Deep Sand Bed -- Anatomy & Terminology
- Thread starter Whys
- Start date
Aquarist007
New member
Psst--don't tell anyone but elegance hates brislteworms which is why I chose them as a substitute
elegance coral
They call me EC
How is the presence of nitrate and phosphate a sign that more LR is needed? LR does not remove phosphate. In fact it traps phosphate within the system. The more LR you have, the more phosphate you can trap in the system. The bacteria living on LR in a stable, well established, system will not be removing phosphate either. So, how would adding more LR reduce the amount of phosphate?
If you dose a carbon source to your average system with a good amount of nitrate in it, the nitrate level will go down. Even without a skimmer in use. This is because surface area is not the limiting factor for nitrate reduction in the average reef tank. Food is the limiting factor. Adding more LR does not add more food. It simply adds more surface area that's not needed. More surface area does not equate to more bacteria in the typical reef tank. If surface area was the limiting factor, you could dose all the carbon you wanted, and the nitrate level wouldn't go down. Anaerobic bacteria use nitrate for respiration. This enables a relatively small number of bacteria to reduce a relatively large amount of nitrate. They just need enough food/carbon to feed on. One of the most successful denitrifying filters ever produced for the hobby, simply used a sheet or two of egg crate for surface area. (pictured below) Much less surface area than your average reef tank would have. If the average reef tank doesn't have enough surface area for denitrification, this filter wouldn't have a chance at reducing nitrate, but it's a nitrate eating machine, despite the low surface area. So, how would adding more surface area/LR reduce the nitrate level?
Water volume is a whole different story. I agree 100% about water volume. You can never have to much water.
elegance coral
They call me EC
Now you know that's not what I'm trying to say. I simply asked, "If there is enough LR in the display to support the biological load, why have LR outside the display?" So far, no one has come up with an answer that holds water.
It's impossible to come up with a formula that will tell us exactly how much rock we need. There are to many variables. The suggested 1 to 1.5 lbs, and even higher, is way overkill in most situations. There are very successful systems running on much less.
Like most things in this hobby, it was probably someone trying to sell live rock.
Aquarist007
New member
:lolspin:
Well, bacteria do consume phosphate along with nitrate and organic carbon. Sometimes they strip the oxygen from NO3 for energy and sometimes they take it for nitrogen. Carbon dosing is also used to reduce phosphate.
Rock may gather some phosphate when the water is allowed to get to a high PO4 level in a system and leach it back later. So will other surfaces particularly if they are made of calcium carbonate.. Perhaps you should research a bit before presenting favored notions as fact. There is no reason to think more rock would take up more phosphate since there is only so much in the water at a given time. Phosphate isn't trapped,it's introduced with foods and waste.When it's high in the water some sticks to the rock. When it's lowered in the water ,the PO4 from the rock goes back in the water. The process is known as equilibriation.
Additional surface area provides space for bacterial colonization. More colonization is needed when bioloads are high.Adequate surface area in hypoxic areas facilitates this. Even when carbon dosing additional surface area is a plus.
I do not sell live rock or anything else. Do you sell natureef ? 7 yrs without a water change ,wow? That says it all.
Folks who are interested in learning and serious discussion can easily look up: heterotrophic bacteria, the nitrogen cycle,the redfield ratio and so on . Much of this has been discussed earlier in this thread. I see no point in continuing a discussion about camels, raptors, rodents,insects or misrepresentations of reef chemistry and bacterial activity or magical equipment that precludes water changes for 7 years. I'm just not interested in lots of words that don't say anything accurate or meaningful.
Rock may gather some phosphate when the water is allowed to get to a high PO4 level in a system and leach it back later. So will other surfaces particularly if they are made of calcium carbonate.. Perhaps you should research a bit before presenting favored notions as fact. There is no reason to think more rock would take up more phosphate since there is only so much in the water at a given time. Phosphate isn't trapped,it's introduced with foods and waste.When it's high in the water some sticks to the rock. When it's lowered in the water ,the PO4 from the rock goes back in the water. The process is known as equilibriation.
