Nitrogen Cycle - Fish - Light - Coral - Game Over?

[BeanAnimal]

You haven’t demonstrated that the concept is flawed.

What you have argued is that some terms are broad, difficult to quantify or not yet operational defined. Those are not the same thing!

I would still be interested in understanding what biology qualifications, training or relevant experience you are drawing upon when making those assessments.

There was no concept, there was an article built around unsupported claims, built on numerous threads with more unsupported claims.

You don't appear to have abandoned any of them, anywhere. The burden is on you to support your claims. Repeatedly demanding credentials from everyone who questions you is just more of the same, if not over-the-top petty and transparent.

We are all stuck pointing out the deflections and tactics, as there is no other substance to any of your responses other than the deflections themselves, no matter how hard we try to keep you and this thread held to the topic and your claims. This is now four pages of trying to get you to answer straight forward questions. Four pages of nothing but deflections.

 

[sixty_reefer]

There was no concept, there was an article built around unsupported claims, built on numerous threads with more unsupported claims.

You don't appear to have abandoned any of them, anywhere. The burden is on you to support your claims. Repeatedly demanding credentials from everyone who questions you is just more of the same, if not over-the-top petty and transparent.

We are all stuck pointing out the deflections and tactics, as there is no other substance to any of your responses other than the deflections themselves, no matter how hard we try to keep you and this thread held to the topic and your claims. This is now four pages of trying to get you to answer straight forward questions. Four pages of nothing but deflections.

Thank you for demonstrating exactly what I’ve been trying to say. ( the entire comment is about me, not the article)

I’m not sure who you think you are to be demanding anything from anyone.

More importantly, you haven’t made a single effort to discuss the actual topic of the thread! It’s been argument after argument about me, my motives, my response and my conduct rather than the idea presented in the article.

I suspect most readers can see that for themselves. In fact, this has been pointed out to me privately on several occasions through the discussion.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I did.
It is simply another attempt at avoiding supporting your claims and answering the questions already posed.

It is another recycled deflection meant to move the goalposts after three pages of deflections and reframe your words, hiding behind a retreat without abandoning any of it.

It was not presented as conceptual. It was presented as an article with a title challenging conventional practice, a borrowed source used as a credibility decoration, and declarative conclusions. The declarative conclusions and contradictions are outlined in my posts on page one and stand exactly as written.

The contradictions and questions still stand exactly as written. The words "I think" don't shield you from the layered and nested claims any more than reframing it as conceptual does, or engaging sympathetic posters as if it wasn't. You are tying yourself in knots with contradictions. This is what happens when the deflections become too many to manage. The exits start blocking each other.

Thats a lot of words to avoid a simple question.

What relevant biology background or experience are you drawing on wend conducting a review

It’s a straight forward question. Can you answer it or are you going to deflect again?

 

[BeanAnimal]

Thank you for demonstrating exactly what I’ve been trying to say. ( the entire comment is about me, not the article)

I’m not sure who you think you are to be demanding anything from anyone.

More importantly, you haven’t made a single effort to discuss the actual topic of the thread! It’s been argument after argument about me, my motives, my response and my conduct rather than the idea presented in the article.

I suspect most readers can see that for themselves. In fact, this has been pointed out to me privately on several occasions through the discussion.

That is a reframed fantasy. We are trying to drag you back to the topic. This trail of deflections started on page one and continues through page four. Zero answers in four pages.

My posts on page one and two of this thread stand. If you would like, I can repeat the questions, or you can just start answering. I am sure the audience can find their place.

What relevant biology background or experience are you drawing on wend conducting a review

It’s a straight forward question. Can you answer it or are you going to deflect again?

I am not deflecting, asking an irrelevant red hearing question demanding credentials repeatedly is.

It is an attempt to shift burden and make this about me. This is about your words and your claims, not me or anybody else.

 

[sixty_reefer]

@BeanAnimal you have spent 3 pages insisting that direct questions deserve direct answers. I asked a question and suddenly the question itself is a problem?

