0.00 Phosphates

[Uncle Salty 05]

Snap it up then.

 

[EddieJ]

i am using the hanna photometer H-713. Not the checker as I erroneously mentioned before.

If I understand you correctly, this means that there is no point in checking for Phosphates when I have too much algae. I first have to looking into correcting the algae problem. Once it gets lot less visible, then the test meters start to register them much more accurately. Is my understanding correct?

That's correct. I would up the GFO amount and monitor the effluent from your GFO reactor with that photometer. This should read .03 and below, closer to zero. Remember there is like a +-of .04 or so on the meter, so look for a consistent reading and watch for it to increase. When it starts to increase change out the GFO. I am in the camp that refugiums are usually very ineffective at the size most aquarist run them. They are a great home for pods and the like, but you really have to create some large refugiums for them to be anywhere as effective as GFO for PO4 reduction. Allot of the time they themselves become nutrient sinks and add to the problem.

 

[Uncle Salty 05]

I am in the camp that refugiums are usually very ineffective at the size most aquarist run them. They are a great home for pods and the like, but you really have to create some large refugiums for them to be anywhere as effective as GFO for PO4 reduction. Allot of the time they themselves become nutrient sinks and add to the problem.

You are in the wrong camp.
I have a 180 DT and constantly had 20-25ppm of nitrate until I added a 20 long refugium. Within a few weeks my nitrates were zero and have staid there ever since.
ANYTHING that is not properly maintained becomes a nutrient sink.
Keep a refugium clean and it will never contribute to a nutrient problem.

 

[Reefin' Dude]

I would ditch the GFO and set up an intensely lit refugium.
GFO is iron - algae food.
I tried it and did not like the results. Julian Sprung agrees.

Hmm. first time hearing this.

GFO- Granular Ferric Oxide. ask any FW planted aquarium owner about the uses of Iron in keeping planted tanks

You are in the wrong camp.
I have a 180 DT and constantly had 20-25ppm of nitrate until I added a 20 long refugium. Within a few weeks my nitrates were zero and have staid there ever since.
ANYTHING that is not properly maintained becomes a nutrient sink.
Keep a refugium clean and it will never contribute to a nutrient problem.

by definition a live sump (refugium) is a nutrient sink. it collects nutrients, then hides them in either a substrate or temporarily locks them up in a biomass. as long as the nutrients are still in the system, their is potential for them to become available again. the system is becoming eutrophic until the biomass or binding agents are exported.

aravindk- go after the source of the phosphate, the detritus. create an area where you can easily siphon out any detritus that accumulates from the rest of the system. make the tank work for you. detritus accumulates in the areas of lowest flow. if the display has more flow in it then this area, the detritus will settle there, at which point you can siphon it out. the other tools mentioned go after the phosphates only after everything else in the tank has had first crack at them. hence the reason why your phosphate readings are 0.00 yet you still see algae growth.

G~

 

[ek9vboi]

I wouldn't take the GFO off cold turkey. Slowly take it out of the system as it still is doing work on removing stuff. Add the refugium and use some rocks/rubble and cheato with a 23w or whatever spiral CF bulb that puts out "100w" according to them along with a reflector.

Take your time and don't rush into it as these problems came up over time and not right away.

 

[Uncle Salty 05]

by definition a live sump (refugium) is a nutrient sink. it collects nutrients, then hides them in either a substrate or temporarily locks them up in a biomass. as long as the nutrients are still in the system, their is potential for them to become available again. the system is becoming eutrophic until the biomass or binding agents are exported.
G~

Once more, completely untrue.
A refugium is an area where macro-algae and pods can grow in the abscence of predators.
The substrate in a refugium should be periodically cleaned in small areas at a time just like any other substrate.
Once the phosphates and nitrates are absorded by the macro-algae they stay there until you remove/harvest them.
Sure if you set up a refugium and then forget about it, it will becopme a nutrient sink just like anything else. Maintenance, maintenance, maintenance.

 

[aravindk]

GFO- Granular Ferric Oxide. ask any FW planted aquarium owner about the uses of Iron in keeping planted tanks

Thanks. What I meant to say was that I am hearing the first time that GFO causes algae growth. My understanding thus far has been that GFO being a rust based product and as rust has proven to be binding phosphates successfully, using GFO reduces Phosphates in an aquarium. Algae is a symptom of high phosphates in an aquarium. By treating the underlying disease, the symptoms should eventually disappear. That is the conventional wisdom at least.

