Theory on nutrient ratios and algae/bacteria

[Brew12]

Below is what I said in its entirety - taking one sentence out of context does not negate the entire discussion. This post was in response to one in which you suggested you had scientific evidence for your theories - and I humbly disagreed (and still do). I would suggest that adding supra-physiologic amounts of nitrate and phosphate to an 'experimental lake' is not anything like a normal reef tank. I gave an opinion about each of your articles - you ignore those posts and pick out the sentence above. I dont think its a 'completely disingenuous comment' - I think the articles you quoted are pretty much like comparing a volcano and a hot car. Im sorry you dont like or agree with that opinion - but it doesn't make it 'disingenuous' - which is defined as "lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; insincere."

I have no problem with you expressing your opinion. What I have a problem with is when you disregard science. Why do you think the nutrient uptake of cyanobacteria or dino's greatly differ between a lake, estuary, ocean, or aquarium? Show me a scientific study that says bacteria in an aquarium act completely differently than they do in a lake or ocean. Just one.

 

[MnFish1]

I would go so far as to say cyano cannot be from measurable nutrients. That is the big fallacy of water testing. You are only testing what is currently available in the water. Water tests are only a small part of nutrient consumption in a tank. Understanding the tank inhabitants, visual symptoms, and biological maturity of a tank all come into play. The one thing that is true about most strains of cyano is that they can thrive when a low level of nitrates are available. This is not to say that they cannot thrive in a system with high nitrates. Only that there are normally other organisms that will outcompete the cyano when enough nitrates are present.

Most sources suggest that cyanobacteria are found in high nutrient, low oxygen, low flow poorly lit areas. Some say it does better in a high PO4 lower nitrate water - but of course that could also be because the cyanobacteria is preferentially using nitrate as 'food'. Of course there is no way to know this. Its anecdote.

 

[Brew12]

Most sources suggest that cyanobacteria are found in high nutrient, low oxygen, low flow poorly lit areas. Some say it does better in a high PO4 lower nitrate water - but of course that could also be because the cyanobacteria is preferentially using nitrate as 'food'. Of course there is no way to know this. Its anecdote.

The scientific studies I posted showing the nutrient uptake of cyanobacteria are not anecdotal. I suggest you read them again.

 

[MnFish1]

I have no problem with you expressing your opinion. What I have a problem with is when you disregard science. Why do you think the nutrient uptake of cyanobacteria or dino's greatly differ between a lake, estuary, ocean, or aquarium? Show me a scientific study that says bacteria in an aquarium act completely differently than they do in a lake or ocean. Just one.

What I said was that the experiments you quoted were comparing conditions that are not found in our aquariums - and thus are not applicable. I already explained the problems with the articles you quoted (IMO). Im not trying to pick on you - but I never said 'bacteria in a lake or ocean behaved completely differently in an aquarium (with regards to nutrient uptake)' - so why should I have find an article proving something I didn't say?

And yes, I would say that there is no evidence that comparing a nutrient excess state (PO4 and Nitrate in an experimental lake model or a polluted estuary) to a relatively nutrient poor environment - like a reef aquarium). makes any scientific sense.

 

[MnFish1]

The scientific studies I posted showing the nutrient uptake of cyanobacteria are not anecdotal. I suggest you read them again.

The scientific studies you quoted - in part negated your point of view - and I already quoted how - am not going to do it again. I suggest you re-read them... I honestly do not understand what drum you are trying to beat on here lol. As many have said in response to your posts - there is no way utilize your theory in a reef tank environment - on a broad scale given the differences in tanks. So whats the point? Lets just agree to disagree or misunderstand each other's points

 

[Brew12]

Agreed , but this lends no credence to the argument of the n/p ratio Balance thing.

I keep getting the impression you are looking at this from a nitrate: phosphate ratio perspective and not a systemic N: P ratio. Am I missing something here?

Here's the thing. If the n/p balance was a big a deal as a lot of folks say it is , there would be an article by a scientist or aquarist on it.