And yes. In this instance it is about you, it wasn’t me claiming to be conducting a peer review, you chose to describe your comment that way, so it seems entirely reasonable to ask what relevant background or expertise you are drawing upon when doing so.

 

[sixty_reefer]

@BeanAnimal Ive addressed your main questions


Here

@Dan_P

I probably should have defined those terms more clearly in the article. Since I can’t edit, perhaps we can consider this comment as a footnote.

The article was written as a proposed view of aquarium startup and maturation, so the definition below are the sense in which I used the terms.

Biome Cycling

The development of wider biological communities that follow nitrification including biofilms, microbial successions, protozoa, meiofauna, pods, worms, sponges, detrital food webs and other nutrient recycling pathways.

Diversity

not simply the number of species present but the number of biological pathways through which nutrients and organic matter can move.

Resilience

The ability of an aquarium to absorb disturbances such as over feeding, nutrient fluctuations or organic inputs without large undesirable change.

Stability

The ability of an aquarium to maintain its overall biological and chemical balance over time despite routine disturbances​

And here

@BeanAnimal, you have repeatedly described your comments as a peer review. With that in mind, I’d like to know what biology qualifications, training or relevant experience you believe quantify you to perform that review effectively.

For a review to have any meaningful value to me, I need confidence that the reviewer has a sufficient understanding of the biology concepts being discussed.

Edit: If you were genuinely working within the field and had read the article in that context, you would likely recognise that many of the questions you’re asking about quantification and measurement only became necessary once a idea moves into experimental stage. At that point, concepts such as resilience, stability, diversity and biome development can be operational defined and measured, the article itself was discussing those concepts at a conceptual level.

But you still seem determined to turn this into a argument.

AI More important, how AI on earth do you find the time AI AI to write this essays? I’m AI genuinely impressed.

This has been presented as a scientific article, or at least that is what the format and you labeling it an article implies. As such I would like to offer a peer review to some of the major points.

1 - There is considerable length and repetition that obscures any point that you were trying to make. Two major contradictions are also exposed. See below and point 5.

You spend numerous (thirteen by my count) paragraphs describing the obvious aspects of life in an aquarium. You do so using terms that are never defined or connected to a measurable outcome:
food webs
decay
biological pathways
ecological succession
microbial succession
nutrient partitioning
biological hotspots
detrital pathways
trophic levels
biological reactor
biome development
ecological complexity
ecological resilience
microbial loop

None of that is novel or contested, but none of it is used in an empirical way toward a measurable conclusion. It is a statement of life using abstract terms that never make a point, other than the tank is a complex system.

The contraction here is that laying out the complexity actually undermines the point that it can be measured, defined or controlled much differently than it already is.

2 - The nitrogen cycle and the progression of other life are not things an aquarium is taught. They are inevitable progressions. Describing them does not tell an aquarist what to do differently or how to know if what they did worked. This goes to overall framing.

3 - The progression of life continues after the nitrogen cycle and cannot be directly controlled or predicted. The recommendation to start with "more" is open ended. More what, exactly? More live rock? More organic matter? More time? More bacteria, food?, etc. There are infinite variables and outcomes with no defined target or metric.

4 - This article, like the your other posts (that you referenced herein) frame chemistry and biology as competing approaches. They are not. This was addressed extensively in the other threads, why even mention chemistry here?

Nitrification is a biological process. Every cycling method kicks off the same basic biological progression of nitrification, regardless of ammonia source. From there the path is not fixed. The claim that bottled bacteria cycling produces a biologically inferior outcome is not supported. No evidence is offered that any difference between cycling methods persists as a system travels through time from day zero.

5 - You say: "Rather than viewing the completion of the nitrogen cycle as the starting signal for full lighting and rapid stocking, it may be beneficial to allow additional time for the wider biome to develop".

This has been core advice for decades and predates current vendors and influencers who propose shortcuts, for whatever reason they do. Lights out for two to three months to allow surface colonization before introducing highly photosynthetic driven life is not new. Adding livestock in intervals spanning months is not new, it is documented across countless books and practiced by countless aquarists. Slow and steady, nothing good happens quickly in a reef, etc.

