Phosphate that won't go away

[SantaMonica]

Some people are surprised when their nitrate goes to zero, but their phosphate only drops to a certain level, and stays there. Could it be that their scrubber "nitrate limited"?

No. What is happening is that the rocks (and maybe the sand) are releasing phosphate back into the water, slowly. Rocks, and to a lesser extent sand, absorb phosphate like a sponge. When the scrubber removes phosphate from the water, the rocks put this phosphate back into the water. This can last for weeks to months, depending on how much phosphate was in the rocks, and how fast your scrubber is removing phosphate.

At first, the phosphate coming out of the rocks can cause additional algae to grow on the rocks, but this will fade away after weeks or months. However, even when it fades away, phosphate is still coming out of the rocks. It has to, until the phosphate "inside" the rocks equals "zero", which is what the phosphate in the water is trying to reach too.

The stronger your scrubber is, the faster this "zero" situation will happen. Also, the stronger your scrubber is, and the more flow-through it has, the more likely you will measure "zero" phosphate in the water even though some phosphate is still coming out of the rocks. This is because as soon as a little bit of phosphate comes out of the rocks and goes into the water, it is pushed into your scrubber and absorbed by the algae there before it can ever build up enough in the water to be measured. If your scrubber is weak, however, even a little phosphate coming out of the rocks will build up enough in the water to be measured.

Ironically, the phosphate that you measure in your water can actually increase after the nuisance algae on the rocks goes away. Why? Because that nuisance algae was consuming the phosphate as it was coming out of the rocks; with no more algae on the rocks, the phosphate that comes out of the rocks just goes into the water, where it will be measured by your tests unless it gets sucked up immediately by your scrubber.

Also, even more ironically, the more and faster your scrubber pulls phosphate out of the rocks, that more this phosphate will "hit" any corals that are on the rocks. And it will occur most at the bottom of the corals, where they are attached (and are nearest) to the rocks.

So the normal progression of a tank with bad algae problems might be:

1. Bad nuisance algae everywhere (water may test "zero" for nitrate and phosphate because the algae consumes it.)
2. Add scrubber.
3. Nuisance algae goes away from bare plastic, glass and sand, but increases on rocks. Nutrients in water may go up, or down.
4. Corals may turn brown where they are attached to the rocks.
5. Nitrate in water finally goes to "zero", but phosphate only drops to a certain level.
6. Nuisance algae on rocks finally goes away. Phosphate in water may go up.
7. Finally, all phosphate is removed; water tests "zero", and no more nuisance algae is in tank.

[Floyd R Turbo]

Ok I'll bite. 120 gallon tank in the Dentist's office. I took over maintenance in December of 2009. Phos on API or Salifert was around 1.0. By the end of 12/09 it was 0.5-1.0. By mid-Feb, running RowaPHOS it was 0.03-0.1 on Salifert. Hovered between 0.03 and 0.15, maybe as high as 0.25 through until Oct 2010

10/10/2010 the first scrubber was put on. Sized for tank, 4x T5HO lamps with TEK-II reflectors, grew algae like crazy. By Nov 2010 it was 0 (I have only one recorded test of zero between 10/10/10 and 5/2011). Replaced with second scrubber (same lights, better housing) in Jan 2011, grew 3D like CRAZY. By then P was 0.19, 0.11, 0.21 (Hanna meter now). In March 2011 I replaced the drain and return plumbing to increase flow. My test log shows it bouncing back an forth but generally between 0.09 and 0.16, which is no significant change from before.

Tank crack developed and I moved everything May 15 2011. 4 days later, P 0.63 (no scrubber). Nitrates never went above 5.0 on Salifert. Scrubber installed after 1 week and by June 6th, at 0.14 and then continued to bounce around as before.

Tank contents moved to new tank in Nov/Dec 2011. After full move and 1 week of scrubber running, P dropped to zero. From that point, it started to climb again and kept between 0.05 and 0.13 for over 6 months.

I put the smaller LED scrubber on it at the end of June. Last week tested N=0 P=0. This week mid growth was N=0 P=0.03. Just took sample and will test again.

But the long and short of it is that this system had an initial condition in Dec 2009, as best as I can tell, of P=1.0 or thereabout (N was also 160). This condition was addressed and N and P were reduced quickly (by Feb 2010) and maintained low for at least 6 months using PWCs and RowaPHOS and from LR and a skimmer & filter socks.

Granted that from 10/10/10 until March 2011 the scrubber was probably under-flow. Then the top-of-tank scrubber was used for 6 months, then back to in-sump.

That is a total of 20 months of powerful scrubbing in a tank that was not algae ridden to begin with, it was actually pretty clean looking. There was never any algae that bloomed from the rocks indicating leeching, there was not a significant clean-up crew, there were a few tangs but even those now don't eat much of the algae in the tank.

So while I agree that your above scenario theoretically could be the case, I argue that it is most certainly not always the case as this it not the situation I have encountered, and it is not the situation others have encountered either.

So at best, this is a theory based on a situation that may or may not be the case, and is surely not proven, either way. The bottom line is that many people experience this (N drop to zero and P climbs) and not all can be explained like this.

[Ace25]

Last months experiment with a UAS... new Frag tank ... no sand... no rock.. few corals, fed 2x a week with reef chili. New water, tested 0/.01 before use, used screen from my ATS, after 1 week, nitrates still 0, phosphates went from .01 to .15. Explain that. (I know the answer, just seeing if SM can figure it out).

[Garf]

Glad your back Ace, although I have a feeling you never left. You just love it too much.

[Ace25]

I love science and experimenting.. what I don't love is seeing all the terrible information SM is giving out. This post is a perfect example. He can't seem to admit the ATS/UAS has some limitations that require extra means to control. He has even gone so far to say he has always had 0/0 readings and then finally admits last week he never actually tested his phosphates, and when he finally does, they are .36!


I just used my Hanna digital meter that I bough last year for the first time... said 0.36. And the API said 0.25. N is zero on Salifert.

[srusso]

My tank is all the proof I need of the issue with nitrate limitations.... Nature has laws... we just need to know them... Photosynthesis is the most amazing "factory" ever created. However if one of the needed "raw materials (N)" are not available, when needed. In addition to having too much of another "raw material (P)", work in the factory slows or comes to a halt until enough material is obtained to complete, or the cell dies...

SM, can you show proof otherwise?

[Floyd R Turbo]

Other way around...P available, N not...but works either way...

[srusso]

yep, noticed it soon as I hit post... lol its fixed

[tebo]

Well my case is the opposite of all of you, my tank is a year in December

And before commenting serious errors no3 were always between 1.1 and 2.2 ppm (Lamotte) and phosphate between 0.02 and 0.06 ppm (hanna)

After an accident in my aquarium, no3 jumped to a little more than 28ppm, but my phosphates rose slightly to 0.08 ppm

After this event has been a battle no3 down, but otherwise my phosphates down to 0.00 and I have to raise them constantly, so that the algae can consume efficiently no3


It's just my experience

regards

[Floyd R Turbo]

I agree your tank is the odd exception tebo. How are you adding Phosphate to the system??

[SantaMonica]

last week he never actually tested his phosphates

Somehow, you did not mention the 5+ years that I did test. Sometimes every day for months straight. And somehow, you did not seem to read the text on your screen, which said that P was always zero before starting liquid coral feeding.

BTW, your N is not zero. Get a low range kit.



However if one of the needed "raw materials (N)" are not available, when needed. In addition to having too much of another "raw material (P)", work in the factory slows or comes to a halt until enough material is obtained to complete, or the cell dies... SM, can you show proof otherwise?

Plenty of material added by food. Matter of fact, all the materials added are by food. And food (especially nori) has about the same N/P ratio as the algae you harvest.

I'm going by the number of tanks that have been scrubbed over the years. Only in the last few months has this phosphate thing come up.

[Floyd R Turbo]

...said that P was always zero before starting liquid coral feeding.

http://algaescrubber.net/forums/showthread.php?1052-Home-blended-coral-food-5 started 3/5/2011, I assume you were liquid feeding before this date?

Post #21 dated 8/4/2011 "Now feeding this 72 ml per day, plus 20 square inches of nori a day, plus one whole silverside a week for the eel. "

So:

1) when did you add the 2nd SM100
2) how much were you feeding before you started the liquid coral food
3) Why not test N and P for the last year after drastically changing feeding? That's over a year without testing. Stating "I have never had phosphate" several times between then and now has led people to believe that somehow something is wrong with their scrubber that is not wrong with yours, when in fact you (may have) been experiencing the exact same thing they have without being aware of it. That is either ignorance or hypocrisy, or a blend of both. Sorry dude, I have to call that what it is. Someone has to play the devil's advocate here, at least it comes from someone on this side of the fence.


I'm going by the number of tanks that have been scrubbed over the years. Only in the last few months has this phosphate thing come up.

Wrong. It only happens that, IMO, most people are ill-equipped to properly test for P (especially at low levels) until Hanna came out with the affordable and accurate Checker. Since then, people have been testing and seeing their P is still there. Like my post stated, in almost 2 years of scrubbing I have only had my Hanna Checker Phosphate read "0.00" 2 times: once after moving everything to the new tank (essentially a 90% PWC followed by a week w/o scrubbing, then a growth explosion week once the scrubber was re-installed) and once recently after installing the LED scrubber (which, I have to be 100% honest here, may be offset by some algae in the tank, for the first time in years I might add)

Saying the problem has only recently existed is like saying that murder rates have increased based solely on an increase of news coverage.

So not only do you refuse to admit that there is something not fully understood going on here, I am now starting to question many of the so-called "guidelines". No fault of anyone in particular, it is just a result of the fact that no benchmark testing of any sort appears to ever have been done to warranty a hard-line establishment of these guidelines. They are almost solely based on anecdotal evidence, and while that gets us in the ballpark for what appears to be about 95-99% of all users, there are holes in many aspect of the Algae Scrubber that need to be filled in.

Rising Phosphate, to me, is the biggest one as the reduction of N and P has always been promoted as the primary purpose for running an algae scrubber. Fail at performing in that primary task and there goes a BIG leg out for the haters.

I hope you can understand the importance of resolution to this subject and the necessity to take your blinders off. There is a definitive pattern forming and you cannot deny it.

[alum]

Darn! so that is why i have GHA problem probably PO4 absorbed by the rocks!
can i change all rocks ?? (thats a bad idea LOL)

[bigbadwigarus]

I run a small bag of rowaphos every couple of weeks because my scrubber doesn't seem to be able to pull out all the phosphate. One thing I have noticed though is that my nitrate is always undetectable which makes me think that the scrubber will easily out compete the denitrifying bacteria even if there is not much phosphate available.

Ie: it seems to be nitrate limited but not phosphate limited. I wonder if people with dsb's or denitrators have this problem more?

[Floyd R Turbo]

It has been my contention that due to the presence of de-nitrifying mechanisms present in established tanks, that this "throws off" the balance of things, since there is little to no naturally occurring phosphate mechanism. Case in point, when I started maintaining the tank that I posted about, N was ~160ppm. After cleaning the sump and return pump, adding filter socks, and multiple PWCs, I was able to get the N down to about 20-25ppm, then got the skimmer running and nitrate dropped without intervention from 25 to zero in a few weeks without PWCs. At that point, I was doing PWCs for the purpose of Phosphate reduction only, for the most part. I know that the skimmer did not remove N, because it cannot, it can only remove the pre-product of test-kit measurable N. So I have personal proof that the denitrification mechanism exists and can be, IMO, enough to influence the balance and result in limitation.

