So do we want nutrients or not?

[Allmost]

Some readings, from what I think are reliable sources. should clear alot of things up and answer some questions.

Nutrient Deficiency and Coral Bleaching
A Coral-List Server Discussion Thread
2001
http://www.coral.noaa.gov/lists/nutr...ng_thread.html


Some extracts ...

Quote by Eric Borneman
Corals are also mixotrophic (polytrophic) and do not depend on single heterotrophic sources. They can absorb significant amounts of DOM ("liquid nutrients" as you put it). Further, many feed on detritus (coral mucus, algal debris, bacteria, agglomerations of other microorganism, etc.) This is a rich food source well documented in the literature. Some corals may even obtain their largest percentage of energy obtained by feeding from this source, including the soft corals that also bleach.

Quote by Eric Borneman
... the energy obtained by light and zooxanthellae is carbon rich, mostly lost as mucus, whereas heterotrophic acquisition tends to be more weighted toward N and contributes towards growth and reproduction.


"Fish feces have been observed to be fed upon by corals (McCloskey and
Chesher, 1971) and Tovertson (1982) deduced that some fecal material from fishes may be eaten and recycled through five fishes before it reaches the seafloor to be consumed by corals or other invertebrates."
Life and Death of Coral Reefs. Birkeland (ed), 1997

In the oligotrophic waters that are normally found on coral reefs, the absolute level of dissolved nutrients found there only represents the limit of the efficiency of the organisms in removing them from the water. The nutrient recycling patterns on the reefs (and elsewhere in aquatic systems, although to varying degrees) conserve the nutrients in solid form and many circular routes can be completed without the individual nutrients passing through the "dissolved" stage. --- Remember when I said the tested nutrients, are just showing how well the bacteria are working ?


From : Dynamics of Microbial Communities on Marine Snow Aggregates: Colonization, Growth, Detachment, and Grazing Mortality of Attached Bacteria

Marine snow aggregates harbor high densities of bacteria, whose activities modify and degrade the marine snow. The buildup of bacterial biomass on marine snow also provides a food source for bacterivores, and dissolved organic matter liberated from snow particles due to the activity of attached bacteria may become important substrates even for free-living bacteria. Thus, marine snow aggregates are not only vehicles for sinking fluxes but also unique microcosms in the water column, within which material and energy flows are regulated by complex biological and physical processes.


From : Evidence of enhanced microbial activity in the interstitial space of branched corals: possible implications for coral metabolism

"Abstract

Water samples from the interstitial space of 4 Indo-Pacific coral species (Acropora sp., Echinopora horrida, Psammocora digita and Pavona clavus) and a Mediterranean coral (Cladocora cespitosa) were analysed for NO3, NO2, NH4, molybdate reactive phosphorus, bacterial and flagellate biomass and dissolved organic matter (DOM) and compared with ambient water concentrations. Higher values of NO3, NO2, bacterial and flagellate biomass were observed within the interstitial space of the corals. The lower DOM pool in the interstitium in combination with the high bacterial biomass suggests high bacterial activity and efficient substrate utilization, necessary to compensate for nanoflagellate predation. Since corals may be able to feed on bacteria, the high microbial biomass (bacterial and flagellate) may be utilized either directly as an additional heterotrophic food source, or indirectly in that microbes may act as attractants for microbe-feeding zooplankters, which in turn serve as food for the corals. The combined effect of reduced flow velocities between the coral branches and its associated fauna are probably the main factors in creating a specific environment more or less independent of the nutritive stage of the surrounding water."

From :


The prokaryotic diversity within a single coral colony is clearly much higher than that of the zooxanthellae (2 to 3 zooxanthellae species vs at least 30 bacterial ribotypes). Unlike the zooxanthellae, however, we do not have a clear picture of the ecological roles of these bacterial associates. The taxa that occurred in multiple clones and particularly multiple samples offer the best potential for beginning to elucidate roles. A phylogenetic analysis of these bacteria (Fig. 4) suggests many possibilities. For example, many of the coral-associated bacterial ribotypes are most closely related to known nitrogen fixers and antibiotic producers. Interestingly, 9 out of the 93 ribotypes that appear more than once are most closely related to proposed endosymbionts from both terrestrial and marine organisms.

