Algae problems!!

[Amphiprionocellaris]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8322482#post8322482 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Mike O'Brien
What are you doing in the study ? In real life the result's are clear and repeatable. Many many people are running algae free tank's without sand, alot of wich were once DSB tank's with great equipment to begin with.

In the study, we have two groups of tanks set up with live rock, lights, fish, the works. One group is BB, the other DSB, with every other aspect being identical. Periodically, I take samples from the water column and from the sand and run them through an Ion Chromatograph (uses a charged column to separate ions). So far, none of the readings have supported the idea that DSBs have a greater tendency to nutrient buildup. Like I said, the tests are still running, and it is only the first iteration, but I don't yet have reason to doubt the results.

Again, I'm not debating that it's easy to run a BB without algae. I'm contending that its also easy to run algae-free tanks with DSBs. I'm also contending that there is negligible inherent difference in the nutrient build-up between the two tanks, and the evidence so far follows. Although important to relate concepts, real-life stories about tanks switching to BB and suddenly being algae-free are not useful evidence without experimental support. I'm only saying that it's not just the sand.

 

[jay24k]

I'd like to see the test results when you all finish it. I have a SSB tank and do not have nutrient issues. I also have 20X flow in my SPS packed tank. I ordered a Vortech because the corals are getting so big that I need to get some more flow.

IMO, there is more work with BB and it does require a different method to keep a nutrient poor tank. The downside is, many have to overfeed to keep the nutrient levels sufficient.

DSB there is less work but people suggest it will fill up and then leech back into your tank within 3 to 5 years.

SSB is really IMO unknown. I've never had an issue with a SSB however some swear issues with it.

What I'm really wondering if it isn't the rock people use. Depending on where it is collected it could just be leeching phosphates for a long time. Perhaps it came out of a tank that was poorly maintained, put in the fish store vat, and now sold to the reefer.

April, my 180 will be 2 years old and several of the rocks were brought over from my other tank when I upgraded. I feed 2 to 3 times daily, have approximately 20+ fish in my tank and have had 0 issues. I do 10 percent water changes every 2 weeks and I keep my front of my sand near the glass clean by running my hands through it every month.

 

[Mike O'Brien]

Well how long has this been going on ? Most people don't have any problem's untill the 4 to 5 year mark with a sand bed. Untill then it's a sink for nutrient's and metals. When those sink's are full and leaking excessively you're reading's might show different result's.

I had great result's with a DSB, but you can only ask so much of one. You can't just rely on the thing to take care of itself for ever.

I speak for myself, but I think alot would agree that personal experience mean's more to us than lab test's. You don't see mass hysteria over using IO do you ? I know I'm not worried because in my personal experience it's a fine salt and I've had success with it. I've got a closet full of it and don't plan to switch at any time in the future.

 

[Amphiprionocellaris]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8322645#post8322645 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Mike O'Brien
Well how long has this been going on ? Most people don't have any problem's untill the 4 to 5 year mark with a sand bed. Untill then it's a sink for nutrient's and metals. When those sink's are full and leaking excessively you're reading's might show different result's.

2 years, with an indefinite time frame (ie. it's going to keep going). I also expected that we wouldn't see results until a few years had passed, which is why I take samples from the sand bed as well. So far, we have not seen a steady rise in the nutrients contained in the sand bed, which is what we would expect if the nutrient sink was the complete picture.

I speak for myself, but I think alot would agree that personal experience means more to us than lab tests. You don't see mass hysteria over using IO do you ? I know I'm not worried because in my personal experience it's a fine salt and I've had success with it. I've got a closet full of it and don't plan to switch at any time in the future. [/B]

The problem with basing everything on anecdote is that it is too imprecise; there are too many variables in a story to definitively "blame" only one variable. That said, one experiment alone is not going to precisely paint the entire picture, which is why more tests are in the near future. Hopefully, my research and the work of others will find the cause(s) behind the results of DSB/BB switching.

If we understand the causes, we can better understand the mechanisms, and then we can better manipulate the mechanisms to get the exact results we want.

 

[Mike O'Brien]

Water samples from the sand bed ? There is a higher concentration of bacteria there. It's the bacteria that are responsible for everything after all. Those bacteria are the sink for all those nutrient's and the nutrient's are in huge demand, so would there be measurable nutrient's in the pore water of a fairly new sand bed ? Without testing you know there is a huge bio mass there.

Keep up the work.

 

[Amphiprionocellaris]

We lyse (burst) the bacteria to release the contained nutrients, so very little of what we detect is probably in the pore water (though it could be; I might design another experiment just for that). I was quite surprised when we started to detect steady (rather than increasing) levels of compounds. One would absolutely think that non-mobile bacteria constantly increasing in population would result in a general increase of nutrients. In related but less scientific experiments (for the not-always-reliable general chemistry labs), we detected massive amounts of phosphates and bacteria in the skimmate of the aquariums. Although this is not the focus of the current study, it is possible that the sand-bed bacteria are more mobile than we thought.

I feel bad about hijacking this thread, so that's enough from me on my research (of course, anyone interested can PM me).

 

[Mike O'Brien]

I agree, alot of bacteria in skimmate.

Good job, keep it up.

 

[blindskater02]

Hijack away! This is great stuff!

 

[Mike O'Brien]

I would think that as long as there is nothing limiting the bacteria will do a great job at keeping nutrient level's low. Those nutrient's are still going to be higher in the sand bed compared to a BB because there is simply no substrate for you to test.

Skimming bacteria IMO is super effective at reducing nutrient level's and of corse that's the main focus of the BB methodology. I wonder if there is more palegic bacteria in a BB tank ?

 

[Amphiprionocellaris]

So far the nutrients are higher in the sand bed, though there is no increase (both tanks reached a certain nutrient level and leveled off); in retrospect I think I was being unclear. We are looking for signs of nutrient increase or decrease in sand beds, rather than being concerned about the particular levels (lysing bacteria releases a lot more nutrients than might ever be released normally, so it is difficult to arrive at a useful value).

This could be a possible explanation for the trend of some old DSBs to act as nutrient sinks. Under abnormal conditions (a term which, of course, also needs a good definition - maybe the bacteria fall victim to their own efficiency by consuming all their food pool), the bacteria populations collapse and release their bound nutrients, fueling algae growth etc. It is possible the same thing happens in a BB tank, but the inherently smaller populations of such bacteria (if they even exist in great numbers) prevent noticeable nutrient release. Of course, that's just speculation for now, but it's an interesting direction for more research.

Another interesting line of thought is that the bacteria in a DSB established from non-live sand (as opposed to buying or using pre-seeded sand) are inherently more mobile and adaptable (they did, after all, migrate from the rock to the sand), potentially limiting the effects of mass bacteria die-off.

That's an interestin question about more pelagic bacteria in a BB tank. Obviously, almost all of the bacteria will be in the water column (relative to a DSB); I'm sure skimming wet (which is the proper method with a BB, right? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) also has a major effect, because it allows for the collection of larger life.

Hmmm...looks like I've got a lot more research to do...thankfully, I can do it all with the existing setup!

 

[Cosmo^Kramer]

Check the output of your reactor for phosphates.Also make sure the output of your reactor is in a high flow area to blow of CO2.When I ran a reactor I had the output go through a small cup of phosban,then into the tank.
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/april2003/short.htm