Thoughts about PO4 (particulate vs liquid)

[MichaelM]

I have actually also tested this product (Phos Start) in my own tank to try and solve a phosphate limitation (resulting in bad RTN). It probably did nothing and when I was trying to stop adding liquid phosphate and only use Phos Start I got STN on two frags. But this could also be attributed to other things and might just be coincidence, considering all the processes in a reef tank. Also my tank is immature and therefor not stable yet. That said, it seems that STN currently slows down, now that I am upping the phosphate level again by dosing and increased (ghost-)feeding.

This and the thread got me wondering about the product. I was being convinced of the product by the marketing TM did. Sounded reasonable to me. Knowing that Hans-Werner likes the work of Wiedenmann, I just did a quick search for papers and found this: https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ecm.1217
They state: At present, there is no evidence, however, that corals and their symbionts are able to use phosphorus in its mineral form (PIP). The most accessible form remains DIP (Björkman and Karl 1994), as the use of DOP and POP is energetically more expansive.
(DIP - dissolved inorganic phosphate, PIP - particulate inorganic phosphate, DOP - dissolved organic phosphate, POP - particulate organic phosphate)
It seems the TM products are particulate inorganic phosphate.

So what I would like to see or know is whether or not the corals can even take up the phosphate particles and get the phosphate out of them. The video shows that in an acidic environment the phosphate will dissolve. But the PH within the coral tissue is generally above 7 (see figure 4 here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0020013). So there seem to be 2 hurdles that have to be overcome by the phosphate particles: get consumed by the coral (will it actively catch some inorganic particle or will the particle just be stuck in the mucus and eventually end up somewhere useful?) and can the coral or some other organism from the holobiont (some bacteria inside the mucus) get to the phosphate?

I imagine that all the particles that are not consumed end up as a depot somewhere in the sand or on the rocks and will slowly be dissolved by bacteria (leeching the phosphate into the water over time).

 

[Pod_01]

The OP asked for comments/opinions on the product.......I gave mine.

Fair enough, I will consider the post opinion only.
Main message all PO4 is equal, adding liquid PO4 is same as fish poop PO4. Any other information is psychobabble…

I don't agree with Hans Werner/ and or Lou on all matters reef.......some I do.
Not sure where you were going with that.

The reason I mentioned Hans Werner is that these products are developed under his guidance. Since you mentioned that this is all :

Just a bunch of psychobabble along with unproven theories on what's actually going on.

Hans Werner might want to provide some insight and perhaps it will be “psychobabble” maybe not.

Why not set up a tank with live rock that is mostly bare and two chromis and no clean up crew and see what happens in a few months.

I am puzzled by this comment??? What does this prove exactly? Is the intention to prove that one tank might or might not have the expected outcome!!!!

Only difference I see is he wants you locked into dosing this product at an ongoing basis.

Interesting comment….
We are all dosing something into the tank for the critters to survive. Two or three part dosing, calcium reactor, kalk water, liquid PO4 etc…
From the comments it sounds that as long as I dose what is on your approved list:

Larrys and Rods frozen, Reef Roids, Reef Nutrition

and liquid PO4, I am on the nice list.
Other products and I am end up on the naughty list or listening to “psychobabble”.
I think that is silly point of view, we are all locked into some type of dosing!!!

Just as an aside, I am interested in the products but I am not going to be using either one. My system has enough P/PO4 at the moment so there is no limitation. I do find the P/PO4 subject fascinating and since it is critical building block I do like to learn about it as much as possible, liquid, particles etc…

 

[jda]

I am a little surprised that if you feed all of those foods that you still feel that it is necessary to dose liquid po4. Being that po4 is probably the least usable form of phosphorous form most organisms and is not preferred over meta/poly phosphates and particulate organic matter containing phosphorous, then I am not sure what the benefit is. po4 is a waste product in most systems. If you have any po4 at all, then you have a surplus and adding more is not really doing anything. If somebody wanted to add poly/meta or maybe particulate organic, then maybe, but still probably wont do much.. but fish waste is still better at providing these than we every will be.

I have no idea what this stuff is and how it factors in. It looks like a ground up solid which is not likely to be all that bio available, but without anything other than "trust me," we might never know.

 

[Hans-Werner]

Sorry for stepping in so lately, I had a few days off.

Long-term solution to promoting the good and handicapping, the bad bacteria and algae while also providing po4 for the coral. Is seems to me that all of the things they are promoting for a ‘young’ aquarium would also be beneficial for a mature one.

