This aquarium concept challenges your views on microbiology, lets collect and compare answers

[Sallstrom]

I started to answer your questions one by one, but just felt the need to say something, so hopefully this answers some of your questions.

I'm not sure what "my methodology" is exactly. LOL

Science tells us, that in time, a balance will be reached if nutrients in are constant. Nutrients out will also become relatively constant in time. The question is, how high will the nutrients within the tank go before this balance is reached? The more surface area, or nooks and crannies, tiny spaces, we have for life to establish itself, and store nutrients, the higher that number can go.
We have the large number of species we do because they have evolved to live in different habitats. Sometimes vastly different habitats. Nutrient availability is one of the major contributing factors that determines what species lives where. As Lesse's link on bird poop clearly shows. This fact gets lost in our hobby. Most hobbyists view biodiversity in our tiny glass boxes as this wonderful thing that shows how healthy a system is. Just don't ask, "healthy to whom?". As nutrients climb, the system becomes more hospitable to organisms that prosper under high nutrient conditions, (algae, worms, sponges, pods.....) and less hospitable to organisms that prosper in low nutrient environments, (reef building stony corals and other delicate reef creatures). The opposite is also true. Sadly, much of the aquarium literature, that's geared more towards making the industry money, than it is to actually helping hobbyists care for their pets, created this misunderstanding. I don't blame the hobbyist. The industry did this, and now we have a large number of confused hobbyists.

People point to an abundance of organisms like algae and sponges as biomarkers to show the health of the system, while ignoring the reef building stony corals that are receding from the base up because they're attached to nutrient laden rocks, or the LPS corals that are missing tissue, or the clams with no or little growth bands.

The rapid growth of calcium carbonate depositing creatures like reef building corals, and clams is not evidence to suggest that the system is healthy for organisms like algae, sponges, and worms. Rapidly growing algae, sponges, and worms is not evidence that the system is healthy for calcium carbonate depositing creatures like reef building corals, and clams. These creatures prosper in conditions that are very different. One of the main environmental influences that determines who prospers and who doesn't is the amount of available nutrients.

We all keep different systems with different goals in mind. That's one of the cool things about our hobby. No two tanks are alike. I grow chaeto in my clownfish system, but if I put it in my 400 gallon system it will die. For hobbyists to achieve the goals they have in mind, they need to understand the environmental conditions of their system and what those conditions are likely to lead to.

Sorry for rambling.............
Gotta head off to work.
If I have time later, I'll try to be more specific in answering your questions.
Peace
EC

I think you're wrong about conditions suiting this or that organism. Nutrients vary on a reef, it's not at a constant level.
Most algaes are great at growing in low nutrient conditions, as long as all the other factors are good. Take away the herbivores and there will be algae growing

 

[Lasse]

The rapid growth of calcium carbonate depositing creatures like reef building corals, and clams is not evidence to suggest that the system is healthy for organisms like algae, sponges, and worms. Rapidly growing algae, sponges, and worms is not evidence that the system is healthy for calcium carbonate depositing creatures like reef building corals, and clams. These creatures prosper in conditions that are very different. One of the main environmental influences that determines who prospers and who doesn't is the amount of available nutrients.

And still it moves as he say

During millions of years these creatures has developed side to side. They live together in a eco system. The depend on each others in ways that we just recently have begin to discovers. Photosyntetic reef building corals can´t (in nature) exist without the other animals or algae - and these organisms cant exist on reefs without the coral community. Can you show any living coral reef with photosyntetic corals without all of these other creature? If these organisms is unhealthy for photosyntetic reef building corals - why have not such a reef developed. And interesting is that you change a little - you are now talking about reef building corals - leaving all other corals away. But they live together on the reefs - can you show me any natural reef without these corals that is total depended of photosynthesis for they surviving. Can you also show at least one photosyntetic reef building coral that can survive for a prolonged time only on prey. I love to know answers on all these questions.

There is hundreds of reports showing that corals can´t fight algae if the algae grazers disappear from the reef. And that is in systems that have normal levels of inorganic nutrients. In one studie I read a long time ago - researchers take away all urchins from a part of a reef. They did constructions that hinder grazers to reach the corals, not even the urchins. In short time - this part of the reef was overgrowing of algae - the rest of the reef as still healthy. Yea - you can manipulate an aquarium to work the way you want - but that´s not true in nature The reason why the reefs looks like they do today with all of these creatures is the general proof that you are wrong - otherwise the natural reefs should only be corals - no other animals. And one of the reasons are the very high recirculation of inorganic nutrients inside this system as you describe (that one of the parts that solve the Darwin Paradox) but the reef cant grow and will also decline if there is no influx of inorganic nutrients. It is the diversity that make the coral reefs so important and successful

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

Another question - the prey - the microalgae and the zooplankton - where does they come from?

