Carbon Limited VS Carbon Balanced - Ugly Stage

[sixty_reefer]

If the goal is:

Let’s add organics, nitrate, phosphate and silicate and see what happens to rocks in the water, then this plan seems fine.

Yes. That’s the basic behind the idea

 

[Garf]

Yes. That’s the basic behind the idea

I think most / all folk starting a new tank runs that experiment, lol.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I think most / all folk starting a new tank runs that experiment, lol.

With the slightest difference with the added organic carbon,

My organics at the moment coming from silica + nutrients > Diatoms > Snails > Snail waste.

This is a 4 inch diameter vessel with 3 days snail poop that I’m using to cultivate microscopic pods.

 

[Garf]

With the slightest difference with the added organic carbon,

My organics at the moment coming from silica + nutrients > Diatoms > Snails > Snail waste.

This is a 4 inch diameter vessel with 3 days snail poop that I’m using to cultivate microscopic pods.

Is this turning into a "What happens without mechanical filtration" type of question? I must admit you really like poo, crinoids, snails, all good.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Is this turning into a "What happens without mechanical filtration" type of question? I must admit you really like poo, crinoids, snails, all good.

At least the experiment got a Crinoid popping, maybe think about that. For a organism to poop they need to be eating something.

 

[Garf]

At least the experiment got a Crinoid popping, maybe think about that. For a organism to poop they need to be eating something.

I don't do intentional mechanical filtration, seems like a waste of food. There is a carbon deficit though, as I think you propose. Problem being you have nothing to compare your results to.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I don't do intentional mechanical filtration, seems like a waste of food. There is a carbon deficit though, as I think you propose. Problem being you have nothing to compare your results to.

There is only two possible outcomes. A rock full of nuisances organisms or a rock full of beneficial organisms.

 

[Garf]

There is only two possible outcomes. A rock full of nuisances organisms or a rock full of beneficial organisms.

No idea how you differentiate nuisance and beneficial to be honest. It's all just stuff trying to live. That stuff exudes compounds that can be beneficial (or not) to a myriad of organisms, and the waterfall continues. People think they are more intelligent than possible. TLDR crap happens.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I wonder if there could be value in just collecting the data without any assumptions going in....

Sure, there are any number of controlled experiments where data could be collected and analyzed. That is the antithesis of what was proposed here...

As Randy indicated, nobody here is even sure what the actual goal is --"carbon balanced" and "carbon limited" as put forth by the OP don't really make sense, at least in the contexts that he intended.

 

[BeanAnimal]

There is only two possible outcomes. A rock full of nuisances organisms or a rock full of beneficial organisms.

What is a nuisance organism and what is a beneficial organism and from who's perspective and what makes you think the "carbon source" matters as to which thrives? Is this an attempt to circle back to "limiting" and consumption ratios?

Sorry for the run-on sentence but, tongue in cheek, I think it is apt to the situation.

 

[Formulator]

Sure, there are any number of controlled experiments where data could be collected and analyzed. That is the antithesis of what was proposed here...

As Randy indicated, nobody here is even sure what the actual goal is --"carbon balanced" and "carbon limited" as put forth by the OP don't really make sense, at least in the contexts that he intended.

I understand your point and agree the experiment is not well controlled. And let’s throw out the terms “balanced” and “limited”. Instead, I’m suggesting we just collect a ton of data from a system where nutrients are meticulously controlled and look for patterns in the TOC data as they relate to timing and dose of each nutrient, alkalinity, pH, time of day, and any other measured parameters you want to throw into the database. With enough data and the right software (jmp, minitab, spotfire, etc), it then becomes an exercise in trend analysis and statistics to draw out patterns. Sometimes you discover something unexpected!

Its not an experiment per se, rather an exploratory study. In complex systems where it is impossible to control every variable, we can instead try to measure as many variables as possible for a long enough period of time, and then make deductions about their relationship at the end. Engineers hate these kinds of studies, but we scientists do them all the time and they have their place. As an analogy - think about what some astronomers do with large telescopes. Let’s take tons of pictures of the universe and see if we can discover any patterns in the noise.

 

[sixty_reefer]

What is a nuisance organism and what is a beneficial organism and from who's perspective and what makes you think the "carbon source" matters as to which thrives? Is this an attempt to circle back to "limiting" and consumption ratios?

Sorry for the run-on sentence but, tongue in cheek, I think it is apt to the situation.

You are a knowledgeable aquarist, I though it may have been obvious for many may aim here.

In my view the non-nitrate nitrogen compounds (yes that’s a new word and evolution) play a major role in fuelling nuisances such as GHA and film algae, my aim here is to reduce those by increasing competition for those nutrients by using organic carbon and silica that will transform those into forms that can be used by beneficial organisms such as snails, bacteria and Protozoa that will be exported via skimming or mechanical filtration.

I’ve shared above a image of 2 days waste produced by the snails.

If left in the aquarium this nutrients will become again available to fuel algae in a system that is depleted of organic carbon.

In simpler words I’m choosing who’s getting the nutrients and how I’m exporting those nutrients.
By implementing known and unknown nutrient pathways

As for control, you would need one to illustrate the difference to a new aquarist, I was under the impression that experienced aquarist such as yourself could identify the difference visually as we can for many other subjects in the hobby. For example, if i observe the growth of green film algae in the glass, it’s usually a indicator to me that my system has a excess of non-nitrate nitrogen that the current filtration methods can’t export on its own.

Therefore if someone can’t visually see the difference in a green rock full of film algae and other nuisances become a dark mature rock, are you even a experienced aquarist?