Regarding "good" and "bad" bacteria. Of course these expressions are not scientifically sound, the correct terms would be probiotic and other specialized, slow growing bacteria for the good ones and opportunistic, fast growing for the bad bacteria. The latter ones can even cause diseases.

Phosphate dissolving bacteria are known from different marine environments, also from coral reefs.

"Phosphatase Producing Bacteria (PPB) and Inorganic Phosphate Solubilizing Bacteria (IPSB) are important to reef nutrition. These microbes and phosphate concentration play a significant role in the productivity of coral reef ecosystems. A study was conducted in Gulf of Mannar coral reef ecosystem to understand the diversity of these groups of bacteria and their competence in mineralizing the phosphate.
...

The production of organic acids and phosphatase enzymes by these bacterial groups are responsible for the conversion of insoluble inorganic and organic phosphates into soluble forms which are available for the reef organisms. (© 2012 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim)"

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jobm.201100095

I don't see how this stuff should be less available to this bad bacteria than corals. Bacteria are, on average, better at breaking down stuff than corals.

Since the opportunistic "bad" bacteria are heterotrophic bacteria that depend on organic substances that are easy to degrade like simple sugars, simple alcohols or some organic acids, more complex organic substances like biopolymers exclude to a large extent the "bad" opportunistic bacteria.

It is the organic carbon that limits the access and development of the "bad" bacteria, not the phosphate.

Corals on the other side excrete such complex organic substances. "Slime" and slimes in general are such complex organic substances that contain biopolymers that gives them the typical slimy constistence and the high viscosity.

Of course, on corals bacteria live that can grow on these biopolymers as part of their microbiome, the symbiotic bacteria that contribute to the coral holobiont.

Just a bunch of psychobabble along with unproven theories on what's actually going on.

Tell me which one you mean and I will try to disprove you.

Because some dude in a lab tells you so standing in front of a tank that has about the easiest corals ever kept in this hobby and two chromis?

The "dude" in the lab in the video is Dr. Samuel Nietzer as you can confirm by doing a quick search. Besides "standing in front of a tank that has about the easiest corals ever kept in this hobby and two chromis" he is propagating Acropora corals from sexually derived planulae, i. e. Acropora tenuis, and growing them to maturity. You can see one such a grow-out tank at 0:08 to 0:10.

Our company is supporting and cooperating with his project of sexual coral propagation and he has done some microbiological and other tests for us.

when asked for some proof or explanation to show that their conclusions are accurate, I expect more than "prove that they do not work" as the response.

I think there was a good explanation. Well, finally that are the rules how also science works: I give you an observation and a good explanation or a good theory, I tell you how I got to the explanation or theory and if you think that I am wrong you have to prove me wrong. Give a better explanation or do your own experiments and show that my results cannot be reproduced.

I don't think that anybody should defend or idolize a reef manufacturer anymore. They will just disappoint you. None of them have any labs or do any kinds of long term experiments or anything.

Hmm, we have labs and do long term expeiments, yours is a totally false claim.

Just to prove you wrong some photographs. It are no display tanks but experimental tanks from the beginning, starting with "decoration" made of bricks.

The two heads of Goniopora grew from a single head.

The turquoise Acanthastrea echinata in the background of the tank with the gorgonians grew from less than palm size to the size of half an basketball.

The shallow tank is the one we started for the Turkey mix test.

You don't have to like the "scaping" or the way the corals, discs, gorgonians and Caulerpa grow into each other. It is just for me to "read" the reactions of the diverse organisms. For this I like continuity very much and prefer it over regulation and "order".

They state: At present, there is no evidence, however, that corals and their symbionts are able to use phosphorus in its mineral form (PIP).

I also wondered about this statement of Wiedenmann et al. very much. In this, corals would be a big exception among organisms. Most organisms can make use of inorganic particulate phosphate or phosphate in its mineral form which is usually the same. The chemical nature in which phosphate is in fish teeth and bones, fish scales, crustacean shells, fish and bird feces https://wec.ifas.ufl.edu/pdf/frederick/Irick-et-al_2015.pdf and sediments is "particulate inorganic phosphate" or mineral phosphate, frequently as apatit https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxylapatit . In humans 80 % of the phosphorus is in teeth and bones.

About the dissolution by bacteria see above. Your teeth are also made of "insoluble phosphate mineral". What happens if you feed the bacteria in your mouth with lots of sugar?

