Learning/rebuilding from my epic fail

[cFloor]

I love reading this thread, there's always such good info posted.

Wonderful coral pics, your furiosa is one of my favorite corals I've seen. Such a beauty and you've done a great job making it happy

[slavetonet]

God Damn Matt - blow my screen up again with your sps colours.
Damn I need to step up my game with the trace elements dosing.
I know my lights are the main problem at the moment - Not enough oomph.

[DiscusHeckel]

Originally Posted by reefmutt

But Bulent isn't the definition of a tank (like mine) with elevated n and p, a system without enough available space for nitrifying bacteria? Or put another way, a system without the capacity to properly deal with the nitrate being produced.
Maybe I don't understand what you are saying but as far as I gather, yes, adding matrix to a system with nitrates present will indeed magically lower nitrates. Well, not magically, obviously but bacteria will colonize everywhere they can providing they have food and a location. So adding the matrix will allow for more bacteria to colonize and reduce the previously accumulated nitrate.
A system with n and p and fresh matrix (and appropriate water movement) is an ideal situation for denitrification.
If n is already 0, and naturally so - without the help of carbon sources- then I would agree with you.

Hi Matt,

I may be very wrong here. If so, please correct me. Nitrifying bacteria need n, p and organic carbon (in addition to potassium, iron and some other elements) to live and thrive. Bacteria may be able to get their carbon needs from CO2 or even alkalinity (hence drop in alkalinity due to nitrogen cycle), but usually need some organic carbon source to multiply rapidly.

In my opinion, there are two possibilities here. One is that as you said with elevated n and p, you need more space for bacteria to colonise to reduce these nutrients. This assumes that your system is not carbon limited. If this assumption right, then you should indeed see drop in nutrients as soon as colonisation of nitrifying bacteria takes place on (or in?) the new media. The other possibility is that your system is carbon limited in which case adding more media for nitrifying bacteria will not make much different because without additional organic carbon bacteria population will not increase to consume n and p.

If n or p, or both are in short supply (e.g. zero), then adding organic carbon will not help either because bacteria cannot multiply without sufficient n and p in the water column.

Most reef set up are carbon limited with plenty of n and p. This is why I often assume that the second possibility is more likely than the first. Again, I may be wrong in this assumption.

Cheers

Bülent

[biggles]

Looking through all those amazing top downs just blew me away Matt - absolutely stunning mate

My acros look the same as they did 18 months back........... i have the hates on my acros atm

I think you should do whatever is needed to protect my baby !

[reefmutt]

Originally Posted by cFloor

I love reading this thread, there's always such good info posted.

Wonderful coral pics, your furiosa is one of my favorite corals I've seen. Such a beauty and you've done a great job making it happy

Im happy to hear you say there is helpful info, Connor. Even with all the acro porn, I hope to keep the thread helpful. Thanks!!

Originally Posted by slavetonet

God Damn Matt - blow my screen up again with your sps colours.
Damn I need to step up my game with the trace elements dosing.
I know my lights are the main problem at the moment - Not enough oomph.

thanks! The light should be the last thing you play with.. Get your water exactly where you want it before the lights. They may end up being just fine...

Originally Posted by biggles

Looking through all those amazing top downs just blew me away Matt - absolutely stunning mate

My acros look the same as they did 18 months back........... i have the hates on my acros atm

I think you should do whatever is needed to protect my baby !

Thanks Andrew.
I'm sure your next fortune cookie will read 'growth is just around the corner!'
And it won't be referring to any anatomical features!
I think I will do a furiosa photo retrospective.. It's come a long way..

[reefmutt]

Originally Posted by DiscusHeckel

Hi Matt,

I may be very wrong here. If so, please correct me. Nitrifying bacteria need n, p and organic carbon (in addition to potassium, iron and some other elements) to live and thrive. Bacteria may be able to get their carbon needs from CO2 or even alkalinity (hence drop in alkalinity due to nitrogen cycle), but usually need some organic carbon source to multiply rapidly.

