Phosphate Absorption Rates in Aragonite

[ZaneTer]

Dosing P was not a thing until a year or two ago. I am not saying that is never needed by nobody, but it probably is not needed for the vast majority of people who do it. I do not want to argue this with you again... this happens every few months and then a few months after that the people who were all up in arms about lower N and P being deadly change their minds like so many before them. I just try and help. If you don't want to believe it, then don't and I will try and help other people. I will say this one last time... unless you are driving N and P artificially low with media or chemicals, there is next to no chance that you do not have enough... something else is going on in your tank. In most cases, the tank is usually just new and needs to mature... and dosing it sets them back by not letting the natural equilibrium establish, but some do not want to hear this.

I constantly measure 1 to 3 ppb on the Hannah ultra low and my stuff grows like crazy and I even have some cyano in a few places in the tank. There is plenty of P in there driving and consuming the equilibrium. This is where you want to get with a high volume equilibrium, but it is better if the tank figures this out instead of you.

I can take gallons and gallons of GFO to rid tanks of some terrestrial P that was bound in dry rock. I had a friend who bought 100 pounds and it took him 6 gallons over many months to get it to a reasonable level. He did not believe me since the "BRS Video on Dry Rock did not mention bound phosphates" - this was an actual conversation that we had. He does now. Do not underestimate how much can be in there. Some of it seems fine with only minor issues, but some of it ruins tanks for people.

You mention that dosing sets people back from establishing a balance. Have you perhaps stumbled upon the holy grail of a perfect food that delivers the exact ration of N:P for every organism in your tank?

I have not had cyano for a number of years but I have had dinoflagellates, I truly don’t wish that on anyone. At the time colours were only ok and growth was very slow. This was the main reason why I began dosing. Dinos cleared up in about 3 weeks and growth took off quite magnificently.

I really do commend the experiments that you have done with the aragonite and I genuinely thank you for them. I intend to do a similar experiment with chaeto when I am next home in about 6 weeks time. I will be recording my findings and will make them public to the forum for discussion. I will begin by dosing 1ppm to my tank and recording the time and rate that it takes to drop to an undetectable level again.

My intention really isn’t to argue with but instead to try to see it from your side but I am not seeing anything convincing me that dosing is a waste. We have had differing experiences but one is no less valid than the other.

 

[mcarroll]

@mcarroll
Yes I would be keen to participate. What sort of experiments were you thinking of us performing?

Just the sorts that we've imagined out loud so far in this post like here, here and here...but also anything else that seems interesting enough for you to bother testing out! :)

Is it possible that the rock and sand absorb it faster than corals use it? Kind of like if I set a dry sponge on a small puddle of water. The sponge holds all the liquid and doesn't allow any out?

(I know I'm quoting out of order....)

Yes it can be like that.

But in that case it would also be like the coral was living on the sponge AND like the coral has a certain ability to get at that water (aka phosphate), but not a perfect ability. So if the sponge was large enough and the water "stretched" thin enough, it's possible that it might exceed the coral's ability to access it, thus depriving the coral of water (aka phosphate).

 

[madweazl]

I would first like them to analyze a whole bunch of their rock and figure out how much Phosphate that it has in it... then estimate the amount of media needed to get it to where it would be if people purchased real live rock from the Pacific. This could be a total cost-of-ownership thing. Dry rock is not always as cheap as it seems.

In the case of their Reef Saver rock, it is little to none; I used it on the 75g build and never had phosphate issues. This is only a single case though.

 

[jda]

The reef saver rock was exactly what my friend used who needed 6 gallons of GFO to get all of the phosphate out of the rock. I have no doubt that your had little to none, but the many posts from people who have had 12-24 months worth of issues with the reef saver indicated that this is not true for everybody.

 

[jda]

ZaneTer - please point out in the beginning of your experiment that you have synthetic/concrete/whatever rock and bare bottom. People who do have aragonite, real live rock and sand will not be able to have the same experiences as you do since they have natural forces at work that will interfere. Your tank could act more like a QT or FOWLR with only synthetic substances... only it has coral as well.

