Carbon Limited VS Carbon Balanced - Ugly Stage

[BeanAnimal]

Saying everything in a reef tank is “limited” (glass, sand, water, etc.) conflates physical limitations with the biological and chemical processes we’re discussing. This is yet more deflection.

We are discussing “carbon limited” relative to nitrogen and phosphorus for microbial and biological processes.

Your example highlights a single interaction, but it’s not the same as achieving “carbon balance.” You’re mixing terms and concepts (again) creating confusion.

Again - you are using balance to denote or imply an equilibrium at some steady state or fixed ratio. The problem (for the nth time) is that these are highly dynamic systems with complex interactions. You can't just boil it down to some "ratio" and make assumptions based on that (deeply flawed) understanding... and that is exactly what you continue to do.

We keep asking you how you are testing or measuring this “balance” you’re claiming to achieve. Without that data, it’s pure (unfounded and already disproven I may add) speculation. That’s why your claims continue to be questioned and each of these threads ends up in exactly the same predictable place. Your arguments have not changed, you just keep repackaging them and trying again.

 

[Dan_P]

By adding organic carbon without affecting Nitrates or Phosphate.
To me balance translates to a steady residual No3 and Po4.
A little different from what most in the hobby use organic carbon.

Carbon balance for an aquarium might be better described as

I = P + R + E

where I is the organic carbon introduced by photosynthesis and the aquarist, P is the production of biomass, R is respiration or the loss of carbon via CO2, and E is the emission of organic matter, both as DOC and POC. A feature of this system is the mineralization of organic nitrogen and phosphorous contained in the portion of organic matter “I” put into the aquarium by the aquarist. The portion of “I” added by photosynthesis is organic matter consisting of C, H and O. Carbon balance is therefore the accounting of carbon going into an aquarium “I” versus the sum of the output streams P, R and E. The concentration of nitrate and phosphate in aquarium water in relationship to the input of organic carbon “I” seems more closely related to the study of stoichiometric ecology, which provides an understanding for the shift between sequestering and mineralization of organic N and P. For example, when the ratio of C:N in “I” is large, N and P become sequestered in biomass. On the other hand, a low C:N ratio leads to mineralization of organic N and P, i.e., to an increase in nitrate and phosphate in the water. A high C:N ratio is why carbon dosing diminishes nitrogen and to some extent phosphorous in aquarium water.

With these ideas in mind, it seems the experiment being conducted is a carbon dosing experiment on a new system with uncharacterized organic matter. The big problem I see is that there is no control and no replication. What we learn is going to be limited to only very large effects.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Dare I say, here we are again -- another "experiment" rehashing some variation of "Redfield" and nutrient limitation that lacks fundamental parameters, controls, or measurements and is based on an underlying misunderstanding of the complex interactions within the system.

Dan was kind enough to give you an out and (once again) reframe another poorly framed nutrient experiment to something reasonable. In fact, I think within his very reasonable explanation he just defined Ohm's law for reefing...

But I digress, even with Dan's proposed guardrails for your experiment, the reality is that the only information likely to be observed is the potential large-scale effects of reducing or increasing nutrient import and lighting -- something we already implicitly understand the effects of. More nutrients equate to more growth, and more light equates to more growth.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Carbon balance for an aquarium might be better described as

I = P + R + E

where I is the organic carbon introduced by photosynthesis and the aquarist, P is the production of biomass, R is respiration or the loss of carbon via CO2, and E is the emission of organic matter, both as DOC and POC. A feature of this system is the mineralization of organic nitrogen and phosphorous contained in the portion of organic matter “I” put into the aquarium by the aquarist. The portion of “I” added by photosynthesis is organic matter consisting of C, H and O. Carbon balance is therefore the accounting of carbon going into an aquarium “I” versus the sum of the output streams P, R and E. The concentration of nitrate and phosphate in aquarium water in relationship to the input of organic carbon “I” seems more closely related to the study of stoichiometric ecology, which provides an understanding for the shift between sequestering and mineralization of organic N and P. For example, when the ratio of C:N in “I” is large, N and P become sequestered in biomass. On the other hand, a low C:N ratio leads to mineralization of organic N and P, i.e., to an increase in nitrate and phosphate in the water. A high C:N ratio is why carbon dosing diminishes nitrogen and to some extent phosphorous in aquarium water.