Rust being an iron based product, does it unwittingly helps algae grow? I am not going to argue.

To think this differently, now that the phosphates are 0 in my tank, GFO does more hurting than helping by fueling algae growth. So should I take the GFO down and continue to monitor for Phosphates? May be that'll what I will do.

I am in the camp that refugiums are usually very ineffective at the size most aquarist run them. They are a great home for pods and the like, but you really have to create some large refugiums for them to be anywhere as effective as GFO for PO4 reduction. Allot of the time they themselves become nutrient sinks and add to the problem.

I do have a pretty large fuge. 75g fuge for a 180g tank. Keeping them clean is a different story. I don't usually do much of maintenance work on the sump or fuge. May be it is time to look into that.

Thank you for all the suggestions. Keep them coming.

 

[Uncle Salty 05]

To clean the substrate in a refgium siphon a small portion (say 1/4 or less) all the way to the bottom glass into a bucket. You will be amazed at how much gunk is in there. Let the water in the bucket settle and clear and using your finger tips salvage as many pods and worms etc. and put them back into the refugium. By doing small portions you give the cleaned area time to bounce back before you do the next section. You should wait at least two weeks between sections.
The whole purpose of having macro-algae in a refugium is to remove it as grows, thereby removing the nutrients it has absorbed.
The word ferric is derived from the Latin word "ferrum" for iron.
Iron is an essential nutrient to all plants, icluding algae.

The impact of increasing the bioavailability of iron was famously demonstrated by an experiment where a large area of the ocean surface was sprayed with iron salts. After several days, the phytoplankton within the treated area bloomed to such an extent that the effect was visible from outer space.

 

[Reefin' Dude]

Once more, completely untrue.
A refugium is an area where macro-algae and pods can grow in the abscence of predators.
The substrate in a refugium should be periodically cleaned in small areas at a time just like any other substrate.
Once the phosphates and nitrates are absorded by the macro-algae they stay there until you remove/harvest them.
Sure if you set up a refugium and then forget about it, it will becopme a nutrient sink just like anything else. Maintenance, maintenance, maintenance.

how does a live sump function? how is it designed? it is a low flow area in which detritus is allowed to collect. how is this not a nutrient sink? the presence of algae growing there proves this.

as for the definition of refugium, we can go into that also if you would like. i think the word refugium is completely misleading, that is why i said live sump. by definition it is a place for an organism to be safe from predation. what if you put your Chaeto in the display what will happen? will it be eaten? if not, then why just growing it in the display? if you do not like the look of it, that is fine, but it is not there because it is in harms way. what you have is a live sump. an area where you are creating a different environment in which to grow something else. you are collecting detritus in a local area in which to increase the nutrient levels in that local area to support this organism. it is habitat based not predatory based. it could be both, but in the majority of the references in this and other forums it is not.

the reason the pods are there are not because of a lack of predation, but also because of the increase in nutrients in the given area. if you were to raise the nutrient levels in the display to those in the live sump, you will also see an increase in the amount of pods. as with bacteria (remember that conversation) an organisms limiting factor is available food. no food, no pods. lots of food, lots of pods. more basic biology.

Once the phosphates and nitrates are absorded by the macro-algae they stay there until you remove/harvest them.

you are correct, but until they are exported the nutrients are still in the system and have the potential to become available if anything were to happen to either the substrate or the algae, lets say power outage, bulb blowing. the potential for sudden influx of nutrients is still there. until the substrate or macro is exported the total system is becoming more eutrophic. how is this not a nutrient sink. i would like to know what your definition of a nutrient sink is?

please, if in the future if you feel like saying i am wrong, post references for how i am wrong. i could very well have missed some info through all of my research and time being an aquarist. i am all about reading more to learn more. i have posted why i said what i have said. feel free to explain your position and how what i said is wrong. everybody, i do not care who you are, or what forum you are on, should be expected to post references and reasoning on why they posted their suggestion. it is then up to the thread originator to make the final decision. until the original poster has gathered all of the information they feel they need, or the forum has run out of information to give, can they make a educated decision. the whole point of these forums is to learn more about the hobby and hopefully keep the hobby viable by lessening the amount of organism mortality.

