Are you concerned about DOC?

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I am not sure how Triton measures organic carbon and how they report it. My concern with total doc is as I mentioned earlier in this thread. In many ways it is like measuring salinity to control potassium. Total doc does not give information about specific organics that will have very different properties.

I am not sure if and how triton filters or treats samples before elemental analysis. That has a bearing on what size materials get detected and which do not.

I also see little reason to focus on ratios. If an organic is toxic, it is not made less toxic by increasing the amount of nitrate present.

There is a world of stuff to learn about organics. We are just in the early stages of learning what is good,what is not, and what reefers can do about it.

 

[Reef Builders]

Right. I understood. Don’t accept everything you read.

It’s an unsupported assertion that it is an important factor in a typical reef tank. It may or may not be true, but it seems unlikely to be true to me. I’m not asking anyone to accept my expectation, but to be skeptical of claims with no supporting data at all.

In nature, volcanos destroy a lot of corals. Does that mean it happens in reef tanks?

Hi Randy - the citation for a 100 page dissertation discussing sponges role in carbon cycling is at the bottom :) certainly wasn’t conjecture on my part.

As for if it’s the most practical I never claimed sponges were the best export they obviously are not - I was just simply trying to start a conversation .

This is my last official post as Reef Builders

Salem signing off

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Hi Randy - the citation for a 100 page dissertation discussing sponges role in carbon cycling is at the bottom :) certainly wasn’t conjecture on my part.

As for if it’s the most practical I never claimed sponges were the best export they obviously are not - I was just simply trying to start a conversation .

This is my last official post as Reef Builders

Salem signing off

All I’m saying is that no one has ever quantified sponge effects on organics in a reef tank. Might be significant and it might be insignificant. No one knows. Not you, not me, not anyone.

That said, I like sponges. I have a bunch coming for my tank tomorrow. I have nothing against them. :)

 

[p1u5h13r4m24]

I wanted to thank everyone for their valuable input on this. My overall consensus will be to continue with 10% water changes and keep my nutrients up with feeding and or ammonia bicarbonate (I’ve been adding urea as well) I feel like with water changing and feeding I shouldn’t have to worry about toxins being too high or too low.

If I have any issues moving forward the oceanmo organics test may give me a bit more insight to what toxic organics may be the issue (assuming all other elements are within check). I may just send one in out of curiosity as well :)

I also wanted to clarify I haven’t had any issues with my tank. I started this thread so I could get better understanding and some other opinions about DOC. I think I found what I was looking for and thank you all again!

 

[Pntbll687]

"We do things because they work, and figure out WHY they work later. The most important thing is to never stop doing what works."

Sums up water changes in reef tanks precisely.

We start doing them, some people stop doing them at some point, and then come back to doing them again. Volume and frequency may change, but water changes should be a staple for any tank.

 

[djf91]

Many folks do such tests, as have I. But some methods, such as ozone, reduce yellowing without doing much for total doc.

​

​

Two digital photographs of a plastic bar taken through four feet of aquarium water. The bar on the left was taken before using ozone, and the bar on the right was taken after two weeks on ozone. The numbers were written onto the bar with marking pens. All camera settings were identical.​

I was just listening to Charles Delbeeks talk about the Steinhart aquarium and he mentioned that the ozone they use helps to break down the long chain organic molecules to shorter forms which are more easily bound by GAC. Could this be true?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I was just listening to Charles Delbeeks talk about the Steinhart aquarium and he mentioned that the ozone they use helps to break down the long chain organic molecules to shorter forms which are more easily bound by GAC. Could this be true?

Maybe. I think there's a different and more likely explanation for those sorts of results. I discuss these issues in great detail in the link below.

The first part is certainly true, it can break unsaturated fatty acids and other molecules at the unsaturated linkage, making two smaller bits.

But these smaller bits do not seem to me more likely to bind to GAC. IMO, they are the same or less likely to do so being now more hydrophilic.

But they may be more likely to be metabolized by bacteria, and GAC is a great place for bacteria to grow, making the combination of GAC and ozone potentially more useful than either alone.

Ozone and the Reef Aquarium, Part 1: Chemistry and Biochemistry by Randy Holmes-Farley - Reefkeeping.com

 

[drbrivers]

All I’m saying is that no one has ever quantified sponge effects on organics in a reef tank. Might be significant and it might be insignificant. No one knows. Not you, not me, not anyone.

