Nutrient control question......

[Nano sapiens]

An adult fish (like an adult human) excretes roughly 100% of the P it ingests, and most of that is as inorganic phosphate, although some is as organic phosphate forms in feces. It does not, and cannot, accumulate long term in nongrowing organisms. Where would it go?

The same is true for N.

You are right that for actively growing fish, they accumulate N and P in their new tissues, and that value is, as you suggest, less than half of what they take in. Often much less than half. To take it all in, they'd need to grow each day roughly similar in volume (and, of course same in dry mass) to the foods you feed. That isn't typically even close to being attained in most settings.

I see what you are getting at with the adult vs. juvenile/growing fish comparison. Picking nits, fish grow continuously throughout their lives (slowing down greatly in 'adulthood'), so 'Very close to 100% excretion of N and P' for adult fish makes sense

 

[Damon]

All nutritious foods must have a lot of N and P. The answer is to increase export if nutrients accumulate.

Hmmnnn.. Thought provoking.. Really.. Mine Dont accumulate per Se, to that level, however, with this little tidbit you have dropped (at least on me), it makes so much sense.. Because I tend to employ an all type of methodology to fight phosphate.. Gfo and I use phosguard for silicate. But, with gfo randy, help me understand something.. I kind of think I know the answer, but I need confirmation.. I fed heavy nori, larrys and pe mysis, mixed up with selcon, a little nls pellet and more nori (I have three nice sized tangs, a FoxFace, and a wrasse that eats nori.. Even my file fish munchies on it), with these types of combinations, though, I have always utilized pellets, for example, with brs gfo (honestly, any gfo for that matter.. I always have to use a little more.. The phosphate stays low, but, I am just wondering, after you said this, if this is why?

As you know, I employ the crazy sodium light in the fuge, gfo, and also I place a tiny bit of kalk in my top off water to bring the ph up (to precip the phosphate out). Is there anything else I could be doing? I have always wondered this.. And oh, general question on gfo.. If say, you have a 5" diameter reactor, versus, say a 7" diameter reactor, would the larger diameter reactor work better with tumbling the gfo due to its increased surface area? I find myself running gfo really slow and have thought about this many, many times and never asked.. I'm curious would a larger reactor be more effective with media since it's more thinly spread out to resist channeling? I am wondering if it would be more effective in its reaction with the gfo?

Sorry dude for derailing, but randy just shared some heaviness...

 

[Gwitness]

Hmmnnn.. Thought provoking.. Really.. Mine Dont accumulate per Se, to that level, however, with this little tidbit you have dropped (at least on me), it makes so much sense.. Because I tend to employ an all type of methodology to fight phosphate.. Gfo and I use phosguard for silicate. But, with gfo randy, help me understand something.. I kind of think I know the answer, but I need confirmation.. I fed heavy nori, larrys and pe mysis, mixed up with selcon, a little nls pellet and more nori (I have three nice sized tangs, a FoxFace, and a wrasse that eats nori.. Even my file fish munchies on it), with these types of combinations, though, I have always utilized pellets, for example, with brs gfo (honestly, any gfo for that matter.. I always have to use a little more.. The phosphate stays low, but, I am just wondering, after you said this, if this is why?

As you know, I employ the crazy sodium light in the fuge, gfo, and also I place a tiny bit of kalk in my top off water to bring the ph up (to precip the phosphate out). Is there anything else I could be doing? I have always wondered this.. And oh, general question on gfo.. If say, you have a 5" diameter reactor, versus, say a 7" diameter reactor, would the larger diameter reactor work better with tumbling the gfo due to its increased surface area? I find myself running gfo really slow and have thought about this many, many times and never asked.. I'm curious would a larger reactor be more effective with media since it's more thinly spread out to resist channeling? I am wondering if it would be more effective in its reaction with the gfo?

Sorry dude for derailing, but randy just shared some heaviness...

Hahahaha I don't care what you derail as long as I figure out with my tank along the way Hahahaha [emoji3]

 

[Gwitness]

So I did a 20 gallon water change and siphoned the sand and it's white again until tomorrow probably.....and I attached this picture again because the stuff growing on this rock is on a couple other pieces also and the weird thing is, the rocks are in extremely high flow areas??? Probably gonna start dosing my vinegar tonight or tomorrow

 

[Damon]

Hahahaha I don't care what you derail as long as I figure out with my tank along the way Hahahaha [emoji3]

He he he.. Lol.. I mean, hopefully, it's another piece of the puzzle for all of us...