Scientists are researching this in regards to oceanic bacteria and algae blooms. Plenty of scientific papers out there showing how nutrient unbalance, normally caused by a surplus of one or the other causes a problem. This is not something that isn't studied in depth. Just not in terms of a practical application for an aquarium.
The problem in an aquarium is that we cannot test for total N and P. We don't have that capacity.

 

[spiraling]

The dumb thing is my newest system.. the one that was going to be perfect, non rushed, built with only the best equipment, all while being understocked with fish, is the one screwing with me the most.

this is my tank. frustrating.

N and P availability seem to be a big part of this equation, but not the solution. As does bacteria and "biodiversity". But there is still no way to determine what your tank lacks. Triton testing is great for elements, but doesn't pick up if you have a contaminate like like too much Bayer in your tank or too little xxx bacteria strain. I read about Garf and what he was trying to do years ago. It sounded like good biodiversity, for good or bad.

There are a lot of "systems" out now, but I don't see any that promise biodiversity in the form of many organisms (sponges, dusters, worms, brittlestar, bacteria, etc) that also don't guarantee the absence of detrimental hitchhikers for a reef.

The real question is how do you cultivate a thriving modern aquarium reef without cultivating the bad?

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

I keep getting the impression you are looking at this from a nitrate: phosphate ratio perspective and not a systemic N: P ratio. Am I missing something here?
Scientists are researching this in regards to oceanic bacteria and algae blooms. Plenty of scientific papers out there showing how nutrient unbalance, normally caused by a surplus of one or the other causes a problem. This is not something that isn't studied in depth. Just not in terms of a practical application for an aquarium.
The problem in an aquarium is that we cannot test for total N and P. We don't have that capacity.

So why even bother bringing it up?

And why are there no Aquarists with any concern for it in the last 20 years of the hobby?

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

this is my tank. frustrating.


The real question is how do you cultivate a thriving modern aquarium reef without cultivating the bad?

By not worrying about it IMO

Bad is relative and a human construct.

 

[spiraling]

By not worrying about it IMO

Bad is relative and a human construct.

Agreed. Bad is how your determine your success. If you have hitchhikers that kill what your consider desirable, then they are bad. For instance AEF. If you want an acro tank and your don't worry about AEF, then you will fail and consider the pests in you tank bad.

The main reason people are starting tanks dry and without biodiversity is to avoid these pests, and these are the tanks that seem most likely to be "unbalanced"

 

[Flippers4pups]

By not worrying about it IMO

Bad is relative and a human construct.

You take the good with the bad.

 

[Flippers4pups]

Agreed. Bad is how your determine your success. If you have hitchhikers that kill what your consider desirable, then they are bad. For instance AEF. If you want an acro tank and your don't worry about AEF, then you will fail and consider the pests in you tank bad.

The main reason people are starting tanks dry and without biodiversity is to avoid these pests, and these are the tanks that seem most likely to be "unbalanced"

And most if not all won't or don't QT anything. Too much trouble, lack of resources or knowledge and just too impatient to QT. QT is not the end all, but it keeps most "pests" out of a DT. If your patient.

 

[Brew12]

So why even bother bringing it up?

And why are there no Aquarists with any concern for it in the last 20 years of the hobby?

Many aquarists are concerned about Cyano and Dino's. I think it is important to further the conversation. By understanding the nutrient uptake needs of the problematic bacteria in relation to the positive bacteria/algae it is another tool that hobbyists can use.

I think it gets less discussion because it isn't a problem in more mature systems. For instance, we know that diatoms consume silicates. Silicates can come from our sand and rock. It is very unusual to see diatoms in a mature tank or one with true live rock. Why? Many species of sponges are more efficient at consuming silicate than diatoms.

If there were public aquariums being started up using dry rock I have a feeling this would be a much larger topic of discussion.

 

[spiraling]

And most if not all won't or don't QT anything. Too much trouble, lack of resources or knowledge and just too impatient to QT. QT is not the end all, but it keeps most "pests" out of a DT. If your patient.