Additional surface area provides space for bacterial colonization. More colonization is needed when bioloads are high.Adequate surface area in hypoxic areas facilitates this. Even when carbon dosing additional surface area is a plus.
I do not sell live rock or anything else. Do you sell natureef ? 7 yrs without a water change ,wow? That says it all.
Folks who are interested in learning and serious discussion can easily look up: heterotrophic bacteria, the nitrogen cycle,the redfield ratio and so on . Much of this has been discussed earlier in this thread. I see no point in continuing a discussion about camels, raptors, rodents,insects or misrepresentations of reef chemistry and bacterial activity or magical equipment that precludes water changes for 7 years. I'm just not interested in lots of words that don't say anything accurate or meaningful.
elegance coral
They call me EC
You should really know what you're talking about before you tell others they need to "research a bit".
There is a huge difference between consume and remove. Bacteria colonies living on LR do not remove these nutrients. As some bacteria in the colony are consuming these nutrients, others are decomposing and releasing them back into the system. There will be no reduction of these nutrients through this process.
Not without a way to remove the bacteria themselves. We don't have an efficient way of removing bacteria from LR, so these bacteria are not removing phosphate.
This, along with most of what you have written in the last two pages, is simply wrong.
If you have a 100gl tank with a phosphate concentration of 20mg/l, and a 50gl tank with a phosphate concentration of 20mg/l, do they have the same amount of phosphate in them?.......... No. The 100gl tank has twice the amount of phosphate as the 50gl tank. Calcium carbonate and the phosphate bound to it works in much the same way. Each pound of LR/calcium carbonate will hold a given amount of phosphate based largely on the amount of phosphate in the water. Just pulling numbers out of the air here. If we say that one pound of LR will bind 5mg's of phosphate in a solution of 20mg/l, then ten pounds of LR will bind 50mg's of phosphate in water at 20mg/l. 100 pounds would bind 500mg's of phosphate in water at 20mg/l. The more LR/calcium carbonate you have the greater the phosphate reservoir will be, and the harder it will be to reduce phosphate levels of the system.
Ummmm. Yes it is. If you don't like the word "trapped", pick another one. Bound, stuck, locked up. Phosphate will remain "trapped" on/in calcium carbonate until environmental influences, like lower PH from microbial activity, frees it. Phosphate can remain bound, "trapped" within calcium carbonate for millions of years.
More bacteria are needed as bioloads are elevated. You keep equating surface area to bacteria populations. It does not work that way. Adding more surface area is not the same as adding more bacteria. This only comes into play when all other requirements for bacterial growth are in abundance, and surface area is the limiting factor. A situation rarely seen in the reef aquarium hobby.
No. I wouldn't have one on my system either. It was posted as an example of how much surface area is needed for denitification.
What does that have to do with this subject? Why do people like yourself try to change the subject when you realize you are wrong? This is not a discussion about camels or going 7 years without a water change. The camel and filter were posted as examples to show a point regarding bacteria and surface area. If you want to bow out of the conversation to save face, I understand that. Why try to derail the subject and make smart little comments on your way out?
I explained this to you using bacteria. You didn't get it. I used a higher life form, the camel, thinking it would be easier for you to understand. Apparently, I was wrong. You either chose to ignore the facts, or are simply unable to grasp them.
This is the New to the Hobby forum. If I have made "misrepresentations of reef chemistry and bacterial activity", it would only be right for you to set the record straight.
Last edited:
You obviously don't have an elemental understanding of how things work. Bacteria dead or alive are organic and these organics with their bound phosphate and nitrogen and organic carbon are removable by the skimming and granulated activated carbon. Unbound PO4 and NO3 are not.Benthic bacterial mulm chips off and floats out. Further not all bacterial activity is benthic ;much is planktonic .Nor is it all anaerobic. In fact carbon dosing strategies encourage aerobic assimilation of nitrate as well as some anaerobic activity.