Day 0​

Day 3​

Before the next sarcastic comment, I will add that herbivores can only control algae growth to a certain extent. If non-nitrate nitrogen compounds cannot be kept under control in a tank that is laking competition, there isn’t enough herbivores that will be able to keep algae at bay.

 

[sixty_reefer]

No idea how you differentiate nuisance and beneficial to be honest. It's all just stuff trying to live. That stuff exudes compounds that can be beneficial (or not) to a myriad of organisms, and the waterfall continues. People think they are more intelligent than possible. TLDR crap happens.

If a aquarist can’t differentiate between nuisance and beneficial organisms, then what does that tell me?
If a aquarist is happy in growing GHA then that’s cool. I just don’t see that as being beneficial. I would rather use those nutrients to grow microbes and zooplankton that my coral can eat.

 

[Garf]

If a aquarist can’t differentiate between nuisance and beneficial organisms, then what does that tell me

It may tell you we have different outlooks on how a tank operates. Apart from certain toxic stuff, most nuisances are very edible to tank inhabitants, ie beneficial.

 

[sixty_reefer]

It may tell you we have different outlooks on how a tank operates. Apart from certain toxic stuff, most nuisances are very edible to tank inhabitants, ie beneficial.

I agree with the addition that some tanks may be more visually appealing to the eye without some of them.

 

[Garf]

I still don't understand how you are going to selectively grow beneficial stuff and not perhaps "nuisance" stuff by adding a carbon source. If we extrapolate this to say Aiptasia, would you alter the tank conditions to such an extent that the Aiptasia died off?

 

[sixty_reefer]

I still don't understand how you are going to selectively grow beneficial stuff and not perhaps "nuisance" stuff by adding a carbon source. If we extrapolate this to say Aiptasia, would you alter the tank conditions to such an extent that the Aiptasia died off?

It’s my understanding that this two implementations will mainly affect non-nitrate nitrogen converting those nutrients into diatoms, bacteria and zooplankton. Nitrate will still be available therefore some organisms will still be able to convert nitrate into usable forms at a expense of using extra energy for that process.
It should only affect organisms that thrive under non-nitrate nitrogen compounds. Therefore it wouldn’t make no difference to Aipatasia as it would still feed on bacteria, zooplankton and Nitrate.

 

[BeanAnimal]

So once again, instead of addressing the critical responses to your understanding of "carbon balanced" vs. "carbon limited" and taking the lead from knowledgeable people, you’ve deflected and reframed the discussion.

Please stop moving the target.

The coined term, “non-nitrate nitrogen”, just adds confusion. Using a vague catch-all for various nitrogen compounds (that you have no hope of measuring) -- to compare what goes into a snail and what comes out, in context to the larger food web is -- more of the same ambiguity.

While it may or may not be true that snail poop or other organic nitrogen compounds are fueling nuisance algae, you have not presented any reasonable means to measure this. Observation is fine, but making conclusions regarding (even rudimentary) nutrient pathways or mechanisms is not even close to being supported. We are back to broad observations "does it appear that adding food to a cycling tank adds to the ugly stage in any way?".

Moreover, ignoring the ambiguity between "beneficial" and "nuisance" -- Your assumption that green algae indicates excess "non-nitrate nitrogen" and dark rocks indicate a "mature" tank is equally unfounded. Both outcomes depend on far more variables than you’ve accounted for, especially when you are accounting for none...

So we are right back to the fact that without proper measurements or controls, your conclusions remain anecdotal at best -- even if you have pivoted from the original topic to new one.

 

[Dan_P]

What is a nuisance organism and what is a beneficial organism and from who's perspective and what makes you think the "carbon source" matters as to which thrives? Is this an attempt to circle back to "limiting" and consumption ratios?

Sorry for the run-on sentence but, tongue in cheek, I think it is apt to the situation.

I am having a difficult time deciding whether to create a longer run on sentence or editorialize

 

[sixty_reefer]

So once again, instead of addressing the critical responses to your understanding of "carbon balanced" vs. "carbon limited" and taking the lead from knowledgeable people, you’ve deflected and reframed the discussion.

Please stop moving the target.

The coined term, “non-nitrate nitrogen”, just adds confusion. Using a vague catch-all for various nitrogen compounds (that you have no hope of measuring) -- to compare what goes into a snail and what comes out, in context to the larger food web is -- more of the same ambiguity.

While it may or may not be true that snail poop or other organic nitrogen compounds are fueling nuisance algae, you have not presented any reasonable means to measure this. Observation is fine, but making conclusions regarding (even rudimentary) nutrient pathways or mechanisms is not even close to being supported. We are back to broad observations "does it appear that adding food to a cycling tank adds to the ugly stage in any way?".

Moreover, ignoring the ambiguity between "beneficial" and "nuisance" -- Your assumption that green algae indicates excess "non-nitrate nitrogen" and dark rocks indicate a "mature" tank is equally unfounded. Both outcomes depend on far more variables than you’ve accounted for, especially when you are accounting for none...

So we are right back to the fact that without proper measurements or controls, your conclusions remain anecdotal at best -- even if you have pivoted from the original topic to new one.

Anecdotal is fine. At the end of the day this will give me more knowledge on a subject I take interest.
If you prefer spending your time criticising, that’s absolutely fine to. Will this change anything on what I’m doing? Not really.

Just as a side note you should know that once I’m happy with the initial results I can stop dosing organic carbon and silica and observe the difference, meaning that this tank will become a control, and if algae was to appear I could just dose it again to evaluate if competition would help reduce it.

At the end of the day I don’t need to know how a combustion engine is build or works to drive a car.
Meaning that I would not have to know all the pathways to evaluate a result on the input of two nutrients.