That said, I like sponges. I have a bunch coming for my tank tomorrow. I have nothing against them. :)

HI Randy - if you don't mind me asking, where did you source your sponges from? Thanks.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

HI Randy - if you don't mind me asking, where did you source your sponges from? Thanks.

I got them from Gulf coast ecosystems. They recently changed their web site and @Subsea mentioned they were for sale as the principle was retiring.

https://gulfcoasteco.myshopify.com/

 

[Thales]

All I’m saying is that no one has ever quantified sponge effects on organics in a reef tank. Might be significant and it might be insignificant. No one knows. Not you, not me, not anyone.

That said, I like sponges. I have a bunch coming for my tank tomorrow. I have nothing against them. :)

The danger with using general papers as implicit direction for our tanks is huge, and it always suprises me when folks read something in a paper and thing it is immediately applicable to captive care. Sure, in the lack of practical information/data, doing what 'nature' does, is a great starting point, but we have a bunch of information/data and we know that 'nature' doesn't always mean right for out tanks - look at how reefers approach phosphate for example (when I made the joke in 2015 that people would one day be adding phosphate to their tanks it was only partially tongue and cheek).

I think DOC is interesting, but until we get an easy, fast, and accessable test for it, it is gonna be hard to chase down. For DOC, we kinda do what we did for phosphate before we could test for it...reasonable mitigation via GAC, waterchanges, etc. DOC is the same issue it has always been, and the solution to pollution is what it has always been - dilution. So, we go with water changes, GAC, or biological stuff we hope will help. Sponges are great, but we need to know how much of anything we care about they actually process, and then if we need to export them (or are we wating for a sponge die off to rerelease everything they have incorporated?). I suspect it will be like algae and that we need a whole lot of it and export to really make much of a difference. Now, sponges are great, and I grow the crap out of them (mostly hitchhikers) because it is easy and they are cool, and maybe they help, and after 23 years of a running system there are a lot of sponges. But, until someone bothers to get some numbers, we are just tossing stuff at walls and hoping. Which is fine, but might be important for new reefers to be reminded of lest the get trapped in DOC and spongeville, rather than other basic care.

Someone mentioned water changes. Several years ago I started to do automated water changes to see how they would impact my notoriously 'high nutrient' system. It took about 6 months of a 2-3% daily water change on about 450 gallons (now more) to impact N - and totally took care of any issue about N rising higher (Now it is usally below 10, but can bounce up when something happens). P is a tougher nut to work at imo, and the water changes didn't impact that number at all.

I encourage anyone that wants to trailblaze to do a real good look at what has happened in a paticular arena because I see to much wheel reinvention in this hobby. Rock on everyone, and share data if you have it, and if you don't be careful of saying stuff with finality.

 

[Subsea]

All I’m saying is that no one has ever quantified sponge effects on organics in a reef tank. Might be significant and it might be insignificant. No one knows. Not you, not me, not anyone.

That said, I like sponges. I have a bunch coming for my tank tomorrow. I have nothing against them. :)

https://www.researchgate.net/public...moval_by_encrusting_coral_reef_cavity_sponges
@Randy Holmes-Farley
Because research money for reef aquariums is not abundant, there is little documentation of DOC abatement by cryptic sponges.

However, fisheries get much research money with the above research done in closed vessels near a Caribbean reef with cryptic sponges of 6 different species. This scientific paper is very detailed with methods above my understanding.

Cryptic sponges and ornamental sponges do not feed the same.

 

[Subsea]

All I’m saying is that no one has ever quantified sponge effects on organics in a reef tank. Might be significant and it might be insignificant. No one knows. Not you, not me, not anyone.

That said, I like sponges. I have a bunch coming for my tank tomorrow. I have nothing against them. :)

https://www.researchgate.net/public...moval_by_encrusting_coral_reef_cavity_sponges
@Randy Holmes-Farley
The above research was done in closed vessels with cryptic sponges of 6 different species

 

[Subsea]

All I’m saying is that no one has ever quantified sponge effects on organics in a reef tank. Might be significant and it might be insignificant. No one knows. Not you, not me, not anyone.