As for changing the subject via off point gibberish, just reread the thread. Camels, no water changes for 7 years, pulling numbers out of the air . These are in your posts not mine. No I don't need to bow out to save face I just don't want to encourage you to waste more of everyone's time on nonsense.
As for changing the subject via off point gibberish, just reread the thread. Camels, no water changes for 7 years, pulling numbers out of the air . These are in your posts not mine. No I don't need to bow out to save face I just don't want to encourage you to waste more of everyone's time on nonsense.
In my opinion and experience the following makes no sense
With reference to out of display live rock.. " ..at some point more live rock becomes counter productive.."
No properly cured live rock can only add biofiltration capacity and some other benefits too such as sponges ,filter feeders and other organisms that contribute to the food chain as well as additional surface area facilitating colonization by denitrifying bacteria.
"bacteria produce detritus" what evidence do you have of this assertion. To my knowledge they consume it perhaps not the precipitants but certainly the organic material we would be concerned about. If some bacteria die others will eat them or they will float into the water for removal along with the PO4 and NO3 they have captured.
"Live rock traps phosphate for billions of years" If calcium carbonate acts as a sink for some inorganic phosphate incorprated in it I'd like to see evidence of this.Assuming arguendo it does which I doubt , why would it release it in tank after holding it for billions of years?.
If you wouldn't use the 7 year no water change filter on your tank,why would you post it as an example of in yur words "... one of the most successful denitrifying filters ever produced for the hobby.."Misleading at best. BTW I suspect even a camel needs fresh water more often than every 7 years.
With reference to out of display live rock.. " ..at some point more live rock becomes counter productive.."
No properly cured live rock can only add biofiltration capacity and some other benefits too such as sponges ,filter feeders and other organisms that contribute to the food chain as well as additional surface area facilitating colonization by denitrifying bacteria.
"bacteria produce detritus" what evidence do you have of this assertion. To my knowledge they consume it perhaps not the precipitants but certainly the organic material we would be concerned about. If some bacteria die others will eat them or they will float into the water for removal along with the PO4 and NO3 they have captured.
"Live rock traps phosphate for billions of years" If calcium carbonate acts as a sink for some inorganic phosphate incorprated in it I'd like to see evidence of this.Assuming arguendo it does which I doubt , why would it release it in tank after holding it for billions of years?.
If you wouldn't use the 7 year no water change filter on your tank,why would you post it as an example of in yur words "... one of the most successful denitrifying filters ever produced for the hobby.."Misleading at best. BTW I suspect even a camel needs fresh water more often than every 7 years.
elegance coral
They call me EC
I'm not sure who you're asking this of, but if you have any questions about anything I have said, I would gladly post references or links. I have said allot over the past few pages, so I'm not sure what you would like "evidence or literature" regarding.
Aquarist007
New member
I agree with your eric--it is a good discussion(even with a few barbs thrown in
I have taken the major points of the discussion and added them to a new thread in the advanced topics forum. I believe Elegance had hinted at this anyways
I hope you learned gentlemen continue the discussion there.
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16876299#post16876299
Eric, I'd be happy to provide links and/or responses to specific questions. A good place to start would be to review the earlier sections of this thread which has several posted if my memory serves me correctly.. Beyond that a review of some of the topic relevant articles by Randy Farely listed via link to the archives at the top of the Reef Chemsitry forum is very worthwhile. The Reef Aquarium VOl 3 by Sprung and Delbeek also contains a very good section on biofiltration. There is a good deal of discussion about bacterial activity and nutrient removal throughout many of the carbon( vodka dosing threads) which you can search on the Reef Chemistry forum. Simply googling the nitrogen cycle, phosphate absorbtion, heterotrophic bacteria and so on can also yield a wealth of information.
elegance coral
They call me EC
Thanks for taking the time to post the other thread, Capn. I just wanted to answer some questions in the post below, before moving to the new thread.
The biological load determines the amount of biological filtration a system can support. Once that balance is reached, you can not keep adding to the biological filter. It will just keep dieing back to a level that is in balance with the biological load. You can throw all the properly cured live rock you want into the system, and it will only cause a temporary spike in the bacterial populations that are responsible for biological filtration.