With these ideas in mind, it seems the experiment being conducted is a carbon dosing experiment on a new system with uncharacterized organic matter. The big problem I see is that there is no control and no replication. What we learn is going to be limited to only very large effects.

Yes that’s a better way to describe my intentions, the idea behind me setting up the tank this way.
One of the aspects I’d like to see it’s to observe the difference from bottled bacteria to just feed the bacteria.
There is many aquarists using bottled bacteria to try and avoid the ugly stage in aquaria with some good results, I intend to observe if the same can be done with just feeding existing bacteria the main difference being that one product is fairly diluted in their organic carbon content making it more expensive long therm.
Depending on results, it should be enough to at least discuss if there is a difference between dosing live bacteria and feeding the existing bacteria.
Another observation I intend to do is if establishing a decent import export will also create a difference in the ugly stage. As some tanks may be more organic carbon limited than others during the first few years of life. This limitation could potentially be the difference between having excess nutrients that could potentially feed nuisance that create the ugly stage.

As you mentioned above

“a low C:N ratio leads to mineralization of organic N and P, i.e., to an increase in nitrate and phosphate in the water. A high C:N ratio is why carbon dosing diminishes nitrogen and to some extent phosphorous in aquarium water.”

With past experiments vinegar and vodka seems to be a very aggressive method to accomplish this, stripping the water column from both nitrate and phosphate, but with reef actif it seems that it may be a more softer way to achieve this and from some past experiments it seems that it also may promote anabolism to a certain extent and harder to fully remove nitrates and phosphate from the water column.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Dare I say, here we are again -- another "experiment" rehashing some variation of "Redfield" and nutrient limitation that lacks fundamental parameters, controls, or measurements and is based on an underlying misunderstanding of the complex interactions within the system.

Dan was kind enough to give you an out and (once again) reframe another poorly framed nutrient experiment to something reasonable. In fact, I think within his very reasonable explanation he just defined Ohm's law for reefing...

But I digress, even with Dan's proposed guardrails for your experiment, the reality is that the only information likely to be observed is the potential large-scale effects of reducing or increasing nutrient import and lighting -- something we already implicitly understand the effects of. More nutrients equate to more growth, and more light equates to more growth.

Yes we understand them but never apply them to a new tank and just tell folks that they are supposed to have a ugly tank for the first few years of it’s journey.

This experiment is just a “what if”

What if, instead of feeding nuisance, it was possible to move all nutrients produced in a new tank into bacteria biomass and extract them via protein skimmer.
Less nutrients should in theory translate to less ugliness and nuisance in a system that doesn’t have enough photosynthetic organisms to deal with them at this point.

 

[Garf]

Yes that’s a better way to describe my intentions, the idea behind me setting up the tank this way.
One of the aspects I’d like to see it’s to observe the difference from bottled bacteria to just feed the bacteria.
There is many aquarists using bottled bacteria to try and avoid the ugly stage in aquaria with some good results, I intend to observe if the same can be done with just feeding existing bacteria the main difference being that one product is fairly diluted in their organic carbon content making it more expensive long therm.
Depending on results, it should be enough to at least discuss if there is a difference between dosing live bacteria and feeding the existing bacteria.
Another observation I intend to do is if establishing a decent import export will also create a difference in the ugly stage. As some tanks may be more organic carbon limited than others during the first few years of life. This limitation could potentially be the difference between having excess nutrients that could potentially feed nuisance that create the ugly stage.

As you mentioned above

“a low C:N ratio leads to mineralization of organic N and P, i.e., to an increase in nitrate and phosphate in the water. A high C:N ratio is why carbon dosing diminishes nitrogen and to some extent phosphorous in aquarium water.”