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

I posted a link earlier. In that link there was a table. That table clearly showed that the nutrient level away from the reef was lower than the nutrients directly around the reef. Look at any environment, anywhere on the planet, and you'll see this same effect. As the mass of life increases, so does the nutrient level.

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/CREWS/Cleo/St. Croix/salt_river22.pdf

I have read this and - it is true that they report a small increase of one nutrient through the reef - nitrogen. No figures of phosphorus is reported in the article. The smal rise that they reported was of one nutrient - N and they explain it with N2 fixation of "blue-green algae" (by the way - the article seems to be from the 80:ties - therefore the old name of what we today call cyanobacteria) The whole article talk about "nutrients" but it is 99 % about nitrogen and for PO4 - there is no figures at all. Much of the article contradict some of your statements - like (my bold)

There are two general sources of nutrients for primary production: New nutrients and regenerated (recycled) nutrients. If only regenerated nutrients were available, gross photosynthesis could not excede respiration (i.e., P/R ratios could not excede 1.0) unless there was a change in elemental ratios (e.g., an increase in the C/N and C/P ratios). Net production (growth) requires the input of new nutrients into the system, as does net export from the system. It is important to point out that nutrient recycling mechanisms, even when 100% efficient, cannot supply nutrients for a positive net production. Furthermore, if recycling mechanisms are inefficient it will take an input of new nutrients to maintain a steady state biomass.

New nutrients can enter reef systems from both terrestrial and oceanic sources and, in the case of nitrogen, by in situ N2 fixation. Nutrient input to reefs from terrestrial sources remain poorly studied. However, we can make several general statements. Coral reefs located off the coasts of high volcanic islands or on continental shelves may receive a considerable supply of nutrients via terrestrial runoff (Marsh, 1977).

The last will probably cover Hawaii and as I know - there is many very productive hard corals reefs around these islands.

Oceanic sources of nutrients will be dependent on the concentration of nutrients in the source water, the rate of flow of water over the reef, and the ability of primary producers to take up the nutrients at the given concentration. Nutrient concentrations in tropical oceanic waters are generally near limits of detection, but there are reports that upwelling may occasionally result in higher concentrations (Thompson and Golding, 1981; Andrews and Gentien, 1982). The rates of water flow over the reef are high,and several species of reef coral have been found to be able to take up nutrients from these low concentrations (Franzisket, 1974; D'Elia, 1977; D'Elia and Webb, 1977; Webb and Wiebe, 1978).

if no recycling occurred) would require stripping somewhere between 0.25 to 8.5% of DIN. This means that for many reef flats, where the water column is usually less than a meter deep, waters flowing over downstream areas may be significantly depleted in nutrients. In fore-reef zones, vertical mixing should prevent this type of depletion from being as important, but it is still apparent that at low concentrations and at slow current velocities it is unlikely that uptake of new oceanic nutrients could account for much more than net productivity. Otherwise, we should see a much greater drop in DIN and dissolved
inorganic P concentrations during upstream-downstream experiments Wilson and Betzer, 1973). In fact, DIN and dissolved organic N (DON) concentrations generally increase as oceanic waters cross the reef, and a net export of N has been found for some reefs (Johannes, et al., 1972; Webb, et al., 1975) . This implies a source of fixed N from within the reef community, which can be attributed to N2 fixation by benthic blue-green algae and N2 -fixing bacteria (Mague and Holm-Hansen, 1975; Burris, 1976; Capone, et _al., 1977; Wiebe, et al., 1975).

net productivity = the production that´s is needed for staying alive without growing

It generally is believed that the main evolutionary adaptation to low nutrient conditions in reef environments has been the evolution of relationships that lead to efficient recycling of nutrients. The foremost example of this type of relationship is the endosymbiosis between algae and invertebrates. Present day coral reefs are physically dominated by a variety of orders and classes of coelenterates and virtually all of them have symbiotic dinoflagellates (zooxanthellae) in their tissues. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that these animals do not excrete waste products as do other nonsymbiotic animals (Kawaguti, 1953; Pomeroy and Kuenzler, 1969) and that there is even a measurable uptake of dissolved nutrients by them attributable to the presence of the algae (see earlier references) .

It means - in spite of the fact that the get nutrints from their symbiont - they can take up dissolved inorganic nutrients too

Nutrient regeneration also occurs in lagoon sediments (Entch, et al., 1983) where nutrients are utilized by extensive macroalgae and turtle grass beds. These beds are heavily grazed upon by reef fish. Many of these fish exhibit diel migration patterns, whereby they graze on the backreef and in the lagoons by day but shelter in the deeper forereef by night. Material that they transport in their guts at dusk is defecated over the forereef or in their nocturnal shelters. This form of transport may be an important means of upstream nutrient recycling on coral reefs. The reverse cycle of migration (nocturnal feeding, daytime sheltering) by juvenile grunts has been shown to have measureable impact on nutrient concentrations around coralheads (Meyer, et al., 1983).