In pelagic, oligotrophic waters, microbes sequester essential nutrients within the marine microbial loop (Azam et al. 1983). By virtue of their high affinity transport systems and their large surface area to volume ratios, prokaryotes are much more efficient at scavenging nutrients at low concentrations than are eukaryotic cells (Geesey & Morita 1979, Geesey 1982, Nissen et al. 1984, Suttle et al. 1990). Therefore, in nutrient-poor waters the prokaryotes will assimilate most of the limiting nutrients and limit primary production (Thingstad et al. 1998, Behrenfeld & Kolber 1999, Cavender-Bares et al. 2001). Nutrient concentrations on coral reefs are low (Muscatine 1980, Rahav et al. 1989, Szmant et al. 1990, Gast etal. 1998, 1999, Gili & Coma 1998), and therefore prokaryotes are probably assimilating most of the limiting nutrients. Indirect evidence for nutrient limitations on coral reefs comes from the observation that there is a low conversion rate of particulate and dissolved organic carbon (Ducklow 1990). Thus, corals may acquire necessary nutrients by harvesting microbes from the water column through mucus netting and indirectly via capture of Protozoa that graze on bacteria (DiSalvo 1971, Sorokin 1973, Bak et al. 1998, Ferrier-Pages et al. 1998). In addition, corals may encourage the growth of microbes by secreting fixed carbon in the form of mucus and then feed upon them. Additionally, fixed nitrogen may be obtained from coral-associated microbes that are fed, protected and provided with an anaerobic environment in the coral colony (Williams et al. 1987, Shashar et al. 1994). Finally, specialized microbiota may be important for protecting the coral animal from pathogens by occupying entry niches and/or through the production of secondary metabolites (i.e. antibiotics). These possible roles are summarized in Fig. 5."

so Bacteria assimilating P and Fe to give to corals ...

Corals delivering amino acids to zooxanthellae ....





Coral. Volume 1, Number 3.
Nutrients in the Reef Aquarium - Part III. Feeding Zooxanthellate Corals.
Jorg Kokott, June/July 2004.

From it : "Another important consideration is the possible importance of bacteria in the heterotrophic feeding of corals. A study conducted in the early 1970s revealed that SPS corals were able to process more phosphorous from bacterioplankton than from inorganic phosphate that was present in the water at an equal concentration (Sorokin 1973). In the mid-1980s there was a report published that confirmed the hypothesis that various sea anemones would grow bacteria within their gastric chambers and digest them once their population reached a certain concentration (Herndl and Velimirov 1985). A year later, another publication stated that bacteria would proliferate many times faster in the mucus layer covering the surface of a coral than in the surrounding water (Paul et al. 1986). ... Because they are relatively "sticky," bacteria, microalgae and fine sediments are caught in the gelatinous matrix, and bacteria find these conditions favorable for growth. ... .

Whatever the mechanisms by which a coral acquires food, it is certain that the diets of corals include more than just the products of their zooxanthellae. They probably include the bacteria associated with corals, as well. The synthesis of a multitude of bacteria may provide the coral with some important organic nutrients, such as vitamins, rare amino acids, or fatty acids. The coral may also benefit from the production of natural antibiotics by the bacteria, which make the coral resistant to various pathogens.

... feeding phytoplankton and bacteria is particularly helpful when it comes to SPS corals, and the supplementation of sources of carbon in the form of ethanol or acetate favor the proliferation of heterotrophic bacteria. These may eleiminate the existing deficiency of nutrients for the corals. ... . The reefkeeper needs to experiment a bit to determine which feeding regime improves or worsens the situation, and how much of which type of food is best suite for the needs of the animals he or she is keeping."