With past experiments vinegar and vodka seems to be a very aggressive method to accomplish this, stripping the water column from both nitrate and phosphate, but with reef actif it seems that it may be a more softer way to achieve this and from some past experiments it seems that it also may promote anabolism to a certain extent and harder to fully remove nitrates and phosphate from the water column.

I'm lost, lol. How are you going to know if the ugly stage is affected by the introduction of consumers from the live rock, or not? Is there not a chance that the effects you notice have absolutely nothing to do with whatever carbon manipulation you make?

 

[Dan_P]

Yes that’s a better way to describe my intentions, the idea behind me setting up the tank this way.
One of the aspects I’d like to see it’s to observe the difference from bottled bacteria to just feed the bacteria.
There is many aquarists using bottled bacteria to try and avoid the ugly stage in aquaria with some good results, I intend to observe if the same can be done with just feeding existing bacteria the main difference being that one product is fairly diluted in their organic carbon content making it more expensive long therm.
Depending on results, it should be enough to at least discuss if there is a difference between dosing live bacteria and feeding the existing bacteria.
Another observation I intend to do is if establishing a decent import export will also create a difference in the ugly stage. As some tanks may be more organic carbon limited than others during the first few years of life. This limitation could potentially be the difference between having excess nutrients that could potentially feed nuisance that create the ugly stage.

As you mentioned above

“a low C:N ratio leads to mineralization of organic N and P, i.e., to an increase in nitrate and phosphate in the water. A high C:N ratio is why carbon dosing diminishes nitrogen and to some extent phosphorous in aquarium water.”

With past experiments vinegar and vodka seems to be a very aggressive method to accomplish this, stripping the water column from both nitrate and phosphate, but with reef actif it seems that it may be a more softer way to achieve this and from some past experiments it seems that it also may promote anabolism to a certain extent and harder to fully remove nitrates and phosphate from the water column.

The current experiment cannot provide data to even fuel a discussion about the merits of dosed bottled bacteria versus fed native bacteria (I have the similar criticisms of the BRS and Aquabiomics whole aquarium studies). Here is why.

1) There are too many uncontrolled factors to claim a response is a result of the treatment. For the current experiment, one important uncontrolled factor is the material used to dose the experimental aquarium. Who knows what this stuff is, or whether its potency is the same lot to lot, bottle to bottle or even dose to dose.

2) The experiment is not replicated. Biology experiments can have large variation, making it impossible to distinguish between variation and a treatment effect. Adding to this issue is that the experimental end point, a diiference in the ugly stage, is not adequately described.

3) For such a complex system as an aquarium, there are insufficient measurements to characterize what is happening to the aquarium which is needed to sort out whether what is happening has anything to do with the treatment. Judging the severity of the ugly phase alone is a complex task that right now seems to be inadequately developed.

4) Observations made about the effect of dosing bottled bacteria are anecdotal. Unless a side by side comparison is made with fed native bacteria, any discussion about the differences and similarities would just be story telling.

There isn’t much hope you will learn much from this rxperiment.

 

[Subsea]

@sixty_reefer



From what I have read on this thread is that “you like to argue”. When knowledgeable hobbyists & scientist all say the same thing, instead of considering what is said, your response is to double down.

You are confusing the Pilgrims. Good fortune on that journey.

 

[sixty_reefer]

@sixty_reefer



From what I have read on this thread is that “you like to argue”. When knowledgeable hobbyists & scientist all say the same thing, instead of considering what is said, your response is to double down.

You are confusing the Pilgrims. Good fortune on that journey.

I will argue against opinions, besides Dan and the odd question from Randy I haven’t seen no knowledge being shared or discussed.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I'm lost, lol. How are you going to know if the ugly stage is affected by the introduction of consumers from the live rock, or not? Is there not a chance that the effects you notice have absolutely nothing to do with whatever carbon manipulation you make?

I have data collected from previous trials with the same conditions as the tank is set. During the changes that may occur in the first 3 months I should be able to compare it and see if I find any difference in results.