New nutrients enter the system in both dissolved and particulate form, or are generated in situ by N2 fixation. Dissolved nutrients and some particulates are taken up by the organisms included in the "fine-pore concentrators" group made up of algae and zooxanthellae .

Cave water concentrations are 13 times higher in N03, 2 times higher in NH4 and 3 times higher in organic N than offshore waters. These enrichments in the caves represent a signficiant increase in nutrients for any primary producers that might have access to them . Dye injections into caves showed that there was rapid outwelling of cave waters onto the reef, and, importantly, that these cave waters flowed within 1 m of the bottom for 10-15 min or longer before mixing upwards. This indicates that there is a process that restricts vertical mixing and dilution of nutrient enriched outwelled cave waters, such that benthic primary producers would have sufficient time to strip the nutrients from these waters before they mix upwards.

@Gregg @ ADP @ Here is one interesting thing in this article. I think that it was you that ask if phosphorus was limited in coral reefs. I answered that in general - N limiting in sea water is normal. However - maybe you right for just reefs - this quote make sence


The nitrogen source maybe has its explanation in this short sentence. However - where does the phosphorus come from ?

As usual - in all of this - EC have picked out what suit his theories - leaving all text that contradict yhis statements and not mention important facts - like this is not an article of nutrient - it is an article about nitrogen - but the author mostly use nutrient as a synonym for nitrogen - leaving phosphorus behind

Sincerely Lasse

 

[MnFish1]

I have read this and - it is true that they report a small increase of one nutrient through the reef - nitrogen. No figures of phosphorus is reported in the article.
As usual - in all of this - you have picked out what suit your theories - leaving all text that contradict your statements and not mention important facts - like this is not an article of nutrient - it is an article about nitrogen - but the author mostly use nutrient as a synonym for nitrogen - leaving phosphorus behind

Sincerely Lasse

I pointed this out several pages ago - that this article directly contradicts his own thesis.

 

[Lasse]

I pointed this out several pages ago - that this article directly contradicts his own thesis.

I´m sorry - I missed this - it is very much to have in an old head - sorry

Sincerely Lasse

 

[SDchris]

Low testable N and P

If I have an aquarium with 30x tank volume water flow and an external filter (GFO) with 1x tank water volume flow through it. I put one phosphate ion into the aquarium. Who's the most like to uptake that phosphate, the aquarium inhabitants or the external filter ?
I can keep adding phosphate. Most will be taken up by the aquarium inhabitants and a small amount will reach the filter (GFO). After an amount of time the aquarium inhabitants will have more phosphate than they need, at which point phosphate will start to accumulate in the tank water, resulting in much more reaching the filter.
I could adjust my filter flow/volume to make the final water concentration low (ULNS), BUT that does not limit what the coral gets.
That's why you can have a tank with very low testable N and P but coral with dark brown zoox pigmentation.
I would consider ULNS to mean low availability / supply, not final water concentration.

What's the difference between an tank that uses nothing: no Zeo stones, organic carbon, GAC, GFO, spur.......but still has equal or better colour and growth as those do us Zeo? How does a tank that uses all the things arrive back at the same point to a tank that uses none?

FWIW, I see lots of Zeo tanks. Some with light coral, some with dark corals and lots who are struggling.

 

[brandon429]

Lasse

What is your reply to the basic question about feeding more creating a measurably more powerful biofilter, you know feeding more just creates more back flushing need and pore clogging. Since you can not stack nitrifiers any higher on biomedia given a normal flow and filtration scheme at 1 ppm constant vs 5 ppm ammonia constant input, the surface area is what must be increased to provide a more powerful biofilter, not the feed.

The vital surface area runs the same on 1 ppm continual input vs 5 ppm continual input, given six months let's say. I feel you guys have concentrated too much on feeding and didn't state how increasing feed didn't increase surface area, the more powerful biofilter isn't the heavily fed one, it's the well evacuated and cleaned open pores one with + surface area comparatively. To maintain a filter at that max flow though by itself shears all extra surface accumulations free, to be exported, that any additional ammonia would have created.

How does your application of back flushing science nullify or support that claim above. The downside to surface area science is in nearly every case regarding a reef tank use that we're dealing in gross excess. Excess SA used requires cleaning, back flushing eventually, and the heavily fed biosystem or filter really isn't a benefit over time due to cleaning needed. At one point, you must install additional filters or surface area as just feeding the tank more won't make it support more fish.

The tank and filter accustomed to just one fish at six months can take on five easily, if the surface area norms are in place. Since ramp up and and ramp down science is bunk, we only needed time and surface area for a one fish system to fully prepare the system to instantly support more fish, without ramp up.

