Help me understand low phosphates regarding Cyano Bacteria

[Nano sapiens]

There is one interesting observation I have done. Dinos outbreak seems to be more common in the US compared with Sweden. There is few or any threads in the swedish forums about dinoflagellate.

Sincerely Lasse

The first question I would ask is do US reefers actually have more cases of dinoflagellate blooms than those in Sweden, or are US reefers just much more likely (read as 'less inhibited') to post their issues on a reef keeping board?

The question above is difficult to answer without polling a significant subset of both sets of reefers, so let's assume that Swedish reefers do indeed encounter dino blooms much less often than US reefers as the forum posts indicate. What can we say about the differences in set up, livestock, operation and maintenance between the two groups?

 

[MnFish1]

Its time for another Lasse´s saying - catch the thief shouted the thief. You need to be more open for many years of experiences with these problems and many, many repeated treatments in many aquariums instead for climbing up on high horses and flag with the banner of science.

There is observations done of me and @Sallstrom according to manny aquariums and occasions that when a cyanobacteria bloom (forming of mats) had start when actual aquarium running low in dissolved inorganic nutrients in the water column - adding NO3 will (and in some occasions PO4 too) make the mats slowly disappear and as long as the NO3 levels is stable around 2-3 ppm - no more mat forming

I have mention two things in this discussion as an explanation for the observed course of events

1. low nutrients and mostly very low measured NO3 in the water column will trig the always present benthic cyanobacteria to form mats that´s mostly consists of hydrocarbons from the photosynthesis. In this way - the benthic cyanobacteria create an microenvironment that give them access to nutrients that other organisms cant access.
2. Rising the nutrients (mostly the NO3) in the water column will slowly get the mats to disappear (not the cyanobacteria but the mats). In other threads I have suggest that disturbing the mats will speed up the process. according to why NO3 is effective - I have highlight its ability to block the production of hydrogen sulphide - H2S is necessary in anaerobic environment for the release of metal bounded phosphate. Dan_P´s finding that he in vitro could not get cyanobacteria mats without adding amino acids rise the discussion of competition again because if it is that way that these mat forming cyanobacteria can´t use nitrate as an nitrogen source you can be able to make the ecosystem to be more "nitrate" depending - you can favour other organisms

This can be true or can´t be true but non of your arguments have make me changed my mind. However - these observed course of events has been so many direct seen by me and @Sallstrom - not to mention all other swedish aquarist that have seen the same. I would say that we have a strong event based evidence for this cause effect mechanism

Sincerely Lasse

Im curious @Lasse - have you ever seen cyanobacteria mats in a tank with 'high (lets say >20) nitrate in conjunction with high PO4 ?

 

[taricha]

You can't just come on here and just keep repeating what ifs, well what if the nitrate gets reduced to nitrous oxide and the cyano mat can't stop laughing and thus falls apart.

That's my new fave nutrient hypothesis.

And one final note. If you make any change to your aquarium you're not experimenting. You have no controls. The result is truly meaningless.

True.
True.
"meaningless"? False. Observation is also part of the scientific method. everyone understands you can learn a lot from careful observations. If you don't progress beyond that to experiments with controls, you may also fool yourself, fool others, buy a bunch of useless products etc. But you can definitely learn things.
unfortunately dino discussions also devolve into philosphy about the nature of knowledge and reality. tedious.

There is an very good investigation in Sweden (unlucky it only exist in swedish) about N2 fixating cyanobacteria (phytobacteria) that migrate vertically during night into the anaerobic zone an pick up released phosphorous.

A mix of grunge containing red cyano a couple of hours after lights on (Top), and before that, just after lights came on, cyano was about 2mm down (bottom). I've got guesses, but I'd love to know what goodies it was after. Many hobbyist do report cyano going through a daily cycle of more/less appearance on sand surface in response to light.

i ask because dinos move around and as I understand that they normally disappear during night from the surface of the substrate (some species up in the water column - some down in the substrate) I remember now about one case with identified dinos that was cured with UVC in Sweden.

UV is the most fool-proof method for us here too - except the kinds that go down in the sand or are too stubborn to make a nightly cycle up in large numbers.

How high do you need to go in rising the NO3 in order to suppress the mats on the substrates? In our cases the PO4 normally run below 0.05 in the water column

I did not find any NO3 increase level that suppressed cyano. 5-10ppm didn't suppress it and I didn't attempt higher. Cyano is versatile. There's more than 1 way to grow it.

