If phosphates are the base cause of all invasion issues, why cant I generate _____ by adding P?

[brandon429]

______________=
Invasive dictyota
Invasive red gelidium
Invasive dinoflagellates
bryopsis
valonia red or green
Neomeris annulata
Brush algae, low lying calcareous reds and greens of many genera
Calothrix var.
Caulerpas
Hydroids



Interestingly, you can dose phosphate fertilizer to any reef tank and always generate________=
Cyanobacteria strains
Green hair algae strains of many genera



Lets discuss why this list is lopsided, and the reason after 30 years we still have a bunch of algae challenged reef aquaria, in droves. we've managed to grow and reproduce stony corals and nps as a massive step forward, but its been a step held up for actual prevention of algae and its consistent over the last two decades we can see from our history of online posts about problem algae tanks

Why is it some tank keepers are literally immune to tank takeovers, but they are the minority, what are we withholding from the masses?

its true that depending on age of the tank that live rock and other substrates can hold a potentiation for some of the obligate hitchhikers above but this cancels out in time. By never having these organisms, or any shred of their DNA in my tank after ten years, and by not adding anything at all to my completely full tank in 5 yrs, its biologically impossible for my tank to develop a dictyota invasion, they wont hold in dormancy that long. it is absolutely impossible for any tank condition to cause invasive dinos in my tank, that means something big that we never point out when working tank invasion science online

we need to harness that fact more, imo

what gets consistent results is what drove me to seeing algae battles in a different way. it turns out direct action on most tank invaders works better than tireless nutrient concerns to prevent them.



The dino invasion threads are a great testament to the effectiveness of all po4 controls for all invaders, these invasions are growing not lessening in spite of a near unanimous use of GFO or abnormal means of lowering po4 below that which typical export of detritus w attain. We are constantly seeing invasions off mere import, in already ulns tanks in many cases, not leaving lots of room for further stripping and this is frustrating reefkeepers.

Dinos rank in the top 3 invaders that can absolutely beat anything we throw at them depending on the strain, if only it was all nutrient based Im thinking the cures would be more numerous.



I like to work with wrecked tanks online and its been our take that you can battle the majority of tank invaders completely independent of nutrients and have a sustained win, thats not widely accepted in the hobby yet. PO4 has the edge, but is it working for the masses?

To me, the details behind this list balance above illustrates an ongoing fallacy in reefkeeping, that you cant beat an invasion without po4 being lowered beyond what normal waste export will produce. we commonly fix tanks without inquiring about po4, thought that would be neat to debate.
B

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Limiting introductions is often a good plan. Keeping out some can be easy, others nearly impossible.

All algae need a source of N, P, various trace elements such as iron, light, a place to grow, and freedom from being eaten.

Take any of those away and the algae won't thrive. Different tanks limit algae by removing different of those aspects.

In my tank I generally limit some by the last one: being eaten, since I have fish that eat the worst of the problem algae (in my case, Caulerpa racemosa).

I also try to limit it by N and P, although I don't know if that is successful.

Regardless, limiting P is often the easiest way to limit pest algae in the presence of corals that you do not want to limit. But I know beautiful tanks that limit it in other ways, probably by iron even in the presence of very high N and P.

 

[brandon429]

thats an excellent perspective to keep/

it adds to other limitation options like Fe and Im thinking GFO does good at uptaking that as well? What I liked about viewing obligate hitchhikers in a separate category was that its also possible to beat them even if nutrients are increased, depending on the rate of export of the target (or kill)

we are finding in compiling large threads where sustained kills are sought, that targeted actual killing of cells of obligate hitchhikers can result in a sustained kill, independent of nutrients. What i wanted to highlight was that nutrient control really isnt the only way, for a large portion of invaders.

We know that cyano/monera travel around handily through many vectors common in our daily tankings and as such can come about at any time due to nutrients...its just fun to rethink an old reef adage. Id also add that many invaded tanks already present with extremely low po4 enough to be on the verge of bleaching, while hand removing an ever-growing mass of invader (so we cant claim the po4 is in its stores, the water was low po4 before the import too) but we simply run a direct kill, and gelidium is gone forever (until next reimport)



its neat to start seeing nutrient controls as an option for some conditions, but actually not the best cure option for many invaders that will run even still with po4 so low corals are barely hanging on, at least the notion of a direct kill actually working on some targets gives a keeper with a particular challenge another truly valid option.