Surface area science is powerful stuff, its how we flip all those sand beds for cleaning in the rinse thread without recycling them. To increase the ability to keep more tilapia in a production tub, to maintain no free ammonia and support feed and waste degradation within, you wouldn't feed the system more and increase cost in. You'd add surface area filtration and keep the feed constants, since any new surface area self seeds and self maintains, given feed constants.

Feed costs never factor into biofilter support, % fish body mass does, and the filters just run themselves given normal servicing. Feed in is set by fish out, not biofilter requirements as there are none beyond hydration and pore cleaning and medication tolerances if applicable

Nobody wants be adding excess nitrogen in aquaculture it removes profit. The science of surface area saves industrial money for sure, so I claim that you guys stating the more a filter is fed the more it can oxidize has some industry challenges

 

[Mortie31]

If I have an aquarium with 30x tank volume water flow and an external filter (GFO) with 1x tank water volume flow through it. I put one phosphate ion into the aquarium. Who's the most like to uptake that phosphate, the aquarium inhabitants or the external filter ?
I can keep adding phosphate. Most will be taken up by the aquarium inhabitants and a small amount will reach the filter (GFO). After an amount of time the aquarium inhabitants will have more phosphate than they need, at which point phosphate will start to accumulate in the tank water, resulting in much more reaching the filter.
I could adjust my filter flow/volume to make the final water concentration low (ULNS), BUT that does not limit what the coral gets.
That's why you can have a tank with very low testable N and P but coral with dark brown zoox pigmentation.
I would consider ULNS to mean low availability / supply, not final water concentration.

What's the difference between an tank that uses nothing: no Zeo stones, organic carbon, GAC, GFO, spur.......but still has equal or better colour and growth as those do us Zeo? How does a tank that uses all the things arrive back at the same point to a tank that uses none?

FWIW, I see lots of Zeo tanks. Some with light coral, some with dark corals and lots who are struggling.

Yes that’s exactly the point I was making, people have moved away from ZEO and ULNS in favour of slightly higher nutrient levels with better colour and growth

 

[SDchris]

I think maybe one of us is misunderstanding the other.
Do you mind if I ask a favor? Can you link me to one or two of those "slightly higher nutrient levels with better colour and growth" tanks. Preferably ones I can see time sequence.

 

[Lasse]

If I have an aquarium with 30x tank volume water flow and an external filter (GFO) with 1x tank water volume flow through it. I put one phosphate ion into the aquarium. Who's the most like to uptake that phosphate, the aquarium inhabitants or the external filter ?
I can keep adding phosphate. Most will be taken up by the aquarium inhabitants and a small amount will reach the filter (GFO). After an amount of time the aquarium inhabitants will have more phosphate than they need, at which point phosphate will start to accumulate in the tank water, resulting in much more reaching the filter.
I could adjust my filter flow/volume to make the final water concentration low (ULNS), BUT that does not limit what the coral gets.
That's why you can have a tank with very low testable N and P but coral with dark brown zoox pigmentation.
I would consider ULNS to mean low availability / supply, not final water concentration.

What's the difference between an tank that uses nothing: no Zeo stones, organic carbon, GAC, GFO, spur.......but still has equal or better colour and growth as those do us Zeo? How does a tank that uses all the things arrive back at the same point to a tank that uses none?

FWIW, I see lots of Zeo tanks. Some with light coral, some with dark corals and lots who are struggling.

For me ULNS means tanks there you are lower than natural concentrations and that all (especially PO4 sources are gone) - not the actual measurements show 0. This because of the recirculation system in tanks like mine - phosphorus (and nitrogen) will be available - but the consumption give no leftover in the water column. If you have a tank constructed like that - you can read zero inorganic nutrients in the water but still give the corals what they need. And for me - the world coral means a lot of more organisms than picky acroporas

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

Lasse

What is your reply to the basic question about feeding more creating a measurably more powerful biofilter, you know feeding more just creates more back flushing need and pore clogging. Since you can not stack nitrifiers any higher on biomedia given a normal flow and filtration scheme at 1 ppm constant vs 5 ppm ammonia constant input, the surface area is what must be increased to provide a more powerful biofilter, not the feed.

The vital surface area runs the same on 1 ppm continual input vs 5 ppm continual input, given six months let's say. I feel you guys have concentrated too much on feeding and didn't state how increasing feed didn't increase surface area, the more powerful biofilter isn't the heavily fed one, it's the well evacuated and cleaned open pores one with + surface area comparatively. To maintain a filter at that max flow though by itself shears all extra surface accumulations free, to be exported, that any additional ammonia would have created.

How does your application of back flushing science nullify or support that claim above. The downside to surface area science is in nearly every case regarding a reef tank use that we're dealing in gross excess. Excess SA used requires cleaning, back flushing eventually, and the heavily fed biosystem or filter really isn't a benefit over time due to cleaning needed. At one point, you must install additional filters or surface area as just feeding the tank more won't make it support more fish.