Thanks. What I meant to say was that I am hearing the first time that GFO causes algae growth. My understanding thus far has been that GFO being a rust based product and as rust has proven to be binding phosphates successfully, using GFO reduces Phosphates in an aquarium. Algae is a symptom of high phosphates in an aquarium. By treating the underlying disease, the symptoms should eventually disappear. That is the conventional wisdom at least.

Rust being an iron based product, does it unwittingly helps algae grow? I am not going to argue.

To think this differently, now that the phosphates are 0 in my tank, GFO does more hurting than helping by fueling algae growth. So should I take the GFO down and continue to monitor for Phosphates? May be that'll what I will do.



I do have a pretty large fuge. 75g fuge for a 180g tank. Keeping them clean is a different story. I don't usually do much of maintenance work on the sump or fuge. May be it is time to look into that.

Thank you for all the suggestions. Keep them coming.

GFO will get into the system just from simple mechanical grinding of replacing and adding more to the container. it just happens. socks and the like keep the vast majority of it out of the system, but there are always bits smaller than the socks can catch. it is all about risk management. in general GFO is fine, but like anything there are always pros and cons.

here is an extreme example of what happens when significant amounts of Fe can get into the system.

this was caused by well water getting into my system from malfunctioning RO/DI filter that i did not catch for quite a while.

will you see something like this, i really doubt it. it is good to know however that Fe is important for plant growth and that if it becomes available it will help algae grow if not limiting.

G~

 

[Uncle Salty 05]

how does a live sump function? how is it designed? it is a low flow area in which detritus is allowed to collect. how is this not a nutrient sink? the presence of algae growing there proves this.

Detritus only collects if you let it. Keep it clean.
Algae growing there proves that there are nutrients in the water column, not just the refugium.

as for the definition of refugium, we can go into that also if you would like. i think the word refugium is completely misleading, that is why i said live sump. by definition it is a place for an organism to be safe from predation. what if you put your Chaeto in the display what will happen? will it be eaten? if not, then why just growing it in the display? if you do not like the look of it, that is fine, but it is not there because it is in harms way. what you have is a live sump. an area where you are creating a different environment in which to grow something else. you are collecting detritus in a local area in which to increase the nutrient levels in that local area to support this organism. it is habitat based not predatory based. it could be both, but in the majority of the references in this and other forums it is not.

Malarki!

the reason the pods are there are not because of a lack of predation, but also because of the increase in nutrients in the given area. if you were to raise the nutrient levels in the display to those in the live sump, you will also see an increase in the amount of pods. as with bacteria (remember that conversation) an organisms limiting factor is available food. no food, no pods. lots of food, lots of pods. more basic biology.

Malarki! Lack of predation is the only reason pods grow in great numbers in a refugium. Drop a Mandarin Goby into a refugium and see how long the pods last, regardless of the food available to them.



you are correct, but until they are exported the nutrients are still in the system and have the potential to become available if anything were to happen to either the substrate or the algae, lets say power outage, bulb blowing. the potential for sudden influx of nutrients is still there. until the substrate or macro is exported the total system is becoming more eutrophic. how is this not a nutrient sink. i would like to know what your definition of a nutrient sink is?

A nutrient sink is any area or piece of equipment that is not properly maintained.

please, if in the future if you feel like saying i am wrong, post references for how i am wrong.

I believe I have done so, repeatedly.



GFO will get into the system just from simple mechanical grinding of replacing and adding more to the container. it just happens. socks and the like keep the vast majority of it out of the system, but there are always bits smaller than the socks can catch. it is all about risk management. in general GFO is fine, but like anything there are always pros and cons.


here is an extreme example of what happens when significant amounts of Fe can get into the system.

this was caused by well water getting into my system from malfunctioning RO/DI filter that i did not catch for quite a while.

will you see something like this, i really doubt it. it is good to know however that Fe is important for plant growth and that if it becomes available it will help algae grow if not limiting.