By the way, pose this question to yourself. If all these nutrient models that are proposed on this board are correct then why isn't a real reef with low concentrations of nitrate and phosphate completely covered with dinoflagellates and cyanobacterial mats?

So obviously it's not the actual nutrient levels. Now starting from there you can make a more informed hypothesis. Go...

Reef nutrients may not be as low as the conventional wisdom suggests. Papers on the amount of algae on surfaces (not in water) that grows in a coral dominated reef puts the carbon production due to algae to be about as large as that of coral. (And larger than what algae most people grow in their fuge per day.)
So reefs have a high flux of N and P through them even if they might test low on PO4 and NO3.

Our herbivores are much less capable than those on a reef, so some people try to starve them to make up for it.

 

[MnFish1]

Oh poor Lasse, this has now run its course. As I'm getting tired of this and so I take no pride in embarrassing you, but I tried over the last few days to enlighten you on how science actually works. I waited patiently for you to say, I don’t know because I can't possibly know without any evidence.

But now you respond with another little witticism to draw people to your side. (Oh that's our funny Lasse!) Well this pseudoscientific crap will not play here anymore. I will lay the smack down on all your theories (actually they’re hypotheticals and poor ones indeed). This is sciences house now.

So I know people might be rolling their eyes at this, and feel I’m attacking Lasse. Think for a second what you would tell me if I told you that you can cure COVID in most people with hamburger meat? That is much stronger than this hydrogen sulfide hypothesis. To take up that COVID analogy a bit more, if I said well almost everyone who ate hamburger meat survived COVID you would absolutely role your eyes at me. Yet when things take on big words it gets a lot harder. But all you have to realize is that cyanobacterial mats have formed at pretty much all nitrate levels in both freshwater and saltwater aquariums (barring a true zero). And so the hypothesis of adding nitrate to fix a cyano problem is immediately falsified. ( Basically if you dose nitrates to 5 mg/L you know that cyanobacterial mats have formed at this level, so it's gone) And so you would need to select an alternate hypothesis to test, one possible example would be that aquarists take better care of their tanks when they dose nitrate. The hamburger one is actually harder to refute then the nitrate one. Go ahead prove me wrong

You might ask why that’s a problem as people can believe what they want to. It’s because reefing already has enough troubles with the shady companies, the pseudoscience and all the trade secret garbage. If this hobby is going to move forward all the pseudoscientific crap has to go. It needs to be based on reality. On actual things. If hobbyists get to the point where they realize they have been constantly lied to or snookered they will stop in this hobby and it will crash. No matter how well intentioned the information provider is.

Let's see what could happen if this hypothesis grows...
So let's say a twenty year old very popular R2R member who knows everything (lol) find Lasse’s hypothesis and says, hmmm that sounds really cool and scientific. Then since he's taking chemistry at school he does a cursory look up if the topic and discovered that it is actually nitrite produced by DNRA microbes (they take nitrate and convert it to ammonia but they leak nitrites in the process) that blocks sulfate reducing bacteria’s ability to produce hydrogen sulfide. (Yes again not nitrate.) Obviously they would get super excited at their new found cutting edge knowledge and would start dosing nitrite. Now as I already discussed that when one is taking extra steps to take care of their aquarium while there is a pest outbreak it will automatically improve the odds and so chances are he gets rid of his cyano mats eventually. As a popular member he hits the forums triumphantly and telld everyone, HEY DOSE NITRITE FOR CYANOS!! And so now using big words and his popularity he recruits a lot of people to this methodology. And so as usual per this hobby it would be successful because of the extra attention but of course never close to one hundred percent effective. He'd be looked at in the forums with awe, that person really knows his stuff, a forum hero! Challengers using logic will be roasted and will quit the forum. The people who it didn’t work for will be told they did it wrong, to tweak the dose higher, to tweak the dose lower, or that it was really phosphate in their case, or they just don’t plain understand it. So it would become a thing in the hobby for a bunch of years until the fad would finally fade away, and during this period we'd lose a bunch of people because of uncontrolled cyano mats and nitrite harassment and reefing would have gone completely backwards on the cyano question.

So that's how serious this can become and if you couldn't guess this has already happened in various ways many many times over in this hobby.

So unfortunately now I have to look like the bad guy cleaning up all these stinky messes dropped into the forums. People will become wary of me, they'll say “who’s that newbie, Lasse knows so much!, he is a real good person, and so so helpful". Well I don't doubt that he is a good person and helpful, however he is seriously misinforming the community while cloaking everything in science speak and doing the community an overall disservice.