[marineguy]

Has anyone tried dosing N to lower there P?

[Floyd R Turbo]

I have Calcium Nitrate pellets from AquariumFertilizer.com but never used them.

[SantaMonica]

Post #21 dated 8/4/2011 "Now feeding this 72 ml per day, plus 20 square inches of nori a day, plus one whole silverside a week for the eel. "

I think I dosed liquids for quite a while before posting that.


when did you add the 2nd SM100

Good question. Not sure.


how much were you feeding before you started the liquid coral food

Minimal. Probably 2 cubes.


Why not test N and P for the last year after drastically changing feeding?

Cause I'm tired of testing. I can now tell the state of things by looking at the rocks, and checking for coral/coralline growth. I also don't replace the dead batteries in my 2 pH meters either, because I can now tell the pH by how long the top off has been running.

I've recently changed the feeding liquids, however, and it may change the nutrients put into the water. I'm tired of blending fish.


until Hanna came out with the affordable and accurate Checker.

It's no more accurate than Salifert: 0.04

So a 0.04 reading can actually be 0.0, and vise versa. Personally I'd say this is less accurate that seeing a tinge of blue @ 0.015


So not only do you refuse to admit that there is something not fully understood going on here

What might this be? I only hear about this on this forum, from a few people. On the number of forums I'm on, and the additional ones that I read, this is not a trend.


guidelines. They are almost solely based on anecdotal evidence

Yes, that's how you get the best ones. Lab measurements, and mathmatical models if you have them, just try to predict real events. If you are lucky enough to have real events, they should be used.


and while that gets us in the ballpark for what appears to be about 95-99% of all users

I would not say it's even that high. But the guidelines are still, of course, meant to help the majority.


Rising Phosphate, to me, is the biggest one

You might note that only you few folks here on this forum appear to have this trouble.


There is a definitive pattern forming and you cannot deny it.

Anything is possible. But then you have to ask why is it only with you folks on this forum? It it were a pattern, then everyone on every forum would be saying they can't get P to zero. Go read the success stories thread... most all of them got to zero. And there are many more I haven't posted yet.


Has anyone tried dosing N to lower there P?

I have. And the other way around, too. And in FW too. Simply took a long time to get the dosed nutrient back to "zero".

[Floyd R Turbo]

I had 2 Salifert Phosphate kits in a row that tested 3 tanks at exactly 0.25ppm, even though I knew that one was over 5.0ppm, because that's what the previous kit I had tested it at, as did API. That's when I gave up on Salifert Phosphate test kits and got a hanna meter. All kits have an error range that is likely higher due to human error, but at least if you practice the testing procedure you can eliminate your personal error, or at least account for it (meaning you will be in error the same direction each time if you repeat the procedure exactly the same each time).

I say why don't you go on to all the forums you have the Mega thread on and ask everyone with a scrubber running and no P reduction material to test their P using a Hanna Meter. Then you will know, otherwise it's a guess, and I say that this is a bigger problem than you think it is. Zero you one person is not zero to another. People have high phosphates and nitrates and then the scrubber pulls them down and they report N=0 P=0 and don't bother to test that much after that and it sneaks up on them, just like it snuck up on me on my UAS tank.

You yourself are proof that it is a problem, your own tank tested high after being low for a long time, right? Doesn't it say something about the guideline and the ability to keep N and P low if you were running a 10 cube/day scrubber and feeding 2, and had zero N zero P, then doubled it and 10x the feeding and now you have accumulated P? So we've been giving advice to people on how to size their screen and what to feed based on this and it could have been a fundamentally flawed suggestion.

How did you arrive at the feeding based sizing guideline, was that by pushing your setup to the limit and extrapolating the data, or was it based on querying multiple scrubber users to get a baseline of data? I have always gotten the impression that it was based on the fact that you were able to push your 2 SM100s to 22 cubes/day and that was about the limit. Was there more to it?

[Ace25]

Few points...

1. Besides ME, can anyone point me to one other person, on any forum, that has posted their phosphate readings from a Hanna meter? I am sure there are some, somewhere, but next question, show me a person that has done this repeatedly over a long period of time to document it. While even I am not the best example for internet documenting of N/P levels, I have done it on many occasions and still have the pictures in my flickr album to prove it. I, like many others, did initially get a big drop in phosphates, on my system. I started with .1 when I first setup an ATS and it dropped it down to .03 within 8 weeks, but since then phosphates have always been an issue for me and I have always said this. As an example, here is a photo taken on 10/30/11 showing my readings. .09 phosphates is starting to get into levels that become a concern. Yes, there is a .04+/- margin of error, so it could be .05, but regardless, it isn't 0.00, but nitrates are. The last time, a few months ago, I went 30 days without using any other phosphate control method, and it spiked up to .41 on both of my tanks.
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6111/6294887507_7dff63b45c_n.jpg

2. How many times have you read people say either 'my N/P are zero' or simply 'my water parameters are perfect' without providing one shred of evidence? Sorry, but I don't consider ANY liquid color test kit a viable testing method for phosphates, not that many people even go as far as posting a liquid test kit/card picture.

3. Santa Monica, you are the one making these claims.. just look at the what you named the titles of your mega threads. "Mega-Powerful Nitrate and Phosphate Remover Replaces Skimmer, Refugium, and Everything Else". You are the one that has to provide the evidence to your claims, not 'everyone else'. Why do you expect others to do the majority of the work for you? You should be leading by example.. and I don't think spending 15 minutes a week is really much work to do a nitrate and phosphate test and take a picture in order to document it. To say your title and claims are misleading is an understatement.. it is 100% false. I give you credit, you took ady's idea and greatly improved upon it initially with the 5G bucket scrubber, and then again with the SM100 design, but you are way overstating what it can do and that is what is so bad to me. It is a great filtration method, but not without its faults.. I think you need to accept its shortcomings, do the legwork in documenting long term results, and try to find other methods to solve the shortcomings like I am doing, instead of ignoring they are there.

[Clavius]

Sorry to jump into this discussion, even though I'm fairly new to scrubbers.

I do have 7 years of experience with the Zeovit method though. And the theory that P gets stored in the rocks has been an accepted theory in the Zeovit world for many years now. Typically, starting Zeovit in a tank rich in N and P will show the same behaviour. Both N and P go down fast. But P will hit a point in which it "hangs" there for a while because it leaks from the rocks and the sand. It's easy to convince yourself. Just put a little piece of rock from your tank in some rodi water for a week and then measure the P. Often, the solution here is either patience, or dosing CalciumNitrate or PotassiumNitrate to get the balance back. I prefer the first if the balance isn't off by to much.

People are probably going to ask why I'm interested in scrubbing if I'm running Zeovit, so I'll beat them to it: Experimenting. I wanted to see if it will grow algae that outcompete, and get rid of, the brown algae that kept growing on my sandbed.

Only four weeks after installing the little HOG.5, I started seeing all kinds of benefits that I hadn't expected. I started seeing pods again. (They're an endangered species in most zeo-tanks.) I started seeing little swimming and crawling critters that scurry away when I turn on the lights. I've seen a bacteria-bloom for the first time, so my bacterial processes have accelerated. (I had to lower my C dosing (Zeostart) to prevent these blooms.) What I was hoping for: My brown sand has turned white. And the colours of my corals are popping. (Or were those pesky brown algae on my sand also covering my corals?)

So currently my scrubber is making my zeotank work again. I've ordered a second HOG.5, just to see what it does.

[Garf]

Excellent info. So your skimming heavily also ?

If so it fits in nicely with this ;

http://algaescrubber.net/forums/showthread.php?2169-Skimmers-help-Scrubbers-breathe

Keep us posted of any developments.

[Clavius]

Excellent info. So your skimming heavily also ?

If so it fits in nicely with this ;

http://algaescrubber.net/forums/showthread.php?2169-Skimmers-help-Scrubbers-breathe

Keep us posted of any developments.

Yes, I'm skimming very wet as advised in the Zeovit method.

[Garf]

I've a feeling that this approach is the missing link in this scrubber imbalance. After all, bacteria and algae compete with each other for both N & P. if we get both to thrive and then remove as much as we can, surely this will ultimately balance the system.
Sounds like carbon dosing alone also suffers the same problems, perhaps both together will do the trick.

Of course there is always a chance that the problem will be amplified. I am hoping that my bubble screen will have some impact on this problem, ie more bubbles using more phos, less bubbles using less phos however even with my optimistic outlook it surely can't be that simple.

[Floyd R Turbo]

Typically, starting Zeovit in a tank rich in N and P will show the same behaviour. Both N and P go down fast. But P will hit a point in which it "hangs" there for a while because it leaks from the rocks and the sand.

None of us are denying that scenario is a reality, what we are trying to point out is that there are several of "us" that cannot attribute our "hanging" Phosphate levels to scenario in the OP, and the OP seems to be directed towards addressing the "nitrate limitation" argument, when it does not - it addresses the rock/sand soaked with Phosphate issue.

So under Zeo tanks, what is the solution to the excess leeching phosphate issue?

[Clavius]

So under Zeo tanks, what is the solution to the excess leeching phosphate issue?

Like I said, either patience and waiting untill the excess phosphates have been processed. Or accelerating the processing of phosphates by adding nitrate. Mostly done by adding PotassiumNitrate, because Zeo tanks tend to be poor in Potassium too.

The Zeo-heads believe that the lockup of phosphates is a result of the use of lime/kalk in the past: http://www.zeovit.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12109
It seems to precipitate the phosphates onto the substrate and rocks where algae can access it directly. I had been using kalkwasser in the past, before switching to ZEO, for a long time, and it explained why there was phosphate buildup in my rocks and substrate.

I never found out exactly how this precipitation process works though.

[Garf]

Sounds like a bit of a red herring to me. Surely if the phosphate is precipitated out into calcium carbonate, then you gotta dissolve the calcium carbonate to bring the phos back out into circulation. You would need to fill a calcium reactor with the stuff wouldn't you ?
i also don't understand the leaching out of the rocks thing. I know phos can bind to organics, but absorbing into rocks ??? If it's just a process of water being trapped in the tiny pores of the rocks then why don't the nitrates also leach out ? If it's due to nitrates being converted to nitrogen leaving the phos behind, then I can't work this out either because the phos should be used by the same bacteria. Any assistance would be good, I don't fancy googling for a day on this, but I will if I have to. This is quite fundamental to understanding problems people are having at the moment. The only possible way I can see for this scenario is if phos is bound to the organics that are on the rock.

[Floyd R Turbo]

I don't fancy googling for a day on this...

Garf, you know this isn't true.

[Garf]

Garf, you know this isn't true.

Damn - you know me too well !! Just trying to see if this leaching effect was a scientific fact, or one of them things that everyone knows because they have been told its true. Just doesn't make much sense to me. If this bonding to the substrate can be released by a gradient, it's not a very strong bond. If its bound to organics which are released through decomposition it makes sense that it's still bonded to a part of the organics but floating around to be sampled and tested. As far as I know, algae cannot utilise bound phosphate ( but will check on this ). This scrubber stuff didn't sound this complicated when I started just 5 months ago.

[SantaMonica]

So we've been giving advice to people on how to size their screen and what to feed based on this and it could have been a fundamentally flawed suggestion.

