Cyano problem, need help

[mcarroll]

@mcarroll

Maybe we are misunderstanding each other.
I'm just saying dinoflagellates do fine with dissolved N & P uptake, not that they outperform bacteria at it. They don't really have to care that much about outcompeting them, they can just eat them as long as enough are available.

You said it yourself very well: The threads and blog posts have to be seen as a whole and a generalization is very difficult. That's why I'm not comfortable claiming something like "phagotrophic feeding is the culprit".

This isn't the way it's explained on page 1 of the thread. It is something that happens in the process that is described there.

Blackouts and bacteria dosing could potentially cause extreme blooms otherwise.

Affirmative...not just potential. You can see evidence of both in some of the outcomes in the thread.

Hence the recommendations against blackouts, carbon dosing, etc, in the thread.

I've seen a few blog posts including the one mentioning the high C:N:P ratio of dinoflagellate thecae. But if they were the main reason for nutrient levels being locked at "zero", you could start selling isolated thecae as a solution for high nutrient levels

People already spend money on all the different carbon dosing additives/pellets/etc...theca would be novel, but not new.

There are probably other factors as you imagine, but the dominant one seems clearly to be bacteria driving nutrient levels below where even algae or dino's can access it, as described in the journal. Dino's/algae aren't capable.

Or to make it simpler: Just put biodegradable cellulose into a tank. A C:N:P ratio of C:0:0 should simulate thecae close enough, or might even work better. We know that carbon dosing affects N & P, but I don't think that shows the whole picture. Hobby-grade test kits have very bad detection limits, so dinoflagellates will be able to take up dissolved nutrients long before the tests show anything. In other words: The uptake of the dinoflagellates themselves might play a major role here as well. I don't think narrowing it down to bacteria trying to break down thecae is the solution, especially when we observe the same phenomenon of "locked" nutrients with athecate dinoflagellates.

Interesting theory, but again I don't see how it changes anything in the recommendation.

If anything there would seem to be evidence to the contrary....if what you suggest is happening to a significant degree, why is there no apparent response or change in behavior when starvation conditions are remediated?

The thread is not a catch all, nor was it ever intended as one. It's a specific recommendation for a specific set of cases that seem to come up in threads over and over and over.....ones that are defined pretty clearly in the thread.

Worth pointing out that the set of cases it targets seem to have been the vast majority of dino outbreaks over the last decade or so. Limiting the scope to the evidence was not really optional IMO....it was mandatory.

To summarize (and not fully hijack this thread): I'm not saying anything you said is wrong, I'm just trying to be careful about absolutes or narrowing complex issues down to a few factors. My forum signature says it best: "Precision isn't obsession - it's respect for complexity."... but to be fair... maybe it's also a bit of obsession...

I hear you. Following the evidence has been one of the main things.....dino fighting in almost all other threads has been full of baseless speculation and half-baked solutions with predictable results.

I wanted to take a basic approach, follow the evidence. The treatment is not perfect, but much much closer to a 100% success rate.

 

[EnterName]

This isn't the way it's explained on page 1 of the thread. It is something that happens in the process that is described there.


Affirmative...not just potential. You can see evidence of both in some of the outcomes in the thread.

Hence the recommendations against blackouts, carbon dosing, etc, in the thread.


People already spend money on all the different carbon dosing additives/pellets/etc...theca would be novel, but not new.

There are probably other factors as you imagine, but the dominant one seems clearly to be bacteria driving nutrient levels below where even algae or dino's can access it, as described in the journal. Dino's/algae aren't capable.


Interesting theory, but again I don't see how it changes anything in the recommendation.

If anything there would seem to be evidence to the contrary....if what you suggest is happening to a significant degree, why is there no apparent response or change in behavior when starvation conditions are remediated?

The thread is not a catch all, nor was it ever intended as one. It's a specific recommendation for a specific set of cases that seem to come up in threads over and over and over.....ones that are defined pretty clearly in the thread.

Worth pointing out that the set of cases it targets seem to have been the vast majority of dino outbreaks over the last decade or so. Limiting the scope to the evidence was not really optional IMO....it was mandatory.


I hear you. Following the evidence has been one of the main things.....dino fighting in almost all other threads has been full of baseless speculation and half-baked solutions with predictable results.

I wanted to take a basic approach, follow the evidence. The treatment is not perfect, but much much closer to a 100% success rate.

Thank you for the detailed replies. I have enjoyed the exchange and I'm not looking to drag it out any further here.

I just want to clear up one thing, though, because I think it's where we keep misunderstanding each other:

I have read the thread and a good part of your blog. I just don't treat it as a reference that settles a question or argument by being pointed at. It is one reading of the evidence, built on a specific set of cases, and I weigh it the way I weigh every source, including my own assumptions.

So when I hesitate to agree with one of your points, or deliberately rephrase something, it isn't because I haven't done the reading. It's that "it's explained in the thread" isn't an answer I can work with when the thread (or the underlying theories) is the very thing I'm trying to argue about in the first place.

This isn't meant to knock the work you have put into it, there are plenty of useful suggestions in there, and I have already said so earlier.