really nice low tech reef, TOTM @reefs,org

[dogmatix]

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2006/2/aquarium

Well woth a look

[wasp]

Very interesting!

A 3 year old DSB, without even a skimmer. Personally I wouldn't have tried this I just didn't think it would work, but obviously it does.

Just wonder if it would work without the algae refugium.

[Feelers]

Hey wow t5 lighting only too. He doesnt do much of a water change either. I really like it.

[wasp]

Wait till Layton sees it!

[Drifty]

cool looking tank

[lduncan]

Notice under the Philosophy section"

Sediments should be siphoned out and algae be harvested

and

From the beginning there was a very low concentration of nutrients (NO3=0mg/l; PO4= 0-0,024mg/l measured with Merck)

Interesting.

I wouldn't consider 0.024mg/L particularly low, considering the nature of phosphate.

However the tank does look nice. But then I've never said you can't have a nice looking tank with a sand bed.

Layton

[cracker]

gotta say, it impresses me!

[ghostface]

nice! wont be trying his method, but its intersting to see it works...

[wasp]

Notice under the Philosophy section"

Layton

I'm still surprised at its success though, There's going to be a tremendous amount of crud in the DSB under those rocks which simply cannot be syphoned. I really do feel like I've got some more learning to do here, I just didn't think what he's achieved would be possible.

Interesting.

I wouldn't consider 0.024mg/L particularly low, considering the nature of phosphate.

Layton

I would, remember this is measured with a Merck, not a Salifert. This result would compare more than favourably with a lot / most reef tanks.

I've never said you can't have a nice looking tank with a sand bed.

Layton

Chuckle!! :lol:

[lduncan]

I'm still surprised at its success though, There's going to be a tremendous amount of crud in the DSB under those rocks which simply cannot be syphoned. I really do feel like I've got some more learning to do here, I just didn't think what he's achieved would be possible.

Remember how sand beds work though. They cycle between absorbing and release. You can't determine the period of this cycle until it happens. 3 years may not be a long time.

I would, remember this is measured with a Merck, not a Salifert. This result would compare more than favourably with a lot / most reef tanks.

It's the same test method. May or may not be any more accurate. Also remember it's still testing orthophosphate. When that exists, all other sinks of phosphate are saturated. Something which you don't want happening. Bottom line, it's still a lot of phosphate.

Chuckle!! :lol:

Just think how sand beds work. They absorb first.

Also another thing you have to consider, is that it's just a photo. It doesn't show any problems the tank may have had etc.

It's just what the tank looks like at a single point in time.

Layton

[wasp]

it's still testing orthophosphate. When that exists, all other sinks of phosphate are saturated. Layton

Can't buy that theory, it's impossible.

Orthophosphate may exist LONG before all other phosphate sinks are saturated.

[lduncan]

Why is it impossible?

[wasp]

Well consider the implications of what you are saying Layton.

Based on what you say, orthophosphate only exists if all other sinks are saturated, ie, orthophosphate will be absolute zero until every possible place phosphate could be bound is "totally saturated".

But phosphate can continue to be bound until the tank is a complete block of phosphate. Prior to that, there will always be somewhere for phosphate to go. But still we have orthophosphate. Explain that.

Now before you go psycho I do agree with what I think you mean, about the ebb & flow of phosphate between the various forms that exist in a tank, and I also accept that the more bound phosphate in various forms that exists, the more likelihood of a catastrophic conversion to high orthophosphate levels causing a "crash".

However, to say that orthophosphate does not exist unless all other "sinks" as you call it, are "totally saturated", would mean that the subject tank of this thread, having measureable orthophosphate, must be "totally saturated", in other words, right on the brink of a crash, as we speak. As it is "totally saturated", there is nowhere left for any phosphate to go, and so as phosphate is added via feeding, this can only become orthophosphate and we may fully anticipate this tank crashing within the next few weeks.

If you send me some water from your own tank for testing, I guarantee I will find some orthophosphate in it. But is your own tank "totally saturated"? I doubt it.

I'm afraid this idea is another example of one of Bombers theories being presented as a fact. ( Again ).

[lduncan]

Based on what you say, orthophosphate only exists if all other sinks are saturated, ie, orthophosphate will be absolute zero until every possible place phosphate could be bound is "totally saturated".

