Carbon Limited VS Carbon Balanced - Ugly Stage

[sixty_reefer]

OP regularly responds to criticisms in the context that he is informed and those critiquing him are untrained. He titles threads and presents in the third person "Sixty's Equation" - "Sixty's observations" - 'Sixty's Experiment" kind of thing. So yes, the pretense is purposeful and regular.

They are my threads, my equation and my observations, then using my name in front of those make sense.

As you just illustrated your problem with my threads are personal and not on the merits of the discussion. In that case I would politely ask you to read the TOS.

I will not be responding to any further comments from yourself, thank you.

 

[BeanAnimal]

They are my threads, my equation and my observations, then using my name in front of those make sense.

Context is everything Sixty, and you are deflecting again. My comments were in regard to how the information is being framed, no more.

As you just illustrated your problem with my threads are personal and not on the merits of the discussion. In that case I would politely ask you to read the TOS.

This is not personal, it is 100% about the information you are posting. If you feel that being disagreed with is a violation of TOS, then take that up with the staff and moderators.

I will not be responding to any further comments from yourself, thank you.

Certainly your prerogative, but that will not stop me from commenting on the information. You free to choose to not defend your positions. This is a public forum, not your personal website or research portal. Public scrutiny is part of the mechanism at play here.

 

[Reefing Madness]

At this point we are done here.

 

[revhtree]

We're going to open this back up and ask everyone to please only speak to the subject of the thread. It's too much to go back and clean up at this point but we want you to be able to discuss this. If you can't keep your post from being a personal jab or something not related directly to the topic then please don't post it.

1. Everyone has the right to post a thread about a topic that's already been discussed in line with the TOS.
2. Everyone has the right to title their thread whatever they want to title it as long as it's within our rules.
3. Everyone has a right to respectfully disagree and to debate.
4. No one has the right to be accusatory, antagonistic or to get personal in their responses.
5. No one has the right to "call out" other members.
6. If you can't abide by these rules then please do not post.

Thank you and we will thread ban anyone who breaks the rules in this thread from here on out.

 

[Dan_P]

Edit:

 

[Dan_P]

Are you going to point out the disinformation? Or are we supposed to just take your word for it? You cannot use words like that just because you find it amusing, I would like to see proof that disinformation have been done in this thread! If not I would take it that you are calling me directly and that goes against TOS.

After seeing Revhtree’s latest note, it seems that pointing to and proving content as disinformation could be interpreted as “calling out an OP”. So no, I am going no further along this line in this thread.

 

[Garf]

Were did I mention that algae’s need organic carbon

There is certainly some data that suggests at least some micro algae benefit from certain sources of dissolved organic carbon. I'll find the source material tomorrow, if you are interested. The assumption was there is indeed a transport mechanism at play when light levels were low, or something along those lines.

 

[revhtree]

After seeing Revhtree’s latest note, it seems that pointing to and proving content as disinformation could be interpreted as “calling out an OP”. So no, I am going no further along this line in this thread.

No that’s not what I meant at all. Sigh…..

 

[BeanAnimal]

Red Rover Red Rover... send Revhtree over...

Kinda like that?

Ohh wait that is calling over, not calling out. Never mind.

 

[sixty_reefer]

There is certainly some data that suggests at least some micro algae benefit from certain sources of dissolved organic carbon. I'll find the source material tomorrow, if you are interested. The assumption was there is indeed a transport mechanism at play when light levels were low, or something along those lines.

I’m aware of that, but that wasn’t what I was referring to. I was correcting a statement that took my answer out of context.
It’s starting to look that I’m in the news, and sound bites are taken out of context. They usually refer to as mixotrophs.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Edit:

I don’t mind going through the alleged misinformation 1 by 1 if that benefits clarity.

Were is the misinformation on my side, I don’t get it, the comment attached doesn’t make sense.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Thank you #moods for allowing the thread to be back on track.