Many organisms can make direct or indirect use of phosphate minerals, also "insoluble" ones. Most of the phosphate in fish and bird feces is in particulate inorganic form. I think it can be regarded as very likely that corals can make use of it.

You find more thoughts on phosphate and scientific literature on our homepage https://www.tropic-marin.com/forschung?lang=en

So what I would like to see or know is whether or not the corals can even take up the phosphate particles and get the phosphate out of them.

The 100 % prove can only be made with radioactive phosphate, but fish and bacteria can make use of "insoluble" mineral phosphate. With the low concentration of DIP in reef waters it seems very unlikely to me that corals cannot make use of this critical nutrient which may be a significant part of the total phosphate pool https://www.researchgate.net/profil...4/The-phosphorus-cycle-in-the-Sanggou-Bay.pdf . ... and or course we did long-term testing and application.

 

[Hans-Werner]

Pyschobabble.........he claims the powder won't produce algae growh, the corals take it up, need I add more?

Well, algae are not specialized filter feeders specialized to filter small particles out of the water like corals are. This makes a kind of targeted application possible.

Corals have slime coatings and ciliar epithelia to filter small particles out of the water and ingest them. This makes them more efficient in using the small phosphate particles than algae.

 

[Pod_01]

Since the opportunistic "bad" bacteria are heterotrophic bacteria that depend on organic substances that are easy to degrade like simple sugars, simple alcohols or some organic acids, more complex organic substances like biopolymers exclude to a large extent the "bad" opportunistic bacteria.

Silly question, just to show how little I know.
This part here the simple carbon dosing substances (small molecules ) like alcohol, vinegar(acetate) or sugar vs. bio polymers.
What is an example of carbon dosing bio polymer?
On this side of Atlantic the preference is to dose small molecules like sugar, alcohol and vinegar. In Europe I noticed the emphasis is on dosing bio polymers.

 

[Big E]

Well, algae are not specialized filter feeders specialized to filter small particles out of the water like corals are. This makes a kind of targeted application possible.

Corals have slime coatings and ciliar epithelia to filter small particles out of the water and ingest them. This makes them more efficient in using the small phosphate particles than algae.

Lol, seriously?? algae have fronds on them they can catch detritius if long enough. Detritus falls into rock crevices where the algae is.......it can use that detritus laden
phosphate as fuel.

Look, anything I saw you're going to make up some theory how your phosphate particles are different or some other comment based on no proof. This what is called psychobabble------------
"is a form of speech or writing that uses psychological jargon, buzzwords, and esoteric language to create an impression of truth or plausibility."

It's not up to me to disprove your product.............It's up to you to PROVE it works as you say. I'm not convinced it's anything unique or special.
I'm not going to go point to point with you on this.

I gave my comments and opinions why as the OP asked. Have a good day

 

[Hans-Werner]

Silly question, just to show how little I know.
This part here the simple carbon dosing substances (small molecules ) like alcohol, vinegar(acetate) or sugar vs. bio polymers.
What is an example of carbon dosing bio polymer?
On this side of Atlantic the preference is to dose small molecules like sugar, alcohol and vinegar. In Europe I noticed the emphasis is on dosing bio polymers.

I think the difference between Europe and USA is not so big. The difference is more on the product side, whether the manufacturers offer also less conventinal ways of organic carbon dosing. Nevertheless also on this side of the atlantic dosing of ethanol (vodka) is very widespread, maybe less so of acetic acid.

Examples of dosing biopolymers are all biopellets, our Reef Actif and Phos-Start and I think a product of Fauna Marin.

 

[Hans-Werner]

Lol, seriously?? algae have fronds on them they can catch detritius if long enough. Detritus falls into rock crevices where the algae is.......it can use that detritus laden
phosphate as fuel.

Look, anything I saw you're going to make up some theory how your phosphate particles are different or some other comment based on no proof. This what is called psychobabble------------
"is a form of speech or writing that uses psychological jargon, buzzwords, and esoteric language to create an impression of truth or plausibility."

It's not up to me to disprove your product.............It's up to you to PROVE it works as you say. I'm not convinced it's anything unique or special.
I'm not going to go point to point with you on this.

I gave my comments and opinions why as the OP asked. Have a good day

If you don't want to follow (my) logic and scientific evidence there is no way to prove except simply the market and experience of users.

 

[jda]

Hmm, we have labs and do long term expeiments, yours is a totally false claim.