G~

 

[Reefin' Dude]

mercy, you do make things difficult to read, don't you.

areas where detritus is able to collect are the nutrient sinks of the system. these areas can absolutely be kept clean, but it does not change the fact that they are still where the detritus collects and are therefore the nutrient sinks for the system. whether or not something is a sink has nothing to do with whether or not it is maintained. it is a place where nutrients collect. this is an online definition i have found. detritus will collect somewhere. it is always being produced. no way to stop it. a byproduct of a properly functioning system.

pods. you can not say predation is the ONLY reason why pods will not grow in great numbers in a display. THAT IS JUST NOT TRUE AND YOU KNOW IT! lets put that mandarin you mention in a live sump, do you think it would do better than if it were in a display? why? what do the pods feed on? where would more of this pod food stock be located, the live sump or the display? the two main limits for pods in our systems is food availability and predation, with the ultimate limit being food availability. some of us do not have critters that eat pods. if the display is full of nutrients, then there will plenty of pods for a mandarin to eat. you may not like the way the display will looks, but you will have the pods. pods are like algae. they are an indicator of the nutrient levels in the system. that is all they are. if you want them that is great if not, great. i know in my systems, i did not have many pods at all, either in the display or in my sump (i do not believe in using live sumps, i do however think true refugiums can be a useful tool for those that want to keep a lot of different critters that require the same environment all on one system). in fact, when i saw a lot of pods, i knew something was amiss. that was my goal for my system. if your goal is a more eutrophic display, then you will have more pods. is one better than the other, no. it is what ever the ultimate vision of the aquarist is, that counts.

this all boils down to how phosphates become available to the water column. we know that algae/bacteria quickly use up any easily available phosphates. we see this in this thread. zero phosphate reading, but algae. creating a live sump creates an area where the detritus is allowed to collect (a purpose built sink), then rot, then feed macro/bacteria/pods in order to collect the free phosphates before they make their way back to the display, correct? this "works" because we are creating a bigger sink that is maintainable compared to those areas in the display that are not. a phosphate arms race.

that is a good start for saying how i might be wrong, could you please do this in the other thread about how bacterial populations are also ultimately not limited by their available food, but are limited on the amount of surface area they have, and the fact that they do not colonize?

G~

 

[Uncle Salty 05]

mercy, you do make things difficult to read, don't you.

Sorry, I am not real computer savvy.
They were not around when I grew up

areas where detritus is able to collect are the nutrient sinks of the system. these areas can absolutely be kept clean, but it does not change the fact that they are still where the detritus collects and are therefore the nutrient sinks for the system. whether or not something is a sink has nothing to do with whether or not it is maintained. it is a place where nutrients collect. this is an online definition i have found. detritus will collect somewhere. it is always being produced. no way to stop it. a byproduct of a properly functioning system.

Again, Malarki!
A reef tank with adequate flow will not collect detritus anywhere but the sump, (the whole gravity thing) where it can be easily removed.
Did I mention maintenance?

[/QUOTE]
pods. you can not say predation is the ONLY reason why pods will not grow in great numbers in a display. THAT IS JUST NOT TRUE AND YOU KNOW IT! lets put that mandarin you mention in a live sump, do you think it would do better than if it were in a display? why? what do the pods feed on? where would more of this pod food stock be located, the live sump or the display? the two main limits for pods in our systems is food availability and predation, with the ultimate limit being food availability. some of us do not have critters that eat pods. if the display is full of nutrients, then there will plenty of pods for a mandarin to eat. you may not like the way the display will looks, but you will have the pods. pods are like algae. they are an indicator of the nutrient levels in the system. that is all they are. if you want them that is great if not, great. i know in my systems, i did not have many pods at all, either in the display or in my sump (i do not believe in using live sumps, i do however think true refugiums can be a useful tool for those that want to keep a lot of different critters that require the same environment all on one system). in fact, when i saw a lot of pods, i knew something was amiss. that was my goal for my system. if your goal is a more eutrophic display, then you will have more pods. is one better than the other, no. it is what ever the ultimate vision of the aquarist is, that counts. [/QUOTE]
Oh Contrare!
That IS true and I know it. I have a Mandarin in my 180 DT and he does just fine on the pods being produced in my refugium, because he cannot consume them where they live and breed.
If you don't have many pods try feeding some phytoplankton like Phyto Feast and watch them take off.
[/QUOTE]
this all boils down to how phosphates become available to the water column. we know that algae/bacteria quickly use up any easily available phosphates. we see this in this thread. zero phosphate reading, but algae. creating a live sump creates an area where the detritus is allowed to collect (a purpose built sink), then rot, then feed macro/bacteria/pods in order to collect the free phosphates before they make their way back to the display, correct? this "works" because we are creating a bigger sink that is maintainable compared to those areas in the display that are not. a phosphate arms race.
[/QUOTE]
You are correct in that it boils down to phosphates in the water column, but you are way off opn how they get there. All food going into the tank contains phosphate, especially flakes and pellets. That is why I feed them sparingly.
[/QUOTE]

that is a good start for saying how i might be wrong, could you please do this in the other thread about how bacterial populations are also ultimately not limited by their available food, but are limited on the amount of surface area they have, and the fact that they do not colonize?