Do we trust Borenman ? he answers this thread like this :


From :

Reefkeeping Online Magazine (July 2002)
Coralmania with Eric Borneman
Reef Food
Borneman 2002

The word "nutrient" is often misunderstood. The terms "high nutrient" and "low nutrient" can be taken in many contexts. In general, nutrients are those organic and inorganic compounds necessary to sustain life. While this comprises a very large group of potential compounds, nutrients are often simplified in terms of those elements that are major "building blocks" for fats, amino acids, and carbohydrates. Furthermore, they are frequently those elements which tend to limit further growth by their availability and ability to be procured. In general, carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus are often used to describe the "nutrient" condition of reef organisms (and others, as well). Plants and animals with photosynthetic symbionts tend to be nitrogen and/or phosphorous limited under normal conditions, since photosynthesis usually provides non-limiting carbon source material. Coral reef waters are typically "nutrient poor" as they contain very low levels of nitrogen and phosphorus (they are both precious commodities and any excess is usually taken up quickly). In nearshore areas where there is significant organic loading from land runoff, waters tend to be rather nutrient rich. Both types of environments sustain their own flora and fauna with varying amounts of habitat overlap in terms of the organisms that can exploit the continuum of nutrient conditions. The nutrients available in water to coral reefs can be dissolved in the water, in the form of particulate material, or as living biomass.

...

Coral reef food sources, then, are largely produced by the ocean. Bacteria, detritus, phytoplankton, zooplankton, small benthic fauna, mucus, and dissolved organic and inorganic material of various types and sizes are what comprise the majority of food on a coral reef.

 

[sirreal63]

I can personally attest that modern skimmers are about an order of magnitude more effective than the ones in common use in the late 80's and 90's.

So you are saying older skimmers are less effective at removing bacteria than newer skimmers, so they would leave more bacteria in the water.

Umm - not from a material balances point of view. It would most definitely be true that a tank that is carbon supplemented tank will produce more bacteria than a carbon limited one. However, if the skimmer on the carbon limited tank were considerably less effective than the one on a carbon supplemented tank, it doesn't follow that the carbon supplemented tank will necessarily have a greater concentration of bacteria per unit volume of water.

So a lesser skimmer with a lesser volume of bacteria per unit may have the same quantity of bacteria per unit as a tank with a higher volume of bacteria and a better performing skimmer?

Is it not true that the majority of the nutrient consuming bacteria we want with carbon dosing live primarily on surfaces and are not just free floating. This of course does not take into account dead bacteria holding nutrients being exported by a skimmer. It is the dead bacteria in the water column we are trying to export, and a larger mass of bacteria in a tank would lead to a larger mass of dead bacteria to export. Would it not?

 

[dkeller_nc]

So you are saying older skimmers are less effective at removing bacteria than newer skimmers, so they would leave more bacteria in the water.



So a lesser skimmer with a lesser volume of bacteria per unit may have the same quantity of bacteria per unit as a tank with a higher volume of bacteria and a better performing skimmer?

Is it not true that the majority of the nutrient consuming bacteria we want with carbon dosing live primarily on surfaces and are not just free floating. This of course does not take into account dead bacteria holding nutrients being exported by a skimmer. It is the dead bacteria in the water column we are trying to export, and a larger mass of bacteria in a tank would lead to a larger mass of dead bacteria to export. Would it not?

To the first two paragraphs, yes, that is the possibility depending on the numerical efficiencies of the two skimmers in question, their processing rate vs tank size, and the bacterial densities in the two comparison systems.

To the last paragraph, yes - having a larger potential amount of material to export, and holding the efficiency of the export device constant as a percentage, the absolute mass of the exported material would go up.

But, while this isn't really germaine to the question, the bacteria in the water column aren't necessarily dead, and in all probability aren't dead. And yes, you are probably correct in saying that most of the bacteria in the tank exist as biofilms attached to solid substrates. But the micro-ecology and biochemical dynamics of a mature biofilm have been well studied - though they are growing on a solid substrate, they are constantly shedding into the water around them (and thus available for export via skimming or consumption by other animals).

 

[dkeller_nc]

Allmost - OK, guy I give up. Unfortunately you are attempting to do something that is common to all of us humans, but scientists largely have trained out of them -

Compiling "maybes" into inferences to support a position, when the necessary work to support that position has not yet been completed.

Just to point this out, here is a quote from the large amount of stuff from your last post:

Since corals may be able to feed on bacteria, the high microbial biomass (bacterial and flagellate) may be utilized either directly as an additional heterotrophic food source, or indirectly in that microbes may act as attractants for microbe-feeding zooplankters, which in turn serve as food for the corals.