The difference in setup will matter to nearly everybody who is smart enough to know the difference. I will have to think about this, but I do not know if anybody will be able to replicate your experiences unless they also have the same setup.

 

[ZaneTer]

@jda
You are 100% correct. My situation won’t be entirely applicable to reefers using aragonite. I do believe that I will be able to show the PO4 reduction potential of chaeto, which in my experience, has been grossly underestimated.

Here is what I am proposing to do:
I will run a 3 week long control of my tank with PO4 kept low at <0.02ppm via limited dosing. Triton dosing values will also be recorded, I will explain later. The first week I am home I will artificially increase the PO4 level to 0.5ppm and the nitrate level to 30ppm to ensure the system is not nitrate limited. Levels will be recorded twice daily at 9am and 9pm, this also gives us a chance to evaluate whether the reduction is via corals or chaeto primarily as they are run on opposite lighting cycles. We will see how long it takes to decrease that amount back to around 0.02ppm

Now for the bit about triton:
There have been other studies done in the past that show increased growth rates in various sps corals including acropora when the PO4 level is increased. This is actually what I have experienced in my tank too. I am fortunate to have a KH Director so I will be about to record the required dosing adjustments that happen throughout my experiment. In the past I have seen higher PO4 and NO3 levels equate to higher alkalinity uptake but I didn’t have a very good way to record or display this.

Everyone please feel free to add your thoughts

 

[ZaneTer]

For those interested Richard Ross mentions these experiments showing increased growth rates in relation to higher PO4 in some of his MACNA talks.
Particularly his 2014 talk on phosphates. Please watch from the 25:00 onwards.

 

[hart24601]

It would be nice to have a general idea of how much phosphate dry rock brands have and using seaklear lanthanum chloride, for low cost, what dosage over what time period to bring phosphate to 0.01-.03 range during cycling. Perhaps with a hob or similar mechanical filter.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

For those interested Richard Ross mentions these experiments showing increased growth rates in relation to higher PO4 in some of his MACNA talks.
Particularly his 2014 talk on phosphates. Please watch from the 25:00 onwards.

Video says "not available".

 

[chipmunkofdoom2]

For those interested Richard Ross mentions these experiments showing increased growth rates in relation to higher PO4 in some of his MACNA talks.
Particularly his 2014 talk on phosphates. Please watch from the 25:00 onwards.

Video isn't working. Link is available here.

We need to be really careful when treating experiences of one reefer as scientific fact. Richard's tank, while interesting, proves nothing. Lots of reefers have nothing but headaches and problems from elevated phosphates. Lots of reefers have great success with phosphates near zero or undetectable. Some have problems with nutrients that low, and some, like Richard, have great success with phoshpates at relatively high levels. Clearly, Richard's tank is growing well and things work for him, but our tanks are very complicated ecosystems. Richard's tank may be full of animals that are used to the phosphate levels, or animals who have only been able to survive in the high phosphates. If not in that talk, Richard has said before that if a single coral dies but everything else looks fine, he doesn't sweat it and doesn't change anything. If everything else is happy, why rock the boat? This is sound logic, but it might mean that he is naturally selecting for specimens that thrive in higher phosphate levels. Plus, we need to keep in mind that Richard Ross maintains a 212,000 gallon reef tank in his professional life. It would be an understatement to say that he is an exceptionally skilled aquarist. There could be any number of small husbandry techniques that he uses but does not consider as worthy of mention that help him succeed even with higher nutrients.

I don't think that we should beat all reefers over the head until their phosphate levels are 0.010 - 0.030 ppm. Animals in our aquariums can clearly survive at wide ranges of different parameters. However, I also don't believe that we should all shoot for high phosphates like Richard Ross. Richard's tank chemistry is at most an interesting topic of conversation. It unfortunately does not prove anything about phosphates and reef aquaria.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Without getting into a big discussion of Richard's comments and the papers he quoted in the video, I would note that this literature summary that came out several years after the ones he quoted gives a more sobering assessment than that high nutrients are fine and boost growth.