No, advice was based on watching other peoples' tanks. That's why it takes a while to come up with recommendations.


How did you arrive at the feeding based sizing guideline

Same


can anyone point me to one other person, on any forum, that has posted their phosphate readings from a Hanna meter?

Usually people post how they measure, but not always. A search of the success thread would find it.


You are the one that has to provide the evidence to your claims

No, I don't need to do anything.


Surely if the phosphate is precipitated out into calcium carbonate, then you gotta dissolve the calcium carbonate to bring the phos back out into circulation

No, you just need to reduce P in the water column.


I know phos can bind to organics, but absorbing into rocks ???

It doesn't really bind to organics; it gets "taken up" by (living) organics. Rocks, however, bind phosphate when pH rises, which is caused by phosphate precipitating. When pH falls, the rock and/or calcium phosphate are dissolved back into the water.


If it's just a process of water being trapped in the tiny pores of the rocks then why don't the nitrates also leach out ?

Nitrate does not precipitate out of the water and bind onto rock, thus it cannot go back into the water. Even more, if the holes in the rock are without oxygen, the nitrate will be converted by bacteria into nitrogen gas which will bubble away.


If it's due to nitrates being converted to nitrogen leaving the phos behind, then I can't work this out either because the phos should be used by the same bacteria

No, because those particular bacteria do not need more phosphate.


As far as I know, algae cannot utilise bound phosphate

Correct. Except for dino's, which are mixotrophic.

[Garf]

Sm - thanks. So maintaining pH at the higher maximum precipitation rate of 8.4 ish (optimal for calcification) should limit or stop phosphate/carbonate dissolving, hence stop this leaching given adequate circulation.

[tebo]

I agree your tank is the odd exception tebo. How are you adding Phosphate to the system??

For me, from my point of view and tested, the ATS is very powerful to reduce phosphates

I used potassium phosphate




1. Besides ME, can anyone point me to one other person, on any forum, that has posted their phosphate readings from a Hanna meter?

Ehh I'm one
http://i1043.photobucket.com/albums/b440/tebomarino/DSC02230.jpg

Saludos

[srusso]

Since I got the nitrate limitation corrected, my tank hovers between 0.00 and 0.05

I take a picture some times when I test. I am going to do it even test now. The meta data from each photo has a date taken time stamp which I use to track the date/time of the test.

[kotlec]

We had a lot of algae pictures , now seems new wave coming. Who have prettiest tester :D :D

[srusso]

SM on another thread you you actually pointed us to a video that explains this very topic. VERY clearly...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwZDIU6sM_4&

Can you please explain how this isn't happening, when they even have this great graphic to explain it?

Know as the "Limiting Factors"... He even goes on to say that "the absence of one nutrient may limit the growth"

[Floyd R Turbo]

dang you beat me to it

[srusso]

Wow... I think i just figured it out... It's not a nitrate limitation...

It's a potassium limitation... And just like we needed better phosphate testers we need better nitrate testers...
There is nitrate... Just levels we can't test for...

So what is the "new" limiting factor... Potassium...

I will be writing up my theory for all to read soon...

[Ace25]

Ok you tease.. please explain more. :) My mind is completely open to that idea and I am ready to order a test kit + suppliments right now, I just want to see some type of data to back up your theory (which I am sure you have since you are one of the 'thinkers' around here).

[Garf]

May point to perhaps better growth but do you think it adresses the issue of imbalance ?

Edit - wouldn't potassium be introduced in the aquarium through feeding, like phos and nitrogen ?

Edit 2 - just found this;

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8436535&postcount=11

[srusso]

Ok you tease.. please explain more. :) My mind is completely open to that idea and I am ready to order a test kit + suppliments right now, I just want to see some type of data to back up your theory (which I am sure you have since you are one of the 'thinkers' around here).

Its coming... not trying to tease... should have something written for you to read by the end of the weekend.

[srusso]

A VERY watered down version, b/c I didnt want to leave you hanging...

I need to start finding ways to dose potassium and get people testing. I have a theory...

I dont have money for a test kit so I will be blind dosing... From my limited research that can be done rather safely...

"Seawater contains about 400 ppm potassium."

Read more: http://www.lenntech.com/periodic/water/potassium/potassium-and-water.htm#ixzz25Akf1tvN

We add nitrate a lot... its easy... same with phosphate however that may not be the same with potassium... I think it could even easily be both a nitrate and potassium limitation. And depending how limited of each or both is the direct result of how fast phosphates build up and rise...

[Floyd R Turbo]

http://reefbuilders.com/2012/03/16/salifert-potassium-reef-test/

[srusso]

Dug this up!

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=8443978

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=8386972#post8386972

Seems like we can dose a Potassium Chloride tabs you can get at the drug store...

[Ace25]

Here goes nothing.. or shall I say $60 with shipping. :) From www.aquacave.com

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8177/7904028848_f150309310_o.jpg

[Ace25]

Oh.. have to mention.. been down this road twice before with both Iodine and Strontium. I have a big bottle of Strontium and several bottles of Iodides in my cupboards still. Each time I would think it is a certain element I was lacking I would buy a kit and supplement, only to find out my levels were good and I didn't need to dose. I haven't tried Potassium yet, so what the heck. This will prove or disprove that theory, at least on my systems so I will give it a shot. I am going to run a FULL water test this weekend, iodides, mag, strontium, and all the rest just to see where I am at now.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3286/3151555069_f2c7a01773_o.jpg

[srusso]

Here goes nothing.. or shall I say $60 with shipping. :) From www.aquacave.com

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8177/7904028848_f150309310_o.jpg

That's great! Thanks for jumping in head first!
I really think this is it though, it's more than just a wild guess. I will promise you that!

[C-Horse]

Very interesting. I can't wait to see the full explanation. If potassium and nitrate are both limited, perhaps adding potassium nitrate
would be better. Granted this add more nitrate then potassium. So maybe a mixture of KNo3 and KCl would best.

[ferdinand]

what cause those phosphate anyway? from the food we gave? if the food, which one? can we just stop giving those food?or at least giving the food cause it less?

does phosphate has to be in zero?if not, in what number of phosphate it will make the fish & corals dead?

is it with the level of phosphate that you all have been talking about made your fish & corals all dead?

sorry to ask this coz i'm new in this hobby & i don't understand about chemistry.

[Ace25]

Phosphates are introduced by the foods we feed the tank. Most frozen/cube foods contain a lot of phosphates, extra phosphates added to the water to act as preservatives to make the food have a longer shelf life. The phosphate levels are higher than normal in comparison to the correct ratio to nitrates. This fact, coupled with the fact most tanks contain more methods of nitrate removal than phosphate leads to higher than desired phosphate levels over time in most tanks.

As to what levels are good. The normal recommendation is usually in the .03-.1 range for everything to be happy. SPS corals are the most sensitive, but can tolerate up to .5 phosphates before death becomes a concern. LPS and soft corals can tolerate much higher levels. I have seen some LPS corals happy in tanks with 1.0 phosphate readings and seen some soft corals happy in tanks above 2.5, although I would not recommend letting phosphates get that high in any tank.

In my opinion, one solution is to make your own fresh food with natural ingredients. This would help solve one of the major causes to the phosphate imbalance. That is one route I have not taken myself and no valid reason other than laziness towards it. It won't solve the problem completely, but I think it would be a big help in slowing the process of phosphate buildup.

[srusso]

what cause those phosphate anyway? from the food we gave? if the food, which one? can we just stop giving those food?or at least giving the food cause it less?

does phosphate has to be in zero?if not, in what number of phosphate it will make the fish & corals dead?

is it with the level of phosphate that you all have been talking about made your fish & corals all dead?

sorry to ask this coz i'm new in this hobby & i don't understand about chemistry.

Our food tends to have more then normal amount of phosphate...
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2012/3/chemistry

[srusso]

I have to put my money where my mouth is...

[Garf]

I have to put my money where my mouth is...

Hope your right, it would be a simple quick fix. My money is on resource ratio theory though.

[sabbath]

So are you guys looking to add K if it is low? What if N test reads 0 then are you going to add that too? This does not sound easy or cheep to stay on top of to me.

[Ace25]

If dosing a few drops of something, in this case potassium, proves to somehow fix an imbalance and in return I see lower phosphates then I see that as a cheaper alternative to either water changes or using media like GFO. Honestly, I don't hold much hope in this working, but I can't say for sure. If I want to be able to give advice in the future to others on the topic of potassium I at least want to have some personal experience, no matter the outcome, so that is why I decided to try it now.

[Garf]

I have to put my money where my mouth is...

I am always concerned when I see a large company mess up their technical data sheets / sales pitch ( strontium potassium ??? )

http://brightwellaquatics.com/products/potassiont.php

Looks like the ULNS systems have been dosing potassium sulfate and chloride for years, to increase SPS colouration.

[ferdinand]

From what i read in wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphate) also Natural History Museum of UK (http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/research/projects/phosphate-recovery/pk213.html) about phosphate many country have develop a way to remove phosphate from the water but if still too many of phosphate occur from urban waste or agriculture also sewage disposal & the amount of algae in the sea can't dissolve it all, it'll last in the bottom of the ocean, deposit in sands & rocks, this what happended mostly that is why many country trying to remove phosphate to save level

well, then we use it in our aquarium (sands & rocks), hoping that a small pop of algae can vanish it in instant, i think we are over expecting especially we keep adding it in, from food that cause it to keep coming.

I think removing it to zero & hoping it won't be there again is like hoping we don't get old by breathing, but then again, if its come to money you can buy chemicals to wipe it all =D & i think that what some ppl want, buy a their product again =D.

Unless we stop giving food & remove all sands & rocks from our aquarium, phosphate will still exist, i think the best way is just to keep it in save level that if we don't want to throw away money for something that will reappear from what we do.

well SM, don't give up yet on your algae scrubber, u done very well standing up on this.

[kerry]

I dont have a hanna checker but with other tests my phosphate is always zero with the waterfall scrubber tank, I only have detectable phos in my UAS 150G tank, my 10G UAS scrubber tank also measures zero.

[Ace25]

I am always concerned when I see a large company mess up their technical data sheets / sales pitch ( strontium potassium ??? )

http://brightwellaquatics.com/products/potassiont.php

Looks like the ULNS systems have been dosing potassium sulfate and chloride for years, to increase SPS colouration.

True, and with Brightwell your concern is valid. Brightwell is probably my least favorite company in terms of supplements, they over exaggerate or flat out lie about some of their products, but some of their products are simply a known ingredient or mixture and water and listed on the bottle, which is the case here. I am sure I overpaid 1000 percent vs if I could just find the raw ingredients and mix them myself. Not too many places seem to carry the Salifert Potassium test kit in the US since it just came out. For convenience sake since aquacave carried test and supplements I ordered both. My first choice is Marinedepot since they are the closest to me, but they didn't have the test kit.

I am still anxiously awaiting srusso's write up to have a better understanding on why he thinks this may be a fix to an imbalance problem. I am sure I will have a little more faith in it working once I read it.

[oildalemonkey]

Hanna Phosphate Checker user here. I have a 40 breeder mainly LPS/softy reef with your basic CFL-lit scrubber. My phosphate level is usually in the 0.02 - 0.07 range. I don't have a liquid nitrate test kit at the present time, but an API somewhere-in-the-ballpark test strip (!) shows nitrate at between 0 and 20 mg/L. I don't really have any nuisance algae so I tend to believe I'm OK with my nitrate levels.