Just to sum this thread up, It is simply incorrect to say that bacteria have been shown to be a primary, secondary, or even major nutrient source for corals. It might be that this will turn out to be the case, but the necessary energy balance studies just haven't been done and/or published at this point.

OK, guys, thanks for the discussion, but time to move on to other topics.

 

[ormet]

thanks dkeller_nc (and others) for an interesting read. this is why i <3 this forum.

 

[Allmost]

Allmost - OK, guy I give up. Unfortunately you are attempting to do something that is common to all of us humans, but scientists largely have trained out of them -

Compiling "maybes" into inferences to support a position, when the necessary work to support that position has not yet been completed.

Just to point this out, here is a quote from the large amount of stuff from your last post:

Since corals may be able to feed on bacteria, the high microbial biomass (bacterial and flagellate) may be utilized either directly as an additional heterotrophic food source, or indirectly in that microbes may act as attractants for microbe-feeding zooplankters, which in turn serve as food for the corals.

Just to sum this thread up, It is simply incorrect to say that bacteria have been shown to be a primary, secondary, or even major nutrient source for corals. It might be that this will turn out to be the case, but the necessary energy balance studies just haven't been done and/or published at this point.

OK, guys, thanks for the discussion, but time to move on to other topics.

you are wrong on so many levels its not even worth it anymore. specially now that you are starting to make it personal .lol nice to see you making these up, based on no science backing you up, nor experience ? is this all based on thread on RC from ppl who have failed at carbon dosing ? how about those that did good ?

I have made the parts which should interest you in BOLD, seems like you missed them, like this :


Thus, corals may acquire necessary nutrients by harvesting microbes from the water column through mucus netting and indirectly via capture of Protozoa that graze on bacteria (DiSalvo 1971, Sorokin 1973, Bak et al. 1998, Ferrier-Pages et al. 1998).

but okay, all scientists, ppl who have written book, ppl on here, ppl with ULNS tanks with nice looking corals are WRONG, and YOU, who has admitted to have never run such system, is right LOL hahaha kids....
its funny how you take a qoute, which was supposed to mean something else .... but yea .... you are just looking for somethng to justify your wrong guess.


here is my final question to you :
My tank has ZERO N and P. no algae, what so ever. I dose carbon and skim very well. HOW IS IT THAT MY CORALS ARE COLORFULL AND NOT PALE OR BLEACHED ? explain it to me now that you are claiming to know more than all scientists I have quoted. ..

 

[Allmost]

On this last count, I will note that I cannot say from personal experience, nor am I aware of any studies that have been carried out that say one way or another, but my impressions from reading those that use ULNS find that corals will become pale and will even potentially bleach without substantial feeding of the tank by fish food, an established copepod population, coral-specific food, allowing mineralized nutrients to rise, or all 4.

oh okay so we should take your "guess" over science ? LOL

what else do you guess about that we should follow ?

what is the point of posting wrong info based on what you guess ? I think these threads are to help each other and new hobbyist, not to stir them in wrong direction at least I try something before I comment on it. so please join un back when you have tried it ... so you can add your experience ....

 

[Allmost]

at the end, I take Borenman's word over his any time.

above, I have showed that oceans and coral reef are LOW in nutrients.
I have showed that they are high in plankton life.
I have references studies showing most of that planktonic life is bacteria.
and I have shown that corals consume it.

connecting the dots is the readers job.

again, qouting Borenman :
The word "nutrient" is often misunderstood. The terms "high nutrient" and "low nutrient" can be taken in many contexts. In general, nutrients are those organic and inorganic compounds necessary to sustain life. While this comprises a very large group of potential compounds, nutrients are often simplified in terms of those elements that are major "building blocks" for fats, amino acids, and carbohydrates. Furthermore, they are frequently those elements which tend to limit further growth by their availability and ability to be procured. In general, carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus are often used to describe the "nutrient" condition of reef organisms (and others, as well). Plants and animals with photosynthetic symbionts tend to be nitrogen and/or phosphorous limited under normal conditions, since photosynthesis usually provides non-limiting carbon source material. Coral reef waters are typically "nutrient poor" as they contain very low levels of nitrogen and phosphorus (they are both precious commodities and any excess is usually taken up quickly). In nearshore areas where there is significant organic loading from land runoff, waters tend to be rather nutrient rich. Both types of environments sustain their own flora and fauna with varying amounts of habitat overlap in terms of the organisms that can exploit the continuum of nutrient conditions. The nutrients available in water to coral reefs can be dissolved in the water, in the form of particulate material, or as living biomass.

dkeller_nc, can you please post of the books you have written so we know who you are ?