The tank and filter accustomed to just one fish at six months can take on five easily, if the surface area norms are in place. Since ramp up and and ramp down science is bunk, we only needed time and surface area for a one fish system to fully prepare the system to instantly support more fish, without ramp up.

Surface area science is powerful stuff, its how we flip all those sand beds for cleaning in the rinse thread without recycling them. To increase the ability to keep more tilapia in a production tub, to maintain no free ammonia and support feed and waste degradation within, you wouldn't feed the system more and increase cost in. You'd add surface area filtration and keep the feed constants, since any new surface area self seeds and self maintains, given feed constants.

Feed costs never factor into biofilter support, % fish body mass does, and the filters just run themselves given normal servicing. Feed in is set by fish out, not biofilter requirements as there are none beyond hydration and pore cleaning and medication tolerances if applicable

Nobody wants be adding excess nitrogen in aquaculture it removes profit. The science of surface area saves industrial money for sure, so I claim that you guys stating the more a filter is fed the more it can oxidize has some industry challenges

I do not know if the term "greppa efter ett halmstrå" exist in English - but it means something like "To desperately try to cope with a situation, a last chance that usually does not solve the problem" - but that´s exactly what you do. In real life - this problem with competition of heterotrophic bacteria is solved with the construction of the filter - not adding new filters. Modern nitrification filters is of type Kaldnes or trickle filters. It was long time ago that the drowned filters that need back flushing was in use for nitrification in heavy loaded fish farms. These filters (Kaldnes and trickle) is continuously back flushed by heavy movement with help of air (Kaldnes) or a very fast stream of water through the open filter (trickle - forget the term "drop-filter" - these filters shall have a large and fast water stream through it, hence polishing the surface and leaving a thin bio film) Of cause - there is a space limits for nitrification bacteria in those filters too but they are super effective/square meter surface and this limit is only for nitrification bacteria because most of the heterotrophic bacteria is just flushed away

If you use canister filters (drowned filters) and use 1000 instead for one - its only means that you increase the times between the back flushes and that you are spending a lot of money.

But I think that your stubborn upholding of your position depends of that is your theoretical base for the sand rinse method. If you lose this theoretical base - the method make not sense as the only one. I think it is the same for others in this thread - if they lose the theoretical base for their beloved method (that not has been mention in this thread) - the use of that method make no sense as the one and only method.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

I think maybe one of us is misunderstanding the other.
Do you mind if I ask a favor? Can you link me to one or two of those "slightly higher nutrient levels with better colour and growth" tanks. Preferably ones I can see time sequence.

One of @glennf ´s tanks - he has target values of 0.04-0.08 PO4 and 1-3 ppm NO3. There is more aquariums with disent ( ) colours running this method in the Netherlands.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[brandon429]

Lasse

You didn’t answer any aspect of surface area maximums, again, regardless of the name of the filter, or about how feeding can’t stack bac higher on surfaces and even if it did that doesn’t increase surface area exposure to the water.

thanks for restating my take on back flushing, how it’s required but apparently automated nowadays is what I learned from your post above

I restated surface area impact to hopefully elicit an answer, I’ll try again on page fifty and see how many times the concept comes up in you guys’ back and forth until then.

Feeding a filter more doesn’t pack on more bacteria on surfaces for more efficient filtration, surface area within the filter is already max seeded whether you carry 1 ppm bioloading or 5 ppm. Surface area in the filter and flow through/channeling sets those efficiency maximums, not feed input, as a thicker biofilm on filter surfaces doesn’t filter better (thicker biofilm is less surface area exposed, not more, the opposite of what the masses envision, again) and thicker biofilms due to heavy feeding are sheared away inside the filter and cast out as the actual material you are backflushing.

 

[brandon429]

MN how about this idea

Picture a straight line ______ vs the letter W as surface area comparisons within two filters/ramp up ramp down science and the claim of feeding more packing on more bac, to already seeded surfaces can be envisioned this way

___________ is the media within one filter. This functions like my empty ten gallon tank analogy that you can’t cycle to handle fish even if you ramp it up at 4 ppm for six months, not enough surface area.

W Is the media for another filter, surfaces that look like WWWW are packed in the second filter, the actual letter demonstrating the peaks and troughs associated with convoluted high-surface area spiky filter media balls for example. Water is flowing fast over the straight line filter (low surface area) and through the W filter.

The biofilm that filters is the microns thick invisible mass lying on top of the straight line, water shear over the top takes off any extra bac that try to stack, when you feed a formerly 1 ppm an extra 4, because you are trying to ‘get the filter ready’ for a higher fish loading coming up. Water shear keeps the same relative amount of bac stuck to that line no matter how much you feed it, and the length of the line determines your max fish carry, not the numbers of bac on the line because they’re already maxed before you tried to ramp up. even if you slow water pass, to slow shear, all you’ve done by feeding more is make a thicker line, the filtration still happens at the top. Even fed more, a thicker ——— line filter can’t ever increase surface area, still just a line.

