Algae release "useful proteins, carbohydrates and metabolites."

[HolisticBear]

It is almost as insulting as being told to "eat the hamburger"

That seems a bit unfair. I greatly appreciate @Lasse contributions to R2R. In this conversation, I feel useful carries the same weight as Randy so articulately stated above, yet I appreciate @Lasse insights.

Given Triton seems to be becoming a dominate method in 2018 over our traditional 2-parts, RedSea, Zeovit, traditional fuge exporting, etc. etc. approaches, asking them to elaborate on their evidence for the parts of their methodology that differ from the popular ones in years past is fair.

EDIT: Randy's second post is a further clarification on his original & unanswered question. Unsubscribing now, since it sadly feels we're just going in circles for the sport of it

 

[Lasse]

I have never doubted that it is possible that algae release something that has some "usefulness" in some reef tanks under some situations

Can you please specify what´s means with some reef tanks under some situations. Could it mean a tank with NSW according to chemical composition and nutrient levels? Could it be a reef tank there the bacterial community has large importance according to stability and re-release of nutrients and minerals. Could it be a reef tank without any adding of external dissolved organic carbon and amino acids. Could it be a reef tank there organic matter is allowed to be breaken down and the basic compounds is allowed to be recirculated ? Could it be a reef tank without WC ?

You have taken your question from an manual of a method that try to take a holistic point of view - as I see can´t the statement "A healthy algae refuge will consume animal waste by-products and some metals while exporting useful proteins, carbohydrates and metabolites" not been taken away from its context - its valid for the Triton method and its a part of that method - It does not saying anything more.

For the books - my statement in post 155

released anything that could be useful

was a little bit wrong - it should be

released useful proteins .....

of cause. I do not change in the original post

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Can you please specify what´s means with some reef tanks under some situations.

OK, let me give a simple, specific set of examples using carbohydrate release where the "usefulness" may vary tank to tank.

Some reef tanks have nitrate and phosphate higher than the aquarist would prefer. Adding a carbohydrate might drive bacterial growth that could help lower these nutrients. Is that effect useful? Quite possibly, especially if nitrate and phosphate is a primary concern. And the bacteria may be a good food for other organisms that you care about. That's useful. But the addition is also possibly not useful if other concerns are also significant, such as lowering of O2, consumption of trace elements or even major ions such as potassium, possible growth of cyanobacteria or even pathogenic bacteria.

Some tanks have lower nitrate and phosphate than some reefers prefer, and they risk dinos, coral starvation and other problems if nutrients drop further. They may even have to dose them to maintain enough. Adding a carbohydrate that drove bacterial growth would potentially drive these nutrients even lower. Is that useful? In what way?

IME, adding a carbohydrate (sugar) increased zoox levels and caused some photosynthetic organisms to brown up. If there is any tendency for that to happen when carbohydrates are released from macroalgae, is that useful? I wouldn't characterize it that way.

So it seems to me that there is a lot of uncertainty and variability on whether such releases are useful.

Why doesn't everyone carbon dose? Because it isn't always useful.

 

[Vaughn17]

In my little glass box habitat, a refugium would not be useful as macroalgae would steal nutrients that my coral need.

With all the factors, species, and habitats to consider among reef tanks, let alone the ocean, good luck coming up with a definitive answer.

 

[Want2BS8ed]

That seems a bit unfair.

Not really, it references Triton's reply to this article: http://packedhead.net/2015/triton-l...fied-artificial-saltwater-standard/#more-3309, when the company's owner made the following statement:

It is a bit like you would ask sombody else if the burger you want to eat will taste good or not... and the guy you ask take the burger to a lab do some tests , and even not eat it on his own... and then tells you " well probably it will not taste good".
Better just try a burger.

Essentially, don't ask the man behind the curtain any questions. We are what ~160 posts in and Triton has yet to comment?

I greatly appreciate @Lasse contributions to R2R.

As do I... when relavent to the discussion. I've learned a lot from the conversation and the references provided, but then again what do cultural stereotypes have to do with marine macro algae in closed Reef systems? Let's continue the debate on Triton's claims and the underlying science. Marketing puffery or fact?

