Help me understand low phosphates regarding Cyano Bacteria

[Lasse]

thanks for explaining - I'm not sure why some think 'experience' is worse than 'science'. My guess is that - I sweden - that if science changed - the aquariums in sweden would change their methods.

Exactly - but science is slow (need to be) and proven experiences (that often is a little bit of trying and error) is faster. The science thing is that someone see a scientific article that may can be proven to work by experiences and test that. Internal forums - like R2R - plays an important role because 10 000 persons may gather more experiences together compared with a single person if they are open minded. This is what I have done my whole life - using scientific findings and adapt the to both mechanical and biological complex system

Its not a war - or?

No way - I´m a pacifist but a stubborn one with very thick skin

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

@MnFish1 Thank you for the link - it was one of the best explanation of science metodic I have seen and in an understable way for a person like me. However I discover that´s this is the way I have done my whole life as a very stubborn and out of the box problem shouter both according technique, ecology and biology but I have never name myself as a scientist.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Dan_P]

Nice perspective @taricha on a very energetic discussion.

Put me down as one who will definitely be surprised if, under controlled conditions, tweaking nitrate and phosphate levels have an effect on cyanobacteria. I am still looking for ideas on how to design this experiment.

Every time we have one of these major post, I come away with at least one new idea. It might take several to-and-fros but it happens. About a year ago, a similar gigantic debate with @Lasse on cyanobacteria resulted in me doing a year long study on what makes cyanobacteria grow. This year @Sallstrom gets the prize for giving me the next idea to explore: ”chronic infection” of cyanobacteria and the cyanobacteria microbiome in aquaria. I hope @AquaBiomics will join the fun.

 

[flampton]

Nope... Forums are where bad or unscientific ideas become popular because they're based on confirmation bias. While ideas grounded in science and plausible explanations get shouted out.

For example there are zeolites. Now one of the mechanisms put forward by the manufacturer for its effectiveness was its ammonia absorbing ability.

Well guess what, there is no ammonia specific zeolites. In fact if there were the inventor would likely win the Nobel prize in chemistry and would be a billionaire. The medical industry and the sciences would benefit enormously. (If you're curious look at liver failure to start)

So no big deal right? Just a little shady advertising? Well no see the zeolites they use are specific for potassium, and more than a few tanks crashed because of this. Actually it's probably still happening to this day.

Now go back to all those zeolite posts where someone mentions it couldn't possibly work in this way. In all probability you'll see this person enter the thread, try their hardest, and leave crushed by the nonsense and wrong think.

That again is why it is important when you have 5, 10 or whatever thousand invested into an aquarium that you actually consider that the forum gossip might not actually be beneficial, and could be potentially harmful.

 

[Dan_P]

Nope... Forums are where bad or unscientific ideas become popular because they're based on confirmation bias. While ideas grounded in science and plausible explanations get shouted out.

For example there are zeolites. Now one of the mechanisms put forward by the manufacturer for its effectiveness was its ammonia absorbing ability.

Well guess what, there is no ammonia specific zeolites. In fact if there were the inventor would likely win the Nobel prize in chemistry and would be a billionaire. The medical industry and the sciences would benefit enormously. (If you're curious look at liver failure to start)

So no big deal right? Just a little shady advertising? Well no see the zeolites they use are specific for potassium, and more than a few tanks crashed because of this. Actually it's probably still happening to this day.

Now go back to all those zeolite posts where someone mentions it couldn't possibly work in this way. In all probability you'll see this person enter the thread, try their hardest, and leave crushed by the nonsense and wrong think.

That again is why it is important when you have 5, 10 or whatever thousand invested into an aquarium that you actually consider that the forum gossip might not actually be beneficial, and could be potentially harmful.

It would be fun, but a ton of work, to list reefing tenets and indicate which ones are BS, which ones smell bad but might be useful,...and the ones that are scientific fact. Thoughts?

 

[flampton]

Nice perspective @taricha on a very energetic discussion.

Put me down as one who will definitely be surprised if, under controlled conditions, tweaking nitrate and phosphate levels have an effect on cyanobacteria. I am still looking for ideas on how to design this experiment.

Every time we have one of these major post, I come away with at least one new idea. It might take several to-and-fros but it happens. About a year ago, a similar gigantic debate with @Lasse on cyanobacteria resulted in me doing a year long study on what makes cyanobacteria grow. This year @Sallstrom gets the prize for giving me the next idea to explore: ”chronic infection” of cyanobacteria and the cyanobacteria microbiome in aquaria. I hope @AquaBiomics will join the fun.

