Theory on nutrient ratios and algae/bacteria

[Flippers4pups]

Joe's 20,000 gallon reef on long island was started with dry rock. What made it take off was coral colonies and live rock pieces that had bacterial strains established. It just took time to spread though out the aquarium.

And he still has battles with pests in it to this day. Good with the bad.

 

[spiraling]

Many aquarists are concerned about Cyano and Dino's. I think it is important to further the conversation. By understanding the nutrient uptake needs of the problematic bacteria in relation to the positive bacteria/algae it is another tool that hobbyists can use.

I think it gets less discussion because it isn't a problem in more mature systems. For instance, we know that diatoms consume silicates. Silicates can come from our sand and rock. It is very unusual to see diatoms in a mature tank or one with true live rock. Why? Many species of sponges are more efficient at consuming silicate than diatoms.

If there were public aquariums being started up using dry rock I have a feeling this would be a much larger topic of discussion.

Agreed
The concern about cyano and dinos reaches much further than "nutrients". I've had cyano in high flow high light areas. It doesn't agree with literature, but it happens in a lot of tanks. The fact that cyano happens in sooooo many tanks and is not easy for all to get rid of IMO shows there is something to the equation we are missing. N/P and...???

Sponges are interesting. They don't occur in a dry tank unless introduced, and you cant just come by them by accident. I believe them, and many other organisms, are responsible for why dinos and cyano do and don't happen.

You can have a successful reef with just a shrimp and the associated bacteria. Micro fauna just process different thing out

But you have much more than that. You have perhaps hundreds or thousands of bacterial stains. perhaps pods and other organisms?
Each species plays its part and we don't even come close to understanding the relationship of each, and how they effect cyano, dinos, or acro growth.

Joe's 20,000 gallon reef on long island was started with dry rock.

Of course it is possible to be successful with just dry rock. With each piece of coral, fish, and invertebrate you add, you also add an undefined amount of other life. Because one person was successful doesn't not guarantee the next person who did the "same" thing will have the same results.

 

[spiraling]

double post......

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

And he still has battles with pests in it to this day. Good with the bad.

Constant chess game as he puts it.

I do think it's fair to say, we should be aware of nutrient limitation scenarios. But in the same vein , alk mag and cal. And that you can run those "out of balance" with no problems too.

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

But you have much more than that. You h

But the point is, you don't HAVE to.

Me I love to have more then that.

If you scroll back or know me, the Fiji mud? That's a huge dose of bacteria , cyanos , diatoms Dino's and more. Dino dosing. Yep

 

[spiraling]

But the point is, you don't HAVE to.

Me I love to have more then that.

If you scroll back or know me, the Fiji mud? That's a huge dose of bacteria , cyanos , diatoms Dino's and more. Dino dosing. Yep

so I'm confused. You DO have a lot of other life than the shrimp??
have you ever started a tank with ONLY a few organisms and been sucessful without algae and being able to keep "difficult" corals like acros?
My understanding was you always went for the most biodiversity. Forgive me if I'm wrong here.

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

so I'm confused. You DO have a lot of other life than the shrimp??
have you ever started a tank with ONLY a few organisms and been sucessful without algae and being able to keep "difficult" corals like acros?
My understanding was you always went for the most biodiversity. Forgive me if I'm wrong here.

A bit off topic , but you don't have to have the diversity for tank to thrive.
But you do need to weigh the pros and cons. More animals , more co2 , more waste, but also more waste processing. Also not mineral depletion. In the case of silicates and diatoms and sponges it's very true.
So honesty with the complexity , it's just easier to observe , feed healthfully , use a tooth brush. Wait for the next chess move.

 

[chefjpaul]

Mixotroph.
There's your balancing right there.[emoji4]

 

[Lasse]

The source for silicates in the reef aquarium is much more likely to be the water itself - rather than the 'sand' isn't it? unless its a very poor grade of sand. Do many people use silica sand in a reef tank? Of course a diatoms die - they release silica back into the tank. Is that what you're getting at?

"Quartz (silicon-dioxide, SiO2) is the least soluble of all forms of silicon found in nature. Although it is important to keep in mind that water is a universal solvent and everything dissolves in water given enough time, the walls of a glass aquarium is far more soluble than any layer of quartz sand that could be placed on the bottom of it. This is not to say that it is not possible to introduce silicate into your tank by the inclusion of silica sand – there are many more soluble silicate compounds (such as feldspar) or contaminants (such as aluminosilicate) which could be found in a generic bag of silica sand from the hardware store that could contribute to an increased level of dissolved silicates in an aquarium, but pure quartz sand is not one of them."