I have the Red Sea Reef Colors Pro test kit. Today I measured potassium at 360 pm so added 20 mL Brightwell Potassion. How bad can it be if it was formulated by a marine scientist?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v473/Oildalemonkey/2012-09-02_12-00-25_211.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v473/Oildalemonkey/2012-09-02_13-30-05_429.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v473/Oildalemonkey/2012-08-18_10-48-17_503.jpg

[Garf]

Yeah, the "marine scientist" may be checking the number of barnacles on a whale, with no idea of what potassium does.

[ferdinand]

some using potas to catch fish hiding in corals

[ferdinand]

I dont have a hanna checker but with other tests my phosphate is always zero with the waterfall scrubber tank, I only have detectable phos in my UAS 150G tank, my 10G UAS scrubber tank also measures zero.

150G is a lot, i don't think UAS can handle it in instant, especially when you keep feeding.

What it good about nature, they only take what they need, not like human that can take more than their capability.

well if SM not wrong, algae pop in the sea is 90% of sea itself, so how much pop of algae in our aquarium?

[SantaMonica]

So maintaining pH at the higher maximum precipitation rate of 8.4 ish (optimal for calcification) should limit or stop phosphate/carbonate dissolving, hence stop this leaching given adequate circulation.

Have not thought about how the equilibrium would work for quite a while. Sounds plausible. Very high pH (9+) will start precipitating P directly.


It's a potassium limitation

Introduced by food, although so is N and P. Personally I dose ESV Potassium Iodide.


what cause those phosphate anyway? from the food we gave?

Yes, all nutrients come from the food you feed.


algae pop[ulation] in the sea is 90% of sea itself, so how much pop[ulation] of algae in our aquarium?

That's a very good question. Algae is 90 percent of all biomass (except bacteria) in the ocean. I doubt we have 90 percent algae biomass in our tanks, compared to the fish, inverts and corals.


coupled with the fact most tanks contain more methods of nitrate removal than phosphate leads to higher than desired phosphate levels over time in most tanks.

Not true. Algae adjust their N/P assimilation ratios to absorb more P when it is available. As does cyano.


my phosphate is always zero with the waterfall scrubber tank

A good example. If P "built up", this zero test would be impossible.

So now, I think I have figured out how to explain what is happeing, especially with regards to P tests this year (at least on this site). It's hard to explain invisible things, like when you try to explain the nitrogen cycle to someone who has never had an aquarium. Or explaining voltage and current to someone who has never connected a wire. But at least those things can be measured/tested, so people who know what to look for can get the data they need to show you how things work.

Phosphate flux is different. Our tools/tests cannot measure P flux, only standing P amounts. A standing amount of P is like a voltage, or a bucket of water. A flux of P is like current, or a flow of water.

What is happening is that rock (and to a lessor extend, sand) acts like a capacitor, or sponge, or leaky bucket. When a new tank is set up with fresh rock and no live stock, P in the rocks equals P in the water, which is zero. Feeding the tank will instantly put P into the water, which is like turning up the voltage, or pouring water on the sponge, or putting water in the leaky bucket. If you pour a bunch of liquid food in, you will be able to instantly measure P in the water. But you can't measure the flux (flow) of P into the rock.

How fast does the P flow into the rock? Just like voltage and current, the bigger the difference between the P in he rocks and the P in the water, the bigger the flow of P will be into the rock. This is the same as applying a higher voltage across a capacitor, or spraying more water onto a sponge, or pour water faster into a leaky bucket.

So, in this example of a new tank that you just started feeding, if you fed 10 times the amount of food, P would flow into the rocks 10 times as fast. Can you see this flow? No. Can you measure it? No. But it's flowing very quickly into the rocks which are acting like an empty capacitor, empty sponge, or empty bucket.

Well as we know, the rocks eventually "fill up" with P. This is the typical time that rocks start growing algae on the rock, because the rocks are no longer pulling P inside; thus the P is available at the surface of the rock to grow algae. In a tank without good P filtering (like a scrubber or carbon dosing), the P levels in the water stay pretty high, pretty much in equilibrium with the rocks. This is the same as the voltage differential across a capacitor now being zero, or the water being sprayed onto a sponge being the same amount of water in the sponge, or the water in the leaky bucket having risen up to the top and spilling out as fast as new water is poured in. So in this situation, what is the P flux? It is zero. Even though P levels are high.

Now, you install your scrubber, or other P remover. P levels in the water immediately start dropping. This is what you measure; P levels in the water. This is all you can measure. You can't measure P levels in rocks, and you can't measure P flux. So you keep reducing the P levels in the water, and your tests keep showing less P. Great. This is just like bleeding the charge off of a capacitor (with a resistor, etc), or reducing spray onto the sponge, or reducing the input into the the leaky bucket. All of these things cause more to come out than is going in.

So how fast is P coming out of the rocks? Just like a capacitor, it is proportional to the difference of P in the rock, and P in the water. So if your P filter (scrubber, etc) is very strong, the P differential will be very great, and the P flux out of the rock will be very high. If you could multiply the power of your scrubber times 10, and all of a sudden it could absorb P ten times as fast, would you be able to measure this with your test? No. Not right away. The P would be surging out of the rock 10 times faster, just like the current would be flowing 10 times faster out of the capacitor, or water out of the sponge, or water out of the bucket. But you would not test a difference until the levels had time to change.

Another example: If your P measured 1.0 at 10am this morning, and at that moment you hooked up several buckets of GFO, at 10:01 the P would still measure 1.0 even though the P would be flowing very very quickly into the GFO. Maybe at 10:30 you would measure 0.9, but the idea is that the very instant you applied the GFO is the instant with the greatest flux of P, but no measureable change in P.

So with many people using scrubbers, P levels dropped, and P came out of the rocks, and stayed low enough to not be a problem. But how much P came out, and how fast? Well for the first few years, few people had green screens, and nobody had 3D growth, so filtering was weak. Thus, the flux of P out of the rocks was slow. It did evenually reach "zero" for many people; the less they fed, the quicker it could get down to zero. But of course with each feeding, or each scrubber cleaning, P would go back up a bit. P is of course never really zero anywere, but as long as the fluxuations were small relative to the levels, the tests would show zero. This is an important point.

Stated another way: As long as the relative levels of P in the rocks was not too low, then the slight variations of P in the water would not cause too much flux. This is like not applying too much voltage differential across a capacitor, or not changing how much water you spray on the sponge too much, or not changing how much water you pour in the bucket too much. As long as the levels stay about the same, the flux will be minimal.

But what if you drastially change the levels? Even if the levels are very low, if you quickly change one even a little, then you get a fast surge. If you have 0.1 volts on each side of a capacitor and then increase one side to 0.15, there is going to be a large current surge (with no resistance). If you turn a firehose on to your sponge or bucket, water is going to flow into it VERY fast even if for a short time. This is what feeding does. Feeding puts a surge of nutrinets into the water, both instantly/directly from the food, and almost instantly/indirectly from urine and waste. So within a few minutes the water now has a (relatively) very high level of P compared to a few minutes ago.

This feeding causes a HUGE flux of P into the the rocks, because the levels in the rock were so low. The levels in the rock would still be "zero" if you could test them, however, because the flux does not last long enough to raise the P in the rocks much.

How does this tie together? Scrubbers became more powerful this year due to reduced screen sizes (allowing more 3D), LEDs, and better knowledge of operating them. And people (especially scrubber people) are trying to feed more and more. This would probably apply even more to the people on this site. So as the scrubbing got stronger and stronger, even when the P levels were low, feeding input got higher. Thus, the flux of P is greater now then ever.

So, after a feeding, the stronger scrubbers would cause a HUGE flux of P out of the rock, even though the amount of P is low. The flux does not have to last for long, but it's like a shorted capacitor, or a firehose on the sponge or bucket. It could also be thought of like a water squirt gun: a tiny amount, blasted real fast. If you are in the way of the squirt gun, it will have a big effect on you, even though the amount of water is less that you would drink.

It can also be though of like this: If you have a sponge packed with water, and you completely stop spraying it, it's going to start dripping rapidly. If you have a leaky bucket and stop putting water into it, it's going to rapidly leak out. And with tanks, if you have low P levels in the rocks and the water, and you quckly reduce the P in the water even further, you are going to get a QUICK SURGE out of the rocks, as the P races to the scrubber. It could also be thought of like a shallow pan of water; the water could be only 1/16 inch deep, but if you tilt the pan you will get a quick rush of water for a brief second, enough to splash your face and fill up a cup.

Now, the "quick" flux of P into and out of the rocks is not for just a half second, of course, it's probably for several hours. But hours are a short time relative to the months of nutrient reductions techniques. So when this P is fluxing either into or out of the rocks, your tests are picking it up.

Solution? Have not thought about it much. I'm sure that more constant feeding, and more constant filtering, would help. Of course there will always be some tanks that really do have skewed N/P, at least for a while. But the more you feed, the faster this should even out, due to the adjustable N/P assimilation ratio of the algae. However the fact that many people have no excess P, or actually have excess N, does not lend a lot of weight to the accumulation of P theory, since the same chemical process would have to apply to everyone. Even what I say here is theory since I can't measure it.

The reason that the "planks in the bucket" are different, is that in the ocean there is no changing P flux. P is in constant flux, not transient, within the microbial loop. There is no giant rock nearby, absorbing P and releasing P. Almost all water is isolated and surrounded by just more water. If you want to compare to the "planks in the bucket", you would have to raise and lower the P plank with each feeding and filtering.

[Floyd R Turbo]

I can partially agree with your explanation, however it does still leave me with questions:

1) this still does not explain Ace's bare-bottom, no rock frag tank with rising P
2) I would like to understand the specific mechanism of how P is absorbed and leeched from rocks.
3) excessive feeding should also lead to rising N
4) The "planks in the bucket" concept applies more to our tanks, as levels are not constant, and therefore a strong variation (limitation) of one of them affects the nutrient cycle to a higher degree.
5) not everyone is overfeeding their scrubbers (in fact, I am under-feeding, and have been for a while)

I have been wondering about #2 for quite a while actually and until just recently I have not seen (nor really searched for) a true scientific explanation of this mechanism. The relationship to pH was the closest things I could see to an explanation thus far.

[Ace25]

I can partially agree with your explanation, however it does still leave me with questions:

1) this still does not explain Ace's bare-bottom, no rock frag tank with rising P
2) I would like to understand the specific mechanism of how P is absorbed and leeched from rocks.

I have been wondering about #2 for quite a while actually and until just recently I have not seen (nor really searched for) a true scientific explanation of this mechanism. The relationship to pH was the closest things I could see to an explanation thus far.

Part one I have my own theories on which doesn't quite relate to this topic (had more to due with algae/adaption and my specific experiment). Part 2, here is a quote from another site. Bottom line, 2 methods phosphates can leach out from rock, either from ultra low pH (below 7.0) or clogged with detritus which would mean you either have insufficient flow and/or cleanup crew/bacteria.

http://www.nano-reef.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=265251

from a chemistry standpoint phosphates are bound up to another ion (they dont exist in your rock as phosphate, but as say calcium phosphate, magnesium phosphate and sodium phosphate) in order to have phosphates in your water come from these sources you would need to exceed the breaking energy of these bonds. bacteria do this much more efficiently when they break up food, fish poo etc. are your rocks releasing some phosphate ions? sure, but they might account for .001% of your total phosphate concentration.


