Bryopsis, Kent Tech M and carbon?

[Ralph ATL]

I'm not sure I understand what the ongoing debate is about here. Bryopsis is known to be an algae which can grow at relatively low levels of nutrients. That's why it is not easily dealt with by reducing nutrients. And in fact, there is no inherent reason to assume that any algae can be killed off by reducing nutrients before we start to kill off things we want to keep that also need nutrients (such as corals).

Nevertheless, any growing algae is taking up N and P somehow. There is no way around that, and if folks have enough rapidly growing algae, that algae can make a big dent in the amount of measurable N and P. A tiny amount of growing algae, however, won't make a noticeable effect on the huge amount of N and P flowing through any system being fed reasonable amounts of fish foods.

So in other words, the tiny amount of algae isn't making the levels low or undetectable, but it is still requiring N and P.

Thanks so much for chiming in Randy! This was my point completely (and Brandon's), except you stated with much more authority. :hmm5:

 

[tmz]

because its impossible in your mind that a low nutrient system can produce algae

You have it upside down.

What I said was that a lack of PO4 will cause micro algae to wane; not that tiny amounts of algae will suck out all the nutrients. If there is algae there are nutrients,regardless of test readings of the water.
( I know what's in my mind btw and restating my position to marginalize it is unhelpful.)
IME, bryopsis is one the last of the green micro algaes to go often appearing as others wane with persistent PO4 control. Even with PO4 levels sub .04ppm for years, small patches may pop up near accumulated detritus or on a rock leaching PO4 but are easily removed.It's not a problem for me and hasn't been for the last four years or so even though excepot for an occasional small sprig once every few months or so.

When you dose an oxidant whether H2O2 or ozone,etc; it will break up organics. It will effect the millions of organics in the water;reorganizing the organics occasions risk of freeing bound metals and direct or indirect harm to a myriad of organisms whether benthic or planktonic even when it doesn't kill them right off.
H2O2 certainly kills mini serpent stars in seconds at 3% diluted with and pods scurry and succumb within a few minutes. Very small amounts ,such as reisdue from a dip or out of tank treatment after rinsing should not be an issue but dosing it to the tank directly ;amping it up until it kills nuisance algae is temerarious .

BTW,Why would micro algae reach a "steady state", ie stop growing if nutrients, light ,space, CO2 and other necessary trace elements were present?Never heard that notion before. Maybe tanks being over run or threats to natural reefs are misstated.

Bryopsis reproduces sexually and asexually , so how much H2O2 would you risk dumping in a tank to kill it and it's gemetophytes and sporophytes? Slippery slope.

Mangroves are not algae . They are plants. They live in mud flats ;not reefs and rely on pneumatophores and lenticels for gas exchanges . They're just not relevant to a discussion about algae . As I recall they have a pretty high need for N and P. I've never used them as it never looked like an effective or efficient method for nutrient control vs macro algaes which grow aggressively for frequent harvesting with good lighting some space and nutrients from my perspective. The aesthetics of mangroves though appealing weren't quite enough to tip the scale toward mangroves..

 

[Ralph ATL]

Mangroves are not algae . They are plants...

LAST I checked, Algae were plants, too!

(yes, some scientists have reclassified them to their own category while others keep them in the kingdom of plants! either way, they are close enough)

 

[tmz]

Many don't include them in the Plantae Kingdom . But the issue here isn't taxanomy and how they evolved .They are not close enough in terms of their envirornment,the nutreints they need, how they function,their distinct organs and reproductive process to include them in a discussion of algae,imo ,so I didn't choose to grasp for that straw. They do some nutreint control if you can keep them growing but I suppose you would need alot of them.

 

[antbreon]

i have some going on right now as well ..i had my tank down doing a water change ..doused a little peroxide on the part that was exposed ..it died off in less than a week...and hasnt come back at least in the few weeks since i did it...unfortunately i cant get all of it exposed..i have my mag levels over 1600 not doing anything for it..just started bio pellets..nitrate and phosphates are very low..already ...just added 10 big Mexican turbos..they seem to be doing a good job so far. annoying stuff..

 

[brandon429]

Tmz I think one interesting factor nobody has studied, covered or discussed in any peroxide thread is habituation or sensitization pathways and that might be a legitimate factor between yours and my starkly different findings. I can't explain why the other thread posters state no loss of these benthic organisms after one treatment.

my reefbowl has hundreds of brittle stars that register no effect to brief systemic exposure at 35%, maybe its because of a ramp up period over the last years time or a combination of that and brief exposure

After using 3% several times as a spot kill + an inside glass wipe, the glass micro algae became rather unaffected and I had to move up to 35% to burn it off glass so I didn't have to scrape

Perhaps this allowed the other bowl fauna to ramp up catalase production or refine alternate metabolic systems to deal with massive oxygen burst/free radical damage...the mystery continues

Even though peroxide use has been known a long time, we haven't learned much with all the varied application methods, dosages, durations, dilutions that's what i'm hoping to streamline a little better with all the current peroxide threads.