I disagree. What you say is probably right during aerobic conditions but according to my experiences not right if you have silica sand (or other silica products like Siporax) under anaerobic conditions. In that case - they release silicates in large quantities.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

There is a war going on (not only in this thread but in our aquaria ) As in all wars – it’s about resources. The one that will win is the one that can get needed resources in the best way. Different organisms have developed different strategies for surviving and domination. We often concentrate our discussions around two of these resources – inorganic phosphorus and nitrogen because they are the most limited resources in pristine waters and our primary producer need them in large quantities. The reasons why you measure so low concentrations of inorganic P and N near and in a coral reef is because if there suddenly should be a free resource of inorganic P or N - it should be as short-lived as vodka at a Swedish crayfish party. The water concentrations of these nutrient are low but the flux through and in a coral reef of these compounds are enormous.

In this war – different organisms have different strategies and it’s not a surprise that the oldest has the most advanced techniques to sustain a guarantee for these nutrients for themselves. Cyanobacteria is one of the oldest (if not the oldest) now living organism in the world – dinos are rather old organism too. Cyanobacteria is probably the one that start the process that lead to an oxygen concentration of 20 % in the air. It means that Cyanobacteria exist before oxygen become a necessary part of what we call life!

Some cyanobacteria have developed a special cell in the body that are able to process N2 gas too form nitrogen species that their body can take up. ( Let me say directly – that this is not the case with the species that form mats – I think they solve these problems in another way.) To be able to convert N2 to useful species – an anaerobic environment must be created. These Cyanobacteria create that in this special cell – and the rest of the cells can use these N species (mostly NH3/NH4) This means that a Cyanobacteria can survive and thrive in an environment that lack dissolved inorganic N species like Nh3/NH4, NO2, NO3 and NOx.

The species that we have problems with – the mat building benthic species of cyanobacteria – how do they solve the problem. I think they do the same – they create an anaerobic environment and "farm" bacteria that fix nitrogen – in the space between the mat and the substrate. These cyanobacteria always exist in our aquaria, they are small narrow organisms like small sticks but sometimes they come together and form these awful mats. And below the mats – the magic happens. IMO if there is a limitation of inorganic N species dissolved in the water – the sticky benthic cyanobacteria can do its trick and concur for space that they during normal conditions can’t fight for. But I think it’s more that happens below the mats. Many metals (most known calcium, iron and aluminium) can bind phosphorus in metal/phosphate complexes and these complexes will fall at the substrate. These processes are the ones that GFO use as an example. Is known since long time ago that these bindings can be broken during anaerobic conditions and hence free bound phosphorous from the substrate. Lately – it has been shown that this process needs another condition also – the forming of hydrogen sulfide. If this happen below the mats – the dam cyanobacteria will have free phosphorus for themselves also and I rather sure that – if there is a lack of iron in the water column – they will have a free supply of iron and other trace metals also – all below the mats.

Ten years ago – a very important study was done in Sweden according cyanobacteria blooms in freshwater lakes. The study did not cover the benthic forms but the pelagic forms. It shows that in some lakes – the pelagic forms (with capability to produce useful inorganic nitrogen in their own body) was able to use phosphorous sources that was not dissolved in the water column. During night time they was migrating down to the bottom (if the bottom layer was anaerobic) and picked up phosphorous that they use in the sunlight during the day. But only in some lakes with anaerobic bottom layers – in some lakes – despite the fact that’s the bottom water was anaerobic – no cyanobacteria blooms were observed. The thing this lakes with no cyanobacteria blooms but anaerobic bottom conditions had in common was a NO3 concentration over 2 ppm. Below that – cyanobacteria bloom.

It’s a well-known fact that NO3 in the water column normally block the production of hydrogen sulfide. Hence – I have listed two important reasons why you should have some NO2 in your water – your normal algae growth need an inorganic nitrogen species in the water and you should not create a condition that can create hydrogen sulphide in the upper bottom layer of your substrate. And – all of you that have your GFO in a sock without a steady flow of oxygen rich water through it – be aware of the risk that your bound phosphorus can be realised again.

To address this balance question of the macro nutrients we discuss – IMO – you need some concentrations of these nutrients in the water and probably there is threshold concentrations according to different organisms – and IMO these threshold concentrations for cyanobacteria is zero – they can fix these nutrients I other ways. According Dinos – I do not know so much but they are mobile, and they disappear during nighttime. Where – my guess – down in the substrate – what are they doing there? Maybe to collecting phosphorus and nitrogen to use that during daytime?

What’s my general way of defeating Cyanobacteria if they occur – be sure that I have dissolved inorganic N and P species in my water column (NO3 > 2 ppm normally) and most important – disturb the mats as much as possible – the mats is the secret of the benthic cyanobacteria – IMO

I´m sorry for a long post and I have been thinking if I should put on my boots and walk into this discussion or not. All of this is IMO and it’s based on some studies I have seen and my own experiences and thoughts – true? I do not know but certainly a new perspective on the matter

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Brew12]

The scientific studies you quoted - in part negated your point of view - and I already quoted how

Actually, what you pointed out agreed with what I was saying. You accused me of singling out a single part of that post. The reason I didn't mention the rest of it is that the only other part I disagreed with was where you said you disagreed with me. Everything else you stated was exactly in line with what I stated in my original post. I'm not sure why you feel like you were disagreeing with me or why what I was saying isn't in line with the studies.