Bacteria both consume and produce detritus. This is at the very fundamental level of our topic. If you do not understand this process, you are not in a position to be arguing with people that are trying to explain the nutrient cycle to you. If you do not understand the effects of bacteria on solid organic material, you have no hope of understanding the rest of the subject.
See post number 3, by Randy Holmes Farley
As I asked before, what does the amount of time the manufacturer went without a water change have to do with this subject? I was referring to the popularity and number of years on the market, when I used the word "successful". The photo I posted was of an advertisement in FAMA from 1996. You can see the date in the top left hand corner of the photo. The filter is still being produced today. I would call that a success. I wouldn't run one of these filters, or any denitrifying filter of its kind, on a system of mine, because there are much more efficient means of dealing with nitrate. That doesn't change the fact that these filters removed nitrate by using a small sheet or two of eggcrate for surface area. Something that would be impossible if surface area was the limiting factor in the typical reef tank.
The biological load determines the amount of biological filtration a system can support. Once that balance is reached, you can not keep adding to the biological filter. It will just keep dieing back to a level that is in balance with the biological load. You can throw all the properly cured live rock you want into the system, and it will only cause a temporary spike in the bacterial populations that are responsible for biological filtration.
Bacteria both consume and produce detritus. This is at the very fundamental level of our topic. If you do not understand this process, you are not in a position to be arguing with people that are trying to explain the nutrient cycle to you. If you do not understand the effects of bacteria on solid organic material, you have no hope of understanding the rest of the subject.
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15968762
See post number 3, by Randy Holmes Farley
As I asked before, what does the amount of time the manufacturer went without a water change have to do with this subject? I was referring to the popularity and number of years on the market, when I used the word "successful". The photo I posted was of an advertisement in FAMA from 1996. You can see the date in the top left hand corner of the photo. The filter is still being produced today. I would call that a success. I wouldn't run one of these filters, or any denitrifying filter of its kind, on a system of mine, because there are much more efficient means of dealing with nitrate. That doesn't change the fact that these filters removed nitrate by using a small sheet or two of eggcrate for surface area. Something that would be impossible if surface area was the limiting factor in the typical reef tank.
It's really hard to respond to the misrepresentations.
If that system removes nitrate as the manufacturer may claim it wouldn't be very effective at itin my opinion and apparently not in your s either. Why do you keep touting it if you wouldn't use it?
Denitrifying bacteria are benthic. More surface area is a plus. Extra well cured rock out of the display is not counterproductive . It provides more capacity and habitat for a diverse polulation of microfauna, filter feeders sponges and so on. Cryptic zones are well used throughout the hobby.How could extra live rock cleansed by curing of die off be counterproductive or harmful . Makes no sense.
I've read Randy's posts and articles and yes calcium carbonate can act as a sink for phosphate.
I hate to do this but your post would have been less disingenous and more credible if you quoted me in context and completely .
Though I questioned wether rock acted as a sink for phosphate since I didn't recall that it did. I was equivocal and left the door open to that possibility.
I also asked in the part you left out if the rock acted as a sink for phosphate for billions of years why would it be a concern in the tank. In other words , why would it release now ? You didn't answer that but chose to misrepresent the argument.
Do you know what a sink is and the process for it as it relates to phosphate?
Inorganic phosphate from the water attaches to a forming calcium carbonate crystal . . Sometimes the crystal stops forming and the tiny particle hangs around. Perhaps it gets covered in organics and is skimmed out . Sometimes it keeps growing and the PO4 is sunk in the growing calcium carbonate crystal becoming part of the skeletal mass that forms the reef. It's buried . Your implication that this sunk or in your words"trapped" billion year phosphate somehow supports an argument that more out of display rock is counterproductive or somehow harmful is spurious. For that sunk phosphate to be released after "billions of years" you'd have to melt the rock with acid which is not something that would occur in a reef tank or cryptic area ph range.