Consider the W filter media. What happens if you pack lots of extra feed and bac into that system? Where does the new mass reside, to filter more efficiently? To make the biofilm any thicker means you LOSE surface area on a W system because the troughs in the letter W are now gunked up and the W is functioning like an O, you lose the peaks and troughs that once afforded higher surface area and could carry more fish per gallon

You can’t feed a filter more to make it handle more fish. You must increase surface area somehow, add more WWW media, or maximize the surface area present by cleaning if it’s already sufficient for a given bioload. It’s ironic that cleaning a filter makes it work better, not feeding it more.

*you asked a few pages back how more surface area catches more feed and self-maintains during initial unassisted cycle, it’s because with every square inch of new colonized surface area added, the complex interplay between nitrifers and heterotrophs Lasse has detailed (how feed is shared between the communities mixed together) has more space to play out; biofilms are sticky, passing foodstuffs wafted in from the surroundings have more to catch and be held by, this compounds daily, nitrifers are fed and housed and protected by biofilms on the active area (from 30 minute air drains for example)
Mixed heterotrophic bacteria have their own life and death cycles underwater, when they die and decay next to nitrifers, nitrifers are fed, so more surface area means more self feeding ability, more protection and no need for human affordances past simple hydration and some time for the contaminations of nature to build up the filter.

________________
or
WWWWWWWWWWW

Same length of the two lines, but one of those media has 5x or better surface area, catchpoints, than the other and if you clog the higher surface area media, active surface area reverts to being approximately the same between the two, no net efficiency gain from feeding. To add ANY more mass to the biofilm on a W setup is counterproductive, the thinnest biofilm wins as that preserves surface area exposure.

This is the practice that runs the sand rinse thread where the live rock is the W media, part of what we do there is decloud live rock during cleaning (backflushing out pores exposing the most surface are considering the sand we are about to neutralize) and we then remove -seemingly- half of their active surface area although what’s left always runs the tank just fine. Before the thread, the going claim from all reef posters is that time to allow ramp up of the rocks was required. We have shot that down here, with the _____ vs W view

We routinely strip peoples filtration systems in half. The leftovers are always enough. For every tank, this is the removing one of the ten filters analogy from the first set of questions, no it doesn’t make the three fish ammonia spike as the surface area in the first tank was enough without the extra filters help. Removing ALL upcycled filters at once from the imaginary test system does not cause an ammonia spike, and us rinsing anyone’s sandbed out with tap water doesn’t either.

 

[Lasse]

If you start a nitrification filter designed to gain max population of nitrification bacteria and no competition from other bacteria with X surface area and Y load of NH3/NH4 you will have a population of nitrification bacteria on that area that is proportional to this load. If you rise the load of NH3/NH4 to Y+Z but still have X in area the population on the surface will grow proportional to the load until your load is larger than max population on area X can handle. In this case - and only here - the area will be the limited factor. with other words - NH3/NH4 load is the limited factor until the population have reach that size that the space will be limited for more growth. In this case you will be able to measure both NH3/NH4 and NO3 from the filter. It is easy like that. In this case I describe a filter that do not have any competition of heterotrophic bacteria but even if heterotrophic bacteria produce NH3/NH4 in other place in the system or - as in the drowned filters like canister filters - produce it internally - it is still the available NH3/NH4 that decide the population of active nitrification bacteria until another limited factor as access to oxygen or space will be the new limited factor. This is a dynamic system.

For the last time - the population of active nitrification bacteria are decided of access of NH3/NH4, oxygen level, access to inorganic carbon, competition of heterotrophic bacteria and available space. Each of these factors can be limited but if not the amount of NH3/NH4 is enough you will not have max utilization of the other factors. And note - it is possible to detect if some of the other factors are limited - because in that case you will be able to read levels of NH3/NH4 or NO2 in the water. In that case the load of NH3/NH4 is limited for active nitrification bacteria - you will not read any concentrations of them in the water more than in the beginning before the population had grow big enough

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Elegance Coral]

Interesting links according what I stated in last post

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05355-y

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0202-3

Sincerely Lasse

Your own link clearly shows that if you remove nutrients, you reduce the abundance of algae. It also shows that when the nutrients were higher, there was more algae, despite the fact that there were more herbivores. You can't grow plants without fertilizer. The more fertilizer you have, the more plants you can grow, and the more herbivores you can support. As your link clearly shows. Barring other influences, like man's over fishing, the population of herbivores will rise and fall with the abundance of algae. As your like shows. Algae mass will rise and fall with the abundance of fertilizer. As your link shows. This should be common sense.
If I say it, you try to imply, or simply say, that I'm wrong, because herbivores eat algae. Well, obviously, herbivores eat algae, and through this process reduce its growth. That fact does NOT show that anything I've said is wrong. Please quote me where it does prove I'm wrong, or simply stop making false accusations.