I will fully admit that crap might clog the pores and then "leach" stuff back out. But not actual bound phosphates that have incorporated themselves into the actual chemical structure of the rock. Crap floating out of a rock is a different story than a rinsed/cleaned rock that is "leaching" simply because it went from a high phos to low phos environment.

[srusso]

True, and with Brightwell your concern is valid. Brightwell is probably my least favorite company in terms of supplements, they over exaggerate or flat out lie about some of their products, but some of their products are simply a known ingredient or mixture and water and listed on the bottle, which is the case here. I am sure I overpaid 1000 percent vs if I could just find the raw ingredients and mix them myself. Not too many places seem to carry the Salifert Potassium test kit in the US since it just came out. For convenience sake since aquacave carried test and supplements I ordered both. My first choice is Marinedepot since they are the closest to me, but they didn't have the test kit.

I am still anxiously awaiting srusso's write up to have a better understanding on why he thinks this may be a fix to an imbalance problem. I am sure I will have a little more faith in it working once I read it.

I am not ready to post it, however I am happy to send you a draft copy. Looks like this thing it becoming more then I even knew... PM me your email and I will send it to you, would like to know what you think...

[srusso]

Ace25, forgot I already had your email from a while ago. Check it... :-)

[SantaMonica]

I forgot to add that I also started mixing vinegar with the kalk at about the same time I stopped testing. The vinegar might be contributing to the P flux.


1) this still does not explain Ace's bare-bottom, no rock frag tank with rising P

True.


2) I would like to understand the specific mechanism of how P is absorbed and leeched from rocks.

It binds with other things like calcium, etc. Higher pH causes P to precipitate out of the water, and bind, where it cannot be measured. Lower pH dissolves the bind, and makes the P bio-available again in the water, where you can measure it.


3) excessive feeding should also lead to rising N

Not if your theory of "more N reduction than P reduction in tanks" is true.

[srusso]

FYI- Dosed 60ml of potassium a few hours ago.

[Garf]

The Redfield ratio states a 16:1 nitrogen to phosphate ratio;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redfield_ratio

But Randy H Farley says something more in the region of 100:1;


For example, Caulerpa racemosa collected off Hawaii contains about 0.08 % phosphorus by dry weight and 5.6% nitrogen. Harvesting 10 grams (dry weight) of this macroalgae from an aquarium would be the equivalent of removing 24 mg of phosphate from the water column. That amount is the equivalent of reducing the phosphate concentration from 0.2 ppm to 0.1 ppm in a 67-gallon aquarium. All of the other species tested gave similar results (plus or minus a factor of two). Interestingly, using the same paper's nitrogen data, this would also be equivalent to reducing the nitrate content by 2.5 grams, or 10 ppm in that same 67-gallon aquarium

Anyone got a reasonable explanation ??

[SantaMonica]

Just an example of variable N/P assimilation.

In biofuels they will sometime reduce N to stress the algae to alter it's uptake ratio.

[Ace25]

Maybe in a lab environment that happens, but in the production side of bio-fuels they use genetically selected species depending on what type of fuel they want to create. I don't think you would want to stress the algae when it comes to making fuel, that seems counter productive because when you stress the algae to force it to alter its uptake, its production declines. What you do is pick the correct strain of algae and give it exactly the requirements it needs for best growth. I do agree though that different species of algae will uptake nutrients at different ratios.

[srusso]

Tested PO4 0.09

Dosed another 50ml of potassium.

[srusso]

Seems like we can use "NoSalt" its an "no sodium" alternative to table salt....

Potassium Chloride

[Garf]

Actually if you run a fully developed screen in a separate system with zero phosphates but excess nitrate ( isolated from tank ), the phos stored in the algae is used to further process sugars for growth. Therefore after 5 to 10 days the phosphate stores are nearly empty. If this screen is the reattached to the tank it quickly ( within a few hours ) soaks up all the phos it has utilised for growth and re supplies it's phos storage areas. This would use lots more phos than nitrate if anyone could be bothered to faff around with it. Probably cheaper than GFO though if you can isolate the screen.

If you do it the other way round and restrict nitrate but not phosphate, algae uses available ammonia, stops growth and produces lipid stores ( oil ) which is I think is what SM was driving at with the biofuel thing.

Thinking about it, this fits in with my black screen, nitrate: phos ratio theory. Not only do black screens look oily, they ARE OILY, ie excessisive lipid production. I suppose it doesn't even have to be black, just an oily appearance could show a low nitrate : phos ratio.

[srusso]

I have proof now supporting potassium limitation creates the build of phosphates. At least in my tank it is....

Yesterday 0.08 - added 70ml potassium!
just now 0.04 - added 70ml potassium!

its dropping like a rock... growth is healthy green but sparse.

[Floyd R Turbo]

Getting my K test kit ASAP!

[Ace25]

I have proof now supporting potassium limitation creates the build of phosphates. At least in my tank it is....

Yesterday 0.08 - added 70ml potassium!
just now 0.04 - added 70ml potassium!

its dropping like a rock... growth is healthy green but sparse.
Awesome data! I have been holding back on responding until I get my test kit and supplements. Since I had nothing to really add or debate with the draft you sent I wanted to wait until this weekend to get some of my own data. My first thought was "it can't be this simple, can it?".. but just from your initial testing it does seem to give A LOT more validity to your current thoughts. Well done! Can't wait to test it out on my systems.

[alex leblanc]

Could dosing potassium could help any screen to get better grow or its works only in case where phosphate are to high?

[srusso]

Could dosing potassium could help any screen to get better grow or its works only in case where phosphate are to high?

My guess is that potassium will be added to the last of commonly dosed nutrients. And believe all algae scrubbed tanks will benefit.

[Floyd R Turbo]

It's entirely possible that the reason that some people don't have problems with rising phosphate is due to various husbandry practices. So if you frequently dose a particular supplement, or combination of supplements, which in combination with their choice of feeding may be preventing various types of limitations from occurring.

[srusso]

I think it can even be as simple as the food they feed has a high level of potassium.

[alex leblanc]

I think I'm still having some potassium from my planted tank days, gonna give it a try in my tank!

[Garf]

Some salt mixes are supposed to be low in potassium, which wouldnt help.

[Floyd R Turbo]

Just ordered the Salifert kit from Aquacave, as well as a jar of the Potassion-P powdered stuff (much better deal BTW) this is what my LFS uses, along with the Kalk+2 and their (1200 gallon) tank looks wicked.

[Floyd R Turbo]

PS, Phosphate rising is happening to other people's tanks on other sites. I threw a feeler out on the RC thread and got bites immediately.

[Ace25]

I just wanted to point to an article to explain my thinking on this issue, which is a different path than srusso has taken. Both our answers may be correct, wrong, or 1 of us might have hit it square on the head. I have no idea, so I am testing out both paths. The people in the article seemed to have the exact same thinking I have had, which is to reduce the use of external media (aluminum) and find a cheaper more natural way to combat phosphates.

http://www.tpomag.com/editorial/2010/01/the-power-of-data

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphosphate-accumulating_organisms

[srusso]

Possibly a little too much of a good thing ... Scrubber growth turned a little brown.
PO4 test was 0.06, I understand that this reading more or less is the same as yesterday.

Didn't have a chance to upload the image as proof this morning, I will do it tonight.

Maybe I am expecting too much, But I will give the potassium a chance to do its thing.
Stopped dosing for now.

[srusso]

Possibly a little too much of a good thing ... Scrubber growth turned a little brown.
PO4 test was 0.06, I understand that this reading more or less is the same as yesterday.

Didn't have a chance to upload the image as proof this morning, I will do it tonight.

Maybe I am expecting too much, But I will give the potassium a chance to do its thing.
Stopped dosing for now.

Here is the pic from this mornings test.

Side from not seeing the numbers on the test that I would like to see... SPS coral growth is insane! I can see a difference from this morning!

[Ace25]

Here is the pic from this mornings test.

Side from not seeing the numbers on the test that I would like to see... SPS coral growth is insane! I can see a difference from this morning!

Huh? You have been dosing for ~3 days, right? How can you tell SPS growth in that time? Polyp extension, sure, but growth? Or were you joking and it just doesn't come across on internet posts. ;)

[srusso]

Huh? You have been dosing for ~3 days, right? How can you tell SPS growth in that time? Polyp extension, sure, but growth? Or were you joking and it just doesn't come across on internet posts. ;)

Call me crazy all you want, but Yes I am saying I can visually see a slight difference in the size of my monti, blue digi and my galaxy corals. (Not just polyp extension)
I am not saying it grew a whole branch or anything, just a little. I can start posting growth pics if you want...

Maybe I am more observant then most? But I notice stuff like that rather easy... Photographic memory... :-)

[Ace25]

Ah.. the easy fast growing SPS types of corals. Some reason I was picturing the slower growing acropora (I know a digi in an acro, but more like the weed of the acros by how fast they grow). For me, the only acropora I could visually see a difference in growth from day to day was the green slimer (grew 12+ inches a month), all others I had to take pictures and do side by side comparisons to see the growth.

[srusso]

Ah.. the easy fast growing SPS types of corals. Some reason I was picturing acropora, and the only acropora I could visually see a difference in growth from day to day was the green slimer (grew 12+ inches a month), all others I had to take pictures and do side by side comparisons to see the growth.

Damn! I felt like I had some super hero thing happening! HAHAHAHA! It was cool while it lasted!

[Ace25]

Put some birdnest in the tank if you want to see super fast SPS growth. ;)

My test kit/supplements get delivered on Saturday. I hate ordering from the east side of the US, takes forever to get here. I have had LEDs shipped from China get here faster than orders I place from the east coast using ground shipping.

[srusso]

Put some birdnest in the tank if you want to see super fast SPS growth. ;)

My test kit/supplements get delivered on Saturday. I hate ordering from the east side of the US, takes forever to get here. I have had LEDs shipped from China get here faster than orders I place from the east coast using ground shipping.

Ground shipping from China is the worst!!! Whenever I place an order I do everything I can to forget I ordered it. So that way when it finally gets here, I am pleasantly surprised.

[Ace25]

Kind of hard to do 'ground shipping' to the US isn't it? ;) Even when I pick 'ground' from China, that just means it flies into Los Angeles and then ground from that point, so it typically takes 2-3 days for me to get an order from China as long as they ship it when I order it.. with ground in the US, east to west coast, it is always a 5-7 day wait. Case in point, I ordered my stuff last Friday, I won't get it until this Saturday, 8 days, but Monday was a holiday. If I pick 'slow boat from China' method it can take 3-4 weeks, but it has been at least a decade since I have had that scenario.

[srusso]

this morning 0.03

UPDATE: no comments on my dry hands please... lol

[tebo]

Really interesting what is being said about potassium, really be missing more test, let's see the results of ace25, I really I have no problem with po4 rather I uploaded in a while, but I'm thinking seriously about leaving alone tank

I still have my problem of NO3 high compared with phosphates and it took more than one month and not fall significantly no3

He added that right now I have not loaded any Biological relevance, few zoanthids, a pair of porcelain crabs, emerald crabs as 50 in the sump and two pepper shrimp

Adito one or two flake pich every 2 or 3 days

The algae is growing very well and with a suitable green, my P down really fast but my N very slow to the point that almost no down

It will give you more time or who is driving me crazy

regards

[Garf]

Have you only had a screen going for 1 month. If so, you need to give it more time my friend.

