Is macro effective at nutrient export?

[Subsea]

Considering that phosphate and nitrate are the two most important nutrients removed, I will focus on them. As a general rule, macro will absorb nitrogen and phosphate in a ratio of 100:1. Fast growing Caulerpa will absorb more phosphate in a ratio of 20:1.

Consider that the biomass of Caulerpa Prolifera is 1% phosphate.
Consider that a 29G Biocube has an elevated phosphate level of .5 ppm. How much macro export is required to remove the elevated phosphate?

First calculate the weight of phosphate in the tank.
Assume 20G of water after displacement of live rock and substrate.
20 gallons X 8.4 lbs/gallon X 16 oz/lb X 28.6 gr/oz x .5 ppm equals .004 grams of phosphate.

At 1% phosphate by weight, it would take .4 grams of macro export to remove .004 grams of phosphate.

I consider that to be effective nutrient export.
Patrick

[Dean]

Hi Patrick
What would you say is the easiest yet most efficient type of macro to grow in a standard sump refugium that serves a mixed reef of sps, lps, and soft corals?

[jcnkt_ellis]

Can you site your sources? Also, does the above formula take into account the release of phosphates heck into the water column by the macro during their natural daily routine. If I remember correctly, the take in inorganic phosphate and leach out a certain amount of organic phosphate.

[Subsea]

Without a doubt, Chaetomorphy holds the distinction for the easiest. The advantage that it holds over Caulerpa is due to its ability to not go sexual when deprived of nutrients. If you are running low nutrient SPS systems, then I recommend Chaeto.
Because nothing eats Chaeto, I do not use it. Also, because I run high nutrient systems with NPS, LPS and softies I prefer to use Ulva, Gracilaria Parvispora or Caulerpa Paspaldoies. They are fast growers and are ediable by herbivore fish. With these three macros, instead of nutrient export I recycle by feeding my tangs live macro.
In the case of Ulva and Gracilaria Parvispora, both of these macros are people edible. Ulva is a main ingredient for Nori and Gracilaria Parvispora is eaten live/raw as Red Ogo. I grow Red Ogo in a tumble culture with a 20 fold increase every month.
Patrick

[350gt]

I would never put caulerpa in a aio tank...

If it makes its way into the display it will be a pita to get it out..

I had some in my remote fuge, and personally love the stuff......

I had a tank meltdown after removing it all from my tank. I lost most of my sps & lps. So i know first hand the stuff was working....

[Subsea]

Can you site your sources? Also, does the above formula take into account the release of phosphates heck into the water column by the macro during their natural daily routine. If I remember correctly, the take in inorganic phosphate and leach out a certain amount of organic phosphate.

Can you site your sources that imply that macro leeches organic phosphate back into the water column. Be careful with your use of the term organic phosphate, because peanut butter is a form of organic phosphate. For macro to leach nutrients back into the water, it would be necessary to be disintegrating or going sexual.

Amongst other sources, I like:
Randy Holmes Farley at Advanced Aquaria, Russ Kronwetter at Gulfcoast EcoSystem and the University of Hawaii Botany Department.

[Subsea]

I would never put caulerpa in a aio tank...

If it makes its way into the display it will be a pita to get it out..

I had some in my remote fuge, and personally love the stuff......

I had a tank meltdown after removing it all from my tank. I lost most of my sps & lps. So i know first hand the stuff was working....

I use Caulerpa Paspaldoies in my 75G display tank. The Tangs grazed it so heavily that I added Gracilaria Parvispora to divert some of the feeding pressure. Both are pruned heavily by feeding tangs.
Patrick

[350gt]

My vlaminigi loved the stuff......

[jcnkt_ellis]

Can you site your sources that imply that macro leeches organic phosphate back into the water column. Be careful with your use of the term organic phosphate, because peanut butter is a form of organic phosphate. For macro to leach nutrients back into the water, it would be necessary to be disintegrating or going sexual.

From Martin A. Moe, Jr. (1989). The Marine Aquarium Reference: Systems and Invertebrates: Chapter 3: page 94-96, attached below.