And as the so called scientist bad guy people eventually become afraid to communicate with me. They see posts like these and feel I’ll tell them they’re stupid. Or that I’m a know it all who will push only their way (see the last paragraph of this rebuke) No! If anyone wants to reach out and discuss their hypotheses I more than welcome it. We can discuss possible hypotheses to address your question, how to look in the literature, how to design an experiment, analyze the data etc. For instance someone may now want to explore growing ciliates or rotifers for cyano biocontrol. WONDERFUL. Maybe they’ll work, maybe they’ll be iffy, or maybe they'll be a dismal failure. However it will be grounded in known science and not science fiction.

Oh and fair warning if anybody reaches out or posts something telling me or the forum how something absolutely works, well you best back it up. Which brings me to this.

Lasse if you keep peddling this pseudoscientific garbage I’m going to keep thrashing you until you realize you have no freaking clue. I however will not respond directly to you again until you hit the books, run hypotheses by people, consider alternatives, don’t talk in absolutes and finally say I DO NOT KNOW HOW IT WORKS, but it works for me.

Oh and as far as the nitrate/cyano question. I really do not know the answer. I’ve presented a few ideas, but I DON’t KNOW...So why is that freaking so hard? In the forum you'll see me argue my position however you'll never see me say you must do this to achieve this unless it's seriously grounded. (E.g. add calcium to raise calcium) There's so many variations on reefing that work, I'll definitely discuss how I think they work based on my own knowledge. I'm also here to stretch the envelope and will probably do funky things to my tank. Yet I'm not infallible and will really admit when I get something wrong, but rest assured that my hypotheses will be based on something that has already been observed and not wishful thinking.

Oh and I mean I’ve got twenty plus years in microbiology and genetics and I say I don’t know all the time. That’s the freaking point! If I am interested enough then I can say, I don’t know, let me look in the literature, make sure I understand the literature and then decide on a reasonable hypothesis, then test the hypothesis utilizing the proper controls, then confirm, deny or rework the hypothesis. Repeat this until a hypothesis is confirmed by probability. Then going broader you must have someone completely different test the hypothesis and see if they have the same result. Repeat this a thousand or so times with all confirming the original hypothesis and now you’ll finally arrive at a scientific theory. (which still might be challenged in the future with the creation of new tests and new instrumentation, haha!!!)

For lurkers and forum members be safe out there and don’t believe everything you read, and that includes believing me! (basically do your homework and place trust when it has been earned, and remove trust when it’s been broken)

Sorry for the long post... I'm just already so tired

This is an interesting discussion. Im a scientist - BS in microbiology. and then a graduate degree (a couple beyond). If I call you out on something I hope you will not be offended. Like I asked you on another thread - how does all of this relate to 'MY aquarium' - or the users here. Its interesting to debate metabolic pathways - but sometimes - for the average aquarist - trying 'what appears to work' - in their own tank might be the best option. There are so many variables - including not only the bacteria, but the viruses, the ciliates, the oxygen levels, the pH, the alkalinity, the flow, the light, the fish, what the tank is fed with, I find it hard to follow how much of what you have said (though - it sounds 'true') is going to help 'me'. Don't take that as a criticism - because - I like scientific evidence as compared to anecdote - in general (as many mods here will attest) - But - I would say - All @Lasse is trying to say (and @Sallstrom) - unless I have missed something - is "if you have cyanobacterial mats" and low nutrients - try increasing your nitrate/Po4. The reason they are saying this is because - they have decades of experience and that is their recommendation. They don't need to 'explain' WHY - necessarily - but I think they have tried. My personal experience - its multifactorial. For example - I sent in samples to @AquaBiomics and had '0' cyano bacteria. yet - when I look at one or 2 rocks - there is clearly cyanobacteria in a small amount there.

 

[MnFish1]

That's my new fave nutrient hypothesis.



True.
True.
"meaningless"? False. Observation is also part of the scientific method. everyone understands you can learn a lot from careful observations. If you don't progress beyond that to experiments with controls, you may also fool yourself, fool others, buy a bunch of useless products etc. But you can definitely learn things.
unfortunately dino discussions also devolve into philosphy about the nature of knowledge and reality. tedious.