[Floyd R Turbo]

It's been months for tebo with this high P zero N thing he has going on. I think it fits the explanation of a limiting factor, it's just odd that his P is doing the limiting. But IIRC there was a massive over-feeding incident and this could be remnants of that.

[tebo]

Garf greetings, my tank is mounted to the year and I have only my ats, with excellent results, a few months ago I made a mistake, which resulted in a huge increase of NO3 and PO4 little

It is certainly what happened Floyd, remember that my tank was always in balance, N 1.1 to 2.2 ppm P 0.02 to 0.06, after the disaster with food, inceased my no3, what surprises me is how slow low, truth is very slow

So I can assume that my limitation is the Po4, continue incrementing with potassium phosphate

regards

[Garf]

Don't want to upset anyone here but I think this potassium thing is a red herring, just can't find any scientific data to support it. Yeah, sure there is potassium deficiency in ground soil, but in seawater with a 400ppm?

[srusso]

I cover why I feel it's a potassium limitation in my theory document, I am working on the seventh draft of it and hope its done soon. This weekend should make a big difference.

[Floyd R Turbo]

We ask for honesty and appreciate it. Seems that it appears to be working at least in one case. As soon as I get my test kit I will tell you what my levels are at. But if K was fully depleted, you would think other things were going on. Perhaps there is a threshold or a linear relationship that affects this limiting situation. Say if K is half what it should be, P uptake drops propotionally or something like that. Talking out of my rear here.

[Garf]

I cover why I feel it's a potassium limitation in my theory document, I am working on the seventh draft of it and hope its done soon. This weekend should make a big difference.

Pm me this theory doc please soon as your sorted .

[srusso]

Only have three reagents left! Just placed an order for more, it looked like I had more then I thought in the tiny box... just going to take longer then I have in reagents. When should I test?! I wanna see what it reads, but feel I should wait till tomorrow. Scrubber growth is now green in places that had become brown earlier in the week. Coral growth is great, and I really wanna know what its reading now but I think I should wait till tomorrow, then test again Tuesday, and again on Thursday... hopefully the order is here by next week end...

[Garf]

The Redfield ratio states a 16:1 nitrogen to phosphate ratio;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redfield_ratio

But Randy H Farley says something more in the region of 100:1;



Anyone got a reasonable explanation ??

Found an answer to my own question ;

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15141209/

[Ace25]

Nice find! Thanks for the link.. very good read. You are on a roll today with good links. :)

Just got my potassium test kit and ran a test. Very easy test to do and very distinct color change right at the drop mark, no guessing at all. So my test results.... 16 drops which = 340. So my K levels are low. Not sure how much of difference 340 vs 400 makes, but I have a jug of potassium to dose so I can raise it up. I got my phosphate levels down to .13 using lanthanum yesterday and stopped dosing it. Going to test one more time tonight to make sure I get a couple consistent phosphate readings and then I will start dosing potassium and check levels a couple times a day over the next week.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8448/7958925816_6ac0830f3e_z.jpg

[RkyRickstr]

One more thing to test.. darn.. and i though a scrubber would kiss the tesying goodbye.

[srusso]

THIS MORNING TEST:

0.01

[kerry]

Very nice!!

[srusso]

Here is a draft of the document
I cut a lot of fat, focused on my audience.
I don't believe I am some great writer, I know I am not...
I am not done, but from my own tests, it appears to be correct.

Want to get this groups ideas on this.
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B-otQ3chcfnrS1hxZHRBdFgzaFE

and to get others testing.

[kerry]

Very nicely done and a great easy to understand read.

[jwoyshnar]

Very good and interesting read. Definitely makes sense.

I wasn't going to comment but some things I just don't believe.
1st one is something I have been saying since the new guidelines came out. I don't believe in them. When I tried the new guidelines it could not keep up with the phosphates. I went back to the old guidelines and they have dropped a lot. I actually have had a 17x15 screen and a 14x17 going at the same time with crazy growth. The 14x17 was a UAS and I just couldn't deal with the salt creep everywhere so that was taken down for the time being. I may be doing something new in the near future.
Second was the comment that no one was getting 3d growth with the old way. I still go by the old way and I have 3d growth. I remove almost a gallon of algae from my screen every 5 days.

I'm liking the potassium discussion as I knew my reef was missing something and from what it sounds like that may be it.

[Floyd R Turbo]

People were getting 3D growth with the old way, I definitely was. It's just a matter of providing the correct environment for it - that is, an enclosed box, which is really the only way to get it (and to some extent, the saran-wrapped screen)

[cdm2012]

Could the phosphate problem be coming from the algae itself? I ask this because I just read an article that describes tests that were performed on various types of algae in regards to nitrate and phosphate and the uptake of these nutrients. It showed that the uptake of these nutrients varied greatly amongst different types of algae and during different kinds of light, temperature, and the amount of nutrients present in the water. This article confirms what I've been reading by SantaMonica in regards to the Redfield ratio showing that this ratio is not set in stone.

What I really found interesting under the subheading about the Uptake of phosphate (4.3) was it mentioned that "Phosphate uptake varied dramatically among species, temperatures, and medium concentration." In addition, it alluded to phosphate leaking out of the algae during certain phases of time and it says that it does this in many cases.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:btt4lwUtyoIJ:www.stamford.uconn.edu/smbl/PorphyraLongIslandSound.pdf+algae+leaks+phosphate&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESggUBikyrHmPNVIXfwVMhJwoOFDq2ZmeREYba0H kNEB9MMr3WyE3SaYlcOZLGDi8PByAbk_4wQqJ34JvdmS3GAJj8 iRB81L8Kp5DzBsG_SEDkNsOCto4tpUu63GwFDg6FFWWkWy&sig=AHIEtbT3y64CDzVmLoh_yt5biBADa7laNg

I'm new here but I have been thrilled by all the posts in regards to algae scrubbers. I have started my own UAS on a FW Cichlid 29 gallon tank and I have been having great results with growth. I haven't tested my water yet, but I hope to soon. I have posted my build and progress here: http://hub.me/adVI3

[SantaMonica]

Yes for the first hour or two there is a metabolic adjustment of P, in or out, as the cells adjust to the nutrient concentrations in the surrounding water. Then they level out.

[Floyd R Turbo]

Got K kit and Potassion-P Friday. I just tested the water in the Dentist's office tank: only had time to do NPK. N=0.5-1.0, P=0.03, K=310 (19 drops). I believe the residual N is from where I did not clean fully on day 7 to let it grow to day 14, then when I scraped it there wasn't really a whole lot more algae, and some released from the holes. Cleaned this past friday (7 days) and holes stayed full. Due to the 14 day test I believe there was some death of roots and this led to a nutrient buildup in the tank, leading to some HA in the DT and some cyano on the loc-line (but no where else). After the last 7 days it had diminished. Interesting that the K was so low, I'll work on a dosing regimen but it might not happen for a week.

Still no test on my tank. I've been slammed on all sides for the past 2 weeks.

[kerry]

For giggles yesterday I tested the phos on my 10G thats always been on autopilot and the phos was like 2PPM!!! I wondered why the xenia and GPS was shrinking, the mushrooms and toadstools all looked good so I didnt think there was an issue. I did a 50% WC and the mushrooms are pissed at me now. This is a waterfall type scrubber. My other waterfall scrubber is doing great on the 40G, no phos according to the API kit. I was thinking this was only a UAS problem but now I know there might be something else here. I have not checked anything on this tank besides Alk and salinity in over a year. It was an easy tank, just top off daily and once a week it got one cup of kalk with the top off.
Well I should not say I never tested the nitrate, I did this every now and then to show the nay-sayers when they come over bashing my scrubber.

[srusso]

Tuesday: 0.02

Today (Thursday) 0.01

[Ace25]

I wish I could say I was having the same success, but so far I am not. I know it is too early to tell so I am still in dosing/testing mode to get some long term data. So far I started at .18, but then fed pretty heavily the same day I started dosing K. Next day phosphates were up to .28, so I didn't feed that day, next day it was .27. Yesterday was so hectic I never got to touch my tanks (sorry for not feeding you 2 days in a row little fishies) so I didn't get a phosphate reading yesterday. I will do so when I get home today and see what 2 days of dosing K without any addition of food has done for the P levels.

[tebo]

I do not think the addition of potassium is missing the magic solution, but it certainly has merit, on the other hand do not believe in the significant changes overnight, but certainly worth a try and see whether it really is a for the proper limiting consumption between NO3 and PO4

Too bad in my tank and I can not do my po4 rather always between 0.00 and 0.02, the last two weeks 0.00

Well expect more results, but again, for at least a 2-week test

regards

[Ace25]

The results today were much better. Two days ago it was up to .28, today it is down to .16. I have been dosing 50ml of K every day since Saturday.

Worst case scenario, 2 days of not feeding reduced phosphates in my tank .06 phosphates and that means the food I add raises my phosphates .06 each day. To me this is not realistic, the amount of food I add should not raise my volume of water that much phosphates in a day. So a better more realistic scenario is food doesn't add that much each day and other things in the tank are consuming phosphates at a greater rate than I am adding, which if that scenario is true then it is possible the addition of potassium is aiding in the reduction, along with the algae. So that leads me to my next thought.

This is just a BIG 'what if' thought I had. What if food does not add .06 phosphates a day to my tank, let's just say it adds .03 a day. And lets say my ATS is able to remove .02 a day, this would lead to a slow rise in phosphates over time which corresponds with that I experience. Now with the addition of dosing K my phosphates seem to drop .06 a day. If that is true, and I am not claiming it is, then that extra drop in phosphates would lead me to believe the addition of potassium is helping lower phosphates an addition .04 per day over what my ATS can do. Really though, it is still way to early to try and draw and conclusions, so I will keep dosing and testing.

[srusso]

Nice cant wait to see your next test result!

[Floyd R Turbo]

Not sure that K alone would cause a drop in P. The test would be to test and dose in a tank that does not run an algae scrubber.

With many things in this hobby, oh, if we only had more information on how stuff works, exactly

[Doompie]

Like the discussion and the opinions about K.

But how about incorporating potassium rich food in the mix, like banana's ? could it keep up?

I bumped into this research which is related: http://rdo.psu.ac.th/sjstweb/journal/33-5/0125-3395-33-5-575-583.pdf

"U. pertusa was rich in Mg, K and Ca, while U. intestinalis was rich in Mg, K, Cl, Na, and Ca."

So it seems like a building element for algae..?

[srusso]

Like the discussion and the opinions about K.

But how about incorporating potassium rich food in the mix, like banana's ? could it keep up?

I bumped into this research which is related: http://rdo.psu.ac.th/sjstweb/journal/33-5/0125-3395-33-5-575-583.pdf

"U. pertusa was rich in Mg, K and Ca, while U. intestinalis was rich in Mg, K, Cl, Na, and Ca."

So it seems like a building element for algae..?

Food is the reason I believe some people have the issue and some don't... I dont know about bananas though... nature is providing potassium in the reef somewhere, we just need to find it and replicate it... 1.1% is a lot when you look at everything else in the ocean water that way...

[kaskiles]

I thought the P was continuously being converted between Phosphate, organic Phosphorus molecules and biomass. Since the test kit is only able to show Phosphate levels, anytime the P is converted, the measurement will move around. Is there an equilibrium state that is reached between the organic and inorganic P, or are these levels very dynamic?