I have read this and - it is true that they report a small increase of one nutrient through the reef - nitrogen. No figures of phosphorus is reported in the article. The smal rise that they reported was of one nutrient - N and they explain it with N2 fixation of "blue-green algae" (by the way - the article seems to be from the 80:ties - therefore the old name of what we today call cyanobacteria) The whole article talk about "nutrients" but it is 99 % about nitrogen and for PO4 - there is no figures at all. Much of the article contradict some of your statements - like (my bold)

"There are two general sources of nutrients for primary production: New nutrients and regenerated (recycled) nutrients. If only regenerated nutrients were available, gross photosynthesis could not excede respiration (i.e., P/R ratios could not excede 1.0) unless there was a change in elemental ratios (e.g., an increase in the C/N and C/P ratios). Net production (growth) requires the input of new nutrients into the system, as does net export from the system. It is important to point out that nutrient recycling mechanisms, even when 100% efficient, cannot supply nutrients for a positive net production. Furthermore, if recycling mechanisms are inefficient it will take an input of new nutrients to maintain a steady state biomass.

New nutrients can enter reef systems from both terrestrial and oceanic sources and, in the case of nitrogen, by in situ N2 fixation. Nutrient input to reefs from terrestrial sources remain poorly studied. However, we can make several general statements. Coral reefs located off the coasts of high volcanic islands or on continental shelves may receive a considerable supply of nutrients via terrestrial runoff (Marsh, 1977)."

Please quote me where I said something, anything that contradicts your bold. At least one of your bolds. I didn't feel like quoting all of them.
I could save you some time searching though, because nothing in your bold contradicts anything I've said.

Another one of your bolds.
"This means that for many reef flats, where the water column is usually less than a meter deep, waters flowing over downstream areas may be significantly depleted in nutrients."

Why do you think that is?????? Where do you think those nutrients went???????? This is exactly what I've been saying!!!!!!!!!

Water containing X amount of nutrients enters the reef flats. The reef itself strips a percentage of those nutrients from this water, and concentrates/holds them on the reef as it moves downstream. This causes the nutrient content of the reef to be elevated over incoming waters. This process continues as water flows downstream, and the nutrients held in the water is reduced, because those nutrients are now in the reef upstream. This general concept plays out in many habitats around the globe where life traps and holds nutrients in one area and reduces nutrient availability to environments downstream. The everglades here in Florida, and the norther Pacific ocean currents............

However, this is NOT how the vastness of the shallow tropical ocean, where coral reefs are, became nutrient poor. Coral reefs are tiny specks dispersed through the vastness of thousands of square miles of tropical ocean. Their impact on the nutritional content of these enormous waters is minuscule to say the least.

It means - in spite of the fact that the get nutrints from their symbiont - they can take up dissolved inorganic nutrients too

No one said they couldn't........

As usual - in all of this - EC have picked out what suit his theories - leaving all text that contradict yhis statements and not mention important facts - like this is not an article of nutrient - it is an article about nitrogen - but the author mostly use nutrient as a synonym for nitrogen - leaving phosphorus behind
Sincerely Lasse

So nitrogen is a nutrient when you test low levels of it in the open water of your system, but not when researchers do it in the ocean??????????????

Researchers and myself use the term "nutrients" because nutrients like inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus are produced from the same process. Decomposition, or the break down of organics. While the exact concentrations can vary, typically speaking these nutrients rise and fall together, with the rise and fall of decomposition. If we create a compost pile, then use that material to fertilize our garden, we know that the garden is being supplied with both nitrogen and phosphorus. Detecting inorganic nitrogen in an environment is evidence to suggest that inorganic phosphorus is also present, which leads to the use of the word "nutrients". The plural word "nutrients" is not a synonym for the singular word nitrogen, and it's not being used that way in this article. The term "nutrients" refers to nitrogen, phosphorus, and many other nutrients. Not just nitrogen.

If you have a specific quote from me, and a quote from a research paper that contradicts what I've said, please post them.
Otherwise, Please stop quoting research papers and claiming that what's being said by the researchers somehow contradicts something I've said.