Thanks for posting some photos of some tanks without saying what you did in them and what the results were. I have more tanks than that where I can say that I do long term experiments. I have been experimenting for 30 years. I have never found any of your products, save the salt, to do anything. It looks like there is as much science in my house as in your lab - no control and no actual comparative results to present. You are welcome to show that my results cannot be reproduced.

At the show last weekend, I did not even bring it up, but some really good hobbyists were speaking of the mass of your new products that appeared to be blind darts thrown at a wall with descriptions and promises nearly verbatim from some loosely associated studies that many already know about. The list of discontinued products that petered out is gargantuan. The CBD food was the last straw for some of them - they read the Talapia article a few years ago themselves. They are already tiring of ICP and supplement promises that don't do anything and are expanding this to other bottled stuff too.

Just tell people that you read the studies/articles and try and make a product off of those. Many already know and more will follow. If you don't, you will start to become like Boyd, Kent or Seachem. I might try some CBD food if you put on the bottle that a few studies showed XYZ with freshwater human food fish and you wanted to offer a product to see what it might do to saltwater fish - the promises of longer life and physiological benefits like they are fact turn me away. I read the study too and the only purpose was to see if non-mammals had receptors to see any benefit from cannabodile. My youngest fish might be 4 years old (oldest over 20 years) and there is now way that you tested to see how much longer fish actually lived.

 

[danimal1211]

Sorry for stepping in so lately, I had a few days off.

Regarding "good" and "bad" bacteria. Of course these expressions are not scientifically sound, the correct terms would be probiotic and other specialized, slow growing bacteria for the good ones and opportunistic, fast growing for the bad bacteria. The latter ones can even cause diseases.

Phosphate dissolving bacteria are known from different marine environments, also from coral reefs.

"Phosphatase Producing Bacteria (PPB) and Inorganic Phosphate Solubilizing Bacteria (IPSB) are important to reef nutrition. These microbes and phosphate concentration play a significant role in the productivity of coral reef ecosystems. A study was conducted in Gulf of Mannar coral reef ecosystem to understand the diversity of these groups of bacteria and their competence in mineralizing the phosphate.
...

The production of organic acids and phosphatase enzymes by these bacterial groups are responsible for the conversion of insoluble inorganic and organic phosphates into soluble forms which are available for the reef organisms. (© 2012 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim)"

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jobm.201100095

Since the opportunistic "bad" bacteria are heterotrophic bacteria that depend on organic substances that are easy to degrade like simple sugars, simple alcohols or some organic acids, more complex organic substances like biopolymers exclude to a large extent the "bad" opportunistic bacteria.

It is the organic carbon that limits the access and development of the "bad" bacteria, not the phosphate.

Corals on the other side excrete such complex organic substances. "Slime" and slimes in general are such complex organic substances that contain biopolymers that gives them the typical slimy constistence and the high viscosity.

Of course, on corals bacteria live that can grow on these biopolymers as part of their microbiome, the symbiotic bacteria that contribute to the coral holobiont.


Tell me which one you mean and I will try to disprove you.


The "dude" in the lab in the video is Dr. Samuel Nietzer as you can confirm by doing a quick search. Besides "standing in front of a tank that has about the easiest corals ever kept in this hobby and two chromis" he is propagating Acropora corals from sexually derived planulae, i. e. Acropora tenuis, and growing them to maturity. You can see one such a grow-out tank at 0:08 to 0:10.

Our company is supporting and cooperating with his project of sexual coral propagation and he has done some microbiological and other tests for us.


I think there was a good explanation. Well, finally that are the rules how also science works: I give you an observation and a good explanation or a good theory, I tell you how I got to the explanation or theory and if you think that I am wrong you have to prove me wrong. Give a better explanation or do your own experiments and show that my results cannot be reproduced.


Hmm, we have labs and do long term expeiments, yours is a totally false claim.

Just to prove you wrong some photographs. It are no display tanks but experimental tanks from the beginning, starting with "decoration" made of bricks.

The two heads of Goniopora grew from a single head.

The turquoise Acanthastrea echinata in the background of the tank with the gorgonians grew from less than palm size to the size of half an basketball.

The shallow tank is the one we started for the Turkey mix test.

You don't have to like the "scaping" or the way the corals, discs, gorgonians and Caulerpa grow into each other. It is just for me to "read" the reactions of the diverse organisms. For this I like continuity very much and prefer it over regulation and "order".

