Thoughts about PO4 (particulate vs liquid)

[Hans-Werner]

There are no simple sugars alcohols or organic acids inside that product. Hans Werner said this himself.

... but fish poop does? ...

Compared to algae the highest concentration in fish poop is phosphate, severalfold higher than in algae of the different groups.

 

[Tavero]

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.

Sorry but that simply isn't true. Maybe you can solve it with fish waste but not we.
Some nutrient limited tanks with a lot of corals can't maintain more fish. And feeding more primarily leads to overweight fish more bristle worms ,or other food limited pest and a lot of detrius.

 

[Pod_01]

My point being that if this mimics fish waste than to some extent we can solve with fish waste.

I believe the Phos Start is to be used when you start with brand new tank, not many corals or fish, dry rock so it gets you going in the right direction. The PO4 in the product should not be encouraging algae like liquid based PO4.

PhosFeed seems to be for cases when you have PO4 limitations. More fish or more feeding might not always solve this without leading to other issues. Also some reefers want corals and not the fish so this might work.

I can see use for both products. It is evolution of just dosing liquid PO4/ liquid fertilizer into the reef tank. I don’t think it is magic potion to solve all the reef issues. Also seasoned reefers might have no use for these products.
Lucky me, by the time this becomes available where I am there should be enough user feedback to see if it works.

 

[GARRIGA]

Sorry but that simply isn't true. Maybe you can solve it with fish waste but not we.
Some nutrient limited tanks with a lot of corals can't maintain more fish. And feeding more primarily leads to overweight fish more bristle worms ,or other food limited pest and a lot of detrius.

Fish grace all day on the reef. That's just facts but perhaps best you reef as you see fit. I'm simply equating this product to fish waste. Along with answering your pause based on limited fish which I don't agree is an issue and obviously neither will change the other's mind on this.

 

[GARRIGA]

I believe the Phos Start is to be used when you start with brand new tank, not many corals or fish, dry rock so it gets you going in the right direction. The PO4 in the product should not be encouraging algae like liquid based PO4.

PhosFeed seems to be for cases when you have PO4 limitations. More fish or more feeding might not always solve this without leading to other issues. Also some reefers want corals and not the fish so this might work.

I can see use for both products. It is evolution of just dosing liquid PO4/ liquid fertilizer into the reef tank. I don’t think it is magic potion to solve all the reef issues. Also seasoned reefers might have no use for these products.
Lucky me, by the time this becomes available where I am there should be enough user feedback to see if it works.

Based on what I've seen. This isn't to solve phosphate limited but as a better conveyor for getting the needed phosphates to the corals who are inefficient at pulling it from solution. Therefore regardless of zero or more than needed the corals can't access what we test. Not sure on the start and focused on the maintenance product where I see normal fish poop solving the same issue in a delivery form of particulate phosphate. I'm also seeing normal feed as another equal solution since that also contains particulate phosphate unless this product provides a form of particulate phosphate that neither poop or food would.

 

[Pod_01]

This isn't to solve phosphate limited but as a better conveyor for getting the needed phosphates to the corals who are inefficient at pulling it from solution.

Interesting, I think it is the opposite.

If you have thriving reef, why would you add additional form of PO4? If you have enough, more PO4 can lead to algae issues etc... The corals may prefer the new source, but the other sources will now accumulate.

I do not believe more equals better. I tried that method and more of coral food eventually killed some of my corals, just like reducing it to zero.
From my experience / observation you want just enough to be limited. Surplus is not ideal for a reef tank.

I do understand there are reefs that have elevated PO4 levels, but they are run by knowledgeable reefers and are exception. I don’t think the elevated PO4 is the secret.

 

[jda]

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.

This is what I was speaking about with one of my first few posts. TM folks say these things, but offer nothing. I do not want them to divulge any secrets, but the don't even have a few sentences to describe the baseline, control and results of anything. It appears that at-best they use them in some tanks and unless something goes haywire, they declare victory.

@Hans-Werner - read the room. Reefing has changed since Vibrant and fewer people are willing to just believe unsubstantiated claims anymore. This is just going to become more and more prevalent. I am trying to help you... you need to re think what you are doing. You have made some good stuff. What happened? Get ahead of this change in reefing culture.

@Randy Holmes-Farley - I think that I have read enough of you posts to perhaps have a good idea when you are irritated, disgusted or otherwise flummoxed. I feel you here. You are not alone. They ask for proof or reason, you give actual proof and reasons, but this is not good enough based on supposition or "under investigation" and otherwise nothing real. Hans-Werner just pretty much admitted that they developed a product with PIP with no actual scientific basis or proof and the best that they have is under investigation or maybe?

 

[Hans-Werner]

@Hans-Werner - read the room. Reefing has changed since Vibrant and fewer people are willing to just believe unsubstantiated claims anymore. This is just going to become more and more prevalent. I am trying to help you... you need to re think what you are doing. You have made some good stuff. What happened? Get ahead of this change in reefing culture.