You appear to be reframing long standing advice as new and novel discovery, and that is really the only actionable take from this lengthy article, but it is not new or novel.

But worse, this advice to take it slow and steady appears to directly contradict your overall theme here, which is starting out with "more" and seeding the tank with as much life as possible from zero day.

6 - You say: "A test kit tells us when the nitrogen cycle is functioning. A microscope may tell us when the biome is developing".

Maybe, but to what end? We see something other than nitrosomonas, that is inevitable. Here again there isn't a metric or target, just the confirmation that other organisms are present that aren't nitrosomonas.

The progression is inevitable regardless. The closing introduces the same argument and ties that problem to abstract terms like:
resilience
diverse web of organisms
biodiversity
stability

None of these are defined, none are measurable, and none tell us what to do or how to know if we did it right, or did enough, or andded enough.

The progression happens, it is inevitable. Spending dozens of paragraphs naming it with abstract biological concepts does not constitute a framework, it is dressing up the obvious with needless complexity.

The article could have been two sentences: "I think adding live rock and fauna at startup produces measurably better long term outcomes than standard dry cycling methods. Here is how we can measure that". We would at least have something defined to debate. We may even agree, however what is presented instead is biology word soup with contradictions in logic.

Before you characterize this as an attack please consider that you have posted this as an article in a public forum and it is therefore a candidate for peer review. I have proffered mine and am open to discuss, as long as the discussion is directly related to the comments and questions asked.

 

[BeanAnimal]

You tried play that card already and it has been clearly addressed. It is a red herring to shift burden.

You posted in a public forum.
You were not required to show credentials to make claims, or asked for them. Nobody cares. The questions are about the claims and your refusal to support them.

Nobody is required to have credentials to scrutinize those claims. Here or in a formal peer review.

Instead of answering you are making excuses.

From page one:
“The contraction here is that laying out the complexity actually undermines the point that it can be measured, defined or controlled much differently than it already is.”

“But worse, this advice to take it slow and steady appears to directly contradict your overall theme here, which is starting out with "more" and seeding the tank with as much life as possible from zero day.”

Can you reconcile these direct contradictions?

“ How do we know when resilience is sufficient or diversity is adequate?”
Can you provide an answer that is measurable and not abstract, and is directly in context to the claims made?

On the microscope claims in context to the article and remarks.
“ Exactly how?
Insurance for what?
What are you looking for, what does finding it tell you, and what would you do differently based on what you see?”

Can you answer those questions without abstraction and in context to the claims and comments?

“ What population constitutes sufficient to prevent being outpaced? How do you measure it?”
Can you answer, again with same criteria as above?

There are more. But let’s start there.

 

[BeanAnimal]

@BeanAnimal Ive addressed your main questions
Here
And here
But you still seem determined to turn this into a argument.

No, you did not answer my questions or Dan's in context to the claims.

You provided abstract definitions that offer no more clarity or measurability to the claim.

That was directly and clearly addressed by both of us already on several posts on page one. In fact, some of the questions in the post above are directly in context to you abstract "definitions". You have been chased for pages, we are at page four and you are still running with fog machine in hand.

 

[sixty_reefer]

@BeanAnimal, I have to ask, are you writing this yourself?

After 4 pages and several others were we interacted, every reply seems to follow the same formula. Change a few sentences add “unsupported claims” and “deflection” then hit post.

 

[BeanAnimal]

@BeanAnimal, I have to ask, are you writing this yourself?

After 4 pages and several others were we interacted, every reply seems to follow the same formula. Change a few sentences add “unsupported claims” and “deflection” then hit post.

What is formulaic is the cycle itself. The deflections, reframes, tactical retreats, burden shifting are all repeated cyclical diversions meant to shift the topic away from your words and accountability. You don't skip a beat and are creating and perpetuating a purposeful fog designed to lose the casual observer and confuse those who are trying to hold you accountable to your words.

You nailed it. Dozens of pages and countless deflections. The only reasonable way to cut through that fog is to remain on topic and not follow your constant misdirections. So yes, I repeat myself a lot. It is what is required when dealing with practiced serial deflection.