 

[sixty_reefer]

The experiment is also now completed, I’ve gathered the information I needed, got more questions than answers from it.
One of the main observations I’ve made was that dark experiments have no value in how nutrient pathways are affected in aquaria once lights turn on.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I don’t see where an actual experiment was described that indicates your observation could be anything more than pure speculation.

To that end, this was described as a “carbon balancing” experiment, not light vs dark.

Thread title:
"Carbon Limited VS Carbon Balanced - Ugly Stage"

Opening Premise:
“Thought, as I started a new build that I’d check if there is any difference in a tank that is organic carbon balanced vs a traditional organic carbon limited tank.”

Nonetheless, there were no controls, measurement or other defined criteria and I am still not clear on the timeline of this “experiment” as it appears (your post and photo timestamps) to overlap with the crinoid living in that system. To that end and ignoring the timelines questions, was the endpoint always to be 10-12 days after the initial “cycle”? I can't imagine an "ugly stage" experiment lasting 10 days.

When did the crinoid die?

 

[sixty_reefer]

I don’t see where an actual experiment was described that indicates your observation could be anything more than pure speculation.

To that end, this was described as a “carbon balancing” experiment, not light vs dark.

“Thought, as I started a new build that I’d check if there is any difference in a tank that is organic carbon balanced vs a traditional organic carbon limited tank.”

To that question I got the answer I was looking for. there is no difference. chemotrophs and heterotrophic bacteria perform well in the dark environment. with the introduction of light and silica I’ve observed that autotrophs out perform both for ammonia.
I don’t need to carry on, to get to this conclusion, meaning that the only way I’ve could make this work would be with the introduction of coraline or other similar autotrophs to colonise the rocks and avoid the ugly phase that way.
But this wouldn’t be on the thread subject.

Nonetheless, there were no controls, measurement or other defined criteria and I am still not clear on the timeline of this “experiment” as it appears (your post and photo timestamps) to overlap with the crinoid living in that system. To that end and ignoring the timelines questions, was the endpoint always to be 12 days after the initial “cycle”?

When did the crinoid die?

Control is not necessary as I mentioned several times due to the general idea was to observe if chemotrophs and heterotrophs could outperform autotrophic organisms. Due to being able to see the brown film on the glass and rocks, this answers my question. There is no difference between a carbon limited or a carbon balanced system imo.

I believe I’ve answered the timeline question and the crinoid question, could try and find those posts for you.

 

[BeanAnimal]

To that question I got the answer I was looking for. there is no difference. chemotrophs and heterotrophic bacteria perform well in the dark environment. with the introduction of light and silica I’ve observed that autotrophs out perform both for ammonia.
I don’t need to carry on, to get to this conclusion, meaning that the only way I’ve could make this work would be with the introduction of coraline or other similar autotrophs to colonise the rocks and avoid the ugly phase that way.
But this wouldn’t be on the thread subject.



Control is not necessary as I mentioned several times due to the general idea was to observe if chemotrophs and heterotrophs could outperform autotrophic organisms. Due to being able to see the brown film on the glass and rocks, this answers my question. There is no difference between a carbon limited or a carbon balanced system.

This feels like more backtracking and pivoting.

The thread title and opening premise explicitly describe this as a “carbon balancing” experiment during the ugly stage, not light vs dark, autotrophs vs heterotrophs, or any of the other tangents you’ve now introduced.

Shall we recap:

1. You claimed this was about determining differences between "carbon limited" and "carbon balanced" systems, yet your latest response contradicts that by stating, “there is no difference.”
   
   
2. You now assert that controls aren’t necessary because you were only “observing” autotrophs versus chemotrophs and heterotrophs (that tangent not mentioned until post #141 when you had to pivot). But without controls or measurements, you’ve essentially confirmed nothing more than “brown film on glass”??? This hardly addresses the original claims about nutrient pathways or balancing.
   
   
3. Ammonia? this was to be a cycled tank to start. What does this have to do with ammonia processing?How was that measured and where is the control to show that "autographs outperform both for ammonia."
   