 

[Damon]

So I did a 20 gallon water change and siphoned the sand and it's white again until tomorrow probably.....and I attached this picture again because the stuff growing on this rock is on a couple other pieces also and the weird thing is, the rocks are in extremely high flow areas??? Probably gonna start dosing my vinegar tonight or tomorrow

Curious.. So you siphon your sand a lot? And that's my thing.. People will say "cyano will die in high flow areas".. I say not true.. Because I know a couple people with thriving tanks, and I mean extremely thriving tanks, with tons of flow (I am one too have a ton of flow myself), and still have cyano.. I really, really wish people would stop saying that about cyano..

I have always had the simple theory of "of there's enough light, it will grow".. And as I typed to randy, this comes from hydro experience.. And I apply it to my fuge.. But.. I strongly, strongly believe that, if you have enough light, it is going to grow somewhere.. If you don't" make it grow somewhere ", it's going to grow everywhere..

 

[Gwitness]

Curious.. So you siphon your sand a lot? And that's my thing.. People will say "cyano will die in high flow areas".. I say not true.. Because I know a couple people with thriving tanks, and I mean extremely thriving tanks, with tons of flow (I am one too have a ton of flow myself), and still have cyano.. I really, really wish people would stop saying that about cyano..

I have always had the simple theory of "of there's enough light, it will grow".. And as I typed to randy, this comes from hydro experience.. And I apply it to my fuge.. But.. I strongly, strongly believe that, if you have enough light, it is going to grow somewhere.. If you don't" make it grow somewhere ", it's going to grow everywhere..

Honesty no......the only reason I'm siphoning my sand is because of this crap growing on it.....if it looks pretty good I never touch the sand....and yeah people always said cyano equals increase the flow but this is in really high flow area on the rocks...

 

[Damon]

Honesty no......the only reason I'm siphoning my sand is because of this crap growing on it.....if it looks pretty good I never touch the sand....and yeah people always said cyano equals increase the flow but this is in really high flow area on the rocks...

I was asking, because I don't think that was a good move.. You know, sand is really a double edge sword.. If your like me, and I don't stir mine because I want the critters, etc.. Stirring the sand is bad.. It releases all of the nutrient that has sunk in there..

I might be a little off, but I don't think that was a good move..

 

[Gwitness]

I was asking, because I don't think that was a good move.. You know, sand is really a double edge sword.. If your like me, and I don't stir mine because I want the critters, etc.. Stirring the sand is bad.. It releases all of the nutrient that has sunk in there..

I might be a little off, but I don't think that was a good move..

Definitely didn't think or know that would be a bad thing by siphoning it!!!! I will do another 20 gallon water change tonight just in case I guess

 

[Nano sapiens]

In every case where I had true sand bed cyano, the remedy was manual removal via careful scooping and/or vacuuming. Usually takes a few times over a few weeks, but eventually is has to give up if the nutrients are not there to sustain it (think of it as a combo of nutrient and nasty organism removal...all wrapped in one)

I am a proponent of detritus removal to promote long-term reef tank health. However, disturbing a previously undisturbed sand bed all at once is just asking for trouble. Vacuum small sections each time you do a water change and it's much easier on the system.

Doing so allows me to run very low PO4 (undetectable - Salifert) and NO3 (<1 ppm - Elos) without using any filtration products.

 

[Damon]

In every case where I had true sand bed cyano, the remedy was manual removal via careful scooping and/or vacuuming. Usually takes a few times over a few weeks, but eventually is has to give up if the nutrients are not there to sustain it (think of it as a combo of nutrient and nasty organism removal...all wrapped in one)

I am a proponent of detritus removal to promote long-term reef tank health. Doing so allows me to run very low PO4 (undetectable - Salifert) and NO3 (<1 ppm - Elos) without using any filtration products.

That's the whole thing we are discussing.. The elimination of the nutrient source.. If you have no means of getting rid of the nutrient source, all your doing is throwing more nutrient into the water column..

Now with that said, I do agree, and I vacuum my sump sometimes to make sure nothing is in there.. But, and I'm becoming more and more of a proponent of the "tests do not give an accurate picture" crowd, I also believe that you have to start the tank in the fashion your speaking.. If you let it sit for even two to four months without vacuuming, your asking for problems.. And honestly, I don't have time for that.. And I haven't had a cyano problem in years (including cycling)..

But I do agree with you.. It's just the upkeep of it.. Lol, I leave that to sand sifters(as my system is large enough) to turn it over..

 

[Damon]

Definitely didn't think or know that would be a bad thing by siphoning it!!!! I will do another 20 gallon water change tonight just in case I guess

If you do it like we( you and me) do, lol it is.. Think about it like your toilet.. Or the sewer.. When all that, that is stored comes up.. If there's nothing stored, that's fine.. But a bed that has been sitting there, don't mess with it.