I would much prefer to stay on topic and have you start meaningfully answering questions.

From page one:
“The contraction here is that laying out the complexity actually undermines the point that it can be measured, defined or controlled much differently than it already is.”

“But worse, this advice to take it slow and steady appears to directly contradict your overall theme here, which is starting out with "more" and seeding the tank with as much life as possible from zero day.”

Can you reconcile these direct contradictions?

“ How do we know when resilience is sufficient or diversity is adequate?”
Can you provide an answer that is measurable and not abstract, and is directly in context to the claims made?

On the microscope claims in context to the article and remarks.
“ Exactly how?
Insurance for what?
What are you looking for, what does finding it tell you, and what would you do differently based on what you see?”

Can you answer those questions without abstraction and in context to the claims and comments?

“ What population constitutes sufficient to prevent being outpaced? How do you measure it?”
Can you answer, again with same criteria as above?

There are more. But let’s start there.

 

[Lynn N]

Why I Think Reef Aquarium Need More Than a Nitrogen Cycle.​

Most reef aquarists are familiar with the process of cycling an aquarium. An ammonia source is added, bottled bacteria is introduced and water parameters are monitored until ammonia and nitrate reach zero. Fish are added, the lights are switched on and the aquarium is considered cycled. In many ways this has become the accepted end point of the startup process. The nitrogen cycle is complete, livestock can be added safely and the aquarium is officially underway.
the problem is that a complete nitrogen cycle and a mature ecosystem are not the same thing, the traditional cycling process was designed to solve a specific problem, ammonia toxicity. Nitrifying bacteria convert ammonia into nitrite and then nitrate, preventing the accumulation of compounds that would otherwise be harmful to fish and other organisms, this process is essential and without it no reef aquarium can function successfully. However, the nitrogen cycle represents only a small proportion of the biological complexity found within a healthy reef ecosystem, by focusing almost exclusively on nitrification, many aquarists unknowingly overlook the development of the broader biological community that ultimately determines long term stability and resilience.

for the purpose of this article, I use the term biome cycling, the term was introduced to many reef aquarists through Ryan’s BRS “investigates the ugly stage”. Those videos helped me shift attention beyond simple nitrification and towards the wider biological community that develops within the reef aquarium.

what follows is my own interpretation of that concept, along with observations from my recent threads on R2R. I don’t think biome cycling replaces the nitrogen cycle, i think it deserves to be viewed as a stage of aquarium development in its own right, the nitrogen cycle teaches an aquarium to process ammonia.

Biome cycling teaches it to process organic matter through life.

Natural reefs do not operate as simple ammonia processing systems, they function as vast networks of interconnected organisms continuously recycling nutrients, energy and organic matter. Bacteria, protozoa, copepods, amphipods, worms, sponges, algae, filter feeders and countless other organisms interact in ways that allow resources to move through the ecosystem rather than accumulate as waste. Every dead organism, every shed algal cell, every fragment of detritus becomes a resource for something else, waste is not simply removed, it is transformed.

This distinction becomes particularly apparent when comparing different cycling methods. Modern bottled bacteria and ammonia cycles are highly effective at establishing nitrification, they create populations of bacteria capable of processing ammonia rapidly and predictably. From a water chemistry standpoint, they work extremely well, what they do not provide is the complex range of organic compounds that drive ecological succession, pure ammonia supplies energy for nitrifying bacteria, but little else, there are no proteins, lipids, carbohydrates, dissolved organic compounds or particulate organic matter entering the system as a result the aquarium develops the ability to process ammonia without necessarily developing the biological pathways responsible for processing organic material.

The shrimp method produces a very different environment, while most hobbyists view the shrimp simply as an ammonia source, its ecological contribution extends far beyond nitrogen as the shrimp decomposes it releases proteins, amino acids, carbohydrates, fats, dissolved organic carbon, phosphorus and countless other organic compounds, these substances support heterotrophic bacteria in addition to nitrifying bacteria, biofilms begin to form on surfaces, microbial communities diversify, Protozoa find food sources, detrital pathways emerge, instead of establishing a single biological function, the aquarium begins developing multiple interconnected pathways for nutrient recycling.