That certainly doesn't mean one can't have a great tank at high N and P (he does), but it is not true to simply think just that folks were necessarily wrong to target more natural levels.

Impacts of nutrient enrichment on coral reefs: new perspectives and implications for coastal management and reef survival
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
Volume 7, April 2014, Pages 82-93
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343513001917

The presented synthesis of the literature suggests that the effects of nutrient enrichment and eutrophication beyond certain thresholds are negative for the physiological performance of the coral individual and for ecosystem functioning. Hence, the immediate implementation of knowledge-based nutrient management strategies is crucial for coral reef survival.

 

[jda]

I was at the MACNA where he gave this tank. First, he will flat out tell you that the tank did most of it growing and heavy-lifting under more normal levels and they elevated later. He will also tell you that he has had deaths from some corals and cannot keep others alive with levels like this - and he finds this acceptable. You really need to understand the nuance to understand what his tank is.

His tank is an outlier. He did not just grow a tank from scratch with those high of N and P levels.

 

[bubbaque]

You also have to look at the TOTM. Phosphate in Joe's tank is 1.2. Sanjay has high phospahte also. I don't think phosphate level is as important as everyone thinks it is, as long as you keep it stable and let things acclimate.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

You also have to look at the TOTM. Phosphate in Joe's tank is 1.2. Sanjay has high phospahte also. I don't think phosphate level is as important as everyone thinks it is, as long as you keep it stable and let things acclimate.

Yes, that is certainly true. One can have a very nice tank with high phosphate and nitrate. My biggest concern is that algae needs to be limited somehow, and it is often not well understood how that is actually accomplished in these tanks.

Is it certain fish that may or may not be suitable in small tanks?

Richard said of his tank:

"I think the key to controlling unwanted algae are herbivores. I don't buy the idea of nutrient control for stopping algae growth because we see so many tanks with 'good' levels and algae. So besides the cycles tanks go through when new, its all about the herbivores. A few times I have had to remove a particular herbivore (like a foxface with a taste for clams!), and had algaes pop right up. "

Is it a limiting trace element that may not be limiting in the tanks of others using commercial additives?

 

[ZaneTer]

Good morning everyone

Thank you for updating the link and I apologise beforehand, it will take me some time to catch up.

First, please don't misunderstand and assume that I am advocating running a nutrient rich tank. I certainly don't run my tank like that although it isnt entirely by choice. I do believe that I am phosphate limited, this thought comes from a few indicators. My test kits used to bottom out regularly until I began to dose 0.01ppm every day. Alkalinity uptake slowed dramatically during those periods too.

High nutrients will almost certainly result in undesirable algae growth without some method of removing the algae.This ties into Dr Holmes-Farley latest point. I am very much an advocate for having a sufficient algae eating crew. I like my herbivores, they do an incredible job of keeping my display free of algae. I also have a fox-face but thankfully it doesnt have a taste for my clams.

The idea behind my proposed experiment is to show just how aggressive chaetomorpha is at removing phosphates in a system. @jda has already provided us with some great data on the binding properties of aragonite. His work could serve as one half of a balanced approach to phosphate management. We now know that it can be used as an effective buffer for controlling the PO4 present in our water but this doesnt help us remove the excess PO4, it merely stabilizes it. We might find that traditional methods of curing a rock in seawater then replacing the seawater for a number of weeks could actually be a waste of salt mix. You may be better served by circulating the water from your unlit barrel into a lit refugium.

I will be trying to measure the PO4 at 6hr intervals during my testing. I am trying to see whether the heavy lifting to remove PO4 is carried out by my corals or my chaetomorpha. Alk consumption will be recorded throughout, including a week before, so we should be able to tell if there is any improvement. This data will be available to all for discussion and interpretation.