But phosphate can continue to be bound until the tank is a complete block of phosphate. Prior to that, there will always be somewhere for phosphate to go. But still we have orthophosphate. Explain that.

Well think of it this way. At any one point in time there is a certain amount of bio-mass. That biomass only has a certain demand for phosphate. Because orthophosphate is the most reactive form (that's why it's sometimes called reactive phopshate) it's used by many organisms in the tank as fast as possible, and doesn't hang around unless it has to.

What you're saying here is that there is potential for the biomass to increase, creating more demand for phosphate in the future. Which is all good and well, but it does address the fact that at that particular point in time (for whatever reason) the sinks are full, and there is reactive phosphate just sitting around. From Randy

Surface waters are greatly depleted in phosphate relative to deeper waters, due to biological activities in the surface waters that sequester phosphate in organisms.

Bacteria and phyto consume orthophsophate as fast as possible if it is available. Saturated means that sinks are full at that point in time. It doesn't mean that sometime in the future there may not be more phosphate stored (due to an increase in biomass), which is what you are saying here.

Now before you go psycho I do agree with what I think you mean, about the ebb & flow of phosphate between the various forms that exist in a tank, and I also accept that the more bound phosphate in various forms that exists, the more likelihood of a catastrophic conversion to high orthophosphate levels causing a "crash".

Well it doesn't have anything to do with how much phosphate is there, it has to do with how oxygen levels change.

However, to say that orthophosphate does not exist unless all other "sinks" as you call it, are "totally saturated", would mean that the subject tank of this thread, having measureable orthophosphate, must be "totally saturated", in other words, right on the brink of a crash, as we speak. As it is "totally saturated", there is nowhere left for any phosphate to go, and so as phosphate is added via feeding, this can only become orthophosphate and we may fully anticipate this tank crashing within the next few weeks.

Now you are talking about the dynamics of phosphate, rates of use and uptakes, which complicates things further. Animals are reproducing, bacteria and algae are using it, so how can you say that the phosphate added via feeding HAS to become orthophosphate? And then speculate a timeframe for the tank to "crash".

Also I see you are misquoting me again I said "saturated" not "totally saturated". Is that to add dramatic effect? Or to skew what I said to what you like to think I said?

I'm afraid this idea is another example of one of Bombers theories being presented as a fact. ( Again ).

It's no theory. This is what allows skimmers to be so efficient. It's what allows the zeovit system and many others like it to work.

Layton

[Sharkey]

Hi Guys

There seems to be a few things that would keep his phosphate levels down .

1st It sounds like he has a good water flow into his sump etc and my guess is he is lowering the dissolved phosphate level in the water by ejecting the phosphate as a aerosol.

2nd Im not to sure about the balling effect hes talking about but dosing calcium hydroxide solution causes rapid Precipition of dissolved Phosphate due to the supply of calcium ions and the increase in Ph caused by the hydroxide ions. The precipitated phosphate is insouluble in natural saltwater ph.( This is when he sucks it out ) Could be the same theory?

3rd Algae obtain phosphate by secreting Special enzymes that digest it

4th Major Water changes

And to Finish. Something Julian Sprung wrote in Coral 7/2004 Talking about the Plenum System . My practicle experience with this system including measurment of nitrate and phosphate convinces me that the system is dynamic.And so the Plenum is not a nutrient sink.Its true that nitrate and nitrite phosphate and silicate may be found in plenum water at levels much higher than water above the gravel.However they do not stay high. The plenum water does not cause sudden fluctuations in water quality as suggested by some authors.

Also professor Jean Jaubert who works at the university of Nice france has shown amazing result at the Monaco Museum with prolific growth of Stylophora Pavona Motipora etc.

Still very inpressive tank .

PS I see the constructive arguments have started again.

[wasp]

Layton - A well put together argument, although a little oversimplistic.

Well think of it this way.

Whatever way I think of it, or whatever way it is argued, none of this changes the FACT that orthophosphate exists in every marine aquarium.

This is wether the "sinks" are "saturated", as you say, or not.

However no point having a 10 page argument over it, I have tested water from many tanks and they all contain orthophosphate in fact if they did not, the corals would die. If you send me water to test from your own tank, I will find orthophosphate in it. That is the proof of the matter, and the FACT.

No point arguing further.