   
4. Your timeline is still unclear, especially given the overlap with the crinoid in this system. If the crinoid was part of this experiment, why was it excluded from your observations here? If it wasn’t, then the timeline doesn’t appear to line up. If it was, then how can you rule it out of affecting your "observations"??

To answer my specific question: Did you always intend this experiment to end after 10–12 days? That feels very short for an “ugly stage” experiment.

Lastly, about the crinoid and timline: You have not been clear at all. Given the discrepancies across this thread and others, there is a real question of timeline here, and your responses don’t provide clear answers.

Again, even ignoring the timeline issues and your stated intent vs what you "observed", without controls, your observations and resulting conclusions are wildly speculative. There is no way around that.

 

[HomebroodExotics]

This feels like more backtracking and pivoting.

The thread title and opening premise explicitly describe this as a “carbon balancing” experiment during the ugly stage, not light vs dark, autotrophs vs heterotrophs, or any of the other tangents you’ve now introduced.

Shall we recap:

1. You claimed this was about determining differences between "carbon limited" and "carbon balanced" systems, yet your latest response contradicts that by stating, “there is no difference.”
   
   
2. You now assert that controls aren’t necessary because you were only “observing” autotrophs versus chemotrophs and heterotrophs (that tangent not mentioned until post #141 when you had to pivot). But without controls or measurements, you’ve essentially confirmed nothing more than “brown film on glass”??? This hardly addresses the original claims about nutrient pathways or balancing.
   
   
3. Ammonia? this was to be a cycled tank to start. What does this have to do with ammonia processing?How was that measured and where is the control to show that "autographs outperform both for ammonia."
   
   
4. Your timeline is still unclear, especially given the overlap with the crinoid in this system. If the crinoid was part of this experiment, why was it excluded from your observations here? If it wasn’t, then the timeline doesn’t appear to line up. If it was, then how can you rule it out of affecting your "observations"??

To answer my specific question: Did you always intend this experiment to end after 10–12 days? That feels very short for an “ugly stage” experiment.

Lastly, about the crinoid and timline: You have not been clear at all. Given the discrepancies across this thread and others, there is a real question of timeline here, and your responses don’t provide clear answers.

Again, even ignoring the timeline issues and your stated intent vs what you "observed", without controls, your observations and resulting conclusions are wildly speculative. There is no way around that.

If he was trying to avoid the ugly stage but he still encountered the ugly stage then what do you expect him to do now? I don’t understand why you are so bent out of shape about this. Let’s summarize this. Will tank turn brown and “ugly” still with carbon dosing, yes very likely.

Here’s the twist for me though. Just because something is ugly doesn’t mean it’s bad for the aquarium. This is where the real challenge comes in for us I think.

 

[ReneReef]

I don’t mind going through the alleged misinformation 1 by 1 if that benefits clarity.

Were is the misinformation on my side, I don’t get it, the comment attached doesn’t make sense.

This is the most clear example of you adjusting the goal of your "experiment" in an attempt to make it fit a critique by pivoting and deflecting. I indicated them all with "plot twist" in my post, to make it easy to count them. Because there are a lot.

In post 173 you pivot again.
Apparently your goal was to determine the value of a dark period before turning on lighting.
What did you define as valuable and what as not valuable?

Again, you mention "nutrient pathways", in post 173.
Which nutrient pathways did you evaluate? How did you do that? What results lead you to draw your conclusion?

Post 175, again a pivot.
Now it was about chemotrophs, heterotrophs and autotrophs competing for ammonia in a light and silica rich environment.
How did you evaluate the performance of the chemo-, hetero- and autotrophs? How did you define performance? Did you make sure the competition was about ammonia? If so, how did you do that and how did you check that? If not, how did you determine the competition was for ammonia and not another compound?

Long story short:
No amount of pivoting is ever going to give meaning to your "experiment" or validate your conclusions.