Phosphate attached to the surface areas of the rock which can leach back into the water as I noted earlier is more transient and can be removed during curing by encouraging it to leach back with clean water. I've treated and cured rock that had been in friends' high phosphate tanks. Some lanthanum chloride dosing in the curing bin along with a few water changes over the course of a month did away with any more leaching even in 0ppm phosphate water. Others cook rock for a year or so with similar results. So again more out display well cured live rock is not a negative. It is a plus.
Unfortunately you didn't produce a lucid argument about detritus. Extra rock cured of die off will not produce any. Do you know what detritus is?
This from wikipedia may help:
"In biology, detritus is non-living particulate organic material (as opposed to dissolved organic material). It typically includes the bodies or fragments of dead organisms as well as fecal material. Detritus is typically colonized by communities of microorganisms which act to decompose (or remineralize) the material."
If it's organic decaying matter bacteria will eat it, even dead bacteria will be decomposed by other bacteria. The only thing left after all is said and done should be remineralized material or as I put it earlier precipitant material, sand like, provided of course there are enough bacteria acting aerobicaly and anaerobicaly with enough surface area to mange the waste load in a tank.
Again ! The quote of me on bacteria you used in your latest post was also incomplete. Not nice. Your rant failed to provide any evidence of bacteria producing detritus because when the process is complete they don't.
If that system removes nitrate as the manufacturer may claim it wouldn't be very effective at itin my opinion and apparently not in your s either. Why do you keep touting it if you wouldn't use it?
Denitrifying bacteria are benthic. More surface area is a plus. Extra well cured rock out of the display is not counterproductive . It provides more capacity and habitat for a diverse polulation of microfauna, filter feeders sponges and so on. Cryptic zones are well used throughout the hobby.How could extra live rock cleansed by curing of die off be counterproductive or harmful . Makes no sense.
I've read Randy's posts and articles and yes calcium carbonate can act as a sink for phosphate.
I hate to do this but your post would have been less disingenous and more credible if you quoted me in context and completely .
Though I questioned wether rock acted as a sink for phosphate since I didn't recall that it did. I was equivocal and left the door open to that possibility.
I also asked in the part you left out if the rock acted as a sink for phosphate for billions of years why would it be a concern in the tank. In other words , why would it release now ? You didn't answer that but chose to misrepresent the argument.
Do you know what a sink is and the process for it as it relates to phosphate?
Inorganic phosphate from the water attaches to a forming calcium carbonate crystal . . Sometimes the crystal stops forming and the tiny particle hangs around. Perhaps it gets covered in organics and is skimmed out . Sometimes it keeps growing and the PO4 is sunk in the growing calcium carbonate crystal becoming part of the skeletal mass that forms the reef. It's buried . Your implication that this sunk or in your words"trapped" billion year phosphate somehow supports an argument that more out of display rock is counterproductive or somehow harmful is spurious. For that sunk phosphate to be released after "billions of years" you'd have to melt the rock with acid which is not something that would occur in a reef tank or cryptic area ph range.
Phosphate attached to the surface areas of the rock which can leach back into the water as I noted earlier is more transient and can be removed during curing by encouraging it to leach back with clean water. I've treated and cured rock that had been in friends' high phosphate tanks. Some lanthanum chloride dosing in the curing bin along with a few water changes over the course of a month did away with any more leaching even in 0ppm phosphate water. Others cook rock for a year or so with similar results. So again more out display well cured live rock is not a negative. It is a plus.
Unfortunately you didn't produce a lucid argument about detritus. Extra rock cured of die off will not produce any. Do you know what detritus is?
This from wikipedia may help:
"In biology, detritus is non-living particulate organic material (as opposed to dissolved organic material). It typically includes the bodies or fragments of dead organisms as well as fecal material. Detritus is typically colonized by communities of microorganisms which act to decompose (or remineralize) the material."
If it's organic decaying matter bacteria will eat it, even dead bacteria will be decomposed by other bacteria. The only thing left after all is said and done should be remineralized material or as I put it earlier precipitant material, sand like, provided of course there are enough bacteria acting aerobicaly and anaerobicaly with enough surface area to mange the waste load in a tank.