We can see the organic profiling you mention in the markedly increased skimmate whole tank dosers report.

I didn't include macro algae in my gha/bryopsis comparison due to its linear growth rate, I expect it to be a consistent pull of nutrients. The op's post was about bryopsis and IMO the growth isn't linear, it peaks and then sustains comparably as I see it. Given three months of unabated growth, macro will outpace gha and bryopsis in mass acquisition so I didn't think it was a fair comparison for nutrient command.

 

[tmz]

I think H2O2 works fine for certain out of tank applications particularly rohdophyta, although many report success with grazers like red leg hermits( clianoarius ps) or mexican turbo snails. A pair of the later keep one of my tanks pretty clear of it. They do tend t obulldoze though. Interestingly a little bryopsis popped up on treated plugs after the rhodophyta died .

In tank spots of bryopsis can be managed with low nutrients , manual removal, blowing away accumulations of detritus and some kalk paste if necessary,ime . I see risk and limited value for in tank tank applications of H2O2 . Are you monitoring ORP btw?

Out of tank rock treatments from the most harsh to least,imo, include:

Bleach baths followed by acid baths.The fromer destroys organics and the later strips a layer of aragonite away along with any metals or PO4 species sitcking to the surface. This process leaves a sterile dead rock which can be reseeded.

H202 applications which breakup some organics and kill some algae, microfuana, etc. but don't do anything for PO4 or metals sticking to the rock surface.

For rock not exposed to metals ,that one wishes not to kill, recuring in salt water kept at near 0 PO4 for a couple of weeks until the PO4 stops leaching is effective . Lanthanum chloride dosing in a curing bin is a safe and inexpensive way to do this.

I don't think bryopsis peaks and stops growing and don't see why it would.


BTW,

Did some frags plug bases for red turf today killed some mini brittle stars that were hiding where I couldn't see them until they quickly crawled out and died.

For me it's not about breaking down organics and freeing up toxins they may hold via H2O2 ,ozone or by killing orgaisms with impurities but rather converting inorganic nutrients into organic forms that become part of the food chain and are exportable by gac and skimming via macroalgae growth,songes and culturing heterotrophic facultative bacteria via organic carbon dosing(vodka and vinegar) to out compete the nuisance organisms. . I rarely see any bryopsis cyano or hair algae even though I feed over 40 fish heavily and when I do it's a very small patch here or there on a frag plug or frag rack, not in the displays,and is easily removed with a toothbrush.

Tools in the tool box can be useful for certain applications and harmful in others. Testing the limits is noble but too dangerous to the organisms in the tank for my taste.

 

[brandon429]

Id believe a direct application would kill the mini stars if they happen to be in the target area, what I was meaning was that pods and stars elsewhere haven't died. I still have them in my tank but yes I can see how if a couple were in the vicinity they got zapped.

Were not monitoring orp, our threads are strictly driven by pics and testimony, pure highly repeatable anecdote!

In doing online reading we can see how orp is initially lowered by the first tankwide dose, never bothered to follow it long term. Our collective dosers are usually pretty frustrated by the time they show up looking to join the challenge

As the months go by I keep a close eye out for repeating trends, its quite amazing how many tanks remain cured without ever dealing with phosphate, and as time goes by I can clearly see phosphate managment is not required in actually a huge amount of problem tanks. Currently we are told to manage it first, its interesting when seemingly backward approaches keep paying off.

I made it a point in the thread to remind everyone that what we are doing is new, experimental, and not endorsed by pro's...but if after following their advice you still have x invader, and you want pics like what we've collected, we can get you there not knowing any of the reasons why.

This is exactly like 2001 in my opinion, when starting in pico reefs the pros said allelopathy this and allelopathy that as to why they can't work (not Eric B he was really cool)

Nobody shouts allelopathy nowadays...something like that will give in time regarding peroxide, it works too well to give up on IMO

The number of dosers who dump copious amounts into a full blown sps tank and get total success is astounding. I never recommend it, but when they do anyway (to avoid work) I enjoy seeing the outcome. We maintain a precarious balance between coral health, benthic life preservation and total destruction of about 15 gnarly reef pests...