This process can be viewed as the beginning of biome cycling. While the nitrogen cycle establishes the foundation for life, biome cycling establishes the relationships between living organisms that allow ecosystems to become increasingly self sustaining. In nature, nutrients rarely move directly from source to sink, instead they pass through numerous organisms before being recycled, algae grows and eventually dies, bacteria colonise and decompose the tissue, protozoa consume the bacteria, zooplankton consume the protozoans, filter feeders capture suspended particles detritivores process what settles, at each step nutrients are converted into living biomass before eventually re-entering the environment.

If nutrients move through organisms rather than directly through chemistry, then decomposition becomes one of the most important processes in the aquarium, decomposition is the mechanism that transfers organic matter into the food web.

One of the most overlooked aspects of biome development is the role of decomposition. In reef aquariums, decomposition is often viewed exclusively as a problem to be eliminated. certainly, large scale die offs can destabilise a system and should be avoided, however, small scale decomposition is a fundamental component of healthy ecosystems, in nature, macro algae does not simply grow until it is harvested, it sheds tissue continuously, older parts die while new growth replaces them, storms fragment algae and herbivores damage leafs, much of this material enters the detrital food web where it supports a wide range of organisms.

A similar process can occur in reef aquariums, small fragments of macro algae may become trapped within rock work, rubble zones, cryptic spaces or low flow areas of a refugium. Rather than immediately becoming pollution these fragments often become biological hotspots, heterotrophic bacteria rapidly colonise the decaying material and begin breaking down complex organic compounds within hours the algae becomes coated with microbial life and within days biofilms begin to develop across its surface.

A fragment of decomposing macroalgae is not waste.

It is a habitat.

This distinction is important because biofilms are among the most productive food sources in marine ecosystems, they attract protozoa, ciliates, flagellates, nematodes, copepods, amphipods, worms and countless other organisms that graze directly on bacteria or on the biofilm itself. Predatory microfauna follow the grazers, what began as a fragment of ageing algae gradually becomes a miniature ecosystem supporting multiple trophic levels.

A fragment of macro algae trapped within rock work may support several generations of microbial succession before it completely disappears, bacteria colonise it first, biofilms develop, protozo arrive. Grazers follow, predators follow the grazers, long before the original algae has disappeared, its nutrients and energy have already been transferred into multiple levels of the food web.

The pathway is remarkably efficient, macro algae becomes bacterial biomass, bacterial biomass becomes protozoan biomass, Protozoa becomes zooplankton and meiofauna, those organisms in turn become food for filter feeders, corals and larger consumers, rather than nutrients moving directly from algae into a harvesting bucket, they move through a living food web before eventually being recycled.

The algae is not simply decomposing.

It is being transformed into life.

In this way, a portion of the energy captured by macro algae may eventually become available to filter feeders, sponges, worms, and other suspension feeding organisms the algae is not simply disappearing from the system its biomass is being repackaged into progressively smaller and more biologically available forms as it moves through the food web.

This concept may also help explain why established live rock remains valuable even in an era of sterile dry rock systems, aquarists often think of live rock primarily as biological filtration but its greatest contribution may be the habitat it creates. The pores, crevices, tunnels and protected surfaces within live rock form countless microhabitats where fine particles, dissolved organics and algal fragments accumulate, these areas become centres of microbial activity and biodiversity.

However, the value of live rock may go beyond habitat alone.

Even a single piece of established live rock may introduce hundreds of organisms that would otherwise take months or years to appear naturally, bacteria, Protozoa, worms, pods, micro algae’s , sponges and biofilm forming organisms arrive already established and ready to colonise the system the value of live rock may be less about its surface area and more about the life it carries.

Even a relatively small amount of established live rock can provide the structure needed for decomposition pathways, biofilm communities and detrital food webs to develop, a single piece of mature live rock may contribute far more ecological complexity than its size would suggest.