You might want to consider trying to isolate a cyano bacteriophage. Now each phage will be species/strain specific but the implications of using phage therapy would have to start somewhere.

 

[flampton]

It would be fun, but a ton of work, to list reefing tenets and indicate which ones are crap, which ones smell bad but might be useful,...and the ones that are scientific fact. Thoughts?

Yes and very complicated. I mean there are plausible explanations on how zeolites might work. However the companies chose that stupid ammonia hypothesis to start with. And as far as I know they don't even recommend their customers soak the medium in potassium chloride first. Such a simple solution, hmmm I wonder why.

And where would you even think of starting? And how would the info be protected from fan boys? I mean with threads like these the actual important info gets gobbled up fast. I'm exhausted and that's one tiny little topic, lol!

 

[Lasse]

For the books - i was in the team that developed the technical applications and was the one responsible for the test runs and final development of the technique when these findings was applied for practical use - and yes there is zeolites with high affinity for ammonia and preloaded (by nature) with sodium. That zeolites not will work very well as ammonia ion exchanger in saltwater with its high sodium and chloride concentration is another question - but yes there are zeolites with a high affinity for ammonia ions in freshwater and urine

Sincerely Lasse

 

[flampton]

Not sure what you're trying to do here but seems like you're defending shady and unscientific practices.

 

[Dan_P]

Yes and very complicated. I mean there are plausible explanations on how zeolites might work. However the companies chose that stupid ammonia hypothesis to start with. And as far as I know they don't even recommend their customers soak the medium in potassium chloride first. Such a simple solution, hmmm I wonder why.

And where would you even think of starting? And how would the info be protected from fan boys? I mean with threads like these the actual important info gets gobbled up fast. I'm exhausted and that's one tiny little topic, lol!

I hear you.

I need to keep reminding myself that proving a negative is not possible. So after each fruitless debate on a dubious claim, I try to recapture a more Zen-like state with the question “how could I prove that?”

I am going to walk some dogs right now and give this more thought.

 

[MnFish1]

It was in relation to you suggesting I had to prove a hypothesis I didn't even mention or bring up. Just because I can easily refute a hypothesis does not mean I have to supply one of my own. However had you actually paid attention in this thread you would know that I supplied four or five hypotheses on how nitrate can help cyanos. All grounded in science. So you may want to read again.

And if you can't grasp how I can help your tank that's your loss not mine

I accept the loss - I guess I thought that was the purpose of the forum - to help others....

 

[taricha]

Now to your second point. Reef nutrient availability is low but flux is high, correct? So that's an argument for higher nutrients. Yet you also argue that algae has immense primary production which takes all these nutrients out of the water. So if you are running an aquarium and you lower nutrients with algae until the levels are similar to the ocean you won't get mats or dinos? You do understand you can't have it both ways correct?

But I don't think reef nutrient availability is low. I think it's a nutrient rich environment where many things grow quite well. Countless organisms are eating and being eaten. Rapid consumption as evidenced by algae growth can explain low testable NO3 & PO4. Low pool, high turnover is the idea I'm trying to convey.
And actually your last suggestion fits well with hobby anecdotal data. Nobody comes into the multi-thousand post dino threads and says, "I grew too much chaeto in my sump too fast (or ran my algae scrubber too well), and zeroed out my PO4 and then got dinos" they do say they carbon dosed too much, used too much GFO, etc. etc.
So I may be wrong, but at least I'm mostly consistent.
(in Dino's we're definitely missing some things. Important parts of the story still elude us. No claim here we've got it all figured out)

Here's discussion of the paper (full text seems no longer available) that I referenced earlier about reefs growing algae as much or more than corals.

...How much algae should we be growing? This paper lays out the large daily algae production in a reef,

"In a review of carbon and energy flux in stony corals, ...concluded that the [production] of the coral/ dinoflagellate symbiosis...was typically between 2.0–2.6 g C/m^2 per day .... Carpenter... had earlier determined that reef algal turfs were in about the same range, perhaps a little higher at 2.3–3.3 g C /m^2 per day."

Notice that in a reef that looks coral dominated and algae free, algae production is higher than coral.
Algae generally have Carbon as ~25% of dry weight, so this 3 g of C is 12 g total dry weight per square meter. algae can be anywhere from 70-90%+ water, so this 12g dry weight would be ballpark 50 or 60 grams a day fresh weight of algae in 1 square meter (or two 55gal tanks.)

So if your 55gallon tank grew 30 grams of algae a day every day, would you freak out? Probably so!
But that's what real reefs do.

This is 30 grams of algae material (less actually - I couldn't get it fully dry). Reefs grow this on average every day in the surface area of a 55g tank. And yet on a reef, you never notice it...