Sharkey - Good post, I think there is a little more to add as well, for example, precipitating phosphate in a tank is one way to get rid of it, however, as Layton would correctly attest, it is still in the tank and may rear it's ugly head sometime down the track.

But what you said is certainly food for thought, the bottom line is the tank works, and there may be more to it than both Layton & I together, realise.

Your plenum comments were interesting, I once had a plenum, and even tried plenum wasting. Some people can make it work, I could not. But a very interesting subject.

[lduncan]

I have tested water from many tanks and they all contain orthophosphate in fact if they did not, the corals would die. If you send me water to test from your own tank, I will find orthophosphate in it. That is the proof of the matter, and the FACT.

While it's true that orthophosphate will exist in trace amounts at any instance in time (that's the nature of all random processes), a value of 0.024 is around 10 times the limit people consider to be an indication of eutrophication, which in it self is many times the amount of phosphate required by corals to live and be happy. If the sinks were not saturated it would not exist in excessive amounts like this.

The equipment and method you use to measure phosphate is meaningless. All it means is that there is phosphate well in excess of what is really required to have corals live and grow. Orthophosphate is not the only source of phosphate for corals. At these levels it does more harm than good.

I'm not under the illusion that because I can't detect it it's not there. You shouldn't be under the illusion that the numbers you get from your tests are somehow more useful. The test's we use can hardly test levels at the eutrophication limit, they're just not suitable for telling you how good your phosphate levels are, they can only tell you how bad they are.

Coral researchers have trouble measuring orthophosphate levels in surface ocean waters because the readings they get are below the accuracy limits of the equipment they use, and are infact often recorded at the value of the accuracy limit, even though they may in reality be much lower.

Layton

[wasp]

While it's true that orthophosphate will exist in trace amounts at any instance in time

Cool. We've agreed there then.

a value of 0.024 is around 10 times the limit people consider to be an indication of eutrophication, which in it self is many times the amount of phosphate required by corals to live and be happy.

Layton

People? What people? You'll find some people who think just about anything.

I'm not going to argue about which particular value is 10 times the value for eutrophication, or what is required to maintain corals in good health.

I will simply restate my origional point, ie - the FACT that orthophosphate exists in every reef tank. Easily proved by me simply testing some water from your own tank.

No amount of arguing will change that, it's a fact. Bombers theory is wrong.

[lduncan]

Bombers theory is wrong.

Nope. Not wrong at all.

Layton

[lduncan]

People? What people?

People who know what they are talking about:

"Only in recent years have we have learned just how low nutrients must be to maintain healthy coral reefs. The limits were found independently by two researchers working on opposite sides of the globe, who were not aware of each other's work. By looking at the relative amounts of corals and algae along nutrient gradients from intense land-based sources, namely agricultural fertilizers in Australia and bird droppings on a mangrove island in Belize, Peter Bell and Brian Lapointe independently determined exactly the same limit for acceptable nutrient concentrations. Biologically available nitrogen (nitrate plus ammonia) needs to be below 1.0 micromole per liter (less than 0.014 parts per million of nitrogen), and biologically available phosphorus (orthophosphate plus dissolved organic phosphorus) needs to be below 0.1 micromole per liter (less than 0.003 parts per million of phosphorus). In addition concentrations of chlorophyll (in the microscopic plants called phytoplankton) needs to be below 0.5 parts per billion.

These values are all regarded as extremely low levels, almost undetectable, in coastal waters of temperate and cold zones. For years researchers measured concentrations in this range but thought that values were too low to possibly cause problems to reefs. This was wrong because they used irrelevant standards for acceptable nutrient levels. It is essential that appropriate water quality standards be applied in coral reef ecosystems if they are to be protected against eutrophication."

No amount of arguing will change that, it's a fact. Bombers theory is wrong.

Yet to see anything which suggests it's wrong. If the sinks are full, then you'll have orthophosphate. If they are not full, you won't have orthophosphate, it is used very quickly (you'll have trace amounts which are in transition but considered negligible)

Layton

[jetskisteve]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[wasp]

You still say Bombers theory is not wrong! You just don't make any sense.

Every tank I've ever tested has orthophosphate. Either they all have, in your words "saturated sinks", or bombers theory is wrong. This is because bombers theory is that orthophosphate does not exist in a tank unless it's "sinks" are "saturated"

Now there have been some nice tanks, I just don't believe they all have "saturated sinks" ( Whatever that really is ).