 

[Gwitness]

If you do it like we( you and me) do, lol it is.. Think about it like your toilet.. Or the sewer.. When all that, that is stored comes up.. If there's nothing stored, that's fine.. But a bed that has been sitting there, don't mess with it.

Hahaha so when I do my other 20 gallon change tonight should I do sand again or just do water column?

 

[Nano sapiens]

That's the whole thing we are discussing.. The elimination of the nutrient source.. If you have no means of getting rid of the nutrient source, all your doing is throwing more nutrient into the water column..

By removing the cyano you are removing nutrients. As cyano and detritus is continuously removed from the system there comes a point where the nutrients are low enough and there is not enough left to sustain the cyano bloom (assuming the aquarist is not increasing food additions which would compound the problem).

Same principle as Chaeto, for example. As it grows (nutrient sequestering), harvest the excess regularly to maintain nutrients at a low level.

 

[Damon]

Hahaha so when I do my other 20 gallon change tonight should I do sand again or just do water column?

If it were me, just the water column..

 

[Gwitness]

If it were me, just the water column..

Just did about 15 gallons out of water column .....I did not start dosing vinegar yet ....I'll probably do another 30 or 40 gallon water change tomorrow again unless you people think it would be best for me to hold off .....

 

[Gwitness]

So essentially vinegar or carbon dosing is acting as a "filter" and breaks down nutrients to get taken up by skimmer? Does carbon dosing do the same thing getting more live rock would do??

 

[Damon]

Just did about 15 gallons out of water column .....I did not start dosing vinegar yet ....I'll probably do another 30 or 40 gallon water change tomorrow again unless you people think it would be best for me to hold off .....

How large is your system again? I'm full of questions because with my system, I'm very leery of something shows itself.. For example, I recently got some hair algea on two of my powerhead. I then always go into "what did I do or not do two weeks ago" mode. I then checked my log and noticed that I added a little more amino acid twice.. So I took it back down to my regular dosage. The algea went away..

But the whole thing I do on the larger systems I have, I tend to do small water changes, as I try to focus on stability(I always think, am I adding more of what is causing this) . So I wait it out generally speaking. Then, when the situation resolves itself, I then do small water changes(like 5 gallons at a time) to test if my actual water is the problem.. And mind you, this may seem weird, but I'm very calculating and as patient as I can possibly be with these tanks...

 

[Gwitness]

How large is your system again? I'm full of questions because with my system, I'm very leery of something shows itself.. For example, I recently got some hair algea on two of my powerhead. I then always go into "what did I do or not do two weeks ago" mode. I then checked my log and noticed that I added a little more amino acid twice.. So I took it back down to my regular dosage. The algea went away..

But the whole thing I do on the larger systems I have, I tend to do small water changes, as I try to focus on stability(I always think, am I adding more of what is causing this) . So I wait it out generally speaking. Then, when the situation resolves itself, I then do small water changes(like 5 gallons at a time) to test if my actual water is the problem.. And mind you, this may seem weird, but I'm very calculating and as patient as I can possibly be with these tanks...

So my tank is 5ft by 3ft wide and 18in tall ...I think it calculates out to be 165 gallons but obviously with rock in its less.....my weekly routine was 20 gallons a week using regular Red Sea blue bucket salt....I don't feed corals or dose anything extra like amino acids and I feed fish once a day sometimes twice but definitely not over feeding since I have 13 fish and food is gone within like 15 seconds

I need to get like you and be more patient and calculating haha....I am ocd about checking water paraneters and my weekly routine but I guess checking my pranksters for phosphates and nitrates are just pointless since half the time the readings don't even matter or tell the truth! Haha ....I did just send off my water for the triton test today so I'm excited to see what that says...

 

[Damon]

So essentially vinegar or carbon dosing is acting as a "filter" and breaks down nutrients to get taken up by skimmer? Does carbon dosing do the same thing getting more live rock would do??

Carbon dosing is actually a good food source and stimulus for bacteria to grow, multiply and consume nutrients.. The bacteria literally eats the nutrient to survive.. But you increasing the bacteria count massively by providing the food source for them to live multiply and proliferate..

And the skimmer (a very effective one is needed) pulls the excess nutrient and food that the bacteria doesn't consume. That's why there is a very distinct color, look and an unmistakably sickening smell to carbon dosed skim..

Lol, that's another thing to look out for.. Your skim is going to smell horrible..

And there are different bacterial strains that live in different environments. And some, like in a pellet reactor, are much more concentrated and numerous.. Most that I have used like zero at, Dr Tims, etc are multi strained. Goes back to diversity..