 

[tmz]

Were not monitoring orp, our threads are strictly driven by pics and testimony, pure highly repeatable anecdote!




Tanks are unique with many variables so reliable repeatablility of dosing levels based on anecdotal experiences in different aquariums dosing levels is very imprecise if not unlikely. For just one example a tank with high orp might tolerate less H2O2 than otherwise.



ORP measures a condition of the water and is a bit more universal. I could give a clue as to when generally harmful oxidation levels are reached, say 500mv in a particular aquarium. This is why folks use ORP controllers with ozone.






In doing online reading we can see how orp is initially lowered by the first tankwide dose, never bothered to follow it long term. Our collective dosers are usually pretty frustrated by the time they show up looking to join the challenge


H2O2 is an oxidizer . It raises orp ; it does not lower it.


Here is a reference, an article by Randy:


http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-12/rhf/feature/index.php


and this from it:







If the solution is dominated by atoms, molecules, or ions that want to pick up electrons, then the measured ORP will be high. In a sense, they want to pull electrons out of the ORP probe, raising the measured voltage. Examples of oxidizing species are shown in Table 1.
<table align="center" bgcolor="#CCECFF" border="2" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="1" width="99%"> <tbody><tr> <td colspan="3">

Table 1.� Oxidizing species in marine aquaria.​

</td> </tr> <tr><td width="33%">[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]Oxidizing Species:[/SIZE][/FONT]</td> <td width="36%">[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]Product After Reaction:[/SIZE][/FONT]</td> <td width="31%">[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]Relative Oxidizing Ability:[/SIZE][/FONT]</td> </tr> <tr> <td width="33%">[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]O[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE][SIZE=-1] (oxygen)[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]</td> <td width="36%">[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]H[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE]O (water)[/SIZE][/FONT]</td> <td width="31%">[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]High[/SIZE][/FONT]</td> </tr> <tr> <td width="33%" height="18">[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]O[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE][SIZE=-1] (ozone)[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]</td> <td width="36%" height="18">[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]OH^{[SIZE=-2]^-[/SIZE]} (hydroxide ion)[/SIZE][/FONT]</td> <td width="31%" height="18">[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]Extremely High[/SIZE][/FONT]</td> </tr> <tr> <td width="33%">[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]H[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]O[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE][SIZE=-1] (hydrogen peroxide)[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]</td> <td width="36%">[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]H[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE]O (water)[/SIZE][/FONT]</td> <td width="31%">[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]Very High[/SIZE][/FONT]</td> </tr> <tr> <td width="33%">[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]Fe[SIZE=-2]⁺⁺⁺ [/SIZE](ferric iron)[/SIZE][/FONT]</td> <td width="36%">[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]Fe[SIZE=-2]⁺⁺ [/SIZE](ferrous iron)[/SIZE][/FONT]</td> <td width="31%">[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]Medium[/SIZE][/FONT]</td> </tr> <tr> <td width="33%">[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]I[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] (iodine) [/SIZE][/FONT]</td> <td width="36%">[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]I[SIZE=-2]^-[/SIZE] (iodide)[/SIZE][/FONT]</td> <td width="31%">[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]Medium[/SIZE][/FONT]</td> </tr> <tr> <td width="33%">[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]IO[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE]^- (iodate)[/SIZE][/FONT]</td> <td width="36%">[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]I[SIZE=-2]^-[/SIZE] (iodide)[/SIZE][/FONT]</td> <td width="31%">[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]High[/SIZE][/FONT]</td> </tr> <tr> <td width="33%">[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]MnO[SIZE=-2]4[/SIZE]^- (permanganate)[/SIZE][/FONT]</td> <td width="36%">[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]Mn⁺⁺[/SIZE][/FONT]</td> <td width="31%">[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]Very High[/SIZE][/FONT]</td> </tr> <tr> <td width="33%">[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]NO[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE]^- (nitrate)[/SIZE][/FONT]</td> <td width="36%">[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]NH[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]3[/FONT] (ammonia), N[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2[/FONT](nitrogen gas), etc.[/SIZE][/FONT]</td> <td width="31%">[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]Medium[/SIZE][/FONT]</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

 

[brandon429]

Awesome! We are still managing the thread based on before and after pics mainly but I'll keep that in mind next time someone asks about orp as we burn dinoflagellates out of their system

The thread I found on here where the poster wrote they measured a paradoxical initial drop isn't hard to find I come across it regularly when updating my peroxide searches to check for new data. Iirc boomer had posted on it too. Next time I see it I'll link it here, we had to make use without orp data on most of the cure threads.