A mix of grunge containing red cyano a couple of hours after lights on (Top), and before that, just after lights came on, cyano was about 2mm down (bottom). I've got guesses, but I'd love to know what goodies it was after. Many hobbyist do report cyano going through a daily cycle of more/less appearance on sand surface in response to light.


UV is the most fool-proof method for us here too - except the kinds that go down in the sand or are too stubborn to make a nightly cycle up in large numbers.

I did not find any NO3 increase level that suppressed cyano. 5-10ppm didn't suppress it and I didn't attempt higher. Cyano is versatile. There's more than 1 way to grow it.


Reef nutrients may not be as low as the conventional wisdom suggests. Papers on the amount of algae on surfaces (not in water) that grows in a coral dominated reef puts the carbon production due to algae to be about as large as that of coral. (And larger than what algae most people grow in their fuge per day.)
So reefs have a high flux of N and P through them even if they might test low on PO4 and NO3.

Our herbivores are much less capable than those on a reef, so some people try to starve them to make up for it.

This is a great post IMHO - if we only relied on randomized controlled studies for things like this - as compared to years of observational studies - a large proportion of medical and other advances would never have occurred.

 

[flampton]

That's my new fave nutrient hypothesis.



True.
True.
"meaningless"? False. Observation is also part of the scientific method. everyone understands you can learn a lot from careful observations. If you don't progress beyond that to experiments with controls, you may also fool yourself, fool others, buy a bunch of useless products etc. But you can definitely learn things.
unfortunately dino discussions also devolve into philosphy about the nature of knowledge and reality. tedious.

A mix of grunge containing red cyano a couple of hours after lights on (Top), and before that, just after lights came on, cyano was about 2mm down (bottom). I've got guesses, but I'd love to know what goodies it was after. Many hobbyist do report cyano going through a daily cycle of more/less appearance on sand surface in response to light.


UV is the most fool-proof method for us here too - except the kinds that go down in the sand or are too stubborn to make a nightly cycle up in large numbers.

I did not find any NO3 increase level that suppressed cyano. 5-10ppm didn't suppress it and I didn't attempt higher. Cyano is versatile. There's more than 1 way to grow it.


Reef nutrients may not be as low as the conventional wisdom suggests. Papers on the amount of algae on surfaces (not in water) that grows in a coral dominated reef puts the carbon production due to algae to be about as large as that of coral. (And larger than what algae most people grow in their fuge per day.)
So reefs have a high flux of N and P through them even if they might test low on PO4 and NO3.

Our herbivores are much less capable than those on a reef, so some people try to starve them to make up for it.

Nope it's meaningless in regards to science. As without a control and without repetition you have no idea what your true observations are because you're human. And that lack of control has plagued a number of our burgeoning sciences. E.g, psychology.

Now to your second point. Reef nutrient availability is low but flux is high, correct? So that's an argument for higher nutrients. Yet you also argue that algae has immense primary production which takes all these nutrients out of the water. So if you are running an aquarium and you lower nutrients with algae until the levels are similar to the ocean you won't get mats or dinos? You do understand you can't have it both ways correct?

Then you mention competition, which is biologically sound. Do with that what you will

 

[MnFish1]

There is one interesting observation I have done. Dinos outbreak seems to be more common in the US compared with Sweden. There is few or any threads in the swedish forums about dinoflagellate. But what i understand - they must be able to use another PO4 source than PO4 in the water column. Have you any idea if it is low PO4 and low NO3 in the water column that create the worst outbreak or is it enough with low to zero PO4 in the water column. Can NO3 be above 2 mg/L in the water column and still promote a heavy outbreak of dinoflagellates if the PO4 is low or zeroed?

Sincerely Lasse

DO you think this might relate to different uses of nutrients in Europe as compared to the US vis a vis the types of corals kept? For example your tank - has a fair bit of soft corals/LPS - whereas some of the tanks showcased - have 99 percent or 100% SPS. Do you think this makes any difference? I tend to think so - but IDK

 

[flampton]

This is a great post IMHO - if we only relied on randomized controlled studies for things like this - as compared to years of observational studies - a large proportion of medical and other advances would never have occurred.

Did you just propose that medical and other advances occurred do to the lack of following the scientific method?

 

[MnFish1]

That's my new fave nutrient hypothesis.



True.
True.
"meaningless"? False. Observation is also part of the scientific method. everyone understands you can learn a lot from careful observations. If you don't progress beyond that to experiments with controls, you may also fool yourself, fool others, buy a bunch of useless products etc. But you can definitely learn things.
unfortunately dino discussions also devolve into philosphy about the nature of knowledge and reality. tedious.