In my opinion, there are two possibilities here. One is that as you said with elevated n and p, you need more space for bacteria to colonise to reduce these nutrients. This assumes that your system is not carbon limited. If this assumption right, then you should indeed see drop in nutrients as soon as colonisation of nitrifying bacteria takes place on (or in?) the new media. The other possibility is that your system is carbon limited in which case adding more media for nitrifying bacteria will not make much different because without additional organic carbon bacteria population will not increase to consume n and p.

If n or p, or both are in short supply (e.g. zero), then adding organic carbon will not help either because bacteria cannot multiply without sufficient n and p in the water column.

Most reef set up are carbon limited with plenty of n and p. This is why I often assume that the second possibility is more likely than the first. Again, I may be wrong in this assumption.

Cheers

Bülent

I agree with parts of this, Bulent but not all..
And before I begin, please disregard the facile explanations if you are already aware.. I'm just trying to be as explanatory as possible.. No offense! I am not a biologist, this is only my understanding of how it works..
First, let's make sure we are talking about the right thing, here. It's denitrifying bacteria we are talking about, not nitrifying bacteria.
Nitrifying bacteria, that live mostly on the surfaces of everything in the aquarium and that require lots of oxygen to breath are the bacteria that convert ammonia to nitrite and then nitrate. Denitrifying bacteria, that grow in the very low oxygen areas of the tank (like in rocks, dsbs and other media like matrix or siporax) and use oxygen from no3 (nitrate) to breath are what we are talking about. It is the denitrifying bacteria colonizing the low oxygen areas and pulling the oxygen molecule out of the nitrate and phosphate that reduce the nutrients. They seem to like the oxygen molecule in the no3 better than the po4.. Not sure why.. Maybe on a chemical level it is easier to extract o from no3 than po4.. (that's beyond me..)
The following is my understanding not necessarily fact.. When talking about a captive reef with elevated or increasing nutrients (no3, po4) , it is almost impossible to have a carbon limited system. The very nature of a captive system with many organisms being fed regularly is such that some carbon is always present- especially if nutrients are elevated (fish foods and coral foods are also carbon sources). The available carbon may not be the best type of carbon like simple carbohydrates that come from sugar/vodka/pellets/vinegar etc but there is always enough to allow denitrifying bacteria to colonize all available space.
WITHOUT an actively added carbon source, the bacteria will sort of find a balance between available space to live given the amount of n and p there is to consume. As n and p climb, the bacteria can only colonize the available space and then reach capacity. If there is no more space, their numbers stop increasing. And if there is no more n or p, the same will occur. But given more space and available no3 and po4, the bacteria will continue to spread and increase in numbers. And thus be more capable of reducing the nutrients.
The addition of an external carbon source, either allows the existing denitrifying bacteria to go into overdrive OR allows different bacteria to thrive and as they populate the tank (sometimes clouding the water or producing bacterial slime in the shaded areas), they consume even more n and p.
To my mind, a 'carbon limited' system is a system with no waste producing animals in it... Not a reef tank.. In other words, for our intents and purposes, not possible..
If a system is phosphate or iron limited (or anything that will not allow bacteria to flourish) then yes adding more matrix or other surface area for denitrifying bacteria is useless.. Even adding a carbon source will be useless..
So, yes, bacteria need some po4, no3, carbon, iron.. Etc to thrive and without one of these, the bacteria stop working but I believe that carbon is almost always available.
I guess that where we aren't on the same page is with the concept of 'carbon limited'. I don't see that as a possibility in a full blown reef system.
So, I feel that as long as there is extra surface area and available n and p, bacteria will colonize that surface area and reduce the n and p.. Given enough surface area, denitrifying bacteria will reduce all available nitrate to 0 - as well as pull p down, but usually not as efficiently as n.
I guess where we differ is that I don't see carbon ever being a limiting factor whereas you feel that it is a common limiting factor..

[joshky]

Originally Posted by biggles

I think you should do whatever is needed to protect my baby !

Yes, mail me a piece for safety.

Holy crap this one is stunning! I LOVE the dark polyps on the light base and neon tips, wooooooowwwww.

[Kurt03]

This article is an interesting read, haven't heard of this connection between temperature and phosphate uptake. We couldn't possibley help control po4 by elevating temperature could we? I think we need some more experiments.