The difference, I would argue is grazers. Real healthy reefs have a grazer army scaled to the job. When they don't for some reason, disaster occurs. (See how urchin disease wrecked caribbean reefs)...

This strengthen the theory that the mat forming is more a question about P than about N

If you are right, and it's about P - then it's testable. ought to be possible to come up with an experiment where we'll learn something.

Put me down as one who will definitely be surprised if, under controlled conditions, tweaking nitrate and phosphate levels have an effect on cyanobacteria. I am still looking for ideas on how to design this experiment.

I'm thinking. currently leaning toward shallow dishes with/without substrate being slowly fed aquarium water...

It would be fun, but a ton of work, to list reefing tenets and indicate which ones are crap, which ones smell bad but might be useful,...and the ones that are scientific fact. Thoughts?

A bioengineering professor I knew used to say there are no switches in biology, only valves, and they all leak.

I just want to say it's really valuable in a hobby as prone to placebo effect and optimism as this one to have people who will constantly argue that we don't know what we think we do. Makes us question and re-evaluate.
(it's annoying in the short term, but I'm always grateful eventually).

 

[MabuyaQ]

Nope... Forums are where bad or unscientific ideas become popular because they're based on confirmation bias. While ideas grounded in science and plausible explanations get shouted out.

For example there are zeolites. Now one of the mechanisms put forward by the manufacturer for its effectiveness was its ammonia absorbing ability.

Well guess what, there is no ammonia specific zeolites. In fact if there were the inventor would likely win the Nobel prize in chemistry and would be a billionaire. The medical industry and the sciences would benefit enormously. (If you're curious look at liver failure to start)

So no big deal right? Just a little shady advertising? Well no see the zeolites they use are specific for potassium, and more than a few tanks crashed because of this. Actually it's probably still happening to this day.

Now go back to all those zeolite posts where someone mentions it couldn't possibly work in this way. In all probability you'll see this person enter the thread, try their hardest, and leave crushed by the nonsense and wrong think.

That again is why it is important when you have 5, 10 or whatever thousand invested into an aquarium that you actually consider that the forum gossip might not actually be beneficial, and could be potentially harmful.

An idea how 'bad' or how 'unscientific' it may sound today is just another hypothesis for future scientists, and todays 'plausible' and 'in science grounded' explanations may just end up as 'bad' and 'unscientific' ideas in the future.

The earth is flat and everything revolves around planet earth, plenty of scientists have 'proven' that. Those that not only believed otherwise but even provided 'plausible' and 'in science grounded' evidence must all have had confirmation bias.

Scientist themselves are just as human as forum posters so just as likely to develop confirmation bias. The way modern science developed and nowadays mostly works is actually based on 'confirmation bias'. A lot if not most scientific research is based on quoting the work of likeminded researchers and reproving previously proposed hypotheses with only slight variations. It is 'confirmation bias' institutionalized, it then often takes special people to disrupt the paradigm within a scientific field. If you don't believe me ask Newton, o wait ask Einstein..... o wait ask the person(s) that will unify Einsteinean physics with quantum physics (mechanics).

The zeolite you may be looking for is clinoptilolite https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6277462/

 

[flampton]

I accept the loss - I guess I thought that was the purpose of the forum - to help others....

Yeah except that person has to want to be helped, so what am I supposed to do with a contrarion who can't even be bothered to follow the thread? You're the student who doesnt even bother to study but blames the teacher for their failures.

 

[flampton]

An idea how 'bad' or how 'unscientific' it may sound today is just another hypothesis for future scientists, and todays 'plausible' and 'in science grounded' explanations may just end up as 'bad' and 'unscientific' ideas in the future.

The earth is flat and everything revolves around planet earth, plenty of scientists have 'proven' that. Those that not only believed otherwise but even provided 'plausible' and 'in science grounded' evidence must all have had confirmation bias.

Scientist themselves are just as human as forum posters so just as likely to develop confirmation bias. The way modern science developed and nowadays mostly works is actually based on 'confirmation bias'. A lot if not most scientific research is based on quoting the work of likeminded researchers and reproving previously proposed hypotheses with only slight variations. It is 'confirmation bias' institutionalized, it then often takes special people to disrupt the paradigm within a scientific field. If you don't believe me ask Newton, o wait ask Einstein..... o wait ask the person(s) that will unify Einsteinean physics with quantum physics (mechanics).

The zeolite you may be looking for is clinoptilolite https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6277462/

I don't even know where to begin with this nonsense. The whole point of the scientific method is to remove confirmation bias. Do politics play a role? Sure because we're human. And there is a ton of crap science out there. But the repetition you describe is part of the scientific method. If enough people do it maybe, but just maybe we should actually believe it.