It's interesting in going back to that earlier thread. Eshan made another statement that he wanted "a kind of reefkeeping that is based on KNOWLEDGE not on TRUST". Right now, I am not seeing that knowledge being spread by Triton...

In this conversation, I feel useful carries the same weight as Randy so articulately stated above, yet I appreciate @Lasse insights.

as does harmful. Don't forget there has been a fair amount of information showing certain macro algaes release toxins in this thread as well.

Could it be the utility of macro algae runs only to being a nutrient sink and a stabilizer of O2/CO2 cycles?

Given Triton seems to be becoming a dominate method in 2018 over our traditional 2-parts, RedSea, Zeovit, traditional fuge exporting, etc. etc. approaches, asking them to elaborate on their evidence for the parts of their methodology that differ from the popular ones in years past is fair.

I agree and believe the original question to be both fair and reasonable.

As for being dominate in 2018? I'm not so sure. First you have to have product on hand - something Triton has struggled with the past 3 months. Second being first to market (and arrogant about it) only lasts so long - just ask IBM about the PC market in the early 80's (there are a lot of similarities here). Third you can not survive long ignoring customers (i.e. threads like this) or moving from crises to crises without an effective communication program.

 

[Lasse]

Adding a carbohydrate that drove bacterial growth would potentially drive these nutrients even lower

Can you prove this thesis according to PO4, NH3/NH4 and NO3 (NO3 during aerobic conditions)?

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Most of those small critters are mainly eating micro algae, phytoplankton and detritus. They grow in the fuge because there are no predators. That macro algae also gives them a place to hide. They do grow in the tank you just see them less.

Amphipods & polychaetes (worms), among other things, certainly eat ulva

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Allelopathy has been recently suggested as a mechanism by which macroalgae may outcompete corals in damaged reefs. Members of the brown algal genus Lobophora are commonly observed in close contact with scleractinian corals and have been considered responsible for negative effects of macroalgae to scleractinian corals....

Lobophora species have apparently developed very specific ecological niches together with morphologies. For instance, four species of Lobophora with decumbent to encrusting growth forms are in direct contact with corals,,, Association with corals, except in some rare cases, did not represent an apparent threat for corals, but rather a shelter for algae from herbivores…..

Dead coral surface is generally a prerequisite for the algal settlement while only a limited number of living coral species seem vulnerable to Lobophora overgrowth…

Present field assays would suggest that Lobophora has the potential to chemically impair some coral species by direct contact. Nevertheless, in situ observations indicate that although apparently chemically potent, Lobophora do not or rarely bleach coral hosts in a natural setting….

Slattery and Lesser also questioned if Lobophora presented allelopathic effects on corals in the Bahamas. Yet, while Lobophora extracts and a purified compound bleached the coral Montastrea cavernosa, contact experiments between Lobophora and the coral did not. Furthermore, no claim of coral bleaching as a result of contact with Lobophora in natural setting was made by the authors.

Even though it would be tempting to conclude that allelopathy is ecologically important in the competition between Lobophora and corals, there is no strong evidence from field observations.

Therefore, the question remains: what explains the inconsistency between field observations and bioassay experiments?

Bioassays artificially expose corals to chemicals, a situation that would only occur as a result of abrasion or herbivory under natural conditions…

Given the presence of allopathic compounds, most coral species prevent the overgrowth of crustose Lobophora species owing to a set of defense mechanisms…
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep18637

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Can you prove this thesis according to PO4, NH3/NH4 and NO3 (NO3 during aerobic conditions)?

Sincerely Lasse

I'm confused. I said that

"Adding a carbohydrate that drove bacterial growth would potentially drive these nutrients even lower"

And you asked the above question.

Are you asking me to prove that adding organic carbon (like a carbohydrate) might lower nutrients?

If it spurs even one bacterium to grow, then that bacterium is necessarily taking up N and P somehow, and the nutrients will be likely be reduced to some extent.

 

[Lasse]

If it spurs even one bacterium to grow, then that bacterium is necessarily taking up N and P somehow, and the nutrients will be likely be reduced to some extent.