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/blog...oral-bleaching

what do you keep your tank temp at?

[reefmutt]

Originally Posted by joshky

Yes, mail me a piece for safety.

Holy crap this one is stunning! I LOVE the dark polyps on the light base and neon tips, wooooooowwwww.

Thanks, Josh. You know, I am not certain but I'm pretty sure this was a cultured piece.. I suspect it is kind of common. It's amazing how corals can take on special characteristics in a given environment.

Originally Posted by Kurt03

This article is an interesting read, haven't heard of this connection between temperature and phosphate uptake. We couldn't possibley help control po4 by elevating temperature could we? I think we need some more experiments.

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/blog...oral-bleaching

what do you keep your tank temp at?

Hey Kurt, that is kind of cool.. I keep my tank at around 80 in the summer and closer to 76 in the winter. I haven't noticed a change in po4 levels when my temp goes up in the spring.. Just a snail spawning event.
There is a comment at the bottom of the advanced aquarist article that mentions the experiments were performed with poccillopora corals.
I guess acropora are similar enough...
I bet you have to get the temp up to the range where the corals go into a sort of survival mode. Then, they probably start storing po4 like squirrels store nuts before the winter..

[wheelman76]

Hi Matt , thought you might be interested in reading this article after I read your thoughts on too much np pro possibly causing Stn in some of your corals. It's an interesting read and the video about microbes near the middle of the article is good too.

http://www.reefnation.com/side-dosin...ids-reef-tank/

[szathmary]

Hi Matt,

I agree with DiscusHeckel concerning carbon limitation.

As far as I know in our tank bacteria are carbon limited organisms since N and P is not a problem as long as you feed your system.
Only cyanobacteria can use CO2 as carbon source via photosynthesis the other guys are heterotroph so they need organic carbon sources like sugars, alcohol, etc. (Theoretically CaCO3 could be used in case the bacteria can use CO2)

As far as I know both anaerobic and aerobic processes requires lot of carbon:

anaerobic process needs C:N:P = 250:5:1
aerobic process needs C:N:P= 100:5:1

(I was told: in aerobic processes, app 50% of the carbon is lost by anabolism as CO2, the other 50% is built into the biomass. In anaerobic processes, there is much more carbon lost for anabolism and converted to CH4 and CO2.)

Here is a long old article about TOC (Total Organic Carbon): http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/8/aafeature3/ but it lacks real conclusion.

Bacteria needs space like siporax or LR + organic carbon. If you have high N and P you definitely have to find a way to either encourage bacterial activity with organic carbon dosing or decrease the N and P load of your system with feeding less or having stronger skimmer or even algae can help since it uses CO2 as a carbon source.

[DiscusHeckel]

Originally Posted by Kurt03

This article is an interesting read, haven't heard of this connection between temperature and phosphate uptake. We couldn't possibley help control po4 by elevating temperature could we? I think we need some more experiments.

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/blog...oral-bleaching

what do you keep your tank temp at?

Thanks for sharing the article.

[reefmutt]

Originally Posted by DiscusHeckel

Hi Matt,

I may be very wrong here. If so, please correct me. Nitrifying bacteria need n, p and organic carbon (in addition to potassium, iron and some other elements) to live and thrive. Bacteria may be able to get their carbon needs from CO2 or even alkalinity (hence drop in alkalinity due to nitrogen cycle), but usually need some organic carbon source to multiply rapidly.

In my opinion, there are two possibilities here. One is that as you said with elevated n and p, you need more space for bacteria to colonise to reduce these nutrients. This assumes that your system is not carbon limited. If this assumption right, then you should indeed see drop in nutrients as soon as colonisation of nitrifying bacteria takes place on (or in?) the new media. The other possibility is that your system is carbon limited in which case adding more media for nitrifying bacteria will not make much different because without additional organic carbon bacteria population will not increase to consume n and p.

If n or p, or both are in short supply (e.g. zero), then adding organic carbon will not help either because bacteria cannot multiply without sufficient n and p in the water column.

Most reef set up are carbon limited with plenty of n and p. This is why I often assume that the second possibility is more likely than the first. Again, I may be wrong in this assumption.