I am sorry if you see it differently. I think I am still developing good products and I think we are still on top or maybe even ahead of scientific research.

Finally product development for me is and always was reading information, having a good idea, making sure it is quite "fool proof" since accidents and mistakes always happen, testing it for efficiency and optimizing the formula in tank experiments for maybe 2 years, sometimes longer, and then releasing it.

The "natural curve" is always an asymptotic approach to an optimum but never reaching it. In the beginning there are big steps in progress, later the steps get smaller the closer you get to optimum. In my eyes this development can hardly be avoided. You can't repeat the same progress in an advanced stadium that you made at the very beginning of a development.

 

[GARRIGA]

Interesting, I think it is the opposite.

If you have thriving reef, why would you add additional form of PO4? If you have enough, more PO4 can lead to algae issues etc... The corals may prefer the new source, but the other sources will now accumulate.

I do not believe more equals better. I tried that method and more of coral food eventually killed some of my corals, just like reducing it to zero.
From my experience / observation you want just enough to be limited. Surplus is not ideal for a reef tank.

I do understand there are reefs that have elevated PO4 levels, but they are run by knowledgeable reefers and are exception. I don’t think the elevated PO4 is the secret.

You’re not adding more phosphates to solution. This provides a different channel for corals to obtain their phosphorous.

Have you seen this?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

You’re not adding more phosphates to solution. This provides a different channel for corals to obtain their phosphorous.

It is an unproven hypothesis of TM that corals can use PIP.

Even testing that hypothesis is very challenging if you actually want to prove that corals use PIP directly and not incidentally get some dissolved P after it dissolved somewhere else in the system (such as in a low pH environment inside or outside of some other organism.

IMO, I don't see a mechanism whereby a coral without a low pH part of its digestive regions could use the P in calcium phosphate or apatite directly, but I'm open to hearing of one.

 

[GARRIGA]

It is an unproven hypothesis of TM that corals can use PIP.

Even testing that hypothesis is very challenging if you actually want to prove that corals use PIP directly and not incidentally get some dissolved P after it dissolved somewhere else in the system (such as in a low pH environment inside or outside of some other organism.

IMO, I don't see a mechanism whereby a coral without a low pH part of its digestive regions could use the P in calcium phosphate or apatite directly, but I'm open to hearing of one.

I’m not saying the hypothesis is accurate. Just stating that to me actual fish poop would also solve it. Assuming this was a valid channel for obtaining phosphorus

 

[Pod_01]

You’re not adding more phosphates to solution. This provides a different channel for corals to obtain their phosphorous.

Have you seen this?

No I have not but I will look at it when I have time. Thank you.

Just to clarify my comment why I don’t think this is for established reefs. If you have thriving reef tank and let’s say it consumes 10 units of PO4 so residuals don’t increase or decrease and you are at equilibrium (fish poop and feeding provides 10 units). You add this product and for discussion sake it adds 2 additional units but the reef only needs 10, you end up with surplus of 2 units that will likely show up on the test kit or lead to other undesirable things.
Your corals may prefer the new source and if they do the other PO4 has to go somewhere. If they don’t prefer the new source it still has to go someplace, we do have a closed box.

If the reef has enough PO4 adding more of other type of PO4 will not help. Corals had enough. I could be wrong.

Fish poop is good, assuming there is enough fish. Too much can be a problem as well, surplus is not always good.

 

[danimal1211]

I am sorry if you see it differently. I think I am still developing good products and I think we are still on top or maybe even ahead of scientific research.

Finally product development for me is and always was reading information, having a good idea, making sure it is quite "fool proof" since accidents and mistakes always happen, testing it for efficiency and optimizing the formula in tank experiments for maybe 2 years, sometimes longer, and then releasing it.

The "natural curve" is always an asymptotic approach to an optimum but never reaching it. In the beginning there are big steps in progress, later the steps get smaller the closer you get to optimum. In my eyes this development can hardly be avoided. You can't repeat the same progress in an advanced stadium that you made at the very beginning of a development.

I have little doubt you and everyone involved in product development are very proud and pleased with the result of the products you’ve developed. For us consumers though it is difficult to reconcile claims of said products being backed by scientific research when what is in said product isn’t divulged. It’s even more difficult to ascertain which of your products would suit an individual’s system best when you claim we shouldn’t be using simple carbon sources but instead should use bio polymers, when you won’t list which products have such ingredients. No one is asking for a recipe.

 

[GARRIGA]

No I have not but I will look at it when I have time. Thank you.

Just to clarify my comment why I don’t think this is for established reefs. If you have thriving reef tank and let’s say it consumes 10 units of PO4 so residuals don’t increase or decrease and you are at equilibrium (fish poop and feeding provides 10 units). You add this product and for discussion sake it adds 2 additional units but the reef only needs 10, you end up with surplus of 2 units that will likely show up on the test kit or lead to other undesirable things.
Your corals may prefer the new source and if they do the other PO4 has to go somewhere. If they don’t prefer the new source it still has to go someplace, we do have a closed box.