G~[/QUOTE]

To which thread do you refer?

 

[Reefin' Dude]

Sorry, I am not real computer savvy.
They were not around when I grew up

Again, Malarki!
A reef tank with adequate flow will not collect detritus anywhere but the sump, (the whole gravity thing) where it can be easily removed.
Did I mention maintenance?

water velocity determines where the detritus will accumulate. the gravity is just as strong in the display as it is in the sump. gravity is exactly the reason why substrates slowly fill with detritus. if you have a substrate in your display, it has detritus in it. even if you siphon it clean regularly the bacterial action on the substrate will create detritus in the sand. darn phosphate loving calcium carbonate. unfortunately no way around it. you can come very close if ALL of the substrate is accessible and cleaned regularly. those areas that are not easily accessible are where the majority of the nutrients are accumulating. that whole gravity thing you were talking about earlier. substrates limit the amount of flow that one can maintain in a display. some detritus is just as heavy if not heavier than a grain of sand. unless you like the look of moving dunes it will be impossible to keep detritus from accumulating on the substrate somewhere. it is this detritus and those that get caught in eddy flows that cause substrates to slowly fill with detritus. slowly making the system more eutrophic.

a tank without a substrate, limited LR structure, and significant flow will accumulate very little detritus in the display. the more stuff that is added the more difficult it becomes to achieve this. i am not saying it is impossible to have a substrate and a have very little accumulated detritus, i am just saying that more thought has to be put into ways to keep the substrate clean, than if it was completely empty.

pods. you can not say predation is the ONLY reason why pods will not grow in great numbers in a display. THAT IS JUST NOT TRUE AND YOU KNOW IT! lets put that mandarin you mention in a live sump, do you think it would do better than if it were in a display? why? what do the pods feed on? where would more of this pod food stock be located, the live sump or the display? the two main limits for pods in our systems is food availability and predation, with the ultimate limit being food availability. some of us do not have critters that eat pods. if the display is full of nutrients, then there will plenty of pods for a mandarin to eat. you may not like the way the display will looks, but you will have the pods. pods are like algae. they are an indicator of the nutrient levels in the system. that is all they are. if you want them that is great if not, great. i know in my systems, i did not have many pods at all, either in the display or in my sump (i do not believe in using live sumps, i do however think true refugiums can be a useful tool for those that want to keep a lot of different critters that require the same environment all on one system). in fact, when i saw a lot of pods, i knew something was amiss. that was my goal for my system. if your goal is a more eutrophic display, then you will have more pods. is one better than the other, no. it is what ever the ultimate vision of the aquarist is, that counts.

Oh Contrare!
That IS true and I know it. I have a Mandarin in my 180 DT and he does just fine on the pods being produced in my refugium, because he cannot consume them where they live and breed.
If you don't have many pods try feeding some phytoplankton like Phyto Feast and watch them take off.

put a net on your return outlet into the display and let me know how many pods make the trip in 24 hours, or even a week. a mandarin has evolved to do just that. eat pods where they live and breed. within LR rubble. if the pods are there the mandarin will get to them. i am sure the mandarin is feeding off of the pods that are available in your display.

as for the phosphates in a bottle. i would never recommend phytoplankton to anybody. blender mush is the best food i have found for feeding an entire system. phytoplankton is just miracle grow in a nice green package. would you put plant fertilizer in your system? if anybody is concerned about phosphate levels, they should not feed phytoplankton. i am sure you have read the DIY's on making your own. how are these phosphates and nitrates not getting into your system? the reason why the pods take off show exactly what i am saying. pods are nothing more than an indicator of nutrient levels. the more nutrients you put into the system the more pods you will have.

this all boils down to how phosphates become available to the water column. we know that algae/bacteria quickly use up any easily available phosphates. we see this in this thread. zero phosphate reading, but algae. creating a live sump creates an area where the detritus is allowed to collect (a purpose built sink), then rot, then feed macro/bacteria/pods in order to collect the free phosphates before they make their way back to the display, correct? this "works" because we are creating a bigger sink that is maintainable compared to those areas in the display that are not. a phosphate arms race.