Cheers

Bülent

Originally Posted by szathmary

Hi Matt,

I agree with DiscusHeckel concerning carbon limitation.

As far as I know in our tank bacteria are carbon limited organisms since N and P is not a problem as long as you feed your system.
Only cyanobacteria can use CO2 as carbon source via photosynthesis the other guys are heterotroph so they need organic carbon sources like sugars, alcohol, etc. (Theoretically CaCO3 could be used in case the bacteria can use CO2)

As far as I know both anaerobic and aerobic processes requires lot of carbon:

anaerobic process needs C:N:P = 250:5:1
aerobic process needs C:N:P= 100:5:1

(I was told: in aerobic processes, app 50% of the carbon is lost by anabolism as CO2, the other 50% is built into the biomass. In anaerobic processes, there is much more carbon lost for anabolism and converted to CH4 and CO2.)

Here is a long old article about TOC (Total Organic Carbon): http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/8/aafeature3/ but it lacks real conclusion.

Bacteria needs space like siporax or LR + organic carbon. If you have high N and P you definitely have to find a way to either encourage bacterial activity with organic carbon dosing or decrease the N and P load of your system with feeding less or having stronger skimmer or even algae can help since it uses CO2 as a carbon source.

First let me say that these two articles are fascinating and practically go hand in hand in some respects. They should be read together. AND they are very timely placed (obviously) after my posted feelings on excess carbon dosing.. They are a strong warning against going too far with carbon sources..
Both discuss microbial activity (good and bad) when carbon is introduced to the tank..
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/8/aafeature3/
http://www.reefnation.com/side-dosin...ids-reef-tank/

Thanks you Szathmary and Wheelman for the links.

Hey Bulent and Szathmary you guys have posed a very interesting question that I don't think is so easily answered. And not being a scientist or a biologist, I am not in a position to argue, nor do I feel an argument is due.
Clearly from a carbon dosing point of view, what you guys are saying makes absolute sense. Whenever you add carbon to a system, you almost invariably get a reduction in n and p levels.
But does this mean the system was carbon limited before the addition?? Does the resultant reduction in nutrients after adding carbon necessarily indicate that a system was carbon limited before? I don't know.. I'm not sure..
I honestly think that in a captive reef, with many foods going in, carbon is often available.. But I may very well be wrong..
I keep coming back to what you said, Bulent about the addition of siporax, live rock or matrix not necessarily reducing n in a system with elevated levels of nutrients.. I just can't wrap my head around this.. I look at my system with a million fish that I am feeding so much food to, how could it be carbon limited?
I remember back in the day when 'plenum' systems- which preceded dsbs came onto the scene.. I watched my algae infested tank gradually become pristine over the course of a couple months as the newly installed sand became colonized with bacterial colonies..
I guess I should have had a closer look at or maybe I should revive the matrix/siporax thread and see how many people actually had positive results from simply adding more media to sir systems.

I guess ultimately, we come back to the question of proper balance.. Getting that balance between just the right amount of carbon to deal with just the right amount of nutrients so as not to promote the nasty microbes but keep nutrients properly managed.
Well, Bulent, maybe I won't bother adding any more matrix to my system!
I have really been thinking about this for a few days now.
You guys really got me thinking.. As did the links posted above.
Thanks for that!

[szathmary]

I'm not biologist neither chemist. But I have a point of view:

1. First of all, we talk about organic carbon limitation. So its not about the lack of carbon in total including CO2.
2. Secondly, when we say that our system - from the bacteria's point of view at least - is carbon limited we do not reveal a tragedy, if you see what I mean. Organic carbon limitation is not a serious issue and the system will not collapse. Its only a problem for us, aquarists, who want to manipulate zooxanthellae density and the growth of other algae while we continuously pump nitrogen and phosphorus into our system via feeding. Algae is autotroph so photosynthesis can supply them with organic carbon as opposed to other animals, so not the organic carbon limitation is the "tragedy" but the excess nitrogen and phosphorus.
3. But finally, and I think this is the key: from the nitrogen and phosphorus intake a much bigger portion stays in the nutrient cycle of our tank than from the carbon intake. I.) We almost have all the phosphate stay. II.) Denitrification could completely remove nitrogen in the form of nitrogen gas from the tank but it wont happen too efficiently in an average tank. III) But unfortunately our tank looses lot of carbon via CO2 which is a by-products of respiration (e.g via breathing of our fish).