Again ! The quote of me on bacteria you used in your latest post was also incomplete. Not nice. Your rant failed to provide any evidence of bacteria producing detritus because when the process is complete they don't.
elegance coral
They call me EC
Okay......... You're not going to get this without understanding some of the basics, so here's some very basic micro biology that should help you put all the pieces together.
Bacteria feed much like we do. With one major difference. We take organic matter and place in inside our body, where we secrete acid (low PH) enzymes to dissolve/liquefy it. This enables us to utilize the nutrients bound in the organic matter. Bacteria secrete acid (low PH) enzymes for the same purpose, but they do it externally. They live in a microscopic soup of their own digestive fluids and dissolved substances from their environment. You are correct that LR will not be dissolving very much at the PH of the typical reef tank. Localized PH levels where bacteria live can, and does, drop to levels low enough to dissolve calcium carbonate. If this calcium carbonate contains phosphate, the bacteria can then use it for their growth and reproduction. As you can imagine though, having your digestive fluids on the outside makes for very poor table manners. They don't utilize all of the nutrients they liberate from solid material. Much of it escapes into the environment. Most terrestrial plants and many other organisms depend directly on the sloppy eating habits of microbes to supply nutrients for their own growth and reproduction. We would not have forests or extensive grass plains if it weren't for the sloppy eating habits of microbes that liquefy nutrients so that trees and grasses can utilize them. This same process takes place in/on LR. Bacteria living in the pours of LR may liberate phosphate that was bound/trapped there a million years ago, or just yesterday. A great deal of the nutrients bacteria liberate from solids like, calcium carbonate, fish poo, uneaten food, or dead critters, will be released into the environment were other organisms can utilize them. Like hair algae.
With any large particle of organic matter, it is destine to become detritus at some point. It is largely through the process described above, that this takes place. Microbial activity breaks down large organic material, turning it into detritus. They can continue to pull nutrients from this organic matter, even after it has become what we call detritus. So....... Bacteria not only feed on detritus, they also help to create it.
If bacteria find themselves in an environment rich in the nutrients they need, (redfield ratio) they can grow and reproduce rapidly. If these nutrients are limited, their growth and reproduction will be limited. Their population will be in direct proportion to the availability of these nutrients. This becomes evident when carbon dossing and bacteria populations increase. If there is enough surface area within a system to support the population of bacteria permitted by the available nutrients, increasing the surface area will not increase the population of bacteria.
This is at the heart of the nutrient cycle that allows all of us to live on this planet. We are not using up these nutrients. We are simply cycling them. The life in our systems is not removing nutrients. It is simply cycling them. If we are adding nutrients through feeding, and not removing them, they are still in our system. Bristle worms, pods, microbes, sponges, feather dusters, or any other critter you throw into a system will not remove nutrients. They can only help to cycle them. The nutrients will always be in the system unless we remove them.
Bacteria feed much like we do. With one major difference. We take organic matter and place in inside our body, where we secrete acid (low PH) enzymes to dissolve/liquefy it. This enables us to utilize the nutrients bound in the organic matter. Bacteria secrete acid (low PH) enzymes for the same purpose, but they do it externally. They live in a microscopic soup of their own digestive fluids and dissolved substances from their environment. You are correct that LR will not be dissolving very much at the PH of the typical reef tank. Localized PH levels where bacteria live can, and does, drop to levels low enough to dissolve calcium carbonate. If this calcium carbonate contains phosphate, the bacteria can then use it for their growth and reproduction. As you can imagine though, having your digestive fluids on the outside makes for very poor table manners. They don't utilize all of the nutrients they liberate from solid material. Much of it escapes into the environment. Most terrestrial plants and many other organisms depend directly on the sloppy eating habits of microbes to supply nutrients for their own growth and reproduction. We would not have forests or extensive grass plains if it weren't for the sloppy eating habits of microbes that liquefy nutrients so that trees and grasses can utilize them. This same process takes place in/on LR. Bacteria living in the pours of LR may liberate phosphate that was bound/trapped there a million years ago, or just yesterday. A great deal of the nutrients bacteria liberate from solids like, calcium carbonate, fish poo, uneaten food, or dead critters, will be released into the environment were other organisms can utilize them. Like hair algae.
