The Reef Tank banner
361 - 367 of 367 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
34,435 Posts
some clarification on Invics great post on phosphates. calcium carbonate can only bind inorganic phosphates, it can not bind organic phosphates. inorganic phosphates are also in very high demand because they are easy to get a hold of. those that are in the water column free are the easiest. the ones attached to the calcium carbonate matrix are also relatively easy to get to being inorganic, just relatively weak bonded to the matrix.

the problem with carbon dosing all willy nilly like is that it creates an imbalance in the way the bacteria are able to get to the inorganic phosphates. it pushes all of the inorganic phosphate processing into the water column mainly. i can see this being useful in very short term bursts, but used chronically, it can bush the amount of phosphates into the LR because it is always going to be binding. these devices are tools, they do a job, and some do it quite well. i think we are using them wrong, or in a capacity which they are not really capable of working effectively.

Kungpaoshizi- i think we are getting closer to cracking this whole SW keeping thing. i think the problem is that we are still trying to create a one type of system for all organisms. we are not designing the systems to match the environments of the organisms we are wanting to keep. everyone wants the one system to keep all. the thing is, that is beyond our current technology state, and apparently this is also the case in nature. :( we are trying to do something that is not even possible in nature. i am not saying we should not try, but we should not expect great success without significant amount of resources to accomplish a combined trophic system.

there is plenty of wiggle room between methodologies, which adds to the confusion and the feel that they all work. we are starting to understand how algae and calcium carbonate seem to act as buffers for phosphate levels. they seem to produce their own minimal phosphates levels naturally. calcium carbonate only seems to be able to go below the readable range of our test kits, while algae seems to be right at the readable range of our test kits. we need to start using this to our advantage more. if one wants to grow a softie tank, then there is absolutely no problem having algae barely hanging on to buffer the phosphate levels to the trophic state needed to keep softies happy. the same can be said for using calcium carbonate in SPS systems. the important part here is that we need to use the bacterial flock as the export mechanism. (goes back to my early statements about inorganic versus organic phosphates, and how easy one is to utilize compared to the other). we are using the bacteria for the conversion of inorganic phosphates to organic phosphates, then removing the phosphates by removing the bacteria. we are banking on the fact that it takes longer for bacteria to break down organically bound phosphates as opposed to the time necessary to access the inorganic phosphates from the calcium carbonate. the bacteria and the calcium carbonate creating the buffer, providing some very low phosphates levels.

you can see how this can get very complicated in a hurry if one wants to maintain a multi trophic system. there will be a lot of phosphate fighting going on.

G~
 

·
Export with Care!
Joined
·
6,789 Posts
Doh did I swap my organic and inorganics? Spell check plays hell on inorganics and messes it up a lot. I'm glad the ramble was understandable at least lol

The more we understand on the back and forth conversions and buffers really helps us keep out tanks running good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,106 Posts
Dam if I knew I had all that fighting going on I would have started a more peaceful hobby like stamp collecting.
I just go to a muddy beach, collect some mud and bacteria, dump it in and let the fighting begin. It seems to work. :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,508 Posts
Dam if I knew I had all that fighting going on I would have started a more peaceful hobby like stamp collecting.
I just go to a muddy beach, collect some mud and bacteria, dump it in and let the fighting begin. It seems to work. :rolleyes:
I like Paul's style! Can't argue with his results.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,591 Posts
I guess one question I do have, please don't take offense to it (not trying to be rude, just trying to get everyone to THINK)

If what is written in the pages on the forum, is correct, then "we" have it all figured out. There's no reason to speculate because it all works 100% of the time?
One thing that I keep seeing over and over and over, in the multiple years I've been on the forums, is methodology never stays the same.

I won't name names, but between this forum and a few others, I've seen people advocate "insert tech or methodology" and then after some time and enough people kill stuff, the methodology changes. Then those people that people listen to change to a new method and start advocating THAT method. It's an ugly cycle in itself, and it really bothers me when people think they've figured things out but in all reality, there's always new issues with something. Even with the live rock, it's a phosphate sponge. EVEN when it's in the tank. But right now we're on the cusp of getting rid of sand beds for the same reason, but people are still under the impression that rocks are where it's at, but wait, new info, now people are cooking rocks. But it doesn't stop there, and I still see peoples tanks with rocks that are battling algae asking why. Yet I see "calcium carbonate" and "phosphate" and it seems pretty simple to me. I'm not saying I know it all, but when I stumbled upon an article USING CaCO3 rocks for phosphate absorbtion, I can't help but laugh.

This goes back and forth, back and forth. So I guess the only thing I'm wondering, is why do people have to be so harsh on newcomers and new methodologies, when we could be looking at pieces of that, and applying it accordingly to taking care of PART of the whole.

Personally, I'm attempting a new setup for a tank, and barely get the time of day about it. After being flamed for talking about additives, biopellets, non-CaCO3 structures, or being told I'm wrong in numerous ways, I have to laugh.

I don't know if it will work better than current methodologies, I'm going to feel bad if ANYTHING dies. Period.
But at least I know for my own quest in this hobby, I kept an open mind.
Because I've seen people listen to these "elders", and usually they come back, and usually it's a post about "problems in X areas".

This is purely a random thought, it's not directed at anyone, but I guess I say this because biopellets have shown to have promise, and are quite versatile in their application. But people shun it, and don't give it a second thought.
But what if it is a valid answer that can apply to multiple tank setups, but only need the caretaking adjusted? What if the key is to be rough with them and regularly remove the bacterial mass?(zeovit) What if the key is to introduce a certain strain of bacteria that will utilize them?(RNB)

I see a lot of different answers from a lot of different people, and they are always so certain, they might swear on their mothers grave about it.
But I surely don't see anyone writing books, or becoming famous because they've cracked the "code" and can produce a fool-proof methodology to solve all the world's problems keeping aquariums.

If this is the mark of success, and not merely posting on a forum, PaulB is it. He's solved it. And nobody here is following his methodology.

Just something to think about, I mean no offense by it, but if I can get one person to think twice about something they have their mind set on, I feel I've put something into this hobby that's worthwhile.

I don't have all the answers (otherwise I would be famous heh) but I do know we can't be 100% sure about methodologies because we're not analyzing things under a microscope and doing spectral analysis's on anything or observing in-depth reactions when exercising method X with subject Y... We're just normal people trying to enjoy a fun hobby, but there is progression, regression, and standing still. And I think a lot of the hobby, because of forums, is standing still.

Again, I mean no harm, but I challenge everyone next time they come upon someone asking a question, to humor other options, because in a few years, the elders might be preaching that.
You seem to think this is a new methodology. Carbon dosing has been around 10 plus years in the hobby. Biopelets is just another way to carbon dose.

Most of these ways seem great at first but we never know long term. The average person stays in this hobby I bet no more than 4 or 5 years. We see these tanks that are like 2 or 3 years old and go wow look how great that looks. What about 5 years out,, oh my tank crashed I have no idea why. It happens more than you imagine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,591 Posts
Kungpaoshizi- i think we are getting closer to cracking this whole SW keeping thing. i think the problem is that we are still trying to create a one type of system for all organisms. we are not designing the systems to match the environments of the organisms we are wanting to keep. everyone wants the one system to keep all. the thing is, that is beyond our current technology state, and apparently this is also the case in nature. :( we are trying to do something that is not even possible in nature. i am not saying we should not try, but we should not expect great success without significant amount of resources to accomplish a combined trophic system.

G~
Bingo ... Best post yet..
 
361 - 367 of 367 Posts
Top