Bacteria vs. algae for N&P reduction

[Amphiprionocellaris]

That makes better sense of what you were trying to say. I think a healthy, heavily-fed system with advection, bioturbation, as you pointed out, and other mechanical/chemical processes would affect that model substantially, though. And, of course, lack of proper energy input causes plenty of issues, which is a fact that has resurfaced even more so recently--especially in light of highly efficient export mechanisms. I see a recurring trend of people removing everything and then trying to add it back, which I think this presents a great example of. Then again, in the absence of auxiliary forms of filtration, I know that most systems can adequately utilize most of the potential input that is added--they just aren't often given the chance. I suppose I didn't clarify that I was considering more ideal situations in what I was attempting to explain, myself. I wasn't expecting to have to dip back into kinetics, either . I suppose I have to utilize my biochem eventually, lol.

In my defense, I'm a biologist, but in terms of ecology it just makes more sense for me to see the numbers (otherwise I get lost in the complexity).

The advent of highly efficient export can be a great thing, because it does give us better control of the energy balance and allows faster turnover and control of production rates, but as with most things I think it needs to be used in the context of an ecosystem approach. Unfortunately, that context is largely missing, because it doesn't seem to be emphasized at all (likely due to background differences, but I digress). I'm working on some articles about it, and threads like this keep me motivated.

In other news, I do believe this thread has been hijacked :celeb1:

 

[Amphiprion]

In my defense, I'm a biologist, but in terms of ecology it just makes more sense for me to see the numbers (otherwise I get lost in the complexity).

The advent of highly efficient export can be a great thing, because it does give us better control of the energy balance and allows faster turnover and control of production rates, but as with most things I think it needs to be used in the context of an ecosystem approach. Unfortunately, that context is largely missing, because it doesn't seem to be emphasized at all (likely due to background differences, but I digress). I'm working on some articles about it, and threads like this keep me motivated.

In other news, I do believe this thread has been hijacked :celeb1:

It's well and good, as I'm a biologist myself. The last I actually dappled in kinetics, though, was when I was interested in pharmacology, so I am admittedly rusty in that respect--and I've never been that mathematically inclined.

Yup. Derailed. :wavehand:

 

[capecoral]

If it helps anyone, this thread has lots of DOM, feeding and organics info...

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1843241

 

[thecoralreefer]

I do understand that using these algaes to control N/P's is a good way but if you look at a natural way of doing this, then one type is generally not enough.
We have several types in a natural environment that work together to control your N/P's.
I am no scientist but I do seem to have a good understanding of nature.
And I really wonder if there is one simple method to all of this. This is why god or whoever created ways to control algaes too. The herbivours are there for a reason too.
I tend to follow this natural belief to some sucess. Mechanical systems will only carry you so far. But you still have to clean yourself some too. Biodiversity works the best IMO.
It is that simple.

 

[thebanker]

I use bacteria, algae, and chemical adsorbants to control my N&P.

 

[emerald crab]

What do you think about adding some microalgae like Tetraselmis. Just to make the things a bit more complicated?

 

[dogstar74]

I see no reason not to use several methods. Benefits include.

Skimmer= air injection into the water column, removal of complex hydrophobic protein chains. Necessary with bacterial and carbon dosing.

Carbon dosing= Ties up the N/P in the cell bodies of the bacteria, but must be exported. Bacterial blooms offer a food source for planktonic life as well as corals. Negatives include possible anoxic state in the aquarium from a bloom that can wipe out the entire tank quickly. Or the C can also fuel nuisance species such as cyano bacteria instead of the desirable Nitrosomas.

Biopellets = More stable of a Carbon platform than Vodka dosing. Bacteria can grow or reach a steady state on thier own rather than large infusions of C like that of Vodka, this offers a sort of stability against the anoxic meltdown that can occur if you overdose the vodka.

Algal turf scrubber= Ties up the N/P in algal cells, traps detritus to a certain degree, and must be harvested regularly to avoid die off and re-release of the n/p into the system with tannins that color the water column. Negatives include discolored water column, and some studies show algal mats have a negative impact on coral growth.

Cheato = Ties up n/p but perhaps not as efficiently as micro/turf algae. Requires larger space to grow the cheato.

Caulerpa = same as cheato but has the potential to go sexual rendering it less effective, or seeding the display with undesired macro algae.

Halimeda = Does the above, but chews up Ca on top of that.

I believe in the grand scheme of things, Probably a mixture would be better. I began dosing Vodka to get my N and P down, but ended up farming cyano instead. So I have enlisted an ATS. In doing so I no longer use a skimmer, and so that does not lend itself to being able to use the Vodka dosing. But on the ideal system I'd have an ATS, Vodka dosing regimen, and a skimmer employed.

Too many people have a vicious loyalty to one idea or another. But the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. Nature loves diversity. And without a doubt the prokaryotes use things up that the eukaryotes don't so why not take advantage of both?

Just my .05
Aaron

 

[BFG]

That's deep, really deep! Clap, clap, clap.....

 

[rivoth]

Algae provides habitat for copepods, amphipods and other larvae that corals can eat. Carbon dosing provides smelly skimmate. Why are we even bothering to ask the question again?

 

[dzhuo]

I believe in the grand scheme of things, Probably a mixture would be better.

This isn't about one vs. many. Like it or not, every tank have both bacteria and algae. It's about finding out the risk associated with running BP when the return or reward (of N&P reduction) might not be as apparent. With the finite space, money and time we have, promoting the most efficient way of N&P reduction should be everyone's goal. It's still not clear to me bacteria has an advantage or how much of an advantage they have.

Why are we even bothering to ask the question again?

Because I am not as smart as you.