[DiscusHeckel]

Hi Matt,

I am having second thoughts about carbon limitation in a well stocked and fed reef tank, which is full of corals and fish, after reading the second part of Ken Feldman's paper. However, I still think that the introduction of additional repository for bacteria (e.g. in the form of Sera Siporax or Seachem Matrix Biomedia) in an established system, does not impact on their population unless there is increased food source for them, i.e. more organic carbon. Like you, I will need to read the long Seachem matrix/siporax thread to find out what Reefvet said in that thread.

Cheers

Bülent

[justy]

If there is not enough real estate for bacteria to grow on surely it can not multiplie beyond those confines if more food is put in.
We used to recommend how much live rock per gallon was needed, and on siporax and matrix there are instructions for how much is needed per volume of tank water.
If we exceed these best guesses surely the bacteria will expand and consume more food.
Does that make any sense????
Interesting debate

[reefmutt]

Bulent, thanks again for your thoughts and for part 2 of the Ken Feldman's Advanced Aquarist article.
The conclusion to part two is very interesting, indeed and like part one doesn't really make any concrete conclusions about denitrifying bacteria's ability to colonize available space and actually denitrify completely.
Justy, I think that it is pretty clear that no matter how much media you put into your reef, it will get colonized by bacteria- the question is whether that bacteria will have enough organic carbon to actually perform denitrification.
Clearly, as Szathmary points out, because reefers are so often battling high n and p numbers, organic carbon must be in short supply..
But as Bulent mentioned, and the below quote alludes to, in a reef system with lots of fish and lots of foods going in, there is a lot of cycling and recycling of organic carbon..

"On thriving reefs, most carbon input originates with atmospheric CO2, which is "fixed" via photosynthesis first into carbohydrates, and then into a multitude of other organic molecules. Much of this carbon, which is generated by the zooxanthellae in corals, is reemitted as coral mucus. This coral contribution significantly enriches the pool of DOC. This DOC is prime food for a large variety of reef microbiota, including bacteria, both in the water column and in the corals themselves, and microplankton, etc. Finally, these microflora and microfauna serve as food for a variety of filter feeders, including, again, the corals. Thus, the interdependency of reef organisms, both large and small, is revealed as the carbon-based nutrients are recycled."

And this doesn't even take into account fish and coral foods that we add which also increase available organic carbon..
The following quote from the same article points to a captive reef's shortcomings when compared to the ocean..
But the bottom part that I highlighted with little stary thingies goes back to the discussion about too much carbon dosing and the potential for causing stn or rtn..

"The surrounding oligotrophic ocean serves as a buffer which can absorb excess nutrients that might otherwise prove harmful to reef inhabitants and modulate the levels of dissolved species by import and export, depending on relative (reef vs. open ocean) concentrations. Our captive reefs fall far short of this nutrient commerce model; we have, of course, no open ocean buffer to dilute away waste and so we rely on water changes to perform this vital function, and it remains unclear whether our aquaria contain all of the components, in appropriate proportions, of authentic reefs necessary to promote efficient nutrient recycling. Nevertheless, what we do seems to work, at least most of the time. **But, what happens when things go wrong? Circumstantial evidence from Rohwer's studies implicates DOC imbalances in coral mortality, with runaway bacterial growth as a likely mediating culprit."**

Having said all of this I wanted to point out that over the past 3 weeks, I have been watching my nutrients- or really nitrate- fall for no apparent reason. The only thing I have been going is shaking out my baskets of Matrix. This has obviously released clouds of detritus.
In response to this, I have dropped my NP Pro dose to 10 drops per day and began feeding a bit more. Nitrates have climbed back up to 2ppm and since I added a bit of gfo, p is down to .08-.1. I plan to slowly lower my phosphates with increasing gfo additions until I can get it closer to .04. I plan to do this over a month or so- especially with the oddly jumping nitrate levels. I don't want to do anything drastic right now.
Also, I have reduced my additions of Koralcolor and Micro E. When I began using it, I really saw a boost in growth and maybe slight colour improvements but nothing drastic.
I am thinking that perhaps, after a few months of these additions, they have reached decent levels and just to make sure that I don't overdose anything, I am reducing the the amount dosed.