This is NOT a test to determine ideal phosphate levels. I will do my own experiments at a later date to find where I get the greatest alkalinity consumption. This particular bit of data will not be shared unless asked for, even then I don't believe it will be relevant to any tank besides my own.

 

[jda]

BRS has a series of videos on chaeto that you could start with and see if you want to diverge from there. They track the intake of the nutrients, weight of the chaeto and everything. Start a thread and ask for help with control and variables - there are smart folks on here.

Guys with big tanks and lots of light sometimes like higher N and P to slow their acropora down. The stuff can grow out of the tank fast - I can be 1 inch frags to reboot in about 36 months without fragging. Everybody wants Copps-level growth when they are starting, but breaking colonies apart and fragging all of the time sucks. You feel guilt throwing away nice frags just because your wife does not want more people coming over. The parallel between wanting coralline and then cussing it later is pretty spot-on. It can still grow fast enough with plenty of light.

As for limiting algae, this is hard until you have colonies. Once you have 8-10 inch colonies taking all of the light, then snails can keep up pretty well. Conch and cucumber can keep the sand pretty clean. I also keep a foxface on hand and have to cycle them every few year - they grow fast. Even with .1 n and .01 p, this will not limit algae growth and I still have some small patches of cyano. When you see lots of coral and less rocks, algae gets easier. Iron would be the main limiter to algae in a no-water-change tank, but I do change water with IO and it has plenty.

 

[mcarroll]

For those interested Richard Ross mentions these experiments showing increased growth rates in relation to higher PO4 in some of his MACNA talks.

Video isn't working. Link is available here.

Richard's tank, while interesting, proves nothing.

:eek:

His tank is an outlier.

o_O

Anecdotes and outliers...

I don't want to assume, but are you guys in agreement that (to paraphrase) we learn something akin to nothing from a Rick Ross or Paul B tank?

Seems to me that we learn plenty.

We learn what is possible for a big one.

When you learn that "what is possible" completely blows convention out of the water, don't you have to think harder about conventions you follow?

Aren't you pretty likely to learn a lot more once you begin examining the conventions you follow more closely?

He did not just grow a tank from scratch with those high of N and P levels.

Neither did Paul B....seems like there's something we could learn there. ;)

Honestly, there isn't too much mystery here.....systems have the potential to become more and more stable as time goes on. Nutrient levels have little or nothing to do with it, per se, as long as nutrients are available. So high or low nutrients are more or less the same in a stable system.

The key is to follow the Golder Rule of Reefing ("Nothing good happens fast...") and not overwhelm your immature system during its development.

Impacts of nutrient enrichment on coral reefs: new perspectives and implications for coastal management and reef survival
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
Volume 7, April 2014, Pages 82-93
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343513001917

That article is certainly enough of an explanation. For example:

We have recently shown that increased nutrient levels might not negatively affect the physiological performance of zooxanthellae as long as all essential nutrients are available at sufficient concentrations to ensure their chemically balanced growth 28.

...but just to pile on for anyone interested in reading more, I've been collecting articles on more or less this topic for a while...here are a few:

• Nutrient enrichment on coral reefs: Is it a major cause of coral reef decline? (even from 2002!)
• Long-term effects of nutrient and CO2 enrichment on the temperate coral Astrangia poculata (Ellis and Solander, 1786)
• Nitrogen cycling in corals: the key to understanding holobiont functioning?
• Impacts of nutrient enrichment on coral reefs: new perspectives and implications for coastal management and reef survival
• Limited phosphorus availability is the Achilles heel of tropical reef corals in a warming ocean
• Control of phosphate uptake by zooxanthellae and host cells in the scleractinian coral Stylophora pistillata
• Nutrient Limitations in the Symbiotic Association between Zooxanthellae and Reef-building Corals
• Tissue and skeletal changes in the scleractinian coral Stylophora pistillata Esper 1797 under
• phosphate enrichment
• The response of the scleractinian coral Turbinaria reniformis to thermal stress depends on the nitrogen status of the coral holobiont
• Is the coral-algae symbiosis really ‘mutually beneficial’ for the partners?
• Fast Growth May Impair Regeneration Capacity in the Branching Coral Acropora muricata
• High phosphate uptake requirements of the scleractinian coral Stylophora pistillata
  