 

[Brew12]

There is a war going on (not only in this thread but in our aquaria ) As in all wars – it’s about resources. The one that will win is the one that can get needed resources in the best way. Different organisms have developed different strategies for surviving and domination. We often concentrate our discussions around two of these resources – inorganic phosphorus and nitrogen because they are the most limited resources in pristine waters and our primary producer need them in large quantities. The reasons why you measure so low concentrations of inorganic P and N near and in a coral reef is because if there suddenly should be a free resource of inorganic P or N - it should be as short-lived as vodka at a Swedish crayfish party. The water concentrations of these nutrient are low but the flux through and in a coral reef of these compounds are enormous.

In this war – different organisms have different strategies and it’s not a surprise that the oldest has the most advanced techniques to sustain a guarantee for these nutrients for themselves. Cyanobacteria is one of the oldest (if not the oldest) now living organism in the world – dinos are rather old organism too. Cyanobacteria is probably the one that start the process that lead to an oxygen concentration of 20 % in the air. It means that Cyanobacteria exist before oxygen become a necessary part of what we call life!

Some cyanobacteria have developed a special cell in the body that are able to process N2 gas too form nitrogen species that their body can take up. ( Let me say directly – that this is not the case with the species that form mats – I think they solve these problems in another way.) To be able to convert N2 to useful species – an anaerobic environment must be created. These Cyanobacteria create that in this special cell – and the rest of the cells can use these N species (mostly NH3/NH4) This means that a Cyanobacteria can survive and thrive in an environment that lack dissolved inorganic N species like Nh3/NH4, NO2, NO3 and NOx.

The species that we have problems with – the mat building benthic species of cyanobacteria – how do they solve the problem. I think they do the same – they create an anaerobic environment and "farm" bacteria that fix nitrogen – in the space between the mat and the substrate. These cyanobacteria always exist in our aquaria, they are small narrow organisms like small sticks but sometimes they come together and form these awful mats. And below the mats – the magic happens. IMO if there is a limitation of inorganic N species dissolved in the water – the sticky benthic cyanobacteria can do its trick and concur for space that they during normal conditions can’t fight for. But I think it’s more that happens below the mats. Many metals (most known calcium, iron and aluminium) can bind phosphorus in metal/phosphate complexes and these complexes will fall at the substrate. These processes are the ones that GFO use as an example. Is known since long time ago that these bindings can be broken during anaerobic conditions and hence free bound phosphorous from the substrate. Lately – it has been shown that this process needs another condition also – the forming of hydrogen sulfide. If this happen below the mats – the dam cyanobacteria will have free phosphorus for themselves also and I rather sure that – if there is a lack of iron in the water column – they will have a free supply of iron and other trace metals also – all below the mats.

Ten years ago – a very important study was done in Sweden according cyanobacteria blooms in freshwater lakes. The study did not cover the benthic forms but the pelagic forms. It shows that in some lakes – the pelagic forms (with capability to produce useful inorganic nitrogen in their own body) was able to use phosphorous sources that was not dissolved in the water column. During night time they was migrating down to the bottom (if the bottom layer was anaerobic) and picked up phosphorous that they use in the sunlight during the day. But only in some lakes with anaerobic bottom layers – in some lakes – despite the fact that’s the bottom water was anaerobic – no cyanobacteria blooms were observed. The thing this lakes with no cyanobacteria blooms but anaerobic bottom conditions had in common was a NO3 concentration over 2 ppm. Below that – cyanobacteria bloom.

It’s a well-known fact that NO3 in the water column normally block the production of hydrogen sulfide. Hence – I have listed two important reasons why you should have some NO2 in your water – your normal algae growth need an inorganic nitrogen species in the water and you should not create a condition that can create hydrogen sulphide in the upper bottom layer of your substrate. And – all of you that have your GFO in a sock without a steady flow of oxygen rich water through it – be aware of the risk that your bound phosphorus can be realised again.

To address this balance question of the macro nutrients we discuss – IMO – you need some concentrations of these nutrients in the water and probably there is threshold concentrations according to different organisms – and IMO these threshold concentrations for cyanobacteria is zero – they can fix these nutrients I other ways. According Dinos – I do not know so much but they are mobile, and they disappear during nighttime. Where – my guess – down in the substrate – what are they doing there? Maybe to collecting phosphorus and nitrogen to use that during daytime?