With any large particle of organic matter, it is destine to become detritus at some point. It is largely through the process described above, that this takes place. Microbial activity breaks down large organic material, turning it into detritus. They can continue to pull nutrients from this organic matter, even after it has become what we call detritus. So....... Bacteria not only feed on detritus, they also help to create it.
If bacteria find themselves in an environment rich in the nutrients they need, (redfield ratio) they can grow and reproduce rapidly. If these nutrients are limited, their growth and reproduction will be limited. Their population will be in direct proportion to the availability of these nutrients. This becomes evident when carbon dossing and bacteria populations increase. If there is enough surface area within a system to support the population of bacteria permitted by the available nutrients, increasing the surface area will not increase the population of bacteria.
This is at the heart of the nutrient cycle that allows all of us to live on this planet. We are not using up these nutrients. We are simply cycling them. The life in our systems is not removing nutrients. It is simply cycling them. If we are adding nutrients through feeding, and not removing them, they are still in our system. Bristle worms, pods, microbes, sponges, feather dusters, or any other critter you throw into a system will not remove nutrients. They can only help to cycle them. The nutrients will always be in the system unless we remove them.
I get it.
The scenario you presented as I understand it includes several underlying assumptions presented as facts " the basics":
bacteria secrete acidic enzyme solutions and this acidic material and enzyme action may lower ph in localized areas (not necessarily tankwide) in/on live rock. This localized ph drop may be enough to dissolve calcium carbonate and release PO4 even PO4 that may have been encapsulated in a calcium carbonate crystal for a million years;
bacterial mats and biofilms are full of organic waste and acids that may benefit nuisance organisms such as hair algae;
bacteria consume and create detritus.
All of this together is supposed to make a case that extra well cured live rock plumbed outside of the display is counterproductive. Even if the "basics" were true, it just doesn't. More surface area and habitat are a plus not a minus.
Now,let's look at the assumptions," the basics". Unfortunately , they are incorrect..
First, bacterial enzymes are not acids nor do they as a class require acidic environments to promote the chemical activities desired by the bacteria that create them . Enzymes are complex proteins that support complex chemical activity in things other than themselves without effecting their own chemistry(Their H+ protons don't break loose and acidify the waer).For example the nitrase reductase enzymes that support denitrification have about 80 molecules including such things as: FAD,molydbenum, cytochrome 557, ferrodon, etc.
The ability of enzymes to function is dependent on the environmental ph . Each type of enzyme has an environmental optimal ph usuallly in tune with the environment in which it was produced. The further away from the optimal point the environmental ph is up or down, the lower the enzyme's activity.For example peptin which works in your stomach needs an optimal ph of 2 or 3 as I recall. This makes sense since it is designed to function in a low ph environment, your stomach which is full of acid and peptin's optimal ph point is consistent with the ph in your stomach.. Peptin's enzyme activity all but stops at about 5 and 1 ph after tailing off .
The enzymes produced by bacteria in our tanks are likely suited to the tank ph.Why wouldn't they be?
If the ph were to become acidic locally which incidentally would would defy the water's kinetics it wouldn't be because of the enzyme. The enzyme activity would all but stop within a point or two drop. So bacterial activity does not createmuch if any localized low ph ,certainly not enough to melt live rock and release PO4 encapsulated in a PO4 crsytal.
The detritus is organic material for the most part. Bacteria will eat it all if there are enough of them and enough surface area to support the anaerobic types. Whatever moves about may serve as food to many organisms that need organic carbon . Hair algae is not one of them , it uses inorganic carbon from CO2 as well as inorganic phosphate(PO4) and inorganic nitrogen and actually contributes organics.. Some organic material including the bacteria can be skimmed out . NO3 and PO4 can't. Some organic material can be absorbed by granulated activated carbon, inorganic materials like NO3 and PO4 can't. Organics including bacteria may also be consumed by a myriad of desireable organisms.
