Carbon Limited VS Carbon Balanced - Ugly Stage

[BeanAnimal]

I don’t like the word “carbon driven” to describe this last few experiments.
Carbon driven usually refers to ULNS systems that are bacteria driven.

“Carbon balanced” seems a more suitable word for my observation so far.

We’re back in the same place we started on page one. Carbon is always "balanced" in the context of these systems. Your insistence that your term is "here to stay", despite it being repeatedly demonstrated to make no sense, perfectly captures the nature of every one of your threads.

I’d still like to hear from you, what claims I’ve done?

What in the world do you think you’re being challenged on here and in five other threads? Asking “what claims have I made?” is pure deflection.

My goal is personal knowledge on something that I don’t fully understand, yet. The threads always have been a good way to log the observations. A easy way to look back and find the data.

You say your goal is personal knowledge of something you admit you don’t fully understand. Yet virtually every one of your assertions, claims of fact, and conclusions has been discredited in one way or another. For someone who admits a lack of understanding, you spend an extraordinary amount of time arguing with people who do understand.

What is your purpose in interacting in all of them?

My purpose in these discussions, is simple: You are using a public medium to present yourself as an expert on subject matter clearly beyond your grasp. I’m using the same public medium to challenge your claims and ensure others have the tools to critically evaluate what you’ve said.

 

[BeanAnimal]

The system has been just over 30 days dark with just mature media from a cycled tank in the back sump baffle, no mechanical filtration, just protein skimmer.
All 3 nutrients have been doses from the beginning of the cycle.

Help me understand something.

On Oct 3 you started the "Redfield" thread. Somewhere in that thread you pivoted from making dubious claims to indicating you were running an experiment. You showed pictures of that exact same tank, indicating it had been setup and was proof of your Redfield assertions and ability to control nutrient pathways based on the ratio and type of nutrients you were controlling. You indicated that the tank showed up and was started on October 9th.

On Oct 29 you started a thread attempting to publish your "equation" and showing photos of the very same tank with a crinoid in it, indicating that the tank was running with blue lights set at 10% and indicating that:
"Before the star was introduced, I’ve started adding SLDOC to the tank, that is a particular carbon extracted from macro and micro algae’s, basically it’s powder carbohydrates from macro algae’s." The photos and context clearly showing this to be the same established tank from the"Redfield" thread.

On Nov 4th you indicated that you took the skimmer offline, per your post in the crinoid thread.

You started this thread on Nov 21st indicating that the tank was 31 days into a fresh cycle and rock would be added and counted as "day 1" of your experiment.. when the same tank had a crinoid living in it 16 days prior? "The system has been just over 30 days dark with just mature media from a cycled tank in the back sump baffle, no mechanical filtration, just protein skimmer".

Something is not adding up here. How is this tank only 30 days old freshly cycled in the dark if the crinoid was living in it on Nov 4th and it was established prior to Oct 3 and was running at least 10% blue light during the time the crinoid was in it?

October 9th

October 30th - with post on Nov 4th indicating crinoid was still alive

Nov 21st indicating photo was taken on Nov 20th of a 31 day old fresh cycle. But the tank had a crinoid in it during the time it was being "cycled".

So three or four threads about different "experiments" all showing the same tank in overlapping timeframes.

 

[lbacha]

I’m confused how you are doing an ugly stage experiment with rock that was in another system.

The concept of an ugly stage is a relatively new one in the reef hobby especially on rock. In the past we used real live rok from the ocean and if it was cured you didn’t have an ugly stage. You may see some on a sand bed if it was new dry sand but not on the rack itself.

The concept of ugly stage originated with the abundant use of dry rock and the fact there was no life on it when your tank was first started. This caused tanks to go through stages of growth as the bacteria and organisms (good and bad) worked to get to an equilibrium.

You can actually see this in an established tank when you add new dry rock. The new rock will grow diatoms and other undesirables until it establishes a balanced biodiversity.

If you wanted to truly test if what you are doing will eliminate an ugly stage then you need to use dry rock and not established rock from another tank as that rock would have already went through its ugly stages.

I also wouldn’t consider green algae’s to be a part of the ugly stage since it can occur on an established tank if you don’t maintain it. If you are getting GHA then you need to control your nutrient levels and ensure you have the correct cuc in place. To many people let nutrients get out of control with too few cuc and not enough other corals in place. Another issue I see is people not maintaining Alk/Cal/Mag soon enough. It is fine to let the levels stay low right at the beginning with dry rock/sand because you may have binding of alk until. The sand/rock has biofilm on it. Once you are past this stage start maintaining it so that you get corraline growth which will compete for the nutrient that that love.

Hope this helps

 

[BeanAnimal]

You can actually see this in an established tank when you add new dry rock. The new rock will grow diatoms and other undesirables until it establishes a balanced biodiversity.

