importance of nutrient import with ulns's

[dieselgrk]

I moved your thread to the Chemistry Forum because it seemed like a better fit. While many SPS hobbyists utilize ULNS, these types of threads are better kept honest in the Chemistry Forum where the science can overrule the claims about what works and what doesn't.

well i will say through the move of this thread and in going back and forth with randy, i have learned that all we have to work with is claims! i have interpreted randys information as such that, scientifically speaking, we do not know exactly what elements are in sea water, yet alone what we are exporting out of it. there for how could we possibly understand what we need to import back into our systems, or even if exporting of elements is even an issue to begin with. with this understanding, i can understand randy grief with 'trace element cocktails'

 

[teesquare]

Which comments? Any in this thread are general enough relate to any reef aquarium.

In other threads and articles, I have detailed specific needs for specific practices. Like iron dosing to support macroalgae, and silicate dosing to support sponges. i do both in my system, but it pertains to any that houses those organisms. Iodine can be useful for certain gorgonia, but I do not keep them so do not dose it as it is not useful for much else (IMO).



That makes sense to me Randy! So - by the same logic an SPS dominated tank my require - or benefit from certain other additives/trace elements that we may or may not have empirical proof for yet.
And - I understand and appreciate your questioning manufacturers claim.
However - I also respect that manufacturers oftern have invested research in their products, and rightfully should feel no compulsion to tell you or I what exactly is in their product, or even by what research they believe it to be of benefit.
That - is is admittedly not a good thing if the manufacturer is bottling junk.

But - in the name of free enterprize, and our system of economics - the proof may not be found as easily in the chemistry - as it is still up to the user to determine "beauty" in similar fashion ( in the eye of the beholder)

T

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Alright, I agree this got off on the wrong foot. What I originally saw was a thread posted to the chemistry forum that looked preachy and had assertions that I didn't think were correct, couched in a way that sounded like it proclaimed accepted facts. Perhaps I overreacted. I am very defensive of things posted in the Reef Chemistry forum in that they should be accurate and clear. I understand you didn't originally post it there, and perhaps it does better fit in with cook book recipe types of discussions held in other forums, rather than a forum focused on the why's and how's.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

in my previous post i was trying to make the point that you not having to dose k+ may have something to do with your daily water changes and perhaps a less aggressive skimmer.

Maybe. Your original post, however, didn't suggest that these additives might be needed only or mostly if you have a super duper skimmer and do not do water changes equivalent to what most reefers do. If you had said such a thing, I wouldn’t have challenged it in nearly the same way. IMO, that is the kind of caveat I was hoping to see in the discussion, and didn't.

My 1% changed daily is the equivalent of about 26% monthly. That's about average for reefers as best I can tell. It is not an unusually large amount. I have no doubt the water changes help with lots of things, including potassium. If normal water changes can maintain it in the face of heavy organic carbon dosing and use of a relatively good skimmer (like my ETS 800 gemini run with an Iwaki 55RLT for a 120 gallon tank), that should be noted.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

or benefit from certain other additives/trace elements that we may or may not have empirical proof for yet.

Absolutely, I think understanding what trace elements are useful in what situations is one of the murkiest areas of reef chemistry.

However - I also respect that manufacturers oftern have invested research in their products, and rightfully should feel no compulsion to tell you or I what exactly is in their product, or even by what research they believe it to be of benefit.

Again, I agree. It then can only come down to your trust of the manufacturer, and whether they are intending the product for your situation.

 

[stanlalee]

one thing i did mention in my original post that you are overlooking randy is efficient skimming.as far as potassium goes, i never had to supplement potassium till recently when i upgraded to a powerful needle wheel skimmer. i was using for sometime a KZ Revolution S which is nothing more then a Beckett skimmer. i was not happy with its performance however while using it, i never had to supplement k+ and was consistently in the 380-400 range. within 2 months time after introducing a new needle wheel skimmer, my k+ dropped to 300. it has been stated by many that needle wheel skimmers precipitate k+ and although i cant back that statement up with scientific evidence, my experience in the matter would prove the statement to be correct.

if this were the case K depletion would be a common occurance in both zeo and non zeo systems. there are no shortage of people running powerful oversize needlewheel skimmers.

 

[stanlalee]

Does anybody really think even the most rigorous ULNS has lower nutrients than an actual coral reef? I for one do not.