 

[sixty_reefer]

The current experiment cannot provide data to even fuel a discussion about the merits of dosed bottled bacteria versus fed native bacteria (I have the similar criticisms of the BRS and Aquabiomics whole aquarium studies). Here is why.

1) There are too many uncontrolled factors to claim a response is a result of the treatment. For the current experiment, one important uncontrolled factor is the material used to dose the experimental aquarium. Who knows what this stuff is, or whether its potency is the same lot to lot, bottle to bottle or even dose to dose.

2) The experiment is not replicated. Biology experiments can have large variation, making it impossible to distinguish between variation and a treatment effect. Adding to this issue is that the experimental end point, a diiference in the ugly stage, is not adequately described.

3) For such a complex system as an aquarium, there are insufficient measurements to characterize what is happening to the aquarium which is needed to sort out whether what is happening has anything to do with the treatment. Judging the severity of the ugly phase alone is a complex task that right now seems to be inadequately developed.

4) Observations made about the effect of dosing bottled bacteria are anecdotal. Unless a side by side comparison is made with fed native bacteria, any discussion about the differences and similarities would just be story telling.

There isn’t much hope you will learn much from this rxperiment.

That could possibly be a next thing to experiment with but I’m not sure if there is a way to separate the bacteria from the organic carbon.
It may be a waste of time experiment as you say although there is only one way to find out.
If no visual difference occurs in this trial then I’ll leave it there.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I will argue against opinions, besides Dan and the odd question from Randy I haven’t seen no knowledge being shared or discussed.

This is maybe 6–10 threads of the same related mess , each met with detailed responses from numerous well-informed people, all of whom have refuted your claims with fact and sound logic. Your backhanded comment about only two people providing knowledge is both dismissive and offensive to those people.

You’re not engaging in discussion and instead are wandering through these threads, constantly adapting your position and pretending superiority over those who challenge you, including Dan and Randy. It is somewhat jaw dropping, if I am being honest.

I have data collected from previous trials with the same conditions as the tank is set. During the changes that may occur in the first 3 months I should be able to compare it and see if I find any difference in results.

What data exactly? How does it relate and how will it be used?

That could possibly be a next thing to experiment with but I’m not sure if there is a way to separate the bacteria from the organic carbon.
It may be a waste of time experiment as you say although there is only one way to find out.
If no visual difference occurs in this trial then I’ll leave it there.

This experiment is just more of the same -- no controls, no replication, no meaningful measurements, and no acknowledgment of the flaws repeatedly pointed out. Calling something a “what if” doesn’t change the context here.

If you genuinely want to learn, start addressing the critiques directly instead of deflecting and repackaging the same flawed arguments. Otherwise, this is just another dead-end thread.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Your backhanded comment about only two people providing knowledge is both dismissive and offensive to those people.

No that’s just a fact, care to quote any comment in any of my threads that illustrates otherwise?

You’re not engaging in discussion and instead are wandering through these threads, constantly adapting your position and pretending superiority over those who challenge you, including Dan and Randy. It is somewhat jaw dropping, if I am being honest.

I’m not claiming nothing my friend and I may be not reading it correctly but every now and then Randy drops a question or if I’m wrong he helps me correct my thinking at the end of the day he’s more knowledgeable that I will ever be.

 

[Subsea]

Reef Hobbyist Experiments and Research Forum

A place where reef hobbyists can conduct, collaborate on, and discuss experiments and research to benefit reefing. These might include but are not limited to: 1) Microbiology experiments - including cycling, 2) Product experiments., 3) Quarantine experiments., 4. Theories based on new trends in...

www.reef2reef.com

@sixty_reefer
Consider using the above forum for your experiments. In that way, you would not confuse us un-knowledgeable Pilgrims in the general reef forum.

@sixty_reefer



From what I have read on this thread is that “you like to argue”. When knowledgeable hobbyists & scientist all say the same thing, instead of considering what is said, your response is to double down.

You are confusing the Pilgrims. Good fortune on that journey.