The fact remains that only about 2 kinds of invaders even have the chance for being in my tank, as many years as it w run, right up until the additions start again.

I think the truth is everything we do to control algae in the aquarium is an equal bandaid (after all, mere export usually isnt how people attain .002 its via a chemical binder of some type, or an additive thats unnatural even still) and the only true cause of most tank invasions is not quarantining.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

thats an excellent perspective to keep/

it adds to other limitation options like Fe and Im thinking GFO does good at uptaking that as well? What I liked about viewing obligate hitchhikers in a separate category was that its also possible to beat them even if nutrients are increased, depending on the rate of export of the target (or kill)
.

GFO likely adds iron, rather than removing it, but I'm not sure how much it adds. The answer will depend partly on what organics are present in the water to bind the iron and hold it is solution.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

t
we are finding in compiling large threads where sustained kills are sought, that targeted actual killing of cells of obligate hitchhikers can result in a sustained kill, independent of nutrients. What i wanted to highlight was that nutrient control really isnt the only way, for a large portion of invaders.

We know that cyano/monera travel around handily through many vectors common in our daily tankings and as such can come about at any time due to nutrients...its just fun to rethink an old reef adage. Id also add that many invaded tanks already present with extremely low po4 enough to be on the verge of bleaching, while hand removing an ever-growing mass of invader (so we cant claim the po4 is in its stores, the water was low po4 before the import too) but we simply run a direct kill, and gelidium is gone forever (until next reimport)
.

What do you mean by direct or sustained "kill"?

 

[brandon429]

Bryopsis is a great example but there are many others, if we check only cure threads on line, repositories where people w varying tank conditions (but similar invaders from my list above) are gathering to compare notes and what sustains the removal of a target, we know the winning method by a landslide for bryopsis is:

kent

second place might be ats arrangements, but they arent as common as kent by an 80% factor

Any long running thread online for multiple tank cures regarding bryopsis get the most after pics of a cured tank, and statements that they have long term fixed their invasion, by attacking the actual cells of the invader by this chemical and not by po4 by a landslide clear amount. There is no known better cure for bryopsis invasions than Kent, which is a direct kill method having nothing to do w po4 in my opinion.

po4 measures comprise almost no percentage of sustained bryopsis kills, but like anything online we must include those who did attain it by adding gfo or po4 controls. Im only remarking on what ive seen to be a resounding cure for those items above, and we've all been testing this a good 10 yrs in posts now, kent has won out clearly and there are no signs anything else w replace it next 10.

when actual cures are required, the large list of invaders above are becoming associated with non po4 controls and to me thats interesting

each invader above other than the list of two has an online following for cure seekers that doesnt include po4 controls as the major win in any of the big threads, thats interesting to me because po4 was positioned as the only valid attack, and all else was a bandaid.

If we search out 10 yrs of online bryopsis threads, its kent

if we search out 8-10 yrs of online dinos threads, its blackouts and chemical treatments and ph spiking long before po4 controls that comprises the bulk of results they have posted. as time unveils, po4 controls are working more one off and for a limited invader base than Id expected them to be.

 

[jolt]

It seems to me that you are only focusing on anecdotal evidence for tanks that have an issue that is out of control and are looking for heroic methods to obtain a recovery. I think for a complete understanding of the topic you would have to also understand how many tanks completely avoid becoming overrun and what they are doing to avoid it? I would guess finding that information would be near impossible since not too many people have thread titles similar to "I'm not having any bryopsis issues and what I am doing to maintain that"

 

[brandon429]

If thats your take ok opinions range

do you have any cure threads you've ran you can post where you fixed others tanks, not your own, using any of the methods? from that we can find repeating variables to look at. I was remarking about the ones Ive created.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

OK, I see what you mean by kill. You mean adding a chemical that kills only the pest (well, mostly only the pest).

There are a few such treatments that work some of the time. An impurity in Kent Tech M for bryopsis is one that seems reasonably specific, but in reality probably is not if we look carefully at all organisms that folks keep. But it still may be good enough for many people with a bad infestation.