Notice how the Dissolved Organic Phosphate makes a never ending loop in and out of the algae square. Also, notice the additional outflows of phosphates from algae. Algae is not a static phosphate sponge that never puts anything back in the water.

I was not trying to be rude earlier when I asked about your sources. I just have not found any articles to support your claim laid out in mathematical proof as to the efficiency of macro algae. In fact, most research I've seen has been inconclusive as to macro's long term usefulness. This is an educational site, and with that said, I welcome your argument and would love to learn more about where your info and numbers come from.

[Subsea]

I actually have that book. In the 25 years since it was published, we have learned much yet we have much to learn. Of course the formula is simplistic. It was meant to show a static case of how much phosphate is contained in macro algae biomass.
With respect to the formula, the use of 1% phosphate is a very conservative number. In most cases, it will be much higher. All the other numbers in the formula are engineering conversions. I am an engineer that uses numbers to quantify words like high, efficient and effective.
Patrick

[jcnkt_ellis]

No worries, we do have much to learn. However, by your own admission, the formula is not applicable to a real biotope as it only calculates the static amount of phosphate locked within the algae and even then, the amount calculated is an estimate because you converted commonly used adjectives that describe the benefit or nature of the algae into numbers in order to arrive at the amount it can absorb in a given time. Yet, the formula was presented as an a posteriori as to why we should all grow macro in our tanks. In order for our hobby to grow and better husbandry to flourish, a sound methodology needs to be used to present findings in a way that does not distort the means through which they are found. Your formula may be right, but presenting it as anything more then a theory is misleading.

If I am mistaken in anyway, please correct me. I'll gladly edit this post and apologize. I'm interested, above all else, in seeing the dissemination of factual knowledge through out the hobby that can help improve all of our husbandry skills.

[Mike]

So am I supposed to put peanut butter in my tank or not? I am confused... :p

[ramsey]

So am I supposed to put peanut butter in my tank or not? I am confused... :p

Only if you use the proper ratio of jelly. I prefer 1.5:1 jelly to peanut butter. But true BOSSES use Nutella.

[350gt]

The nutella releases trace elements so you dont have to dose..

[Flyride95]

I overdose Nutella! But I run out soooo fast.


180gal + 30gal sump with an awesome wave.

[350gt]

Thats all the brown **** on ppls sand beds ;)

[Flyride95]

Lmao


180gal + 30gal sump with an awesome wave.

[jcnkt_ellis]

Lmao

[SABOB]

I prefer Crunchy and Grape jelly


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[alton]

The only question I have "If you harvest your macro and throw it in the trash you are exporting nutrients and phosphates, but if you feed it to your fish, then you are introducing everything back into your tank correct?"

[jcnkt_ellis]

The only question I have "If you harvest your macro and throw it in the trash you are exporting nutrients and phosphates, but if you feed it to your fish, then you are introducing everything back into your tank correct?"

Correct

[kkiel02]

Hey Patrick do you think the macro would strip out the trace elements corals need/use? I have tried the fuge on my 180 but it probably wasn't large enough for that system. I've used the turf scrubber and really liked it since it grows faster and can be fairly easily removed from the tank. Now in really debating biopellets for nitrates and gfo for phosphates.

[Subsea]

The only question I have "If you harvest your macro and throw it in the trash you are exporting nutrients and phosphates, but if you feed it to your fish, then you are introducing everything back into your tank correct?"

While it is true that nutrients removed from the water column are now in the biomass of the fish, it is no longer available for uptake unless the fish died. Nutrient recycling is a mainstay of reefkeeping. At some point, when the fish is too big for the tank, it is removed. Then it is nutrient export. It is the same principal as coral absorbing nutrients from the water column. If the coral dies, the nutrients go back into the water column. When you frag the coral, those nutrients are exported in the biomass of the frags.
Patrick

[Subsea]

Hey Patrick do you think the macro would strip out the trace elements corals need/use? I have tried the fuge on my 180 but it probably wasn't large enough for that system. I've used the turf scrubber and really liked it since it grows faster and can be fairly easily removed from the tank. Now in really debating biopellets for nitrates and gfo for phosphates.