This may help explain why mature aquariums containing refugiums, rubble areas, cryptic areas and small accumulations of detritus often support far greater biodiversity than highly sterile systems these environments provide habitat for the microbial loop, they create opportunities for nutrients and organic matter to move through living organisms rather than remaining dissolved in the water column, the result is often increased pod populations, sponge growth, filter feeder activity and greater ecological stability.

Perhaps one of the most overlooked examples of this principle is the refugium. Refugiums are commonly viewed as nutrient export devices, places where macro algae absorbs nitrate and phosphate before being harvested and removed, while this function is important, it may not be their only role, as macro algae grows, sheds tissue, ages and decomposes a portion of that organic material enters the food web, bacteria, protozoans, copepods, worms and sponges utilise these resources, converting plant biomass into living animal biomass, in this sense, the refugium becomes more than a nutrient scrubber.

It becomes a biological reactor.

A Proposed Approach to Biome Cycling

If the concepts discussed throughout this article have merit then perhaps reef aquarium startups could be approached differently.

Rather than viewing the completion of the nitrogen cycle as the starting signal for full lighting and rapid stocking, it may be beneficial to allow additional time for the wider biome to develop.

Perhaps the question is not how quickly we can add corals, but how much life we can establish before we do.

After nitrification is established and initial livestock is introduced, the aquarium could remain in a prolonged low light or dark phase, during this period the focus shifts away from coral growth and towards ecosystem development.

Organic matter could be intentionally introduced into the system through normal feeding, fish waste, detritus and the natural turnover of organic material, including small amounts of ageing macro algae, live rock, rubble zones, cryptic spaces and sand beds provide habitat where biofilms, bacteria, protozoa, copepods, worms, sponges and other organisms can establish themselves, the goal is not to create nutrient accumulation but to encourage nutrient recycling through living organisms.

Instead of measuring progress solely through ammonia, nitrate and phosphate, attention is also given to biodiversity, pods begin appearing on the glass, worms emerge from the rock work, sponge growth develops in shaded areas and biofilms become established.

A test kit tells us when the nitrogen cycle is functioning.

A microscope may tell us when the biome is developing.

Under a simple microscope, sand and rock samples could reveal an increasingly diverse community of ciliates, nematodes, flagellates, diatoms, copepod and other microscopic life, organisms that most aquarists never see, yet which may play a major role in nutrient recycling and food web development.

At some point the aquarium transitions from being merely cycled to becoming inhabited.

Only then are the lights gradually increased and corals introduced into an ecosystem that already contains functioning microbial loops, established food webs, natural prey populations and a degree of ecological resilience.

Whether this approach ultimately produces more resilient reef aquariums remains to be tested. However, if mature aquariums derive much of their stability from biodiversity and ecological complexity, it seems reasonable to ask whether those communities should be deliberately cultivated from the beginning rather than simply waiting for them to appear on their own.

The reefkeeping community spends considerable time discussing how to establish the nitrogen cycle and rightly so. Without it, fish cannot survive, yet completing the nitrogen cycle should be viewed as the beginning of the process rather than the end.

The real challenge is not teaching an aquarium how to process ammonia.

The real challenge is teaching it how to process life.

A reef aquarium becomes truly resilient when nutrients move through a diverse web of organisms rather than through a single bacterial pathway. The nitrogen cycle can be measured with a test kit, biome cycling cannot. It reveals itself through biodiversity, food-web development, resilience and stability over time.

Perhaps future reefkeeping should spend less time asking how quickly we can complete the nitrogen cycle and more time asking how effectively can we develop the biome.

The nitrogen cycle keeps fish alive. The biome cycle is what allows a reef ecosystem to thrive and unlike the nitrogen cycle, it cannot be completed in a few weeks, it develops organism by organism, interaction by interaction, until the aquarium becomes more than the sum of its individual parts.

That is when a reef truly begins to mature.

I loved your article. Great room for thought in it. Does not need to be dissected down into a million little pieces. I've been reefing for close to two decades now and I can tell you my first reef tank was started exactly as you suggest. So this theory is out there and comes from somewhere because the person that helped me get it started instructed me to do all of this in the beginning. Six months it went on.