I also wondered about this statement of Wiedenmann et al. very much. In this, corals would be a big exception among organisms. Most organisms can make use of inorganic particulate phosphate or phosphate in its mineral form which is usually the same. The chemical nature in which phosphate is in fish teeth and bones, fish scales, crustacean shells, fish and bird feces https://wec.ifas.ufl.edu/pdf/frederick/Irick-et-al_2015.pdf and sediments is "particulate inorganic phosphate" or mineral phosphate, frequently as apatit https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxylapatit . In humans 80 % of the phosphorus is in teeth and bones.

About the dissolution by bacteria see above. Your teeth are also made of "insoluble phosphate mineral". What happens if you feed the bacteria in your mouth with lots of sugar?

Many organisms can make direct or indirect use of phosphate minerals, also "insoluble" ones. Most of the phosphate in fish and bird feces is in particulate inorganic form. I think it can be regarded as very likely that corals can make use of it.

You find more thoughts on phosphate and scientific literature on our homepage https://www.tropic-marin.com/forschung?lang=en


The 100 % prove can only be made with radioactive phosphate, but fish and bacteria can make use of "insoluble" mineral phosphate. With the low concentration of DIP in reef waters it seems very unlikely to me that corals cannot make use of this critical nutrient which may be a significant part of the total phosphate pool https://www.researchgate.net/profil...4/The-phosphorus-cycle-in-the-Sanggou-Bay.pdf . ... and or course we did long-term testing and application.

This raises a few questions? You say the ‘good’ bacteria or ‘probiotics’ will be the ones to populate our tanks if we use bio polymers as a carbon source as opposed to acetate or sugars. Where is the evidence of this actually happens in an enclosed environment? These ‘good bacteria are going to break down insoluble phosphate to soluble phosphate. Why not just continue adding soluble phosphate where needed? If that isn’t the case then it wouldn’t show up on when tested. What are the carbon sources in your products?

 

[Hans-Werner]

This raises a few questions? You say the ‘good’ bacteria or ‘probiotics’ will be the ones to populate our tanks if we use bio polymers as a carbon source as opposed to acetate or sugars. Where is the evidence of this actually happens in an enclosed environment?

The probiotics is one of the big themes in the human and animal nutrition. In my eyes a tank is not so different from humans and most animals as a "semi-closed" system. We know which kind of substances are produced by probiotic bacteria and how it works. Also the fish intestine is kind of "fermenter" where symbiotic bacteria produce short-chain fatty acids. The fish intestine is more an "open system" with bacteria in, bacteria out.

These ‘good bacteria are going to break down insoluble phosphate to soluble phosphate. Why not just continue adding soluble phosphate where needed? If that isn’t the case then it wouldn’t show up on when tested.

I have seen a difference to dissolved phosphate during application i. e. in more regular coral growth with insoluble particulate phosphate.

Like mentioned above, the corals as filter feeder have the primary and instant access to the phosphate particles suspended in the water since they are filter feeders. Later, after settled down and dissolved by bacteria it shows up in test results. This is something we state in the instructions, otherwise you couldn't find the increase in phosphate concentration.

 

[danimal1211]

@Hans-Werner What carbon dosing products of TM’s utilize bio polymers? Clarity with consumers as to what they are adding to their tanks is important and TM likes to keep that information close to their sleeve.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I also wondered about this statement of Wiedenmann et al. very much. In this, corals would be a big exception among organisms. Most organisms can make use of inorganic particulate phosphate or phosphate in its mineral form which is usually the same. The chemical nature in which phosphate is in fish teeth and bones, fish scales, crustacean shells, fish and bird feces https://wec.ifas.ufl.edu/pdf/frederick/Irick-et-al_2015.pdf and sediments is "particulate inorganic phosphate" or mineral phosphate, frequently as apatit https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxylapatit . In humans 80 % of the phosphorus is in teeth and bones.

About the dissolution by bacteria see above. Your teeth are also made of "insoluble phosphate mineral". What happens if you feed the bacteria in your mouth with lots of sugar?

Many organisms can make direct or indirect use of phosphate minerals, also "insoluble" ones. Most of the phosphate in fish and bird feces is in particulate inorganic form. I think it can be regarded as very likely that corals can make use of it.

I don't agree. The only reason that organisms such as people and fish and even sea cumbers can take advantage of PIP is that the low pH of the GI tract allows it to dissolve. The reason it dissolves in sediments is low pH.

Corals do not have a low pH place for that to take place, and Windemann were clearly intending the comment to relate to corals.