• Ratio of Energy and Nutrient Fluxes Regulates Symbiosis between Zooxanthellae and Corals

 

[chipmunkofdoom2]

@mcarroll Richard's tank proves nothing in the same way that quality scientific research proves nothing. When a research team or group of scientists release a paper on research they performed, that's hardly proof. Even if the research is compelling and makes sense, even if the scientific method they used is sound, even if the theory and hypothesis they discuss in their abstract seems logical, nothing has been "proven." Because of all the variables, even in controlled, experiments, it's challenging to prove anything conclusively. The goal of science is ultimately to say "here's what we did, here's how we did it, here's the results we got, and here's why we think we got them." If the research is compelling, other academics take the work and repeat it, or develop new questions or ways of testing the theory. If the research gains enough momentum and the scientific community cannot find any problems with it, consensus is reached. It's important to realize that even after there's consensus, nothing has been proven. Even gravity is still just a theory.

My original point remains unchanged: Richard's tank is interesting. But, it proves nothing. If we're looking at this through a lens of objectivity, we must admit that many more tanks appear to have problems with higher phosphates than tanks that are successful with higher phosphates. As I stated clearly in my last post, we still don't really know why this is, and clearly there's more going on here than we know. I also stated in my last post that targeting 0.01 - 0.03 ppm phosphates does not necessarily seem like a good idea. The war on dissolved nutrients has gotten a bit ridiculous at times, and many tanks could likely benefit from some manner of higher dissolved nutrients. That doesn't mean that running a tank in the way Richard runs his is a good idea.

To your question about if we can learn anything from Paul B or Richard Ross, no, I don't believe we can. We can't learn anything of significance, anyway. It's impossible to rigorously test any theory with a single setup with no controls.

 

[mcarroll]

So none of us can learn anything from anyone since proven things are all we can use to learn but nothing can ever be proven by anyone. Do I have that right?

That would mean that all our sharing here and every bit of reading we've ever done is a total waste.

:eek: Nobody has ever proven that we exist!

This ruins my day...if there's really such a thing as "days". :(

Doh!

:cool:

Learning is a lot of pattern recognition. That's why you don't have to be a Weather Man to know that it doesn't rain when there are no clouds. You learned the pattern!

If you can't look at tanks and see patterns that differentiate them or which they share in common, then indeed it might be hard or impossible for you to learn. It is something you get better at with practice tho. (this is not unique to reefkeeping)

Fortunately we are human and "monkey see monkey do" is a time tested philosophy for us. ;) Rick's and Paul's tank ought to be subjects of great curiosity. Folks should really try to understand what differentiates these tanks from others that become so "problematic" under seemingly similar circumstance. It not impossible to do, even if it happens to be beyond one's experiences. ;)

(minored in Phil so PM me if you wanna talk about that angle...save the thread. :D)

 

[jda]

I think that you all have your paradigms mixed up a bit. Learning is one thing, wanting to be like them is another. I bet on the rule, not the exception. I have seen the roulette table land on Green, but I do not bet on that, even though it happens. I bet on the widespread cases of people who have the same goals as me - Copps would be a better example for what I want than Richard Ross. I realize that having the self awareness to 1). know what I actually want (like for real) and 2). how to get it, is very rare in this world, but I choose to help people learn this from the rule instead of the outlier. Just pointing out an outlier tank without describing the nuance is dangerous... but good and bad.

When you look deeper and see the death and species of coral that have died in these tanks, then my curiosity wanes. I admit that I was curious, at first, and tried to learn something... but there is nothing there that I did not know already... if you are willing to take what you can get and live without other things, then you can run a tank any way that you want. I have seen neglected tanks for years be like this... just without the pub. What is not present in the tank tells you all that you need to know... if you know what to look for.