I believe corals have MUCH higher access to nutrients on the reef. I believe reef tanks "probably" have a higher level of "dissolved" organics. I believe thats the MAIN danger with running these ULNS (or even purpose). On the reef you have the prestine water AND the nightly influx of limitless plankton/feeding while with ULNS you have the pristine water (maybe or maybe not as prestine as a reef) and 2ml of oyster eggs or a few drops of amino acids. the reef has the nutrient availability without the water quality degredation. you cant match the nutrient availability of the reef in a box of water without degrading water quality. there are many corals that require profuse feeding to survive (to the point where they dont usually survive in captivity). I believe they are in high nutrient areas but in no way do I equate that with compromised water quality or excessive dissolved organics. the whole color manipulation principle of zeovit wouldn't even work if access to "usable" nutrients to corals werent less than on a reef.

 

[Shadowramy]

This is one of the same things I struggle with, seeing beautiful ULNS systems but the science behind them doesn't seem to make sense because so many of the product ingredients are hidden from the public.

I know at one time it was thought that skimmers produced some electro-magnetic field that depleted potassium but later it was discovered there is just not enough generated from a magnet that small. Now it is thought it may have more to do with some type of ion-exchange or increased nitrification (although I just don't have the knowledge in chemistry to know for sure).

I really try to follow allot of Randy's articles to explain chemistry and processes to me (Randy papers are gospel to me), but I do get pretty lost when he gets into the very specific compound make-ups and this plus this equal this. Although the more I read the more understand.

I can surely appreciate Randy's science, he has done so much for the reef community. Vendors who do not put the ingredients on the labels make it much more difficult for the scientific community to believe or prove their claims. I remember in the early 90s when there was a pill for everything, but very few did anything, at that time we really needed more science and less marketing.

However, I know for me Zeovit and prodibio do have great results, I can't explain completely why and there are allot of theories (some make sense but allot don't).

It just seems that when the ULNS started, many from the scientific community blew it off as snake oil and completely disagreed with any results. However we would keep seeing these beautiful tanks (Iwans comes to mind). At the same time, we would be told these system don't work or "˜I wouldn't do that'. However, we would see some of the scientific community's tanks and even though they followed a scientific approach, their systems where very brown and drab looking, they just didn't pop like the new ULNS.

Although I love sceince and really want to understand the chemistry behind what I do, to many times I am told from the scientific community when I get good results is that I am not a chemist or a micro-biologist therefore my results don't matter or I am told there is no basis for what I do, that I need to prove it on a scientific level (when they know I have no idea of how to do that). I understand there are people in this business who take advantage of reefkeepers selling bunk and some of their products are completely way out there but it just seems that there is so much evidence that Zeovit and prodibio do work; shouldn't we spend some resources to find out why and make it more cost effective for the casual reefkeeper?

I am a simple database person, so my process is to simply take all the data a strip it down into manageable chunks and try to reproduce results, and that is basically what I do. I have some pretty nice corals even though I don't understand everything I would really like to understand why and how to reproduce the results. But everytime I try, I can get past, "I am using Zeovit", before I am told, "There is no evidence that it works".

We need the scientific community to advance this hobby but we also need laymen doing their experiments with the scientific community helping us understand why it works or how we can make it better.

So please, help us to understand how products like zeovit work and how they can work better and cheaper.

 

[CleveYank]

The ULNS. (the vodka bacteria with some dosing version not the full zeo version )
I tried it for 11 months.

At first levels became managible and down to undectable phosphate and hovering nitrate -0- to 5. It would climb down to -0- easier than it would stay at 5.
And after adding bacteria to the mix the cyanobacteria disappeared and the GHA slowed to a crawl.
But as time grew on,
I was not happy...or rather should I state. My SPS were not happy with washed pale colors and very poor growth.. And althouth at the ULNS values, the minute I would lower the vodka to help my colors recover the GHA would try to take off like a rocket shot in the tank. And toying with the potassium nitrate just seemed to add another variable to tinker with.

Ditched the bacteria, vodka, potassium Nitrate and added a reeflo 250 skimmer and an extra chemical reactor for purigen.

Result? No more toying with Alk balancing act under 10. Vodka for me to drink. Oh yeah...real winner My SPS actually look like SPS with great COLORS and lots of GROWTH.

The whole taking out with ULNS only to have to add it back and the alk game seems like a worthless exercise. Works better than anything they've ever tried for some and not at all for others. For me it was more work and made the system far more fragile for my taste.

 

[Amphiprion]

I believe corals have MUCH higher access to nutrients on the reef. I believe reef tanks "probably" have a higher level of "dissolved" organics. I believe thats the MAIN danger with running these ULNS (or even purpose). On the reef you have the prestine water AND the nightly influx of limitless plankton/feeding while with ULNS you have the pristine water (maybe or maybe not as prestine as a reef) and 2ml of oyster eggs or a few drops of amino acids. the reef has the nutrient availability without the water quality degredation. you cant match the nutrient availability of the reef in a box of water without degrading water quality. there are many corals that require profuse feeding to survive (to the point where they dont usually survive in captivity). I believe they are in high nutrient areas but in no way do I equate that with compromised water quality or excessive dissolved organics. the whole color manipulation principle of zeovit wouldn't even work if access to "usable" nutrients to corals werent less than on a reef.