Yes, but it keeps out biodiversity as well. At least some of it.
My point is that there seems to be a balance that successful tanks achieve. They might have ich, worms, crabs, other things, but they have reached an equilibrium that allows them to be a success and grow all types of coral and allow for a wide variety of fish. But that balance point seems elusive, especially if a tank is started dry instead of with rock filled with {something}.
If you start with live rock and the biodiversity it provides, then you risk bad hitchhikers (and I have battled several). If you start dry and QT you don't have the hitchhikers, but there is something noticeably lacking in beneficial biodiversity that no one can define or measure.

 

[MnFish1]

Many aquarists are concerned about Cyano and Dino's. I think it is important to further the conversation. By understanding the nutrient uptake needs of the problematic bacteria in relation to the positive bacteria/algae it is another tool that hobbyists can use. I think it gets less discussion because it isn't a problem in more mature systems. For instance, we know that diatoms consume silicates. Silicates can come from our sand and rock. It is very unusual to see diatoms in a mature tank or one with true live rock. Why? Many species of sponges are more efficient at consuming silicate than diatoms. If there were public aquariums being started up using dry rock I have a feeling this would be a much larger topic of discussion.

The source for silicates in the reef aquarium is much more likely to be the water itself - rather than the 'sand' isn't it? unless its a very poor grade of sand. Do many people use silica sand in a reef tank? Of course a diatoms die - they release silica back into the tank. Is that what you're getting at?

"Quartz (silicon-dioxide, SiO2) is the least soluble of all forms of silicon found in nature. Although it is important to keep in mind that water is a universal solvent and everything dissolves in water given enough time, the walls of a glass aquarium is far more soluble than any layer of quartz sand that could be placed on the bottom of it. This is not to say that it is not possible to introduce silicate into your tank by the inclusion of silica sand – there are many more soluble silicate compounds (such as feldspar) or contaminants (such as aluminosilicate) which could be found in a generic bag of silica sand from the hardware store that could contribute to an increased level of dissolved silicates in an aquarium, but pure quartz sand is not one of them."

 

[Flippers4pups]

Yes, but it keeps out biodiversity as well. At least some of it.
My point is that there seems to be a balance that successful tanks achieve. They might have ich, worms, crabs, other things, but they have reached an equilibrium that allows them to be a success and grow all types of coral and allow for a wide variety of fish. But that balance point seems elusive, especially if a tank is started dry instead of with rock filled with {something}.
If you start with live rock and the biodiversity it provides, then you risk bad hitchhikers (and I have battled several). If you start dry and QT you don't have the hitchhikers, but there is something noticeably lacking in beneficial biodiversity that no one can define or measure.

It's the bacterial strains associated with live rock that are needed. The microfauna that comes with it are just apart of the food chain. Good or bad.

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

Many aquarists are concerned about Cyano and Dino's. I think it is important to further the conversation. By understanding the nutrient uptake needs of the problematic bacteria in relation to the positive bacteria/algae it is another tool that hobbyists can use.

I think it gets less discussion because it isn't a problem in more mature systems. For instance, we know that diatoms consume silicates. Silicates can come from our sand and rock. It is very unusual to see diatoms in a mature tank or one with true live rock. Why? Many species of sponges are more efficient at consuming silicate than diatoms.

If there were public aquariums being started up using dry rock I have a feeling this would be a much larger topic of discussion.

It has nothing to with this n/p balance thing.
And I'm kinda guessing they do use dry rock primarily , they just cure it first in bins, not the display and build a strong bio filter and let the softer minerals dissolve off first.

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

It's the bacterial strains associated with live rock that are needed. The microfauna that comes with it are just apart of the food chain. Good or bad.

You can have a successful reef with just a shrimp and the associated bacteria. Micro fauna just process different thing out.

 

[Flippers4pups]

It has nothing to with this n/p balance thing.
And I'm kinda guessing they do use dry rock primarily , they just cure it first in bins, not the display and build a strong bio filter and let the softer minerals dissolve off first.

Joe's 20,000 gallon reef on long island was started with dry rock. What made it take off was coral colonies and live rock pieces that had bacterial strains established. It just took time to spread though out the aquarium.

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

Joe's 20,000 gallon reef on long island was started with dry rock.

(I know)