"Depending on the bioavailability of each source, symbiotic associations can take up DIP, DOP, and POP with different efficiencies. At present, there is no evidence, however, that corals and their symbionts are able to use phosphorus in its mineral form (PIP). The most accessible form remains DIP (Björkman and Karl 1994), asthe use of DOP and POP is energetically more expensive.The schematic diagram of Fig. 4 illustrates the state ofknowledge on the phosphorus metabolism within thesymbiotic coral-dinoflagellate association, which is themost studied model."

Can you cite a study showing corals do get P from PIP?

 

[MichaelM]

Phosphate dissolving bacteria are known from different marine environments, also from coral reefs.

"Phosphatase Producing Bacteria (PPB) and Inorganic Phosphate Solubilizing Bacteria (IPSB) are important to reef nutrition. These microbes and phosphate concentration play a significant role in the productivity of coral reef ecosystems. A study was conducted in Gulf of Mannar coral reef ecosystem to understand the diversity of these groups of bacteria and their competence in mineralizing the phosphate.
...

The production of organic acids and phosphatase enzymes by these bacterial groups are responsible for the conversion of insoluble inorganic and organic phosphates into soluble forms which are available for the reef organisms. (© 2012 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim)"

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jobm.201100095

First off: Thanks for the the detailed reply. I really appreciate that.
The linked paper seems to be mostly about the PPB. They especially left out the pH-measurement after the IPSB did their work. They started the experiment with a pH of 7.2 and after the apatite was dissolved they could detect organic acids, which would suggest that the pH was <7.2 at the end.
This is also what I was reading in all the papers the last hour: IPSB simply dissolve the bound phosphate by releasing acids, therefor pushing pH down.
There was one paper about the caries-analogy you made (https://touroscholar.touro.edu/sjlcas/vol5/iss1/5/). They tested the growth of caries inducing bacteria by adding sugar but controlling pH and in another trial by only adding sugar without pH control. The bacteria could only substantially multiply in the experiment without pH control.
Bacteria seem to have a sweet spot pH level. They can adapt to alkaline or acidic environments but seem to only be able to thrive in one or the other because they use different mechanisms in both environments to sustain their in-cell pH level. In a low alkaline to neutral environment of a coral tissue there seems to be little space for an acidic region for the bacteria to live in. But it seems that IPSB would need the acidic environment. In nature they would probably be able to form larger clusters in less turbulent zones (sediment) to achieve that.

Later, after settled down and dissolved by bacteria it shows up in test results. This is something we state in the instructions, otherwise you couldn't find the increase in phosphate concentration.

I read the instructions and it states to increase dosage until a PO4 concentration of 0.05-0.15 mg/l is reached (at least after 4 weeks). I could achieve this also by dosing a liquid. Would I not get the same result then? And would the reason for healthy corals in both cases be the availability of inorganic orthophosphate within an ideal concentration range? This is also the question of the topic: Would a liquid additive do the same as the particulate phosphate? On which your answer seems to be:

I have seen a difference to dissolved phosphate during application i. e. in more regular coral growth with insoluble particulate phosphate.

This is also mentioned on the TM research page you linked. And you provide a paper for this (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-92276-y). They test two scenarios: steady elevated nutrients vs pulsed nutrients (same level as elevated but only for 30min twice a day). The problem I would have with this is the PO4 level they chose: 10 µmol/l. This would be around 1mg/l PO4 which is way above anything we would aim for in our tanks. The control on the other hand was receiving an average of 0.03mg/l which is on the lower end of recommended concentrations. Unfortunately there is no case in which they tried slightly elevated levels like we have in our tanks. This might have given the advantages of the elevated PO4 without the disadvantages of the high concentrations (since PO4 is also considered a skeletal poison that could hinder calcification).

The only reason that organisms such as people and fish and even sea cumbers can take advantage of PIP is that the low pH of the GI tract allows it to dissolve.

Maybe this is already summarizing everything I was reading the past hours

Disclaimer: I am not a biologist or chemist, just curious and currently have a hard time with phosphates in my new fishless nano (I actually always had these PO4 problems...). That's why I am interested and also why I bought the Phos Start product. Everything I write here could include mistakes/misconceptions and should be taken with a grain of salt. Corrections are welcome!

 

[Hans-Werner]

I don't agree. The only reason that organisms such as people and fish and even sea cumbers can take advantage of PIP is that the low pH of the GI tract allows it to dissolve. The reason it dissolves in sediments is low pH.

Corals do not have a low pH place for that to take place, and Windemann were clearly intending the comment to relate to corals.