This is certainly the case with natural reefs. There are lots of nutrients there, but they are heavily, heavily sequestered and recycled in various organisms. They receive, as you say, lots and lots of food--currently impossible in normal closed systems, to my knowledge--despite the fact that actual dissolved nutrients are exceptionally low. For me, this equates into providing as much food as practical and possible to theoretically meet the needs of what I have, while maintaining water quality as high as possible. Sometimes, these two don't balance out, as you can tip it to either end of the continuum, which is where the most common problems are met. This is also where the balancing game comes in. I'm currently experimenting with a number of different ways to hopefully meet these particular demands. Edit: I also found it more problematic balancing things properly with organic carbon dosing, which is why I am trying different things.

 

[teesquare]

One of the aspects of this hobby we often forget is that we are really "underwater gardening".

And - like terrestrial gardening, there are many methods that different people find which work for them. But these same methods may not work for the next person. And pure chemistry cannot explain why - because our aquariums are not laboratories, with completely controllable peramaters for measurement.
We would like to imagine so - but if it were so, then strictly by science and "the numbers" we should be able to accurately predict algae outbreaks or varoius other events.
There are specific chemical constituents that we can measure for, but there are many organic ones we cannot, that we lump together as "dissolved organics". We know what many of them are, but cannot do more than observe the "signs" of their presence and then deal with them via chemical export, or dilution thru water changes.

My point?

That we have so much more to learn from ALL sides/perspectives. I would really like to see more objective discussion, and less adversarial threads. I think the hardcore guys can always learn some nuances in reefkeeping from folks that may not be able to break down what happens to a chemical reaction.

Look at the results from the ULN tanks. Hard to argue with, for many. If the method does not work for you - it is just not for you. It does not mean it does not work. There are too many clearly gorgeous, sucessful tanks being run via some ULN method.

And the same is true for other methods I am sure. BTW - I do not use any ULN methods...yet. Who knows?

T

 

[Reefer08]

..hope that helps


I also disagree with the only one that I think I know what it is, the K+. Potassium depletion is not a general result of bacterial growth, IMO. More often, IMO, it is the result of a flaw in the zeovit process of using a media surface that binds potassium. A potentially poor choice, IMO. It just hooks you on more supplements.

I dose more organic carbon than most, and I've not experienced potassium depletion.

That sounds very accurate. When I used to do Zeovit I encountered potassium issues but now that im dosing VSV I have not encountered any potassium issues. Been doing the VSV for over 6 months and have not once needed to dose potassium. Its nice to know the scientific reasoning behind this, thanks Randy!

 

[Amphiprion]

One of the aspects of this hobby we often forget is that we are really "underwater gardening".

And - like terrestrial gardening, there are many methods that different people find which work for them. But these same methods may not work for the next person. And pure chemistry cannot explain why - because our aquariums are not laboratories, with completely controllable peramaters for measurement.
We would like to imagine so - but if it were so, then strictly by science and "the numbers" we should be able to accurately predict algae outbreaks or varoius other events.
There are specific chemical constituents that we can measure for, but there are many organic ones we cannot, that we lump together as "dissolved organics". We know what many of them are, but cannot do more than observe the "signs" of their presence and then deal with them via chemical export, or dilution thru water changes.

My point?

That we have so much more to learn from ALL sides/perspectives. I would really like to see more objective discussion, and less adversarial threads. I think the hardcore guys can always learn some nuances in reefkeeping from folks that may not be able to break down what happens to a chemical reaction.

Look at the results from the ULN tanks. Hard to argue with, for many. If the method does not work for you - it is just not for you. It does not mean it does not work. There are too many clearly gorgeous, sucessful tanks being run via some ULN method.

And the same is true for other methods I am sure. BTW - I do not use any ULN methods...yet. Who knows?

T

I don't disagree with any results I see at all--and you are right, they are beautiful tanks. I just think that at the moment and the way observations are usually made while people use these sorts of methodologies, there's still a bit of voodoo mixed in, if you know what I mean. I think that is what Randy was really trying to touch on to attempt to get past some of that and explicate some more conclusive answers.

 

[Reefer08]

here's my list:
b-balance
sponge power
k+
pohls xtra
jod complex
coral snow
zeofood7
coral vitalizer

...hope that helps :rollface:

You dose all that? Id love to see a picture of your tank. But im wondering why you didn't include Zeostart2? Im sure you do but you just forgot to write that down right?