 

[Paul B]

I won't go near this thread except to say that I disagree with everything from the top of the page where it says Reef Central to the bottom of my monitor where it says Dell Computer.
But I will say as to the scientists that were linked who may be wrong or right, I don't know as I have never met them or gone out to dinner with them, I have been doing this a long time, probably did everything wrong as my tank could not possably support even bacteria, and ugly bacteria at that. But as to scientists, I have been writing on this hobby since the 70s and virtually everything I have ever submitted to a real or on line magazine was published as fact. My credentials are that I am an electrician with a fish tank. That is it, but what ever I wrote was published as fact. Am I a scientist? I don't think so. So just because it is published by a scientist, doesn't mean it is true. It could be, I have no idea and I am not saying those scientists are wrong, but I don't know if either of them ever had a fish tank. Thats all I am saying. :dance: Have a great day.
The only people I may have insulted are those scientists, but I don't think so as I don't do that.

References:
Me.
Paul B
Some other electricians
Pewee Herman

 

[Peter Eichler]

you are wrong on so many levels its not even worth it anymore. specially now that you are starting to make it personal .lol some ppl just do not have the capability of carrying a conversation, you are one... nice to see you resorting to personal insults. I like how you are wrong and make your own conclusions LOL based on what ? your guess ?

I have made the parts which should interest you in BOLD, seems like you missed them, like this :


Thus, corals may acquire necessary nutrients by harvesting microbes from the water column through mucus netting and indirectly via capture of Protozoa that graze on bacteria (DiSalvo 1971, Sorokin 1973, Bak et al. 1998, Ferrier-Pages et al. 1998).

but okay, all scientists, ppl who have written book, ppl on here, ppl with ULNS tanks with nice looking corals are WRONG, and YOU, who has admitted to have never run such system, is right LOL hahaha kids....
its funny how you take a qoute, which was supposed to mean something else .... but yea .... you are just looking for somethng to justify your wrong guess.


here is my final question to you :
My tank has ZERO N and P. no algae, what so ever. I dose carbon and skim very well. HOW IS IT THAT MY CORALS ARE COLORFULL AND NOT PALE OR BLEACHED ? explain it to me now that you are claiming to know more than all scientists I have quoted. ..

I really don't see any personal insults... In all that you have posted, at no point have you proven that bacteria is a significant food source for corals. You're connecting dots that perhaps weren't meant to be connected or can't logically be connected to suit your belief.

The below are false arguments no matter how you slice it...

Scientists have said that corals may use bacteria as a food source. Therefore, corals use bacteria as a food source.

Corals consume plankton. Some plankton is bacterial. Therefore corals consume bacteria.

 

[Allmost]

I really don't see any personal insults... In all that you have posted, at no point have you proven that bacteria is a significant food source for corals. You're connecting dots that perhaps weren't meant to be connected or can't logically be connected to suit your belief.

The below are false arguments no matter how you slice it...

Scientists have said that corals may use bacteria as a food source. Therefore, corals use bacteria as a food source.

Corals consume plankton. Some plankton is bacterial. Therefore corals consume bacteria.

how else do you explain it then ? why are my corals colorful and my N and P zero ? are there saying there is a huge copepod population in my tank that comes out at night or something ?


above, is the ONLY science we have on this subject. wrong or right .
methods like Zeovit, biopellets, red sea, neozeo, vodka and vinegar dosing, VSV, and ... are all derived based on the above "wrong Science" and they work,

so we have the science, and we have the results, which match the science. what is the problem now ? Science is wrong and the results are just in my head ?

haha man forget it ... I was gonna link you guys to some research on the "other" sites next, but it will be the same ... ppl will say science is wrong LOL

you guys asked for experiements and papers, and i presented them, and now you are saying even those are wrong ... I am not gonna bring god here to testify himself, so I give u.