It always amazes me that any new aragonite added to the display goes through these stages, no matter the state of the system. My current tank is over 20 years old and if I toss in fresh frag plugs or new dry rock this is exactly hat happens, and has always happened. Light is certainly a factor, and using the dark sump to get things started helps. Part of the pushback in most of these threads is the OPs refusal to acknowledge the complexity of these systems (in context to his ideas and claims) to begin with.

I also wouldn’t consider green algae’s to be a part of the ugly stage since it can occur on an established tank if you don’t maintain it.

He was asked several pages back to distinguish the difference between "good" and "nuisance" organisms, as he states he can control which grow by "carbon limiting". He avoided answering. However, if you dig a little you will find that this thread is just another continuation of his series of "proofs" on his ideas about the Redfield Ratio.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Help me understand something.

On Oct 3 you started the "Redfield" thread. Somewhere in that thread you pivoted from making dubious claims to indicating you were running an experiment. You showed pictures of that exact same tank, indicating it had been setup and was proof of your Redfield assertions and ability to control nutrient pathways based on the ratio and type of nutrients you were controlling. You indicated that the tank showed up and was started on October 9th.

On Oct 29 you started a thread attempting to publish your "equation" and showing photos of the very same tank with a crinoid in it, indicating that the tank was running with blue lights set at 10% and indicating that:
"Before the star was introduced, I’ve started adding SLDOC to the tank, that is a particular carbon extracted from macro and micro algae’s, basically it’s powder carbohydrates from macro algae’s." The photos and context clearly showing this to be the same established tank from the"Redfield" thread.

On Nov 4th you indicated that you took the skimmer offline, per your post in the crinoid thread.

You started this thread on Nov 21st indicating that the tank was 31 days into a fresh cycle and rock would be added and counted as "day 1" of your experiment.. when the same tank had a crinoid living in it 16 days prior? "The system has been just over 30 days dark with just mature media from a cycled tank in the back sump baffle, no mechanical filtration, just protein skimmer".

Something is not adding up here. How is this tank only 30 days old freshly cycled in the dark if the crinoid was living in it on Nov 4th and it was established prior to Oct 3 and was running at least 10% blue light during the time the crinoid was in it?

October 9th

October 30th - with post on Nov 4th indicating crinoid was still alive

Nov 21st indicating photo was taken on Nov 20th of a 31 day old fresh cycle. But the tank had a crinoid in it during the time it was being "cycled".

So three or four threads about different "experiments" all showing the same tank in overlapping timeframes.

With out checking the hole time frame, it does sound correct.

The initial media made a instant cycle that was observed by the consumption and transformation of ammonia into nitrate, from there, 3 nutrients were added daily to find a usable ratio (160:1 N-P ) as discussed on the Redfield thread.

From that usable ratio, have been manipulating the dosage of each one to maintain a constant residual of Nitrate, the initial experiment was kept at 5 mg/l and I’ve raised it to 10 mg/l on this one to emphasise nitrate could have little to no impact on the growth of algae’s such as GHA, Valonia and other nuisances that are present in the small rock with the green film.

As one of the observations of the experiment was a explosion in microbes and single cell zooplankton the experiment was extended to include organisms that were thought to feed on those microbes and zooplankton.
As waste started to be produced by several organisms the carbon dose had to be adjusted to maintain the nutrients stable.

Later I did learned that one of the possible ingredients in the organic carbon (agar) it’s actually used in laboratory settings to grow Protozoa.
Something that I’ve observed from early on in the experiment.

As a recap. The observation have extended to different aspects of a aquarium but the base of adding 3 nutrients to maintain stability has been consistent.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I also wouldn’t consider green algae’s to be a part of the ugly stage since it can occur on an established tank if you don’t maintain it. If you are getting GHA then you need to control your nutrient levels and ensure you have the correct cuc in place. To many people let nutrients get out of control with too few cuc and not enough other corals in place. Another issue I see is people not maintaining Alk/Cal/Mag soon enough. It is fine to let the levels stay low right at the beginning with dry rock/sand because you may have binding of alk until. The sand/rock has biofilm on it. Once you are past this stage start maintaining it so that you get corraline growth which will compete for the nutrient that that love.

Hope this helps

The point above is something I’d like to look into. Many folks usually put nitrate and phosphate at fault for the main nutrient that helps GHA thrive in a environment with little competition, there is also another group of folks that believes that alagaes such as GHA are benefitting more from nutrients such as ammonia instead of nitrate.

I believe cuc is a viable solution to keep it in check. I also believe that reducing ammonia and organic matter that may result in ammonia to be more effective than cuc alone.

 

[BeanAnimal]

With out checking the hole time frame, it does sound correct.