What´s the valid source of N and P for heterotrophic bacteria (the group that will need DOC) - inorganic or organic P and N?

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Stigigemla]

I think we are discussing a lot of myths.
It is an often accepted myth that algae refugiums are benificial for the corals in a reef tank.
It might be true or not but there is no proof of it.
It is another myth that corals fare well if you add dead or alive phytoplancton. In some tanks they fare well in others they die covered in cyano.
When i last met Eshan Dashi he claimed that the algae in refugium would take up more of the trace elements that it was excessive amounts of. They are so to say balancing the amounts of trace elements.
That might also is a myth but could be just as important as the leaking of nutrients from algae refugiums.
Another myth is that dosing sugars will be good for corals. We dont really know. But starved Fungias can sometimes be saved with a fructose bath.
We dont even know if Randys sugar adding was bad for his corals. They maybe did very good in their new color and doubled their growth. Or they were doubling their growth and was close to dying because of that. or...

I can add three more anectdotal observations. Maybe they can be the start of new myths too.

1. If you skim to effective - mushrooms, polyps and some leathers will shrink and die after some time.

2. I started a new pH rising 2 part method inspired from Randy and Jim Welsh and got extreme polyp expansion.
PH raised from 7,8 - 8,05 to 8,1 - 8,35. High pH is good for polyp expansion.

3. In that high pH corals bifurcates more.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

What´s the valid source of N and P for heterotrophic bacteria (the group that will need DOC) - inorganic or organic P and N?

Sincerely Lasse

Could be either one. Many people see nitrate decline when dosing organic carbon of various sorts. Whether the agent taken up directly is nitrate, or ammonia, or an organic nitrogen compound doesn't really matter if it takes those away from general availability to other organisms, or to the pool of things that ultimately becomes nitrate.

 

[Lasse]

The question is still there - Can you prove that heterotrophic bacteria are able to take up inorganic N or P from the water column in an aquarium or is conclusions you have done because of some aquarium observations and studies from nature according to bacteriaplankton?

Sincerely Lasse

 

[jsker]

The question is still there - Can you prove that heterotrophic bacteria are able to take up inorganic N or P from the water column in an aquarium or is conclusions you have done because of some aquarium observations and studies from nature according to bacteriaplankton?

Sincerely Lasse

@Randy Holmes-Farley . Lasse is looking for the written studies/references to read.

 

[Jose Mayo]

Knowledge changes over time, and the true lover of Science does not bother with it, but rather welcomes the fact that darkness is overcome:

Nitrogen uptake by heterotrophic bacteria and phytoplankton in Arctic surface waters

Regards

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Knowledge changes over time, and the true lover of Science does not bother with it, but rather welcomes the fact that darkness is overcome:

Regards

 

[Jose Mayo]

If I'm not what you think, why bother me? And if I am, why bother me?

Be happy with your thoughts.

Regards

 

[Lasse]

Knowledge changes over time, and the true lover of Science does not bother with it, but rather welcomes the fact that darkness is overcome:

Nitrogen uptake by heterotrophic bacteria and phytoplankton in Arctic surface waters

Regards

These findings has been known since the beginning of the 90:ties - its not new science.

However some keywords from the cited article - Artic water, heterotrophic plankton, heterotrophic bacterioplankton and free living bacteria make my no scientific (but rather logical) brain to wonder how adequate this is to a reef tank? Especially when the test temperatures was between -1.37 to +1.10 degree C

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Jose Mayo]

These findings has been known since the beginning of the 90:ties - its not new science.

However some keywords from the cited article - Artic water, heterotrophic plankton, heterotrophic bacterioplankton and free living bacteria make my no scientific (but rather logical) brain to wonder how adequate this is to a reef tank? Especially when the test temperatures was between -1.37 to +1.10 degree C

Sincerely Lasse

Imagining is what moves us.

Regards

 

[Scrubber_steve]

If I'm not what you think, why bother me? And if I am, why bother me?

Be happy with your thoughts.

Regards

But seriously Jose, I was just having a little fun with your somewhat naive philosophical outlook at science.
Scientists are human, and science is as corrupt as it is enlightening.