 

[Gregg @ ADP]

I have read this and - it is true that they report a small increase of one nutrient through the reef - nitrogen. No figures of phosphorus is reported in the article. The smal rise that they reported was of one nutrient - N and they explain it with N2 fixation of "blue-green algae" (by the way - the article seems to be from the 80:ties - therefore the old name of what we today call cyanobacteria) The whole article talk about "nutrients" but it is 99 % about nitrogen and for PO4 - there is no figures at all. Much of the article contradict some of your statements - like (my bold)





The last will probably cover Hawaii and as I know - there is many very productive hard corals reefs around these islands.






net productivity = the production that´s is needed for staying alive without growing



It means - in spite of the fact that the get nutrints from their symbiont - they can take up dissolved inorganic nutrients too







@Gregg @ ADP @ Here is one interesting thing in this article. I think that it was you that ask if phosphorus was limited in coral reefs. I answered that in general - N limiting in sea water is normal. However - maybe you right for just reefs - this quote make sence


The nitrogen source maybe has its explanation in this short sentence. However - where does the phosphorus come from ?

As usual - in all of this - EC have picked out what suit his theories - leaving all text that contradict yhis statements and not mention important facts - like this is not an article of nutrient - it is an article about nitrogen - but the author mostly use nutrient as a synonym for nitrogen - leaving phosphorus behind

Sincerely Lasse

Interesting.

I’ve seen studies that try to pinpoint which of NO3 and PO4 is truly the limiting factor for zooxanthellae. I recall one where corals were kept in various nutrient states...I believe it was low NO3/low PO4, low NO3/high PO4, high NO3/high PO4, and high NO3/low PO4.

This was a test done over a long period (maybe 9 months?). The researchers then performed zoxanthellae counts and measurements. They found that the highest incidence of bleaching occurred in the PO4 limited groups. Smaller and far fewer zooxanthellae. It was a pretty significant difference, too.

The thinking re: PO4 being the most important limiting factor is that coral metabolic activity is providing a nitrogen source regardless of the N available in the environment (well, to an extent), whereas PO4 was much more difficult to come by, whether internally or externally.

I’ll have to dig around and see if I can find that study. Pretty interesting.

 

[MnFish1]

Feeding a filter more doesn’t pack on more bacteria on surfaces for more efficient filtration, surface area within the filter is already max seeded whether you carry 1 ppm bioloading or 5 ppm. Surface area in the filter and flow through/channeling sets those efficiency maximums, not feed input, as a thicker biofilm on filter surfaces doesn’t filter better (thicker biofilm is less surface area exposed, not more, the opposite of what the masses envision, again) and thicker biofilms due to heavy feeding are sheared away inside the filter and cast out as the actual material you are backflushing.

You can keep repeating it. But its only you that is debating it - everyone else agrees that you're incorrect - as @Lasse stated in the next post. What is the point of discussing it?

Feeding a filter more doesn’t pack on more bacteria on surfaces for more efficient filtration, surface area within the filter is already max seeded whether you carry 1 ppm bioloading or 5 ppm. Surface area in the filter and flow through/channeling sets those efficiency maximums, not feed input, as a thicker biofilm on filter surfaces doesn’t filter better (thicker biofilm is less surface area exposed, not more, the opposite of what the masses envision, again) and thicker biofilms due to heavy feeding are sheared away inside the filter and cast out as the actual material you are backflushing.

Perhaps - but you're also ignoring the article that its not sure that nitrifies even exist in the same kind of 'slime' that other bacteria do - I posted this - as well as the fact that they are motile organisms. I have said - as has @Lasse @Gregg @ ADP etc - that surface area is limiting (probably - though the motility issue suggests this may not be the case). But The key point is that if there isn't enough ammonia generated/added to provide for the nitrifying biomass to 'cover all the surfaces' it won't happen. As we have all discussed - we're talking about nitrifying bacteria here.

We routinely strip peoples filtration systems in half. The leftovers are always enough. For every tank, this is the removing one of the ten filters analogy from the first set of questions, no it doesn’t make the three fish ammonia spike as the surface area in the first tank was enough without the extra filters help. Removing ALL upcycled filters at once from the imaginary test system does not cause an ammonia spike, and us rinsing anyone’s sandbed out with tap water doesn’t either.

The sand rinse experiment shows a 'result or effect' - you have an opinion as to what the 'cause' of that effect is - which is that there are nitrifying bacteria saturated onto all surfaces so taking out the sand doesn't matter. I agree with the 'effect' I disagree with the cause - I think that 1 - when you rinse sand you dont remove 100% of the nitrifiers - and 2 - Im not sure that the 'sand' is the main 'living space' of nitrifiers in the tank.

Additionally - 'stripping peoples filtration in half' in a system that contains fish, etc is totally different than what we're talking about - you are talking about starting with 0 ammonia/food and putting merely rock in a tank and letting it sit. If you put a full component of fish/coral into that tank at the end of 30 days - I dont think you will have the same result as if you took away 50 percent of the filter in a tank containing the same amount of fish and coral. I think they would do fine. In your 30 day experiment - they would not (my opinion).

 

[Elegance Coral]

I pointed this out several pages ago - that this article directly contradicts his own thesis.

What exactly is this "thesis" you say I have?