Most reef pests do not have such treatments. Looking for new specific ones is reasonably unlikely to be very successful (IMO). It would be like randomly drinking chemicals hoping one will kill the bacterial infection you have on your big toe.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

po4 measures comprise almost no percentage of sustained bryopsis kills, but like anything online we must include those who did attain it by adding gfo or po4 controls. Im only remarking on what ive seen to be a resounding cure for those items above, and we've all been testing this a good 10 yrs in posts now, kent has won out clearly and there are no signs anything else w replace it next 10.
e.

I think most folks would agree that phosphate is not a recommended treatment for bryopsis because you'd have to take the phosphate down lower than other tank organisms can survive. I don't really see the new revelation...

 

[brandon429]

it was that bryopsis was in a list of several others where online cure research shows nutrient controls weren't the selected cure method for a vast majority, and that for only two common invaders it was. the invaders that typically werent obligate hitchhikers. i too wouldnt go after po4 if i was tasked to fix a bryopsis tank, so its interesting to see what other 'gimmes' we can add to bryopsis where you simply dont start with nutrients at all, and opt for a direct kill. thats the heart of this thread, lets expand that. I did 10 ish up top and those can either be debated out or added to imo...

po4 controls are typically positioned as the only legit method for dealing with most tank invaders and Im setting a minor challenge to that, in funscience of course after years of watching trends thats all. what else fun is going on this friday, lets pep it up lol

if bryopsis was a less than ideal example we could move down list to dinos and find same issues...po4 simply isn't helping them, I'm in the threads daily for yrs and the masses are still trying to find what works.

totally aware of the work behind po4 and dinos... I'm merely contrasting that to what years of people trying on dino tanks is revealing. ..po4 restriction isnt showing to be helpful in the majority of invasion threads across that initial list above. to me its worth looking into...

hope from this thread we can discover a way for po4 to consistently fix dinos, then we can make changes in some very long running threads not panning out very well, those invaders are really rough for sure.

 

[jolt]

I'm not claiming I've done cures. But from my reading of many threads the common wisdom does seem to be that controlling nutrients is the best preventative. I probably misunderstood, but your first post seemed to be claiming that controlling PO4 was not a good preventative, and I was trying to say it's really hard to back that claim up just by citing only cure threads.

 

[brandon429]

understood, glad we can get engagement on the matter in any way. Lemme ask this, whats a better test for a proposition/cure claim for a given invader than 100 different tanks trying a method and posting feedback...is there any other way to test a posit thats more effective, that we can skim data from, thats anecdote free? If the threads aren't useful, that means we know something that could be, post if poss

I think if a proposed method is ran through a cure thread, hints emerge. I think if you do it six years truths emerge possibly and those to me are indicating a lessening role of po4 in tank fixes, starting with bryopsis and branching out to including things like classic brush algae, valonia, invasive macros etc.



By asking the reverse question as to why adding phosphate cannot generate valonia inside my tank, I was hoping to illuminate that killing of the organism is often more beneficial than always using phosphate stripping as the go to method for most tank invaders. Many times po4 stripping is suppressing but not actually stopping an invader whereas a true cell kill earns a permanent ridding where po4 levels can be less scrutinized after the fact, and the invader doesn't return. Effective quarantine is the most effective anti algae anti invasion method we can take, and direct kill is next in terms of what sustains a cure. I see po4 as third on the list in terms of cure sustainment, was hoping to see what someone else with a different opinion on sustained cures could link involving several cure examples. I hadn't posted our cure threads, they are numerous and searched out easily.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

By asking the reverse question as to why adding phosphate cannot generate valonia inside my tank, I was hoping to illuminate that killing of the organism is often more beneficial than always using phosphate stripping as the go to method for most tank invaders. Many times po4 stripping is suppressing but not actually stopping an invader whereas a true cell kill earns a permanent ridding where po4 levels can be less scrutinized after the fact, and the invader doesn't return. Effective quarantine is the most effective anti algae anti invasion method we can take, and direct kill is next in terms of what sustains a cure. I see po4 as third on the list in terms of cure sustainment, was hoping to see what someone else with a different opinion on sustained cures could link involving several cure examples. I hadn't posted our cure threads, they are numerous and searched out easily.

Even if you already have problem algae, adding more phosphate will only make it worse if lack of enough available phosphate is already limiting its growth. That doesn't indicate anything about whether reducing it will reduce the problem algae. In the ocean, for example, available nitrogen often is the limiting nutrient, and adding only phosphate often does not encourage growth.