What’s my general way of defeating Cyanobacteria if they occur – be sure that I have dissolved inorganic N and P species in my water column (NO3 > 2 ppm normally) and most important – disturb the mats as much as possible – the mats is the secret of the benthic cyanobacteria – IMO

I´m sorry for a long post and I have been thinking if I should put on my boots and walk into this discussion or not. All of this is IMO and it’s based on some studies I have seen and my own experiences and thoughts – true? I do not know but certainly a new perspective on the matter

Sincerely Lasse

Thank you for joining in Lasse, very well put!

 

[Brew12]

The source for silicates in the reef aquarium is much more likely to be the water itself - rather than the 'sand' isn't it? unless its a very poor grade of sand. Do many people use silica sand in a reef tank? Of course a diatoms die - they release silica back into the tank. Is that what you're getting at?

For those who don't use RODI the water is much more likely to be the largest source if silicates.

I disagree. What you say is probably right during aerobic conditions but according to my experiences not right if you have silica sand (or other silica products like Siporax) under anaerobic conditions. In that case - they release silicates in large quantities.

If you guys are interested, I found this to be a great read.
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2003/1/aafeature1

Here is a quote from part of it. Even though he implies he isn't going to go into much detail he does give an explanation.
"Many even fall for the trap of concluding that since their glass aquarium is not dissolving, then silica sand must not be either. All of the arguments against soluble silica being released from “silica” sand can be easily refuted, and I have done so in the past, but that is not the point of this article."

 

[Brew12]

For those interested, here is one of the best studies on Dino's that I have found.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3849724/

 

[MnFish1]

I disagree. What you say is probably right during aerobic conditions but according to my experiences not right if you have silica sand (or other silica products like Siporax) under anaerobic conditions. In that case - they release silicates in large quantities.

Sincerely Lasse

Yes - I imagine thats correct - in acidic conditions more silicates are released. Mine is quite thin = I wasn't thinking about that issue

 

[MnFish1]

Here is a quote from part of it. Even though he implies he isn't going to go into much detail he does give an explanation.
"Many even fall for the trap of concluding that since their glass aquarium is not dissolving, then silica sand must not be either. All of the arguments against soluble silica being released from “silica” sand can be easily refuted, and I have done so in the past, but that is not the point of this article."

Right - this article is where I got the information on silica in the aquarium - and is why I said in my first post that if you use a high quality quartz sand the dissolution rate is quite slow - in his 'experiment' - he uses 'quickcrete play sand'. Which I agree with you - is likely to leach silica - I really wasn't aware that many people used this type of silica sand in their tanks (and I also would have thought that the people that sell bags of sand for 35$ a piece for 10 lbs also are not using this grade of sand (hopefully lol). Interestingly he also says its probably better to dose silica in the aquarium - rather than trying to limit it - it was kind of an 'odd' article - but interesting.

Another article I read was more strong on the fact that 'good quality' sand does not leach much silica - and that even RODI water is likely the highest source of silicates in the tank (because people dont maintain their RODI)

 

[Scott Campbell]

Yes, but it keeps out biodiversity as well. At least some of it.
My point is that there seems to be a balance that successful tanks achieve. They might have ich, worms, crabs, other things, but they have reached an equilibrium that allows them to be a success and grow all types of coral and allow for a wide variety of fish. But that balance point seems elusive, especially if a tank is started dry instead of with rock filled with {something}.
If you start with live rock and the biodiversity it provides, then you risk bad hitchhikers (and I have battled several). If you start dry and QT you don't have the hitchhikers, but there is something noticeably lacking in beneficial biodiversity that no one can define or measure.

I feel my tank really took off once I embraced all the "pests". Now I primarily feed and care for the flat worms, bristle worms, aiptasia, sponges, algae, bacteria and such. Which sounds absolutely ridiculous. But feeding the fish and corals has become a bit of an afterthought. The only adjustment I have had to make is to deliberately stock the tank with pest species predators - a Melanurus wrasse for all the worms, Rabbitfish and Tang for the algae, Peppermint Shrimp for the aiptasia, and so on. Seems counter-intuitive perhaps but these pest organisms are pests in large measure because they are so effective at using tank nutrients. Once I stopped fighting the pests and started looking at them as part of the food chain my tank, fish and corals became much healthier. Now I have the world's fattest wrasse.

 

[Lasse]

Talking about Silicia - my concentration is 4093.00 μg/l !!!!! Its not from the tap water

@Scott Campbell Now you are playing on my backyard Everything is resources

Sincerely Lasse

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

Talking about Silicia - my concentration is 4093.00 μg/l !!!!! Its not from the tap water

@Scott Campbell Now you are playing on my backyard Everything is resources

Sincerely Lasse

I bet you have very happy sponges.

 

[Lasse]

I bet you have very happy sponges.

I had a lot of sponges but some of the just disappear a couple of months ago – and I do not know why


Sincerely Lasse