BTW,the redfield ratio realy doesn't apply to bacteria since they have much different rotios of material in their tissues.
Everything is recycled even athmospheric nitrogen can be refixed by the enzyme nitogenase present in cyanobacteria but a tank is not a universe nor a stand alone system. We put food in it , we filter materials out. Extra surface for bacterial coonization can help . The biolaod per water volume and surface area is enormous in a tank when compared to reef in the vastness of the sea. More well cured rock out of the display is a plus not a minus. It may not be necessary for every tank but will do no harm whatsoever in my opinion.
The scenario you presented as I understand it includes several underlying assumptions presented as facts " the basics":
bacteria secrete acidic enzyme solutions and this acidic material and enzyme action may lower ph in localized areas (not necessarily tankwide) in/on live rock. This localized ph drop may be enough to dissolve calcium carbonate and release PO4 even PO4 that may have been encapsulated in a calcium carbonate crystal for a million years;
bacterial mats and biofilms are full of organic waste and acids that may benefit nuisance organisms such as hair algae;
bacteria consume and create detritus.
All of this together is supposed to make a case that extra well cured live rock plumbed outside of the display is counterproductive. Even if the "basics" were true, it just doesn't. More surface area and habitat are a plus not a minus.
Now,let's look at the assumptions," the basics". Unfortunately , they are incorrect..
First, bacterial enzymes are not acids nor do they as a class require acidic environments to promote the chemical activities desired by the bacteria that create them . Enzymes are complex proteins that support complex chemical activity in things other than themselves without effecting their own chemistry(Their H+ protons don't break loose and acidify the waer).For example the nitrase reductase enzymes that support denitrification have about 80 molecules including such things as: FAD,molydbenum, cytochrome 557, ferrodon, etc.
The ability of enzymes to function is dependent on the environmental ph . Each type of enzyme has an environmental optimal ph usuallly in tune with the environment in which it was produced. The further away from the optimal point the environmental ph is up or down, the lower the enzyme's activity.For example peptin which works in your stomach needs an optimal ph of 2 or 3 as I recall. This makes sense since it is designed to function in a low ph environment, your stomach which is full of acid and peptin's optimal ph point is consistent with the ph in your stomach.. Peptin's enzyme activity all but stops at about 5 and 1 ph after tailing off .
The enzymes produced by bacteria in our tanks are likely suited to the tank ph.Why wouldn't they be?
If the ph were to become acidic locally which incidentally would would defy the water's kinetics it wouldn't be because of the enzyme. The enzyme activity would all but stop within a point or two drop. So bacterial activity does not createmuch if any localized low ph ,certainly not enough to melt live rock and release PO4 encapsulated in a PO4 crsytal.
The detritus is organic material for the most part. Bacteria will eat it all if there are enough of them and enough surface area to support the anaerobic types. Whatever moves about may serve as food to many organisms that need organic carbon . Hair algae is not one of them , it uses inorganic carbon from CO2 as well as inorganic phosphate(PO4) and inorganic nitrogen and actually contributes organics.. Some organic material including the bacteria can be skimmed out . NO3 and PO4 can't. Some organic material can be absorbed by granulated activated carbon, inorganic materials like NO3 and PO4 can't. Organics including bacteria may also be consumed by a myriad of desireable organisms.
BTW,the redfield ratio realy doesn't apply to bacteria since they have much different rotios of material in their tissues.
Everything is recycled even athmospheric nitrogen can be refixed by the enzyme nitogenase present in cyanobacteria but a tank is not a universe nor a stand alone system. We put food in it , we filter materials out. Extra surface for bacterial coonization can help . The biolaod per water volume and surface area is enormous in a tank when compared to reef in the vastness of the sea. More well cured rock out of the display is a plus not a minus. It may not be necessary for every tank but will do no harm whatsoever in my opinion.