A mix of grunge containing red cyano a couple of hours after lights on (Top), and before that, just after lights came on, cyano was about 2mm down (bottom). I've got guesses, but I'd love to know what goodies it was after. Many hobbyist do report cyano going through a daily cycle of more/less appearance on sand surface in response to light.


UV is the most fool-proof method for us here too - except the kinds that go down in the sand or are too stubborn to make a nightly cycle up in large numbers.

I did not find any NO3 increase level that suppressed cyano. 5-10ppm didn't suppress it and I didn't attempt higher. Cyano is versatile. There's more than 1 way to grow it.


Reef nutrients may not be as low as the conventional wisdom suggests. Papers on the amount of algae on surfaces (not in water) that grows in a coral dominated reef puts the carbon production due to algae to be about as large as that of coral. (And larger than what algae most people grow in their fuge per day.)
So reefs have a high flux of N and P through them even if they might test low on PO4 and NO3.

Our herbivores are much less capable than those on a reef, so some people try to starve them to make up for it.

PS - in the am - after dark - I have seen no Cyano mats - in the late afternoon after light - Some. Totally agree

 

[MnFish1]

Did you just propose that medical and other advances occurred do to the lack of following the scientific method? You're clearly lying about being a scientist.

No - I suggest you re-read my posts - and rephrase yours. And - as to me 'lying' - That comment says far more about you than myself...

 

[MnFish1]

Did you just propose that medical and other advances occurred do to the lack of following the scientific method? You're clearly lying about being a scientist.

Just to make my point more clear. What I was suggesting is that most 'science' comes from observations - that are then 'proven' or 'disproven' Observations---> Hypotheses ---> studies. I hope you understand what I mean now. It was probably unclear. I will say - calling someone a 'liar' or saying they are 'lying' - might have been a PM thing rather than a public accusation on this forum.

 

[flampton]

Just to make my point more clear. What I was suggesting is that most 'science' comes from observations - that are then 'proven' or 'disproven' Observations---> Hypotheses ---> studies. I hope you understand what I mean now. It was probably unclear. I will say - calling someone a 'liar' or saying they are 'lying' - might have been a PM thing rather than a public accusation on this forum.

No! Science does not come from observations. Observations allow one to form hypotheses. And those hypotheses need to be tested by the scientific method. Then and only then can it be called science.
If you do want to stretch this observation thing, well you also best be prepared to follow up with experiments before shouting loudly in a forum about how you cured mats.

And if you're confused about the above ask yourself what the best diet for a human is. Yeah we don't know. We don't even know the best ratio for the three macros let alone anything else. But I know you can find observational anecdotes that show everything from fruitarian to fully carnivore as the best most perfect diet.

So yeah to be clear again observations are not science.

I'll retract the lying part cause I don't know, was just exasperated.

 

[Lasse]

Im curious @Lasse - have you ever seen cyanobacteria mats in a tank with 'high (lets say >20) nitrate in conjunction with high PO4 ?

Yes once - in a 1 400 000 L tank with sharks

I did not find any NO3 increase level that suppressed cyano. 5-10ppm didn't suppress it and I didn't attempt higher. Cyano is versatile. There's more than 1 way to grow it.

This strengthen the theory that the mat forming is more a question about P than about N

So reefs have a high flux of N and P through them even if they might test low on PO4 and NO3.

Total true If 1 million L pass by you during 24 hour with 0.04 and 0.15 MG/L Po4 and NO3 - how much P and N flux is not that compared with the 0.04 PO4 and 2 mg/L NO3 in my 300 L thats will be there for a year?

DO you think this might relate to different uses of nutrients in Europe as compared to the US vis a vis the types of corals kept? For example your tank - has a fair bit of soft corals/LPS - whereas some of the tanks showcased - have 99 percent or 100% SPS. Do you think this makes any difference? I tend to think so - but IDK

No - there is some very good 100 % SPS reefs here to that have survive for some years. But many have crashed after some years. However - we had some in the maritime museum for many years as an example - look at that thread

The question above is difficult to answer without polling a significant subset of both sets of reefers, so let's assume that Swedish reefers do indeed encounter dino blooms much less often than US reefers as the forum posts indicate. What can we say about the differences in set up, livestock, operation and maintenance between the two groups?