Ohh There’s no need to check the time frames -- everything is documented here for the world to see. The timeline and claims are memorialized in your words with photographs.

The initial media made a instant cycle that was observed by the consumption and transformation of ammonia into nitrate, from there, 3 nutrients were added daily to find a usable ratio (160:1 N-P ) as discussed on the Redfield thread.

Almost everything you stated in the Redfield thread was thoroughly discredited. Now, five threads later, you’re still pretending that your aquarium, a complex, non-sterile environment, is somehow uptaking nutrients in a “perfect Redfield ratio” because you believe you’ve discovered the ideal sources of C-N-P to stimulate only the nutrient pathways you desire.

You have made these bold claims without any protocols, controls, or meaningful measurements to validate them. You have no way to test, let alone prove, the selective processes you describe, yet you present your "findings" as fact and build upon them.

Ask me again about "claims" you have made.....

As a recap. The observation have extended to different aspects of a aquarium but the base of adding 3 nutrients to maintain stability has been consistent.

Yes, let's recap!

You have a chain of five related threads building on your discredited ideas of nutrient limitations and the misapplication of the Redfield Ratio. You have been caught fabricating information. You present yourself with the pretense of being a scientist and smarter and more informed than everyone who responds to you. You use deflection and an ever moving target to avoid scrutiny of your claims.

Have I missed something?

 

[BeanAnimal]

The point above is something I’d like to look into. Many folks usually put nitrate and phosphate at fault for the main nutrient that helps GHA thrive in a environment with little competition, there is also another group of folks that believes that alagaes such as GHA are benefitting more from nutrients such as ammonia instead of nitrate.

I believe cuc is a viable solution to keep it in check. I also believe that reducing ammonia and organic matter that may result in ammonia to be more effective than cuc alone.

You fully sidestepped the point that @lbacha was making regarding issues with your "experiment" and deflected into into more speculation.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Ohh There’s no need to check the time frames -- everything is documented here for the world to see. The timeline and claims are memorialized in your words with photographs. You, Sixty have been caught fabricating information.


Almost everything you stated in the Redfield thread was thoroughly discredited. Now, five threads later, you’re still pretending that your aquarium, a complex, non-sterile environment, is somehow uptaking nutrients in a “perfect Redfield ratio” because you believe you’ve discovered the ideal sources of C-N-P to stimulate only the nutrient pathways you desire.

You have made these bold claims without any protocols, controls, or meaningful measurements to validate them. You have no way to test, let alone prove, the selective processes you describe, yet you present your "findings" as fact and build upon them.

Ask me again about "claims" you have made.....


Yes, let's recap!

You have a chain of five related threads building on your discredited ideas of nutrient limitations and the misapplication of the Redfield Ratio. You have been caught fabricating information. You present yourself with the pretense of being a scientist and smarter and more informed than everyone who responds to you. You use deflection and an ever moving target to avoid scrutiny of your claims.

Have I missed something?

Calling me a liar it’s a bit personal to me. If you going to do that, you better start explaining yourself.
As I said, the timeline seems correct so we’re is the lie?

observations and claim is two different words.
Could you elaborate on a actual claim I’ve done?
There is many observations I just can’t see the claims that you refere to.

 

[sixty_reefer]

You fully sidestepped the point that @lbacha was making regarding issues with your "experiment" and deflected into into more speculation.

Most biological pathways are speculated, due to no one being able to say for sure what your eyes are telling you.
Have you read many articles on biological pathways that end with a certain conclusion?
No, as most is just speculation.

This stands true on the feeding of many life organism were the feeding of those animals is just pure speculation!

 

[Garf]

Most biological pathways are speculated, due to no one being able to say for sure what your eyes are telling you.
Have you read many articles on biological pathways that end with a certain conclusion?
No, as most is just speculation.

This stands true on the feeding of many life organism were the feeding of those animals is just pure speculation!

I was going stay out of this but I feel it necessary to ask a question that I eluded to near the beginning of this thread, to see if I get an answer this time. How on earth can you know what impact your snail is having on controlling "nuisances" in relation to your carbon dosing? I feel adding consumers invalidates any results from the outset. I'm just not understanding, I guess.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Calling me a liar it’s a bit personal to me. If you going to do that, you better start explaining yourself.
As I said, the timeline seems correct so we’re is the lie?

I was very clear in what I posted. Your post dates with timestamps and photos don't appear to correlate to what you claim. It's that simple.

observations and claim is two different words.
Could you elaborate on a actual claim I’ve done?
There is many observations I just can’t see the claims that you refere to.

Your threads are full of claims and stated facts that have been repeatedly shown to be wrong.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Most biological pathways are speculated, due to no one being able to say for sure what your eyes are telling you.
Have you read many articles on biological pathways that end with a certain conclusion?
No, as most is just speculation.