P.S. adjusting your goal/hypothesis/research question during or after an experiment is one of the biggest no-nos in science. It's almost as bad as fabricating results.

 

[HomebroodExotics]

This is the most clear example of you adjusting the goal of your "experiment" in an attempt to achieve any validity by pivoting and deflecting. I indicated them all with "plot twist" in my post, to make it easy to count them.

In post 173 you pivot again.
Apparently your goal was to determine the value of a dark period before turning on lighting.
What did you define as valuable and what as not valuable?

Again, you mention "nutrient pathways", in post 173.
Which nutrient pathways did you evaluate? How did you do that? What results lead you to draw your conclusion?

Post 175, again a pivot.
Now it was about chemotrophs, heterotrophs and autotrophs competing for ammonia in a light and silica rich environment.
How did you evaluate the performance of the chemo-, hetero- and autotrophs? How did you define performance? Did you make sure the competition was about ammonia? If so, how did you do that and how did you check that? If not, how did you determine the competition was for ammonia and not another compound?

Long story short:
No amount of pivoting is ever going to give meaning to your "experiment" or validate your conclusions.

What if he used his eyes? How does he download that data to your brain?

 

[lbacha]

This is the most clear example of you adjusting the goal of your "experiment" in an attempt to make it fit a critique by pivoting and deflecting. I indicated them all with "plot twist" in my post, to make it easy to count them. Because there are a lot.

In post 173 you pivot again.
Apparently your goal was to determine the value of a dark period before turning on lighting.
What did you define as valuable and what as not valuable?

Again, you mention "nutrient pathways", in post 173.
Which nutrient pathways did you evaluate? How did you do that? What results lead you to draw your conclusion?

Post 175, again a pivot.
Now it was about chemotrophs, heterotrophs and autotrophs competing for ammonia in a light and silica rich environment.
How did you evaluate the performance of the chemo-, hetero- and autotrophs? How did you define performance? Did you make sure the competition was about ammonia? If so, how did you do that and how did you check that? If not, how did you determine the competition was for ammonia and not another compound?

Long story short:
No amount of pivoting is ever going to give meaning to your "experiment" or validate your conclusions.

P.S. adjusting your goal/hypothesis/research question during or after an experiment is one of the biggest no-nos in science. It's almost as bad as fabricating results.

The part of the experiment that confuses me is the use of cycled rock out of an existing system. Without understanding that system it will be hard to make any assumptions about this system. "The Ugly Stage" typically refers to tanks that are started with dry rock and sand as they need to build up the biome that will out compete what people consider to be ugly organisms. If you use cycled rock Live or dry in a new system you can circumvent the ugly stage of a new tank which is why new tanks in the past that used live rock out of the ocean didn't typically have an ugly stage if the rock didn't have much die off in transport.

If the experiment was to see if you can start dumping nutrients into a new tank that has rock with an established Biome then it makes sense.

I just started a 300g tank with 160 pounds of dry marco rock and 80 pounds of established rock (it wasn't from the ocean but it was in three different well established reef tanks so lots of Bio diversity) There were no ugly organisms on the 80 pounds of cycled rock and the 160 pounds of dry marco had lots of diatoms on them until the biofilm was established which took about 6 weeks. At 8 weeks I am now seeing lots of coraline growth and the only ugly I have left is some cyano bacteria on the sandbed which is a result of me keeping the phosphate levels higher to help drive algae growth in the system (Phosphates are about .13 ppm and nitrates are between 2-6 ppm and I measure them daily right now). The tank had 20+ fish added right off the bat so a large nutrient intake and lights were on full from the beginning 150-200 par on the sand and 300-400 on the rocks.

I'm listing this out to show you can circumvent alot of what people consider the uglies by using cycled (dry or live) rock from the beginning. I also wanted to point out that the largest contributor to the results is not the nutrients you added but the fact you used established rock from a different system which is something I don't see called out much in the thread.