You are correct in that it boils down to phosphates in the water column, but you are way off opn how they get there. All food going into the tank contains phosphate, especially flakes and pellets. That is why I feed them sparingly.

as i have mention above, phytoplankton is phosphates in a bottle. this is what plant matter is. this is the whole reason why you want to keep Macro in a live sump. you can not say that phytoplankton is not full of phosphates, then say to use Macro algae to absorb phosphates. just look at how it is "farmed". they are what they "eat". if algae absorbs phosphates, then it must be full of phosphates, correct?

i do not believe in feeding sparingly, i believe in feeding what is necessary and as close to how the critter feeds in the wild. if you have to feed sparingly, then there is a problem with how the system is setup. if you are not able to feed the critters in the tank as close to the way they feed in the wild, then there is something wrong. we should not be starving the critters in our tank because we did not design the system well enough to remove excess (uneaten) nutrients in a timely manner before algae can get a hold of it.

when i was keeping crinoids, i would feed 3 times a day, and twice at night. i did not have a nutrient problem. once a week during the water change all detritus that was not removed by the skimmer was removed with the siphon.

again i was going for an oligotrophic biotope. this is where crinoids are generally found. it does not matter which biotope you are trying to emulate, the theory is the same. you should be able to feed as much as the critter you want to keep is used to and still be able to remove excess nutrients fast enough to not cause more algae to grow than what is commonly encountered in the emulated biotope.

that is a good start for saying how i might be wrong, could you please do this in the other thread about how bacterial populations are also ultimately not limited by their available food, but are limited on the amount of surface area they have, and the fact that they do not colonize?

G~

To which thread do you refer?

the De-nytrifying bacteria in LR vs DSB thread.

G~

 

[Uncle Salty 05]

Sorry "Dude" I have had enough bickering for one day and have better things to do.
You think and do as you wish and so will I.:twitch:

 

[reefgeezer]

Why must it be one way or the other? Using GFO and a well designed fuge seems to me to be the "norm" in the hobby. I'm a big fan of Cheato in a fuge, but not much else. IMO, and again I stress IMO, having sand and rock in a fuge makes it hard to clean. At least for me, that means it won't get done often enough.

 

[Reefin' Dude]

it does not have to be one way or the other. it does not matter what you choose to do, as long as the understanding that detritus contains nutrients, and if allowed to build up in a system there will be problems. how long you choose to keep the nutrients in the system or how you choose to export them is up to the aquarist as long as they understand the risks involved with the decision.

if there is unwanted algae in the system, then there is a nutrient export problem.

Uncle Salty 05- sorry if you feel that it was bickering. i though we were having a good discussion. please be careful in the future about throwing around the you are wrong statements unless you are sure of the science. there really is a lot of bad information out there in this hobby.

G~

 

[jerpa]

Well hello again...

I will agree with Reefin' Dude that I have often seen it advocated to have a low-flow fuge fed with unskimmed tank water and filled with live rock and chaeto and sometimes DSB's.

However, I personally don't feel this is the best way to go about using a refugium to aid in your nutrient export. I have a 40B fuge lit by a 150w MH for a 120 DT. I feed my bare-bottom fuge with water that has been skimmed already because the macro's don't grow off particulates they grow off dissolved nutrients. This helps me collect less detritus in the fuge. The BB setup makes siphoning it weekly very easy. I also have high flow(30x) in the refugium itself. I trim the chaeto weekly. I feel that this setup helps keep my phosphates low(.012) along with skimming and gfo.

 

[aravindk]

Thank you all. For me, I have setup the fuge higher than the sump. Because of this setup, I see lot of detritus gets collected in the sump than the fuge. I also dont have sandbed in the fuge, thanks to listening to some wise folks in the hobby. I clip chaeto monthly and clean the sump very rarely. I think by trimming the chaeto and cleaning the sump more often can help with the algae situation. That is what I am going to do.