 

[Reefer08]

One of the aspects of this hobby we often forget is that we are really "underwater gardening".

And - like terrestrial gardening, there are many methods that different people find which work for them. But these same methods may not work for the next person. And pure chemistry cannot explain why - because our aquariums are not laboratories, with completely controllable peramaters for measurement.
We would like to imagine so - but if it were so, then strictly by science and "the numbers" we should be able to accurately predict algae outbreaks or varoius other events.
There are specific chemical constituents that we can measure for, but there are many organic ones we cannot, that we lump together as "dissolved organics". We know what many of them are, but cannot do more than observe the "signs" of their presence and then deal with them via chemical export, or dilution thru water changes.

My point?

That we have so much more to learn from ALL sides/perspectives. I would really like to see more objective discussion, and less adversarial threads. I think the hardcore guys can always learn some nuances in reefkeeping from folks that may not be able to break down what happens to a chemical reaction.

Look at the results from the ULN tanks. Hard to argue with, for many. If the method does not work for you - it is just not for you. It does not mean it does not work. There are too many clearly gorgeous, sucessful tanks being run via some ULN method.

And the same is true for other methods I am sure. BTW - I do not use any ULN methods...yet. Who knows?

T

Yeah your right our tanks are not laboratories but if a company is going to make voodoo claims of:

"* Drastically enhance colors and contrast in all corals
* Increase growth dramatically
* Aids with stress reduction of newly added corals"

Then they better be prepared for scrutiny from the scientists.

 

[Reefer08]

Randy,

With all this talk about Potassium, what is your opinion regarding testing it in a home environment and not a lab? Are the test kits available to us hobbyists (I won't mention names since we all know who makes them) accurate? Thanks

 

[teesquare]

Don't mistake what I am saying - please...
I greatly appreciate, and utilitze much of what Randy, and others recommend.

But - what you are referring to as "voodoo"...well - is like the reaction that most had when they saw the first light bulb light up? Or used the telephone for the first time? (There were even scientists in that day thinking that both may be hoaxes.)

And - because we all would likely agree that if you figure out a new method for anything,and package, and sell a product to make your life easier - or reduce male pattern baldness,:spin2: ( some of those work too...) you would not feel compelled to tell everyone exactly how much of what is in it - would you???

It is a free enterprize system - and that leaves with all of the choices. To buy, or not. And - that really has far more advantages than the other way around. If it were mandated that every manfacturer give us full disclosure on their products, and the research...One of two things (or both) would happen:
1. You would see far fewer products on the market.
2. The prices for products would go up dramatically

Both results are because the folks investing in ventures to make products would not feel it worth the risk to produce products if they can be so easily made by anyone that knows basic chemistry, and can read the label.

I still think of the aquarium envirement as a blend of chemistry and gardening. Wnen gardening - it does require a bit of faith. I know that makes many of us un-comfortable. We want to be "masters" of our own little aquatic worlds inside the confines of the glass tank.
For the record - I was a Albert Thiel customer ( read: victim:spin3 If you want to hear stories about gadgets, and gunk in a bottle - I got 'em!

So - before we write off all products that do not adhere to our individual perceptions and personal conventions - let's try to keep an open mind, shall we?

Who knows what we might learn?....
Rambling over now.......


T

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

With all this talk about Potassium, what is your opinion regarding testing it in a home environment and not a lab? Are the test kits available to us hobbyists (I won't mention names since we all know who makes them) accurate?

I recently got and started to test the Fauna Marin potassium kit. The early result is that it gave the correct reading in a standard seawater sample:

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1793356

 

[dieselgrk]

You dose all that? Id love to see a picture of your tank. But im wondering why you didn't include Zeostart2? Im sure you do but you just forgot to write that down right?

i forgot zeostart, zeobac, and zeospur2. pics will be coming soon. ill post them in the sps forum when i do.

 

[dieselgrk]

..hope that helps

I also disagree with the only one that I think I know what it is, the K+. Potassium depletion is not a general result of bacterial growth, IMO. More often, IMO, it is the result of a flaw in the zeovit process of using a media surface that binds potassium. A potentially poor choice, IMO. It just hooks you on more supplements.

I dose more organic carbon than most, and I've not experienced potassium depletion.

randy, it seems that potassium depletion is an issue for many. i have heard and experienced personally that this is due largely in part by needle wheel skimmers, not bacterial growth. disregarding that however since i cant prove it through science, im hoping you can better explain your theory about zeovit using a media surface to bind potassium. what media surface are you referring to? how is potassium being binded to it? and how is this process removing potassium?