That said, I like sponges. I have a bunch coming for my tank tomorrow. I have nothing against them. :)

https://www.researchgate.net/public...moval_by_encrusting_coral_reef_cavity_sponges
@Randy Holmes-Farley
The above research was done in closed vessels with cryptic sponges of 6 different species.

 

[CHSUB]

to impact N - and totally took care of any issue about N rising higher (Now it is usally below 10

I’m most happy you corrected your high N issue, mostly because now the “high nutrient” people can no longer use your tank as an example. Lol! Please note R2R participates, R.R.’s tank is now a normal nutrient system and efforts to reduce nutrients lower are underway.

 

[Thales]

I’m most happy you corrected your high N issue, mostly because now the “high nutrient” people can no longer use your tank as an example. Lol! Please note R2R participates, R.R.’s tank is now a normal nutrient system and efforts to reduce nutrients lower are underway.

Lies!

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I’m most happy you corrected your high N issue, mostly because now the “high nutrient” people can no longer use your tank as an example. Lol! Please note R2R participates, R.R.’s tank is now a normal nutrient system and efforts to reduce nutrients lower are underway.

lol

Sure, we can all get amnesia and go back to the bad old days of fearing nutrients. lol

 

[Thales]

Today

 

[CHSUB]

Last week Total phosphate higher than normal..

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

The danger with using general papers as implicit direction for our tanks is huge, and it always suprises me when folks read something in a paper and thing it is immediately applicable to captive care. Sure, in the lack of practical information/data, doing what 'nature' does, is a great starting point, but we have a bunch of information/data and we know that 'nature' doesn't always mean right for out tanks - look at how reefers approach phosphate for example (when I made the joke in 2015 that people would one day be adding phosphate to their tanks it was only partially tongue and cheek).

I think DOC is interesting, but until we get an easy, fast, and accessable test for it, it is gonna be hard to chase down. For DOC, we kinda do what we did for phosphate before we could test for it...reasonable mitigation via GAC, waterchanges, etc. DOC is the same issue it has always been, and the solution to pollution is what it has always been - dilution. So, we go with water changes, GAC, or biological stuff we hope will help. Sponges are great, but we need to know how much of anything we care about they actually process, and then if we need to export them (or are we wating for a sponge die off to rerelease everything they have incorporated?). I suspect it will be like algae and that we need a whole lot of it and export to really make much of a difference. Now, sponges are great, and I grow the crap out of them (mostly hitchhikers) because it is easy and they are cool, and maybe they help, and after 23 years of a running system there are a lot of sponges. But, until someone bothers to get some numbers, we are just tossing stuff at walls and hoping. Which is fine, but might be important for new reefers to be reminded of lest the get trapped in DOC and spongeville, rather than other basic care.

Someone mentioned water changes. Several years ago I started to do automated water changes to see how they would impact my notoriously 'high nutrient' system. It took about 6 months of a 2-3% daily water change on about 450 gallons (now more) to impact N - and totally took care of any issue about N rising higher (Now it is usally below 10, but can bounce up when something happens). P is a tougher nut to work at imo, and the water changes didn't impact that number at all.

I encourage anyone that wants to trailblaze to do a real good look at what has happened in a paticular arena because I see to much wheel reinvention in this hobby. Rock on everyone, and share data if you have it, and if you don't be careful of saying stuff with finality.

That makes a lot of sense. :)

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

https://www.researchgate.net/public...moval_by_encrusting_coral_reef_cavity_sponges
@Randy Holmes-Farley
The above research was done in closed vessels with cryptic sponges of 6 different species.

It’s an interesting, but also somewhat concerning result if one is hoping for high DOC removal effects from sponges in a reef tank.

The concerning part is the claim that more than half of the organic C consumed is assimilated. While that might be assimilated into bacteria which then are released again (which begs the question: are the sponges actually needed for that process), but if the C is going into sponge tissue, then I think this is bad news for sponge proponents.

Those promoting sponges have sometimes claimed that even a little sponge processes a lot of organic. But that cannot be true if half of what they consume is incorporated. The small amounts (by mass) and the slow growth rate of cryptic sponges in reef tanks means the total organic removed is only twice the mass of the sponge over the entire time it was there. If true, that is not very much.