 

[brandon429]

Agreed, I would add we don't have to lower it either to actually fix most invaders and sustain the kill of the invader (enter the bandaid argument of anything but po4 work we will see in upcoming threads)

My whole point is how the vast majority of invasions are attributed to excess nutrients, we can see it commonly written in problem algae threads but having to go below normal po4 set points isn't always the right action either and its not required to get a sustained fix for ten (ish) of the most common tank invaders. It is a years long adage in problem tank threads that focusing on anything other than po4 specifically is a bandaid, the cure threads have put that claim to the test imo

For the people who wiped out an obligate invader they'd spent months trying to beat indirectly via po4 work, the direct kill options were the only thing that saved their tank. They took all the optional concern over a few thousandths po4 variance, put that into effective quarantining and direct kill, and changed they way they reef forever.

All by anecdotes

Were it not for a little challenging of the status quo in giant threads of experiment, they'd still be attributing phosphates to every single invasion and seeking something that works as well as it was sold. Its great idea to keep po4 at reasonable levels, and its a helpful mindset when gauging a plan for an algae challenge to see if its an obligate hitchhiker or something constantly input (like cyano through several vectors) before even factoring changes in po4 as the initial action.

 

[Windy]

Where has this been done?

 

[brandon429]

Excellent question, lemme zip you over a couple checks of nutrient independent tank cures going back six yrs
I sent in a conversation to you

I hadn't posted them here because I wanted to frame the discussion around phosphate not being able to generate most of the invaders we see. If I'd opened by posting my threads we'd get off track about po4 and I wanted to frame the relevance of po4 to mass tank cures differently this time.


Thanks for stopping in, holler back here what you think after reading. There's no fair way to evaluate a six yr thread other than a mini marathon read so good luck. Notice how often we cared to ask about po4 measures while collecting those kinds of results. Years long site IDs were lost in the making of those threads lol talk about controversy wringing its way into mainstream solely off results and sacrifice ~ and demand




anecdote isn't ruining tanks, its yielding patterns I think. its alot to sift through, but I claim gold is interspersed too

someone liked non standard results enough here to even sticky a non nutrient based review of dinos right up top as a key aspect of new types of practices emerging.

 

[Windy]

I will be awhile.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Were it not for a little challenging of the status quo in giant threads of experiment, they'd still be attributing phosphates to every single invasion and seeking something that works as well as it was sold. .

You keep saying that but it just isn't true, at least not in the more informed corners of the web. Experienced reefers on these boards do not attribute every pest species to elevated phosphate. We know well that reducing phosphate (or nitrate) cannot eliminate some without risking coals and other organisms we keep. Debresia is another, in addition to the bryopsis.

 

[brandon429]

If we searched for threads returned by "I have zero phosphates and still have algae" we see good examples of how a seemingly never ending food supply is assumed to be at play, opposing methods may fix their algae better, I just thought it was worthy compare and contrast.


To many keepers algae distinctions don't matter, but we are highlighting distinctions in approach between derbesia, bryopsis, racemosa, others if we continue and it makes me wonder why the formal algae offers leave that out. I recall reading mainly nutrient causatives most of my hobby career, we discovered the members of the obligate HH not by reading but by fixing tanks where nutrient control literally didn't work at all. My very first pico reef was lost trying to nutrient starve gelidium to no avail, to me this is a critical discussion regarding algae wars and approaches


sent Windy several intros where keepers remarked on their po4 dealings and were here as a last resort before tank takedown, direct cellular kill was not something they felt free to try 1st approach.


You keep saying that but it just isn't true

http://kb.marinedepot.com/article.aspx?id=11104

You don't have an algae problem, you have a nutrient export problem

Marine depot is a fair source for quotes and trends. it seems now we should add that more invasions can be remedied if we ID which algae respond better to po4 techniques and which ones respond better to direct action independent of nutrients, that was my take.


we get algae prob tanks last step before start over and thousands of dollars wasted. Only last will they consider non nutrient controls, not step 1 or 2 because that critical mass time was dedicated to nutrient starving in the majority of problem algae tanks because the notion is so deep seated imo

most of the threads I sent you Windy were us showing repeatedly that these targeted fixes were available step 1 not just step 10 when problem algae is considered independent of casual nutrient variances in a majority of tanks.