I now presently have five reef tanks and I can not say I kept doing it the slow way generally because I had better options for startup. I do think people have been rude here with your post, I'm sorry about that. I'm not on the R2R much as I don't care for the thread environment. I have or had a ReefKeeping Facebook group, I actually paused it a few weeks ago because members were so non communicative. This is exactly the kind of information and post I have been wanting to do on my FB reefing group. I could open it back up and you could post it all there instead. I will not let this get out of hand as I am the administrator of that one. Happy Reefing!

 

[A_Blind_Reefer]

Yes. I am not sure that I have encountered this before. Might need a poll on rare this is.

I fear there is more to come. Interestingly, cloudfare just reported that bot traffic has now surpassed human traffic on the net. Co-inky-dink? Twilight Zone theme playing in background….

https://www.forbes.com/sites/josipa...ne-and-the-internet-was-never-built-for-this/

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I fear there is more to come. Interestingly, cloudfare just reported that bot traffic has now surpassed human traffic on the net. Co-inky-dink? Twilight Zone theme playing in background….

https://www.forbes.com/sites/josipa...ne-and-the-internet-was-never-built-for-this/

I just had a phone AI tell me that my order for 0.5 megaliters (not mL) of a product shipped today. Do we want them running anything?

 

[A_Blind_Reefer]

I just had a phone AI tell me that my order for 0.5 megaliters (not mL) of a product shipped today. Do we want them running anything?

Well, depends…..I mean if you only paid for 5 milliliters and are getting megaliters! Ha! Hmmm, it’s only 4-1/2 rail cars (30k gal) for 1/2 a megaliter!

 

[sixty_reefer]

Well, depends…..I mean if you only paid for 5 milliliters and are getting megaliters! Ha! Hmmm, it’s only 4-1/2 rail cars (30k gal) for 1/2 a megaliter!

Did you just randomly decided to do the math on that?

 

[BeanAnimal]

Page 5 and still no answers.

You copied the entire article into a separate thread using the quote feature to avoid the scrutiny here, where your claims remain fully unsupported.

If you are sure enough of your claims to spread them across the forum, why not link the article and stand behind it? If your position is sound, why avoid the thread where it has been challenged?

You can't outrun your own words and inability to support them.

Are you going to answer the questions and address the contradictions or not?

 

[A_Blind_Reefer]

Did you just randomly decided to do the math on that?

To be honest, I had to look up the gallon equivalency to megaliter as I’ve never even heard of a megaliter. Megapint on the other hand…

 

[sixty_reefer]

@A_Blind_Reefer, why rail cars? Is that just a volume reference you happen to have at hand? How much would it be in UPS trucks? Just so Randy has an idea how many trucks should he expect at his door.

 

[Dan_P]

You haven’t demonstrated that the concept is flawed.

If folks haven’t read the article, I think it is time to start highlighting in detail why it should be considered misinformation.

You don’t need to read very much before encountering generalizations, mistakes, and junk terminology that will cause you to wonder about the depth of the author’s understanding of the subject matter. I will analyze the entire article for flaws and misinformation, but in no particular order. I will start with this sentence to illustrate the type of confusion that exists in the article

If nutrients move through organisms rather than directly through chemistry, then decomposition becomes one of the most important processes in the aquarium,

Issue
Nonsense: nutrients move…directly through chemistry.
Non sequitur: If nutrients move through organisms then decomposition becomes one of the most important processes in the aquarium

 

[sixty_reefer]

@Dan_P, I was beginning to suspect biology wasn’t your field and this response doesn’t do much to change that impression

You’ve chosen the very first biological concept in the article and somehow concluded that describing nutrients moving through organisms, organic matter, decomposition and remineralisation is misinformation.

In a normal aquarium, most nutrients input enters the system as organic matter through food, waste, detritus and dead organisms not as if nitrate or phosphate magically appearing from no where.

The point of the paragraph is that nutrients are continuously moving through biological pathways before being returned to inorganic forms. In that context decomposition becomes one of the most important recycling processes in the aquarium.

Calling that misinformation seems like a very odd place to start.