Phosphate that won't go away

[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/show...d-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.


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.