The momentum of the thread is solely based on before and after pics, and how long that condition is sustained. Sometimes going off graphs alone does nothing for ones invader problem but its neat physicality to ponder!

 

[brandon429]

Whoever set the 1ml per ten gallons approach that's so common on these peroxide threads stumbled upon a dilution factor that is within the safe zone for every tank I've seen doing systemic dosing...i'm not sure why we don't need to know millivolt ratings to wipe a tank clean of bryopsis?

I'm interested in harnessing whatever value that knowledge will lend if we ever start getting problems with the current method

As you know the majority of treatments are external spot treatments

I can see how tracking orp is a nice gauge for use as a full tank doser

 

[brandon429]

this

http://www.reefcentral.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1153115

but I try not to get wrapped up in technical debates...in case these guys were wrong I dont pretend to understand the science well enough to counter posit.

all that matters to me are proof pics anyway...regardless of theory, pics either show something works or it does not

I truly wonder if Lyn beat the bryopsis we might have beaten this horse pretty badly.

 

[agruetz]

Has anyone every used this treatment and seen an issue with your snails, starting to do poorly?

 

[AcroporAddict]

Has anyone every used this treatment and seen an issue with your snails, starting to do poorly?

Yes, your snails can act all sedated when you reach the 1600-1800 mag level with Tech M. I lost a couple when I treated. You can always pull them if you have a separate system. I also saw some slight lightening of color in my montiporas (not complete bleaching), but nothing they didn't recover from in a couple weeks. No negative effects observed on anything else except the Bryopsis!!!:beer:

 

[agruetz]

So stopped my kent tech-m treatment because it was making my snails stupid and figured I did not want to kill them. However seems my bryopsis still died off. I had added some electric blue hermits because I read they may eat the stuff. I think I have seen them doing that. I am unsure if the kent tech m killed it off and it just took a while to die or if the hermits when to town either way I am almost 100% bryopsis free and I am a happy happy camper.

 

[QUASIMOTO]

copper....

copper....

Just wanted to through this out there... My brother is chemist of sorts, and he offered to test my water using some sort of plasma microscope....I asked him what my copper in my tank was at and he said it was 3 parts per trillion....

I should mention that at the time of the water sample collection, I had been dosing my bryopsis filled tank with Tech M for about 1 week and I had brought my levels from 1350 to 1800.... So I had added a significant amount of Tech M....

Doesnt sound like a lot of Copper.....

 

[brandon429]

You know if the thread is going to get kicked up why not update, original poster and arguetz how in the heck is your bryopsis doing regardless of the method chosen-

 

[Heliman]

algal nutrition

algal nutrition

I dont want to dive off at a tangent here, or hijack the peroxide debate, but maybe we should get off the narrow focus of Nitrate/Phosphate as the sole determinants of nuisance algal growth in our captive reef systems.

According to Leibig's Minimum Laws, even despite abundance of Nitrate/Phosphate, other trace elements can well determine the ability of a plant to grow strongly and function effectively.

It is just possible that the "rare" occurrence of a balanced nutritional availability across a wider range of available nutrients defines what level of infestation/growth rates results.

Leibig's law has held prominence for a long time and has not been seriously challenged but there has been a lot of work done on the alternative position - Multiple Limitation Theory.

Perhaps we would be particularly interested in the role that magnesium plays in the Limitation Theory, some "light" reading herewith:

http://roots.psu.edu/files/papers/Rubio-lemna.pdf

It may well be that part of the answer lies in what ratios of Limiting Cations exist in any specific Aquarium scenario that ultimately defines what level of explosion of growth is experienced.

I accept that this is all theory, because I/We have no way of testing to illustrate the model....but it makes interesting reading

 

[brandon429]

Good call I like to read any new material I hadn't heard of that law thx.

 

[Heliman]

algal nutrition

algal nutrition

Particularly of interest is the Research appears to suggest that in a Phosphate limited system, plants have a distinct ability to use Magnesium as a substitute, thus achieve optimun growth via a different nutritional regime.

After all, we never set out to have a magnesium limited reef system, in fact to do so would be dangerous for Coral health.

Thus it is possible that our efforts to achieve Phosphate limitation simply promotes the algae to utilise Magnesium as a substitute...of which there is always plenty !!!

Could it therefore be that the "elephant in the room" must always be Nitrogen??

In a nitrogen limited system, this critical deficiency will stand alone, there being no available substitute ? Whilst all our efforts to limit Phosphorous are somewhat negated by the ability to substitute Magnesium.

MMMMM.....I wonder ??:hmm5:....it makes dosing magnesium as a deterrent to algal growth look a bit dodgy ??