However if you don't believe this I stand ready to prove it with your cooperation at any time. Easily done, as I think you may accept evidence from your own tank.

You've just spent months cooking your rocks, and I suspect you now think that your "sinks" are no longer "saturated". Send some of your tank water for testing, I will find orthophosphate in it. That will prove it to even you, no further argument required.

[lduncan]

You still say Bombers theory is not wrong! You just don't make any sense.

It does, you just don't understand it fully.

Every tank I've ever tested has orthophosphate. Either they all have, in your words "saturated sinks", or bombers theory is wrong. This is because bombers theory is that orthophosphate does not exist in a tank unless it's "sinks" are "saturated"

Now there have been some nice tanks, I just don't believe they all have "saturated sinks" ( Whatever that really is ).

First off it's not a theory of bombers, it's not even a theory, it's accepted as what happens. If it wasn't accepted, orthophosphate wouldn't be used as a indicator of bad things happening.

Second sinks are biological, not physical. Just because you have potential to fill rock with bacteria, does not mean that the rock is only saturated when the maximum amount of bacteria which can fit in it is in it. When a sink is said to be full, it means that the biomass at that instant has a demand which is less than the supply. (It's a dynamic thing, obviously as bacteria die and reproduce)

When I say "does not exist" it means the same as ammonia does not exist in a cycled tank. Ammonia DOES exist in all tank, it's being produced and takes a finite amount of time to be used by bacteria and algae. So, if you had a sensitive test for ammonia, you may find that it exists in every tank. Like I said it's the nature of random processes. The situation of orthophosphate when sinks are not saturated is much like ammonia. It exist in tiny amounts, it's produced or added, and it takes a finite amount of time for bacteria and phyto to find it and sequester it.

Remember skimmers and systems like zeovit, probidio etc all rely on bacteria and phyto grabbing phosphate in excess as quickly as possible. They would not be nearly as useful if they didn't.

However if you don't believe this I stand ready to prove it with your cooperation at any time. Easily done, as I think you may accept evidence from your own tank.

You've just spent months cooking your rocks, and I suspect you now think that your "sinks" are no longer "saturated". Send some of your tank water for testing, I will find orthophosphate in it. That will prove it to even you, no further argument required.

You're using a test with +/- 0.04 error though, how is that useful?

I can't tell whether my tank is saturated with phosphate or not. I don't have the resources to find out (a Hanna phosphate meter is not a useful test for this). I could take a guess though.

Layton

[wasp]

When I say "does not exist" it means the same as ammonia does not exist in a cycled tank. Ammonia DOES exist in all tankLayton

Oh I see. THAT'S where I screwed up!

I thought when you said "does not exist", it meant "does not exist".

That's what I was saying, it does exist. And if bombers theory is that it doesn't, then bombers theory, or your interpretation of it, is wrong.

Very simple now.

Now we both appear to be saying that IT DOES EXIST, perhaps we can leave it at that, rather than continue a silly argument which just seems to be a word game.

But if you wish to continue, please don't. As previously stated I am happy, with your cooperation, to prove it to you, which to me anyway, makes a lot more sense than pointless arguing. As one who considers himself an educated man, you will surely be open minded to this and ready to learn.

[Jeroen]

Good thread to learn things but I must say that Wasp is very stubbern without adding any substance to the story besides getting very good explanations from Layton.

Layton, from my understanding reading this thread is that orthophosphate is a very strong oxydiser and will practically be consumed as soon as it appears. This means that we will only measure orthophosphate when we have more total phosphate in the system then that the bioload needs / can handle. This does indeed mean that as soon as we can measure it we do have too much.

Wasp, what method do you use to measure orthophosphate? What numbers do you get and what is the accuracy of the method (not only the meter). In my line of work I am always very carefull with measument numbers. Customer often ask me how much is in a sample and if you give them a number that ill be used a fixed without looking at how that number is established. When testing such small quatities lots of things have to be taken into account besides the test itself. Like sampling method / stability of sample between sampling and testing / all kind of ways to get the sample contaminated and the list goes on. We do certain testing and the results might be +/- 30% but nobody that takes that into account. Not all testing is fact. Only testing where everything is taken into account and we understand the meaning of the result.

Jeroen.