[tebo]

Ace25, really if something promising, we expect more results

Note that there are many things at the molecular level chemical handle not exactly, as you said Floyd, but I think that the more we have everything in stock, we will have better results in improving the biological filter of our aquariums


I strongly agree with this comment

I thought the P was continuously being converted between Phosphate, organic Phosphorus molecules and biomass. Since the test kit is only able to show Phosphate levels, anytime the P is converted, the measurement will move around. Is there an equilibrium state that is reached between the organic and inorganic P, or are these levels very dynamic?

regards

[Doompie]

Appart from the P level, any noticeable differences? Coloration/pe/growth/..

[srusso]

Appart from the P level, any noticeable differences? Coloration/pe/growth/..

Its funny you should mention that, the tools I normally use aren't effectively cleaning the screen this last harvest. Growth seems much more attached, and doesn't cut/break apart easily any more.

[Ace25]

My phosphates yesterday were .17 after a 'moderate' feeding the day before. Moderate for me is 1/2 of what I normally feed, so 5 cubes of food instead of 10. I am trying to do my tests at the same time everyday in order to exclude any variables that 'ATS lighting schedule' may create. I am testing at 4pm, which is midway through the dark cycle of my ATS.

As for color, polyps, growth... too early to tell for me, I *think* the colors are looking slightly more vibrant, but I know the human eye is not a good tool to tell that stuff so it could certainly just be wishful thinking. No change in polyp extension or growth that I can see so far.

[kerry]

Test my 150G UAS and its still at 20PPM nitrate and about .25-.50PPM phosphate by the API kits. I also tested my my 40G waterfall and its zero nitrate and still shows yellow in the phosphate API kit, its not dead on yellow but a slightly darker hue of yellow so I am calling it 0.0ish???? Regardless, its zero-ish as is always is.

[Garf]

Anyone fancy a read ;
http://lakewatch.ifas.ufl.edu/circpdffolder/nutrpt2.pdf

[Floyd R Turbo]

I just have to pass on that I was just advised by someone to be very careful with potassium dosing. There are many K test kits out there, and I was told that the Elos kit was probably the most accurate out of all of them. Like many test kits, these are good at tracking trends, and some are reliably accurate, but when it comes to Potassium test kits, this is apparently the one that has one of the lowest reliability/accuracies, and if you overdose on K, bad things can happen.

So TEST before you dose, bottom line.

One of the indicators he said was red monti caps. If they are not fading in color, then it is doubtful there is a severe depletion in K.

However, when I told him that my Sailfert kit showed K=350, he said if that indeed was accurate, that was really low. 390-410 is where it should be. My tank is 350 and the other tank (dentist's office) is 325, both with red caps, both are doing fine. So I don't know what that says, but I'm getting the Elos kit before starting to dose.

As always though, with everything - know before you dose.

[kerry]

Good info!!! I have held off on ordering anything so far. I have Grape Monti caps which look really more brown/redish then grape color and they are doing awesome but, thats the 40G waterfall that runs perfect even if I lag behind on dosing Kalk.
I was looking for info on how much an average reef tank used of potassium in a week or month time but came up kinda empty as I figured I would. They say to dose Strontium and iodine to about half of what they say on the package but I might dose what the package says about every 2 months and don't see any problems. So is potassium going to be about the same??? If these tests are not so accurate or hard to read as the reviews say what is a good indicator?? Is it going to be the phosphate readings? This leaves me a little gun shy to do anything with it!!!

[Garf]

Can't understand why in fertilisers, the N is usually higher than K. Wouldn't this mean there is still plenty K in a tank reading 300 say (unless nitrates are about 1000)! This is in relation to N P K ratios.

[srusso]

I, of course live on the edge, dosing and watching for slight changes.

Added another 20ml today.

I know the P's are really low right now. I don't let the glass get very bad ever, but going this long without seeing any growth at all is crazy... Cleaned the glass on Tuesday and it looks as clean today.

I will test tomorrow.

[srusso]

Can't understand why in fertilisers, the N is usually higher than K. Wouldn't this mean there is still plenty K in a tank reading 300 say (unless nitrates are about 1000)! This is in relation to N P K ratios.

This is because the plant will over time need more nitrate then any other nutrient.

[Garf]

This is because the plant will over time need more nitrate then any other nutrient.Yeah. But if nitrate is say 1ppm, then K only needs to be 0.3ppm to maintain balance, and not the 400ppm available in seawater.

This analysis shows that potassium is 30 times less abundant in algae as iron is;
Table 18.2. Composition of multin (i.e. dried powder of Spirulina fusiformis) (constituents are in per 100 of powder)*.


A. Major constituents (%)



C. Minerals (mg)





Total protein

64.6

Calcium



6.58


Fat

6.7

Phosphorus



977


Crude fiber ;

9.3

Iron



44.7


Carbohydrates

16.1

Sodium



796


Calories

346

Potassium



1.28


B. Vitamins



D. Essential amino acids (%)





Beta - carotene

320,000IU

Lysin



2.99


Biotin

0.22 mg

Cystine



0.474


Cyanocobalamin (B12)

65.7 mg

Methionine



1.38


Folic acid

17.6 mg

Phenylalanine



2.87


Riboflavin

1.78 mg

Threonine



3.04


Thiamin

0.118 mg







Tocopherol

0.773 IU

[srusso]

I dont see how the chart above has anything to do with the amount of potassium found in sea water.

[Garf]

A question for anyone running a freshwater planted tank - what are the advised potassium concentrations in a freshwater tank ?

[Ace25]

Unfortunately I think I have concluded my testing with Potassium. After 7 days straight of dosing 50ml for about 80G of water, yesterdays test revealed I am up to 400 (natural sea water levels) and I don't want to go above it. I am not seeing any real significant decreases with phosphates by dosing potassium, what I have experienced seems to be more along the lines of natural fluctuations. Any time I feed, 24 hours later my phosphates are spiked, every time, regardless of potassium dosing. I know my test was far from a 'controlled test', but I think I have seen enough for me to believe potassium isn't the limiting factor (I still believe it is Nitrates in the majority of systems). So back to the drawing board, find a way to increase nitrates, or find a way to naturally decrease phosphates (back to my UV/IR lit bio-reactor idea).

[Doompie]

Maybe à route like the planted tanks:
http://www.theplantedtank.co.uk/PMDD.htm

[Garf]

Think your right Ace. To answer my own question, 10 to 20ppm potassium in freshwater tanks. Both nitrate and phosphate limitation happens in massive areas of the ocean. However a manipulation of the algae may be possible to skew the uptake rates through light spectrum, intensity, or a miriad of other possibilities even down to screen cleaning periods.

[tebo]

Ace25 I'll put my formula I got my No3 1.1ppm to 25ppm with a smoothie with whole shrimp and conch, Ocean Nutrition formula 1 and 2, that were increased no3, my phosphates were very low at only rose to 0.02ppm to 0.8ppm, all that happened in a 48 hour period

regards

[kaskiles]

I've just recently started reading back through threads on this site, but does anyone remember any tests where a screen is maintained with good growth based just on fertilizing an empty tank with a standard plant fertilizer like Seachem flourish?

If we already know that such an off the shelf fertilizer can maintain the growth on a screen, maybe another approach in this situation would be to just use a full fertilizer instead of specific molecules.
That way we could confirm that it is a nutrient limitation (N,K,Fe) and not some other factor?

[dryworm]

i read this on RC. sounds like the best idea to me "The best/least complicated, and likely most enjoyable, way to supplement NO3s, in order to more efficiently lower PO4 in a system highly capable of processing these extra nutrients, is to elevate the biological load via increasing the number/density of fishes"

[kerry]

Someone here had just an empty tank and fed it fert. I dont even remember the details except that there was an issue with high nutrients.

[Floyd R Turbo]

Yeah he dumped in a whole bunch of fertilizer and even hung a bag of dog poop in the water.

http://algaescrubber.net/forums/showthread.php?1337-ATS-Pushing-the-Limits

personally I would prefer to try the seachem flourish scrubber instead of the dog poop scrubber.

Then there's also my master plan, which is still floating around in the back of my mind

http://algaescrubber.net/forums/showthread.php?1181-The-Great-Algae-Light-Source-Experiment

[Garf]

Had a bit of a UREA moment. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/urea+nitrogen

fight P with PEE,

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/250g-Urea-Carbamide-Gold-recovery-high-grade-/140536009626?pt=UK_Crafts_JewelleryMaking_GL&hash=item20b899539a

Its got an NPK of 46-0-0

[kerry]

Thats it. The pics dont work though.

[Ace25]

bump... any updates from others in regards to Potassium? Just because it didn't seem to work as expected for me I hope I didn't discourage others from still trying it. 1 failure doesn't mean the entire thought process is wrong, just means it didn't seem to fix the issue on 1 tank. I am still interested in hearing other peoples experience.

[Garf]

Nothing to do with potassium ace. It's natural. Use GFO as necessary.

[Ace25]

Nothing to do with potassium ace. It's natural. Use GFO as necessary.
I dunno... I have been liking Lanthanum lately. It is easier for me to use than GFO. Still doesn't help me with my goal of trying to find a natural (free) method for controlling phosphates.

I don't know if it is just a placebo effect or if it is real, but I swear the coloration of my corals has gotten much better since raising my potassium to the 400 range. That is really the only positive thing I have seen with it.

[srusso]

Nothing to do with potassium ace. It's natural. Use GFO as necessary.

I wouldn't say that (I think if the balance is way off dosing potassium won't help). But I am starting to believe it has less to do with algae and more to do with bacteria.

[srusso]

Yeah. But if nitrate is say 1ppm, then K only needs to be 0.3ppm to maintain balance, and not the 400ppm available in seawater.

This analysis shows that potassium is 30 times less abundant in algae as iron is;
Table 18.2. Composition of multin (i.e. dried powder of Spirulina fusiformis) (constituents are in per 100 of powder)*.


A. Major constituents (%)



C. Minerals (mg)





Total protein

64.6

Calcium



6.58


Fat

6.7

Phosphorus



977


Crude fiber ;

9.3

Iron



44.7


Carbohydrates

16.1

Sodium



796


Calories

346

Potassium



1.28


B. Vitamins



D. Essential amino acids (%)





Beta - carotene

320,000IU

Lysin



2.99


Biotin

0.22 mg

Cystine



0.474


Cyanocobalamin (B12)

65.7 mg

Methionine



1.38


Folic acid

17.6 mg

Phenylalanine



2.87


Riboflavin

1.78 mg

Threonine



3.04


Thiamin

0.118 mg







Tocopherol

0.773 IU











This is not true. Its not simply a faction of more ppm of one then another, it works in ratios. If NSW has 400ppm of K and a tank tests 300ppm, that is a large drop in its ratio to other minterals.

[srusso]

I said it on RC and I will say it here,

"We need to understand that this means during the weekly harvest of algae, we are also harvesting huge amounts of autotrophic and heterotrophic bacteria... the lowest life forms in our aquarium primary production. This group of primary producers are consuming lots of potassium. This is what I believe helps an algae scrubber be so extremely effective. We are not only harvesting algae but in reality are harvesting far more bacteria each week, providing a new "huge" surface for bacteria to colonize on as well."