If the reef has enough PO4 adding more of other type of PO4 will not help. Corals had enough. I could be wrong.

Fish poop is good, assuming there is enough fish. Too much can be a problem as well, surplus is not always good.

I think the point TM is making is that regardless of PO4 levels measured the corals can't access what's in solution and they believe that providing it in particulate matter becomes more readily available. No clue to accuracy and just stating that were that true then I believe fish poop would also solve it since in that video Lou specifically shows a school of parrot fish pooping ( although that's likely mostly sand) and feel that their poop how the corals are fed. Again, no clue to accuracy and only saying that if accurate then it should also be solved via actual fish poop or additional feedings.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I’m not saying the hypothesis is accurate. Just stating that to me actual fish poop would also solve it. Assuming this was a valid channel for obtaining phosphorus

I have no issue with that. Fish poop is not mostly PIP (particulate inorganic phosphate). I expect the phosphate in it is nearly entirely DOP (dissolved organic phosphate) and POP (particulate organic phosphate), both of which can be much more easily accessed than PIP.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I think the point TM is making is that regardless of PO4 levels measured the corals can't access what's in solution and they believe that providing it in particulate matter becomes more readily available. No clue to accuracy and just stating that were that true then I believe fish poop would also solve it since in that video Lou specifically shows a school of parrot fish pooping ( although that's likely mostly sand) and feel that their poop how the corals are fed. Again, no clue to accuracy and only saying that if accurate then it should also be solved via actual fish poop or additional feedings.

Seems a huge leap from fish poop to dosing PIP.

 

[GARRIGA]

Seems a huge leap from fish poop to dosing PIP.

Agreed but I'm not making the jump. Just going with the example they used to substantiate their claims of corals taking it in particulate form vs in solution. I'm just rolling with the example being fish poop. Makes no sense to replicate that for those who have enough fish or can feed what they have enough to produce the phosphorous needed via poop. What that amount is still unknown to me but they seem to imply it's best obtained out of solution. Have searched for studies and found none although that's not my field of expertise and may not have access to those studies. Google my friend and governor of information.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Agreed but I'm not making the jump. Just going with the example they used to substantiate their claims of corals taking it in particulate form vs in solution. I'm just rolling with the example being fish poop. Makes no sense to replicate that for those who have enough fish or can feed what they have enough to produce the phosphorous needed via poop. What that amount is still unknown to me but they seem to imply it's best obtained out of solution. Have searched for studies and found none although that's not my field of expertise and may not have access to those studies. Google my friend and governor of information.

I understand, and I think particulate foods are the reason corals in the ocean thrive at levels of nitrate and phosphate where many folks do not see them thrive in a reef tank.

But those particulates are plankton (e.g., cyanobacteria, other bacteria, nano and picoflagellates, etc.).

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24867915

 

[jda]

I am sorry if you see it differently. I think I am still developing good products and I think we are still on top or maybe even ahead of scientific research.

I went to Engineering School, so please forgive that I do not know what "ahead of scientific research" means. What does this mean? The only places where I see this used are in spots where science has weighed in and whomever uttered the term "ahead of science" does not agree. Paranormal, tarot card readers, many different flavors of an afterlife, horoscopes, fortune cookies an the like.

We are not talking about something that science has not just looked at yet. Science has weighed in on PIP being usable by corals and real experiments were conducted and found that it does not happen. How can you be ahead of them? It is Ok if you have a theory or want to believe that they are wrong, but this is not the context in which you label your products or speak on here like they are absolutes.

You have pretty much confirmed my comments for the last few years that you have no labs, but instead scan the literature for ideas, put some stuff in a bottle, use it for a while to make sure that it does not crash anything and then sell it. I hope that you step back and reassess how you fit into the hobby moving forward. More and more people are looking into things before they trust a manufacturer or product and you last few batches of products are suspect.

 

[jda]

Agreed but I'm not making the jump. Just going with the example they used to substantiate their claims of corals taking it in particulate form vs in solution. I'm just rolling with the example being fish poop. Makes no sense to replicate that for those who have enough fish or can feed what they have enough to produce the phosphorous needed via poop. What that amount is still unknown to me but they seem to imply it's best obtained out of solution. Have searched for studies and found none although that's not my field of expertise and may not have access to those studies. Google my friend and governor of information.

Hosts recycling energy and building blocks for their symbionts, and themselves, is part of the picture. Most of the rest is from particulate sources, but always organic. Most phosphorous is going to come from live (maybe some dead, but mostly live) micro organisms that get caught and assimilated in the slime coat. These come from the rocks and sand near the bases moreso than the tops where the corals have grown to form a type of shield where waves cannot break them apart. Polyp eating is not as efficient except in NPS corals.

Some of the organic micro things require light. Some of them are algae based, yet people cut that spectrum for some unknown reason. Some of them need mature live rock and sand, but people don't often want these anymore either.

You like do way more for your corals to increase the diversity and live in the ecosystem if you think that particulates matter. ...you can feed your fish more too which as long as you don't let waste products rise too much has no downside.