11 ml koralcolor- down from 20ml
4 drops Micro E- down from 6 drops
I stopped dosing Flourine BUT-
Increased lugols by 1 drop to 3 drops per day.
I am continuing with 10 drops Coral V (vitality) per day.
I am also continuing with the flatworm stop for now... Although I see nothing from using it..
But since I am getting ready to do an intercepter dose, I will continue with it.

[kevlow]

Wow. That is a lot of good stuff to take in, in your last post.

In the second paragraph it refers to coral mucus as a good thing [if I read this right]. It is a DOC and feeds the bacteria which in turn feeds the corals and filter feeders.

But the fourth paragraph throws me a bit of a curve. I take this ending statement as this: runaway bacterial growth can cause a DOC imbalance. Too much bacteria can consume all the DOC in our limited systems. This can cause coral mortality if the carbon is not replaced or regenerated.

Am I getting this right?

[aquavision]

:headway: why can't corals look that good...Your tank is amazing!!!

[reefmutt]

Originally Posted by kevlow

Wow. That is a lot of good stuff to take in, in your last post.

In the second paragraph it refers to coral mucus as a good thing [if I read this right]. It is a DOC and feeds the bacteria which in turn feeds the corals and filter feeders.

But the fourth paragraph throws me a bit of a curve. I take this ending statement as this: runaway bacterial growth can cause a DOC imbalance. Too much bacteria can consume all the DOC in our limited systems. This can cause coral mortality if the carbon is not replaced or regenerated.

Am I getting this right?

Check out this article and video,
http://www.reefnation.com/side-dosin...ids-reef-tank/
Just past the mid way point, she talks about excess nutrients and over active bacteria and microbes..
It's alluded to here as well:
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/8/aafeature3/
I take it as the opposite, sort of: Excess nutrients or excess organic carbon can produce an over abundance or imbalance in the bacterial levels which may cause
The bacteria and/or microbes to attack the corals.
It is now my understanding that low carbon levels will not allow bacteria to flourish, but excess carbon can make'em crazy!

[reefmutt]

Originally Posted by aquavision

:headway: why can't corals look that good...Your tank is amazing!!!

Hey aquavision thanks for stopping in! And thanks for the praise!
In your honor, I will post some porn to go with the preceding 'articles'
Few close ups:
Ice fire. Holding colour but not growing much..

This tabler has really taken off. Loving it right now..

Little Fiji coral ball that I've had for a year and stayed a pale cream forever. It has coloured up but not grown much.

Jaw dropper arm..growing well but as if said, the colony lower down gets better colour. This one seem to have trouble dealing with the light..

An arm of my fastest grower. Don't know what it is. The colony is on the floor of the tank front, far left..

Fts to follow!

[reefmutt]

Ok fish eye fts and then a split..

Left side:

Right side:

[joshky]

Love the new shots, the fish eye shot is very cool.

Question, is that a gyre on your overflow or some lookalike return voodoo? If it's indeed a gyre, how'd you go about mounting it there?

[Sand Dollar]

Holy fish-eye lens, Batman! Tank looks phenomenal Matt.

[reefmutt]

Originally Posted by joshky

Love the new shots, the fish eye shot is very cool.

Question, is that a gyre on your overflow or some lookalike return voodoo? If it's indeed a gyre, how'd you go about mounting it there?

Yes, it's a smaller gyre. The overflow is acrylic and the magnet sits inside the box. The magnet does not rust or stain at all. Must be the same type of magnet used for impellers.

Originally Posted by Sand Dollar

Holy fish-eye lens, Batman! Tank looks phenomenal Matt.

thanks! There are limited uses for the fish eye but it is fun to use. The two split shots are also with the fish eye. Only zoomed in to reduce the barrel effect.