 

[Allmost]

I won't go near this thread except to say that I disagree with everything from the top of the page where it says Reef Central to the bottom of my monitor where it says Dell Computer.
But I will say as to the scientists that were linked who may be wrong or right, I don't know as I have never met them or gone out to dinner with them, I have been doing this a long time, probably did everything wrong as my tank could not possably support even bacteria, and ugly bacteria at that. But as to scientists, I have been writing on this hobby since the 70s and virtually everything I have ever submitted to a real or on line magazine was published as fact. My credentials are that I am an electrician with a fish tank. That is it, but what ever I wrote was published as fact. Am I a scientist? I don't think so. So just because it is published by a scientist, doesn't mean it is true. It could be, I have no idea and I am not saying those scientists are wrong, but I don't know if either of them ever had a fish tank. Thats all I am saying. :dance: Have a great day.
The only people I may have insulted are those scientists, but I don't think so as I don't do that.

References:
Me.
Paul B
Some other electricians
Pewee Herman

yea I heard Newton just made up Gravity to not look stupid about getting hit by an apple tree. lol

the above are all PhD's ... maybe I am wrong to believe the papers that comes out of very reputable institutes, but that is all we have... Please note that Except Borenman, other quotes are all from scientific papers I have found on google scholar and my university library.

 

[Paul B]

the above are all PhD's

I know they are, but do they have fish tanks? phD means they sat in a classroom for a few years. I have a cousin with a phD in Marine Biology. He is a professor of marine biology and for that title he had to SCUBA dive once about 35 years ago. He looks in my reef tank and has no idea what he is looking at and he has never kept even a goldfish. But he has a phD, would you take advice from him?
I know quite a few people with Phds and some of them can't get out of their own way, none of them could change a flat tire. These are not stupid people but IMO very narrow minded as all that classroom removed much of their common sense unless it is exactly what they were taught in that particular field.
After saying that, I realize we need to listen to someone about something and all we have is scientists, but for 2,000 years the scientists in the church taught the sun was the center of the universe.
Don't get me wrong, the links posted and the scientests that were linked may be 100% correct, but they may also be 100% wrong.
Years ago there were two scientists that wrote many books on freshwater fish, then when saltwater fish came out in the early 70s they wrote books on salt water. At that time I disagreed with much of what they wrote and today I still do. Experience is much more important in this and every endeavor.
When I served in the Army in Viet Nam there were First Luitenants that had just come out of West Point. Very smart guys, but when you wanted to stay alive you took orders from the old, "stupider" Sargeants who had been in combat many times and not the smart officers. :uhoh3:
OK. continue with your fascinating conversation, I won't bother you any more. :fun2:

References:
Certainly no one with a PHd :facepalm:

 

[Peter Eichler]

how else do you explain it then ? why are my corals colorful and my N and P zero ? are there saying there is a huge copepod population in my tank that comes out at night or something ?


above, is the ONLY science we have on this subject. wrong or right .
methods like Zeovit, biopellets, red sea, neozeo, vodka and vinegar dosing, VSV, and ... are all derived based on the above "wrong Science" and they work,

so we have the science, and we have the results, which match the science. what is the problem now ? Science is wrong and the results are just in my head ?

haha man forget it ... I was gonna link you guys to some research on the "other" sites next, but it will be the same ... ppl will say science is wrong LOL

you guys asked for experiements and papers, and i presented them, and now you are saying even those are wrong ... I am not gonna bring god here to testify himself, so I give u.

First of all, your nitrate and phosphate are not zero. If they were you would have no life... Simply because you have colorful corals doesn't mean it's from the corals feeding on bacteria. It's a huge leap to come to that conclusion.

There are many ways to have great growth and color, several of them don't involve cabon dosing.

 

[tmz]

Science and broad extrapolations are different things.Stringing maybes together jsut gives you a bigger maybe and not a claim to unique scientific support.

I think there is a lot of good information on this thread and see no reason for it to degenerate to a personal level which it seems to be doing.
No one here knows with any certainty what the optimal levels for DIN, Pi or C are for a reef tank
. Claiming a monopoly on science via broad extrapolation and a my chosen system is the best attitude focused more on being perceived as right than exploring insight offered by many doesn't get us anywhere. Likewise the I'm a scientist so I must be right stuff wears thin after a while.

