there will always be (there will be) beings who take advantage of what is wasteful to others, closing the cycle. And so it is, otherwise there would be no balance ... but a reef aquarium is an imperfect system in which, beginning with recirculation and its small relative volume, any minimal secretion can gain scale in a short time and perhaps the time necessary for degrade any of these secretions, is exceeded.

Can any primary or secondary metabolite be useful for a particular ecological niche? It may ... but there is a necessary context for this and generalizing does not make sense.

Regards