The ability of corals to dissolve PIP is still under investigation. Newer literature on coral probiotics, Beneficial Microorganisms for Corals (BMCs), are screening and investigating for the ability of bacteria to improve coral phosphate nutrition:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095809922005653

Shifting the microbiome of a coral holobiont and improving host physiology by inoculation with a potentially beneficial bacterial consortium - BMC Microbiology

Background The coral microbiome plays a key role in host health by being involved in energy metabolism, nutrient cycling, and immune system formation. Inoculating coral with beneficial bacterial consortia may enhance the ability of this host to cope with complex and changing marine environments...

bmcmicrobiol.biomedcentral.com

I am quite sure we will see. According to my experiments, PIP had a beneficial effect.

Our experimental tanks are bare bottom tanks and nevertheless saw an increase of phosphate concentration up to 0.3 ppm where I stopped.

Although the pH in the fluid of the gastral cavity of corals may not be low enough to dissolve PIP, in microenvironments in the slime coating of the gastral cavity and maybe on the surface of the corals the pH may be lower, low enough to dissolve PIP.

The problem I would have with this is the PO4 level they chose: 10 µmol/l. This would be around 1mg/l PO4 which is way above anything we would aim for in our tanks.

"Interestingly, corals naturally receive episodic pulses of nutrients several times higher than the background concentrations in the overlying waters, delivered to reefs by diurnal activities of fish and other aquatic organisms 36–38, as well as seabirds 39, 40. These nutrient influxes are dynamic and temporal, and usually reflect the diurnal migratory and feeding behaviour of fish 36–38. The efficient nutrient uptake by corals
could allow them to capitalize on episodic high nutrient influxes available in the waste products of organisms that live in close proximity 37, 41, 42. Contrary to the negative effects of anthropogenic eutrophication on coral physiology, corals exposed to these temporary and natural nutrient pulses showed increased tissue thickness, CaCO3 accretion and skeletal expansion rates 38, 43, 44"

This didn't answer your question? The excretions of fishes and seabirds create temporary high nutrient environments that may be much higher in phosphate. This is what we think we imitate with Phos-Start and Phos-Feed. In fact directly after application of Phos-Feed the phosphate concentration created by the suspended PIP in the water is quite high but will drop after the phosphate particles are cleared out of the water.

There was one paper about the caries-analogy you made (https://touroscholar.touro.edu/sjlcas/vol5/iss1/5/). They tested the growth of caries inducing bacteria by adding sugar but controlling pH and in another trial by only adding sugar without pH control. The bacteria could only substantially multiply in the experiment without pH control.
Bacteria seem to have a sweet spot pH level. They can adapt to alkaline or acidic environments but seem to only be able to thrive in one or the other because they use different mechanisms in both environments to sustain their in-cell pH level. In a low alkaline to neutral environment of a coral tissue there seems to be little space for an acidic region for the bacteria to live in. But it seems that IPSB would need the acidic environment. In nature they would probably be able to form larger clusters in less turbulent zones (sediment) to achieve that.

The pH in the saliva is neutral to slightly acidic, not low enough to dissolve the phosphate mineral of the teeth. The bacteria create the acidic microenvironment in biofilms due to fermentation of sugar that allows them to dissolve the enamel.

Fermentation with the excretion of organic acids is energetically not a very favourable metabolic pathway. Possibly the organic acids are excreted to make the PIP of the teeth bioavailable for increased growth of Streptococcus or just for excluding completition.

I expect that in coral mucus similar microenvironment with local low pH are found. The scientists looking for new coral probiotics seem to expect the same too. The gastral cavity would be the first place to look because it is an semi-closed environment with reduced turbulence. However, because of hydrodynamic effects expressed by Reynolds numbers, at very small scales the turbulence may be much reduced anyway.

The articles on coral probiotics state that in healthy corals IPSB have been found. If your conclusion is true for other IPSB than Streptococcus mutans, it would mean there are (micro-)environments in corals that are acidic.

 

[Tavero]

The ability of corals to dissolve PIP is still under investigation. Newer literature on coral probiotics, Beneficial Microorganisms for Corals (BMCs), are screening and investigating for the ability of bacteria to improve coral phosphate nutrition:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095809922005653

Shifting the microbiome of a coral holobiont and improving host physiology by inoculation with a potentially beneficial bacterial consortium - BMC Microbiology

Background The coral microbiome plays a key role in host health by being involved in energy metabolism, nutrient cycling, and immune system formation. Inoculating coral with beneficial bacterial consortia may enhance the ability of this host to cope with complex and changing marine environments...

bmcmicrobiol.biomedcentral.com

I am quite sure we will see. According to my experiments, PIP had a beneficial effect.