And no science is not like you describe. Not at all. It's always incremental. Einstein took existing knowledge and developed his own theorems. You're acting like he debunked Newton!! And all of the known physics was immediately destroyed. And finally I'm not sure why you're defending Lasse since the hydrogen sulfide hypothesis is immediately falsifiable. So even if science changed on the subject it wouldn't matter. Oh and do you think he is Einstein or Newton?

 

[flampton]

But I don't think reef nutrient availability is low. I think it's a nutrient rich environment where many things grow quite well. Countless organisms are eating and being eaten. Rapid consumption as evidenced by algae growth can explain low testable NO3 & PO4. Low pool, high turnover is the idea I'm trying to convey.
And actually your last suggestion fits well with hobby anecdotal data. Nobody comes into the multi-thousand post dino threads and says, "I grew too much chaeto in my sump too fast (or ran my algae scrubber too well), and zeroed out my PO4 and then got dinos" they do say they carbon dosed too much, used too much GFO, etc. etc.
So I may be wrong, but at least I'm mostly consistent.
(in Dino's we're definitely missing some things. Important parts of the story still elude us. No claim here we've got it all figured out)

Here's discussion of the paper (full text seems no longer available) that I referenced earlier about reefs growing algae as much or more than corals.



If you are right, and it's about P - then it's testable. ought to be possible to come up with an experiment where we'll learn something.

I'm thinking. currently leaning toward shallow dishes with/without substrate being slowly fed aquarium water...

A bioengineering professor I knew used to say there are no switches in biology, only valves, and they all leak.

I just want to say it's really valuable in a hobby as prone to placebo effect and optimism as this one to have people who will constantly argue that we don't know what we think we do. Makes us question and re-evaluate.
(it's annoying in the short term, but I'm always grateful eventually).

Sure so you arguing for a strong flux. And you would be right it's extremely strong on the reef in a number of ways and so I've always thought the desert analogy was pretty poor.

However if you're arguing that it is because of this strong flux that there isn't a lot of dinos and mat formers it still doesn't compute to total nitrogen.

So adding nitrate is only providing a weak flux because you dose to a concentration and maintain it there. That's almost stationary except the flux you get back to ammonia and amines. And the same with dosing phosphate.

So when we build a hypothesis we start with most likely explanation first. In this case you're looking at various competitors in a tank. Is there another bacteria producing antibiotics with extra nitrate that helps? Maybe. Is there ciliates and rotifers in a aquarium that expand with higher nitrate? Maybe. But the absolute levels of nutrients hypothesis is the wrong approach. It's assuming the aquarium is an axenic culture and not ecologically rich. That there are interactions metabolically that you cannot predict.

So let's look at a starved aquarium. Well when you starve you die. So you have niche destruction going on. So an organism exploits this empty niche and expands. Oh so you return nutrients and the infestation lessens. Does this have anything to do with the new nutrition or the expansion of competitors? What's biologically plausible?

 

[MnFish1]

Yeah except that person has to want to be helped, so what am I supposed to do with a contrarion who can't even be bothered to follow the thread? You're the student who doesnt even bother to study but blames the teacher for their failures.

As if one person is the 'be all and end all'.... I think most of the things you have posted though 'true' - have no relation to an individual tank. Thats my opinion. I followed the whole thread - believe me. Curious though - assuming you're the teacher? - What are my failures? Its unclear....?

 

[MnFish1]

@flampton Just to clear something up - without 6 paragraphs (and believe me ive been accused of being 'wordy') besides 'I disagree with Lasse' - what is your solution for helping get rid of cyanobacter - vis a vis phosphate - which is what the OP asked?

 

[flampton]

@flampton Just to clear something up - without 6 paragraphs (and believe me ive been accused of being 'wordy') besides 'I disagree with Lasse' - what is your solution for helping get rid of cyanobacter - vis a vis phosphate - which is what the OP asked?

Well I would say it has nothing to do with your phosphates that you report. The reason the cyano is growing on your sand and dry rock is because there is not enough competition in that niche. Think about getting some more ocean substrates. And make sure your coralline is doing well. You need them on the rock as they're excellent competitors.

Is that good enough for you?

 

[flampton]

As if one person is the 'be all and end all'.... I think most of the things you have posted though 'true' - have no relation to an individual tank. Thats my opinion. I followed the whole thread - believe me. Curious though - assuming you're the teacher? - What are my failures? Its unclear....?

Well since you had no idea that I gave plausible hypothesis on how nitrate may work. I know you're not paying attention. So is that good enough?