This stands true on the feeding of many life organism were the feeding of those animals is just pure speculation!

This is another deflection, with you conflating your theories to those publishing controlled studies. Nobody begrudges you a theory, Sixty. It is your presentation of those theories and absolute refusal to acknowledge responses that show them to be wrong or based on misapplied understanding.

These threads are almost entirely noise generated by your non-stop deflections and refusal to acknowledge that you are wrong, at any level.

 

[HomebroodExotics]

Excellent experiment Sixty. Tank is looking great. I've done similar experiments over the years and I come to the same conclusions as you. I have some ideas. I believe that corporations already know ALL of this information. It's in their benefit if we don't learn this. Something I've learned to help my own knowledge is that what you are trying to do is to complete the cycle. If we connect the cycle and complete it in the way that we want then we can get a known outcome. The next step of your experimentation will likely lead you to bacteria. Bacteria as well has been decoded by corporations since like the 70's and 80's. We are searching in the dark now for knowledge that has been locked away from us. Crazy isn't it. But anyway thanks for your experiments they are helping me as well. Good luck.

 

[revhtree]

The debate is good but please try not to get personal with responses. Thank you.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Excellent experiment Sixty.

Oddly, an experiment that can't be used to draw any conclusions has not really been defined. This is pointed out numerous times in this and other related threads. It is part of the core issue here with regard to "observations" being presented and built on as fact.

I believe that corporations already know ALL of this information. It's in their benefit if we don't learn this.

Do you have evidence of such a corporate conspiracy to prevent reef keepers from obtaining knowledge?

Bacteria as well has been decoded by corporations since like the 70's and 80's. We are searching in the dark now for knowledge that has been locked away from us. Crazy isn't it.

Can you explain what exactly has been "locked away" since the 70's and why?

 

[HomebroodExotics]

Oddly, an experiment that can be used to draw any conclusions has not really been defined. This is pointed out numerous times in this and other related threads. It is part of the core issue here with regard to "observations" being presented and built on as fact.

I can't force you to see value in this. Just like you can't force me to value anything you say.

Do you have evidence of such a corporate conspiracy to prevent reef keepers from obtaining knowledge?

Yes, ask doctor tim what's in his bacteria blends.

Can you explain what exactly has been "locked away" since the 70's and why?

Knowledge for profit.

Anything else I can help you with?

 

[BeanAnimal]

Yes, ask doctor tim what's in his bacteria blends.

How is Dr. Tim (among others you claim) participating in a conspiracy to hide knowledge from the community and where is the evidence?

Also -- If you want to know what is in Dr. Tims blends -- send a sample off to be tested. Other's have and the results can be found if you look.

Knowledge for profit.

I am not sure what that means exactly. Can you explain? You indicated a conspiracy, that is fine. Can you provide evidence?

 

[HomebroodExotics]

How is Dr. Tim (among others you claim) participating in a conspiracy to hide knowledge from the community and where is the evidence?

So Dr. Tim sells stuff and he likes to live in his house and he likes to buy food so for him to continue to sell us stuff it's in his best interest to keep secrets for his companies success. Crazy right?

Also -- If you want to know what is in Dr. Tims blends -- send a sample off to be tested. Other's have and the results can be found if you look.

Ok, cool.

I am not sure what that means exactly. Can you explain? You indicated a conspiracy, that is fine. Can you provide evidence?

So companies sell stuff for money. In order to keep making new products to sell they have to keep learning. In the 70s and 80s all government research funding started going to corporations instead of universities. SO now all of our knowledge is locked behind corporate interests.

 

[BeanAnimal]

So Dr. Tim sells stuff and he likes to live in his house and he likes to buy food so for him to continue to sell us stuff it's in his best interest to keep secrets for his companies success. Crazy right?
...So companies sell stuff for money. In order to keep making new products to sell they have to keep learning. In the 70s and 80s all government research funding started going to corporations instead of universities. SO now all of our knowledge is locked behind corporate interests.

If I am reading correctly -- your argument is based on the idea of corporations and governments deliberately hiding knowledge from the public for profit. That is a rather significant claim and I think that we would all be very interested if you have concrete evidence, especially with regards to reef biology and aquariums.

Could also you help me understand how somebody like Dr. Tim gains access to the "locked" information or contributes to it, so that he can run his business?

There is extensive academic research, books, and freely available data on microbial processes, nutrient cycling, and other topics relevant to this discussion. While some research is behind university and academic paywalls, those paywalls help fund the collection and organization of research. That doesn’t mean the information is "locked away".

Could you explain what specific information has been 'locked away' since the 70s, and why it isn’t accessible through academic or public channels? I’m not being facetious, but if such information is 'locked away,' how are you aware of it?