Pulling scraps from studies and notables to feed a string of extrapolations doesn't help either. As an example earlier on Randy Farley was quoted as a reference for surface seawater levels of NO3(0.1 variable) and PO4 species (.005 ppm). These vary by depth and otherwise ,though; the level recommended for a reef tank in the same article is PO4 0.03ppm and NO3 0.2ppm. I think it's important to cite stuff in a full context. A lot of the other cites by others are also convenient snippets. I think it's worth the time for those hoping to learn from this thread or others to read the source in its entirety whenever a cite fits to conveniently into an idividual's argument.

My opinions :

Corals do pale when nitrogen deficiencies occur and do react poorly to rapid declines in PO4 ,ime and that of many others.
Can that be managed with expensive supplements containing unknowns in a proprietary formulae, via zeovit systems; maybe. But why go to zero in the first place?
FWIW, my system performs very well for sps color and growth at around .03 to .05ppm PO4 and 0.2 to 1ppm NO3. I use aspartic acid or sodium nitrate in tiny amounts to perk up the N once in awhile . Does that mean C, N and P ratios are important? Maybe.

Anecdotally,my sps corals and others particularly zoanthus benefit in terms of color and growth with organic carbon dosing(vodka and vinegar for over 5 years).The bacteria it feeds adds to the food chain .Whether specific corals consume bacteria directly may be debatable ( I don't see why they wouldn't) but in any case it's pretty clear that the extra bacteria support other organisms that contribute other forms of zooplankton .
The extra bacteria also allow for higher feeding levels without harmfully high DIN and Pi levels . All of this should make it easier for corals to meet their heterotrophic needs. The bacteria are exported by skimming but keep replenishing themselves as long as they are given the organic carbon they need and have DIN. and Pi to go with it.

I do not use a zeovit system and don't intend to. Stripping everything down to zero and putting it all back with commercial supplements containing unknowns just isn't intersting to me. If for example I'm going to try an ammino acid . I'll try some aspartae or glutamate and toy with that rather than a bottled supplement with mysterious ingredients.

 

[Allmost]

First of all, your nitrate and phosphate are not zero. If they were you would have no life... Simply because you have colorful corals doesn't mean it's from the corals feeding on bacteria. It's a huge leap to come to that conclusion.

There are many ways to have great growth and color, several of them don't involve cabon dosing.

ok so you dont know, but what you know is that ppl who research this for living are wrong.

okay, very interesting. lol at least come back with something .... an experiment, a paper, an article ... or somethng to back it up, lol

PS. we are speaking about Free N and P. not the P and N locked up in bacteria, as those can not be tested for its not free in water.

 

[Allmost]

I know they are, but do they have fish tanks? phD means they sat in a classroom for a few years. I have a cousin with a phD in Marine Biology. He is a professor of marine biology and for that title he had to SCUBA dive once about 35 years ago. He looks in my reef tank and has no idea what he is looking at and he has never kept even a goldfish. But he has a phD, would you take advice from him?
I know quite a few people with Phds and some of them can't get out of their own way, none of them could change a flat tire. These are not stupid people but IMO very narrow minded as all that classroom removed much of their common sense unless it is exactly what they were taught in that particular field.
After saying that, I realize we need to listen to someone about something and all we have is scientists, but for 2,000 years the scientists in the church taught the sun was the center of the universe.
Don't get me wrong, the links posted and the scientests that were linked may be 100% correct, but they may also be 100% wrong.
Years ago there were two scientists that wrote many books on freshwater fish, then when saltwater fish came out in the early 70s they wrote books on salt water. At that time I disagreed with much of what they wrote and today I still do. Experience is much more important in this and every endeavor.
When I served in the Army in Viet Nam there were First Luitenants that had just come out of West Point. Very smart guys, but when you wanted to stay alive you took orders from the old, "stupider" Sargeants who had been in combat many times and not the smart officers. :uhoh3:
OK. continue with your fascinating conversation, I won't bother you any more. :fun2:

References:
Certainly no one with a PHd :facepalm:

Paul. I think you missed the point.