[kerry]

I have wondered this as well. I have some screens that just don't grow that awesome green algae but the results are virtually the same in these tanks. I will say that my tank with the green/brown growth (40G) does not have a phosphate issue (undetectable by my liquid tester) but the tank that has very dark algae and the one with the bright green algae does test for low phosphate, less then .50. I figured the fast moving water was feeding more then just the algae and might be beneficial to bacteria as well. Now to throw the curve ball it all, the tank without the phosphate has blue LEDs along with the reds and the ones that show phosphate dont have blue. I know Floyd has blue and shows phos but I think thats an UAS scrubber and I am referring to waterfall. I do not ever have time to do any real scientific testing but I notice certain things and fallow them or move away from them depending on the results I get. Anyway, just my 2 cents of rambling.

[Floyd R Turbo]

both my tanks have 6:1 red:blue fixtures and both have residual P, the UAS tank has both N and P so I wouldn't call that a limiting factor issue, I would call that a poor filtration issue. Going to test again today or tomorrow to see if the new bubbler helped.

[srusso]

"There are typically 40 million bacterial cells in a gram of soil and a million bacterial cells in a millilitre of fresh water; in all, there are approximately five nonillion (5×1030) bacteria on Earth,[3] forming a biomass that exceeds that of all plants and animals.[4] Bacteria are vital in recycling nutrients, with many steps in nutrient cycles depending on these organisms, such as the fixation of nitrogen from the atmosphere and putrefaction."

"Unlike in multicellular organisms, increases in cell size (cell growth and reproduction by cell division) are tightly linked in unicellular organisms. Bacteria grow to a fixed size and then reproduce through binary fission, a form of asexual reproduction.[103] Under optimal conditions, bacteria can grow and divide extremely rapidly, and bacterial populations can double as quickly as every 9.8 minutes."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteria

I think the our scrubber and the algae that grows provides an optimal home for both autotropic bacteria and heterotrophic bacteria. Autotrophic bacteria feeds on the light and inorganics, the heterotrophic bacteria feeds on the algae and autotrophs, which allow them all to have a more "complete" and natural environment.

[Garf]

I bet SM didn't expect 17 pages of discussion when he started this thread.

[mess7777]

lovin this thread. very intresting. I am still fighting down N and haven't had this problem yet, but it will be good to know when I finally get it down.

[mess7777]

just re-read this post, as now that my N is gone my P is lingering around .15 for the last couple weeks. I think I am going to add a light and get my chaeto going again. I also have never gotten hair algae on my screen. I get it on glass(less rough, less lit) and rocks in my sump but not on the main screen....even after sticking pieces of it on there it always dies off. Instead I get sheets of algae almost like nori that form.

I also find since my nitrates got to 0 that I am getting more algae growth on the main tank glass and my sand gets brown within a week in the areas that have the most light. My euphyllias are pissed off again and I'll probably lose them, which sucks as they are probably among my favorites.

I really want to get this P down to .03 or lower and keep it there to see if I finally experience "fast" SPS growth. Up to now, it's anything but fast and I never see the white growth tips that I always see in pictures. Maybe this is due to other factors(lights, circulation), but I want to first rule out phosphates inhibiting my coral growth.

[SantaMonica]

Your lights are just weak. That's why it's staying brown and not green, and why P won't drop, and why pieces you put on the screen die off.

Your glass grows because the ammonia/urea from the fish hit the glass before it ever gets to the scrubber. However since N is lower your glass grow greener, which is more visible.

Make sure the bottom of your sump is clean and not trapping particles. And get more light to hit the screen.

[mess7777]

Your lights are just weak. That's why it's staying brown and not green, and why P won't drop, and why pieces you put on the screen die off.

Your glass grows because the ammonia/urea from the fish hit the glass before it ever gets to the scrubber. However since N is lower your glass grow greener, which is more visible.

Make sure the bottom of your sump is clean and not trapping particles. And get more light to hit the screen.

It is on the glass in the sump right beside the scrubber, as well as directly underneath it on the rocks....so the light theory doesn't make sense if it grows where the light is lower and the glass is smooth. Literally inches away from the screen.

The algae on the glass in the main tank is also brownish....and that that grows on the sand too.

I believe it's because I ran out of N to feed the algae properly below, or possibly that it just grows easier on the glass now that my rocks have released bound up phosphate and no longer suck it up.

[SantaMonica]

You have plenty of N. Algae can grow great with as low as 0.06 ppm N (1 uM).

If your screen is brown, the lights are weak.

[mess7777]

anyone else care to chime in that is less black and white?

If I had plenty of N I would think my Phosphates could go down as the algae grew as well, especially with phosphate reducing media and limited feeding to try and get it down. Please don't tell me to feed more and that's why it isn't going down.

Why the heck would HA grow so well right beside the scrubber in lower light on a smoother surface if the light is the issue, it makes absolutely no sense. Maybe the lights are too much, or maybe the flow is too low or high on the screen......I don't believe the solutions are so simple as presented.

[iiluisii]

You have plenty of N. Algae can grow great with as low as 0.06 ppm N (1 uM).

If your screen is brown, the lights are weak.

Santa monica you dont get tired of saying the same thing over and over dont you see a trend here everybody is having the same problem. Im having the same problem and I have plenty of light on the L2 trust me. Your suggestions have been tried in my tank with no success. I think the solution for our problems with the new guide lines is to also have a guide line per tank size on how long is the feed tube so that if you have a 75 gallon tank you could go with a 6 inch long screen and a 300 gph pump with a 500 gph pump on the display so 500 gallon are flowing trough the sump snd 300 gallons are getting proccess trough the scrubber. Like skimmers are sizes for tanks I dont know if I explained it right.

[kotlec]

Sizing guidelines are only good if you want to maintain healthy system with constant nutrient (food) income.
Since you have problems it means you have to deal with additional pollutants. In this situation tank size does matter as every gallon of tank water has some and same part of pollutants in it. Same with rock that leaches phos. Bigger tank - bigger scrubber needed.

[Floyd R Turbo]

He's saying there needs to be a balance between

1) the size of the screen, which is feeding based, and
2) the width of the screen in combination with the flow rate compared to the actual water volume of the system.

It could be possible to have too much flow per linear inch of screen width, so there is a limiting factor there.

Take it to the extreme. A 1000 gallon system that is only fed 2 cubes/day. Screen is 6" wide x 4" tall. Flow per guideline is 210 GPH. Let's say it's 250. That's only 1/4 of the system turned over the screen per hour. Compare that to a 100g system and that's 2 turns/hour. On the old guideline, a 100g system running a SM100 used a 20" wide screen @ 700 GPH. That's 7 turns/hour over the screen.

I think the new guideline is appropriate for feeding rate size basis, however there very well may be a factor for turnover rate that has not really been considered, and this affects all types of scrubbers.

[Floyd R Turbo]

Sizing guidelines are only good if you want to maintain healthy system with constant nutrient (food) income.
Since you have problems it means you have to deal with additional pollutants. In this situation tank size does matter as every gallon of tank water has some and same part of pollutants in it. Same with rock that leaches phos. Bigger tank - bigger scrubber needed.

You snuck that in while I was writing my post. I would add that it is not necessarily bigger tank means bigger scrubber, but bigger tank means wider scrubber = higher turnover rate. You can still size per feeding, but then a 1 cube/day 12" wide scrubber is pretty ridiculously dimensioned.

[xerophyte_nyc]

Has anyone ever looked into photoperiod?

I don't know 100% how algae metabolize nutrients, but in the plant world the majority of nutrient assimilation occurs during the dark hours. If it's the same with algae, then it may be counterproductive to run the scrubber or refugium lights opposite from the display tank.

If the display algae are utilizing phosphates during the DT dark hours, when the scrubber is lit, the scrubber is not really binding phosphate, giving the DT algae the ability to grow. Whatever phosphate is remaining in the water column after the DT has used it up, is then available for the scrubber, and so on and so forth depending on what time of day you feed, etc.

It would seem to make more sense to run the scrubber lights at the same time as the DT so that you can achieve maximum competition for nutrients in the water. Or at least, if you are using the 2-light scrubber system, try and alternate the timing on each side of the waterfall so that at least half the algae is always in the dark.

Another aspect to consider is how algae physiology changes in starvation conditions, which may be occurring when a nutrient is limited. Again, going back to the plant kingdom, there are a whole group of plants that have adapted to heat and drought by modifying the citric acid cycle. These are C3/C4 and CAM plants, which are able to photosynthesize while keeping stomata closed to conserve water and prevent respiratory gas exchange. Are algae also doing something fundamentally different when they encounter starvation such as super-low nitrate???

Just some things to consider.

[kotlec]

Another very interesting theory

[SantaMonica]

Algae do have differing activities in their photosystem 1 and 2. You can looking into the Calvin cycle for info... is pretty complex.

[iiluisii]

I found this post on an other forum. Interesting.

  Join Date: Jun 2002Location: Durham, NCPosts: 27,774Images: 251ATS's are not really a viable solution for removing organics. they were thought up when reef systems were in their infancy. they were thought up as a way to remove organics before we realized that they were removing organics after the system was already full, and were just making the water yellow instead of actually helping the organics problem. we have no learned that if we remove the organics regularly then devices such as the ATS are not only unnecessary, but are impossible to get growing. if the organics are not in the system then the ATS will not be able to do support any algae at all. which is the entire purpose of the ATS in the first place to keep algae from growing in the display. we have also learned that algae is leaky. like any living creature it has to remove wastes as it goes about living. while it may be absorbing some organics, it will not be absorbing all of them. it will allow some out. there is also the sheer amount of energy needed to power an ATS. you need the pumps and you need the lights. just more energy you are paying for without any benefit. ATS/GFO/Phosphate sponges/refugiums- all of these are only able to remove phosphates from the water column. the problem is these devices will be the last places that would ever see these phosphates. the rest of the system will have first crack at the phosphates. all of the bacteria and algae in the display will be able to uptake these phosphates long before these devices will get a hold of them unless the bacteria and algae already have all that they need. the sand bed in your tank is a much better phosphate binder then these other devices. the phosphate laden detritus, whether it is from the poo from other critters, the bacterial flock from the LR or from left over food, all settles on the sand and will work its way down in between the grains and start to fill up. when the sand is full it will then start leaching phosphates back into the water column. this is the point that people start seeing algae growing. at this point people start thinking they need to get their organics under control, when in fact it is already to late. you start adding any of these devices your only hope is to keep the organic level from increasing even more, which is a tough order. the best way to keep this whole cycle from happening is to remove the detritus once a week by deep cleaning any substrate you may have in the system. remove the organics where they hide. if they are always removed then they are not able to build up. no algae.G~

[rleahaines]

I read through all of that. The bottom line is keep the substrate clean using either cleaning or have critters that do it for you.

The benefits of a ATS or UAS are very evident. No Nitrate problem, reduced Phosphate.

[Floyd R Turbo]

Where is this posted, there are so many flaws in this argument I cannot begin to count. It is all based on prior knowledge and has no relevance when it comes to current methodology. The "yellow water" statement totally gives it away.

[SantaMonica]

Yep anyone who thinks scrubbers are supposed to remove organics (or even that you are supposed to remove organics) already needs to stop feeding the organics that they feed every day, and stop buying and dosing the organics that they probably buy and dose.

They probably also think phosphate is an organic.

[kaskiles]

Where is this posted, there are so many flaws in this argument I cannot begin to count. It is all based on prior knowledge and has no relevance when it comes to current methodology. The "yellow water" statement totally gives it away.

I think it's from here:
http://www.thereeftank.com/forums/f6/ats-issues-160792.html