Our experimental tanks are bare bottom tanks and nevertheless saw an increase of phosphate concentration up to 0.3 ppm where I stopped.

Although the pH in the fluid of the gastral cavity of corals may not be low enough to dissolve PIP, in microenvironments in the slime coating of the gastral cavity and maybe on the surface of the corals the pH may be lower, low enough to dissolve PIP.

Interestingly, corals naturally receive episodic pulses of nutrients several times higher than the background concentrations in the overlying waters, delivered to reefs by diurnal activities of fish and other aquatic organisms 36–38, as well as seabirds 39, 40. These nutrient influxes are dynamic and temporal, and usually reflect the diurnal migratory and feeding behaviour of fish 36–38. The efficient nutrient uptake by corals
could allow them to capitalize on episodic high nutrient influxes available in the waste products of organisms
that live in close proximity 37, 41, 42. Contrary to the negative effects of anthropogenic eutrophication on coral
physiology, corals exposed to these temporary and natural nutrient pulses showed increased tissue thickness,
CaCO3 accretion and skeletal expansion rates 38, 43, 44

This didn't answer your question? The excretions of fishes and seabirds create temporary high nutrient environments that may be much higher in phosphate. This is what we think we imitate with Phos-Start and Phos-Feed. In fact directly after application of Phos-Feed the phosphate concentration created by the suspended PIP in the water is quite high but will drop after the phosphate particles are cleared out of the water.


The pH in the saliva is neutral to slightly acidic, not low enough to dissolve the phosphate mineral of the teeth. The bacteria create the acidic microenvironment in biofilms due to fermentation of sugar that allows them to dissolve the enamel.

Fermentation with the excretion of organic acids is energetically not a very favourable metabolic pathway. Possibly the organic acids are excreted to make the PIP of the teeth bioavailable for increased growth of Streptococcus or just for excluding completition.

I expect that in coral mucus similar microenvironment with local low pH are found. The scientists looking for new coral probiotics seem to expect the same too. The gastral cavity would be the first place to look because it is an semi-closed environment with reduced turbulence. However, because of hydrodynamic effects expressed by Reynolds numbers, at very small scales the turbulence may be much reduced anyway.

The articles on coral probiotics state that in healthy corals IPSB have been found. If your conclusion is true for other IPSB than Streptococcus mutans, it would mean there are (micro-)environments in corals that are acidic.

There is a lot of text in your posts so I'm sorry if I missed something but have you tested your claims? I don't see any scientifically designed experiments.

Product vs foods vs dissolved phosphate in practical concentration? Then measure the weight of the corals to compare growth? Compare algae growth.
If the product is really doing what you claim it is doing, this shouldn't be hard to prove, and would give you strong arguments against the skeptics here.

But showing some pics of several mixed reefs won't prove anything same with posting publications that don't fit our use cases.

 

[GARRIGA]

My understanding. It mimics fish poop on the reef. Why not then have more fish, feed them more often and produce more poop naturally considering filtration has gotten to a point we add more phosphates and nitrates to keep our systems from bottoming out.

 

[Tavero]

My understanding. It mimics fish poop on the reef. Why not then have more fish, feed them more often and produce more poop naturally considering filtration has gotten to a point we add more phosphates and nitrates to keep our systems from bottoming out.

It doesn't though. There are no simple sugars alcohols or organic acids inside that product. Hans Werner said this himself.

Some tanks aren't suitable for hosting more fish. That's why many of us that have heavily stocked tanks with corals dose dissolved nutrients.

 

[GARRIGA]

It doesn't though. There are no simple sugars alcohols or organic acids inside that product. Hans Werner said this himself.

Some tanks aren't suitable for hosting more fish. That's why many of us that have heavily stocked tanks with corals dose dissolved nutrients.

More feedings solves not able to have more fish. For example, pound fed to 10 fish approximately equates to same amount of nitrogen and phosphorus introduced if pound fed to 5 fish. Still a pound of food introduced.

My point being that if this mimics fish waste than to some extent we can solve with fish waste. Plus added carbon dosing to solve that extra fish food producing fish waste would increase the volume of bacteria that would feed corals. At least how I'm interpreting it plus corals might eat directly that additional food fed.