As I say before - we had the nutrient debate 10 years ago and its mostly accepted that not zeroing either PO4 or NO3. The start up methods is not either the same. The rate of using drugs for everything is not the same.

But - I would say - All @Lasse is trying to say (and @Sallstrom) - unless I have missed something - is "if you have cyanobacterial mats" and low nutrients - try increasing your nitrate/Po4. The reason they are saying this is because - they have decades of experience and that is their recommendation.

Exactly

Sincerely Lasse

 

[MnFish1]

No! Science does not come from observations. Observations allow one to form hypotheses. And those hypotheses need to be tested by the scientific method. Then and only then can it be called science.
If you do want to stretch this observation thing, well you also best be prepared to follow up with experiments before shouting loudly in a forum about how you cured mats.

And if you're confused about the above ask yourself what the best diet for a human is. Yeah we don't know. We don't even know the best ratio for the three macros let alone anything else. But I know you can find observational anecdotes that show everything from fruitarian to fully carnivore as the best most perfect diet.

So yeah to be clear again observations are not science.

I'll retract the lying part cause I don't know, was just exasperated.

Here is my definition of the scientific method - there are several articles - I happened to chance on this one: https://www.khanacademy.org/science...he-scientific-method/a/the-science-of-biology

And yes - I agree with you - how many times has 'science' been disproven? From my experience - science evolves. You have done no controlled studies - comparing low nutrient environments to high nutrient environments vis a vis cyanobacteria. So - It just seems to me that your certainty as to the correctness of @Lasse @Sallstrom - is lacking - in the same manner. And thanks for saying I wasn't a liar.

 

[flampton]

But - I would say - All @Lasse is trying to say (and @Sallstrom)

Nope don't lump @Sallstrom in this. He has explicitly stated he does not know how this works. Nor has he used the fallacy of appealing to authority. Nor has he tried to sell it by cloaking it in science

 

[flampton]

Here is my definition of the scientific method - there are several articles - I happened to chance on this one: https://www.khanacademy.org/science...he-scientific-method/a/the-science-of-biology

And yes - I agree with you - how many times has 'science' been disproven? From my experience - science evolves. You have done no controlled studies - comparing low nutrient environments to high nutrient environments vis a vis cyanobacteria. So - It just seems to me that your certainty as to the correctness of @Lasse @Sallstrom - is lacking - in the same manner. And thanks for saying I wasn't a liar.

I'm not sure you're understanding this discussion at all.

 

[MnFish1]

I'm not sure you're understanding this discussion at all.

Well - of course I do . LOL. The way the scientific method was established (to my understanding ) is - Observations---->hypotheses---->studies -proving or disproving the hypotheses. No more no less. Again - a question you haven't answered - despite several changes - How does what you're saying here - on a reefing forum help my tank?

 

[Lasse]

@MnFish1 Many of our laws in Sweden according medicine, environmental care, education and other things says that working should be done with a base of science and proven experience. And that´s exactly what we are doing when we argue for using nitrate to combating benthic cyanobacteria mats - use proven experience based on science. And that´s exactly what you have to do if you should have a good husbandry for your critters. It is also that way that proven experiences based on science is the best help we can give in a forum like this.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[MnFish1]

@MnFish1 Many of our laws in Sweden according medicine, environmental care, education and other things says that working should be done with a base of science and proven experience. And that´s exactly what we are doing when we argue for using nitrate to combating benthic cyanobacteria mats - use proven experience based on science. And that´s exactly what you have to do if you should have a good husbandry for your critters. It is also that way that proven experiences based on science is the best help we can give in a forum like this.

Sincerely Lasse

thanks for explaining - I'm not sure why some think 'experience' is worse than 'science'. My guess is that - I sweden - that if science changed - the aquariums in sweden would change their methods. Its not a war - or?

 

[flampton]

Well - of course I do . LOL. The way the scientific method was established (to my understanding ) is - Observations---->hypotheses---->studies -proving or disproving the hypotheses. No more no less. Again - a question you haven't answered - despite several changes - How does what you're saying here - on a reefing forum help my tank?

It was in relation to you suggesting I had to prove a hypothesis I didn't even mention or bring up. Just because I can easily refute a hypothesis does not mean I have to supply one of my own. However had you actually paid attention in this thread you would know that I supplied four or five hypotheses on how nitrate can help cyanos. All grounded in science. So you may want to read again.

And if you can't grasp how I can help your tank that's your loss not mine