this is about coral anatomy, having a reef tank does not help with that. doing research on wild corals does, and ppl who get to do that are marine biologists and microbiologists and so on.

you will know more about corals care then ure friend, but your friend will know more about marine bacteria than you

its like an electrician, and electrical engineer, you will be able to wire things up better than me who is an engineer. But I can make a CMOS Transistors better than you so each have their our advantages.

in this case, when talking about oceans and corals feeding and energy .... a marine biologists who has sat in class and worked with actually corals in ocean knows more

 

[Allmost]

Anecdotally,my sps corals and others particularly zoanthus benefit in terms of color and growth with organic carbon dosing(vodka and vinegar for over 5 years).The bacteria it feeds adds to the food chain .Whether specific corals consume bacteria directly may be debatable ( I don't see why they wouldn't) but in any case it's pretty clear that the extra bacteria support other organisms that contribute other forms of zooplankton .
The extra bacteria also allow for higher feeding levels without harmfully high DIN and Pi levels . All of this should make it easier for corals to meet their heterotrophic needs. The bacteria are exported by skimming but keep replenishing themselves as long as they are given the organic carbon they need and have DIN. and Pi to go with it.

I do not use a zeovit system and don't intend to. Stripping everything down to zero and putting it all back with commercial supplements containing unknowns just isn't intersting to me. If for example I'm going to try an ammino acid . I'll try some aspartae or glutamate and toy with that rather than a bottled supplement with mysterious ingredients.

Tom ...
1. this is not about zeovit .... can we please stop with making this another Zeovit thread ? I use Zeovit in some of my tanks, but this is about something more general than just the brand name .... thanks general carbon dosing.

2. on first paragraph above, you mention what I have mentioned ... we dose carbon, turns/Locks up nutrients in form of bacteria, which they feed the REEF in turn [I said REEF, to agree with u, it either feeds corals, or zooplanktons which corals feed on]
BUT your second paragraph, goes against your own belief of 5 years ! how is vodka dosing stripping water of ANYTHING ? all its doing, is locking up nutrients in form of biomass, which the REEF and its inhabitants can use.

Please re-read this part :
"Fish feces have been observed to be fed upon by corals (McCloskey and
Chesher, 1971) and Tovertson (1982) deduced that some fecal material from fishes may be eaten and recycled through five fishes before it reaches the seafloor to be consumed by corals or other invertebrates."
Life and Death of Coral Reefs. Birkeland (ed), 1997

In the oligotrophic waters that are normally found on coral reefs, the absolute level of dissolved nutrients found there only represents the limit of the efficiency of the organisms in removing them from the water. The nutrient recycling patterns on the reefs (and elsewhere in aquatic systems, although to varying degrees) conserve the nutrients in solid form and many circular routes can be completed without the individual nutrients passing through the "dissolved" stage. --- Remember when I said the tested nutrients, are just showing how well the bacteria are working ?

 

[Paul B]

its like an electrician, and electrical engineer, you will be able to wire things up better than me who is an engineer. But I can make a CMOS Transistors better than you so each have their our advantages.

If we were on a tropical Island I could build you a flat screen TV from a 2 coconut shells and a hermit crab. And if it is a red leg hermit crab, it will be in HD.

Almost, I am just screwing with you, have fun :wavehand:

 

[tmz]

Stop it Al. I know what I think. No need for you to tell me or paraphrase my statements; everyone can read them as a I wrote them.

I have always kept some Nitrate and PO4 in the water column even years ago when most everyone shot for double zeros. Even when it's undetecable on some test kits N is likely there with a large biolaod and heavy feeding but I have observed in my tanks that color and growth are better with a tinge of NO3 and a little Pi in the water.

The bacteria take up the dissolved inorganic nutrients out of the water column continuously; other elements too. They can be limited by less organic carbon
Many of them and the elements in them are exported by the skimmer;some are consumed by organisms in the tank or decay there.
.That's not hard to understand.
Leaving some DIN and Pi in small amounts in the water by controlling the amount of orgnic carbon dosed and managing other imports(food, DIN, P.major, minor and trace elements ) is what I try to accomplish.
Others have a different approach involving stripping teh wa ter column and compensating with supplements for better or worse.