Yes, macro will use some of the same nutrients that coral use. In most of our reef tanks, excess nutrients are the rule and it is seldom a problem.
As a general rule, when you go down the food chain, organism get more efficient. The micro algae in ATS are more efficient then macro algae.
In theory, biopellets use a polymer to promote bacteria populations. As the bacteria grow, they absorb nitrates and phosphates. With the use of a powerful protein skimmer, the bacteria are exported along with nitrates and phosphates. Not sure you would need to use GFO for phosphate control.
Patrick

[Subsea]

No worries, we do have much to learn. However, by your own admission, the formula is not applicable to a real biotope as it only calculates the static amount of phosphate locked within the algae and even then, the amount calculated is an estimate because you converted commonly used adjectives that describe the benefit or nature of the algae into numbers in order to arrive at the amount it can absorb in a given time. Yet, the formula was presented as an a posteriori as to why we should all grow macro in our tanks. In order for our hobby to grow and better husbandry to flourish, a sound methodology needs to be used to present findings in a way that does not distort the means through which they are found. Your formula may be right, but presenting it as anything more then a theory is misleading.

If I am mistaken in anyway, please correct me. I'll gladly edit this post and apologize. I'm interested, above all else, in seeing the dissemination of factual knowledge through out the hobby that can help improve all of our husbandry skills.

The formula is Marine Botany 101. It is not a theory. I will gladly send a sample of macro algae to an agriculture laboratory to get its chemical analysis determined. It will take two weeks and cost $50. If you are truely interested in dissemination of factual knowledge, then share the cost of that expense with me.
Patrick

[Subsea]

From Martin A. Moe, Jr. (1989). The Marine Aquarium Reference: Systems and Invertebrates: Chapter 3: page 94-96, attached below.

Notice how the Dissolved Organic Phosphate makes a never ending loop in and out of the algae square. Also, notice the additional outflows of phosphates from algae. Algae is not a static phosphate sponge that never puts anything back in the water.

I was not trying to be rude earlier when I asked about your sources. I just have not found any articles to support your claim laid out in mathematical proof as to the efficiency of macro algae. In fact, most research I've seen has been inconclusive as to macro's long term usefulness. This is an educational site, and with that said, I welcome your argument and would love to learn more about where your info and numbers come from.



I have always liked Martin Moe. I often use a quote he made in the mid 1970 during the the USA space race with the Russians. In talking about the biology in marine aquarium, he said, "It is not rocket science, it's more complicated".

I reread that section of the book and after looking at the chart on phosphate cycle, it clearly states that it refers to the phosphate cycle in the sea. The reason that it is significant is because it overlooks the fact that pruning and exporting prevents the macro from going sexual and leaching nutrients into tank.
Patrick

[jcnkt_ellis]

Again, you are making the assumption that once an organism takes up the phosphates, etc. it is locked in place until the organism dies. No organism is one hundred percent efficient at using the nutrients they take in as food. There will always be waste at the minimum. So, your fish eats the macro and then they poop out the nutrients from the macro they couldn't absorb. Plants are not exempt from having waste biproducts either nor is bacteria. It is a cycle not a linear progression for a reason. That, btw, is the important difference between our aquaria and that chart. We do not have the means to complete the ecosystem and recycle/reduce phosphate levels without us actively removing biomass that has absorbed nutrients or by maintaining good husbandry practices.

[jcnkt_ellis]

"Phosphorus tends to accumulate in marine aquarium systems, however, through excretion from plants and animals, decay of plant and animal tissues, and animal and bacterial processing of detritus."

Martin A. Moe, Jr. (1989). The Marine Aquarium Reference: Systems and Invertebrates: Chapter 3: page 94-96

[Subsea]

Again, you are making the assumption that once an organism takes up the phosphates, etc. it is locked in place until the organism dies. No organism is one hundred percent efficient at using the nutrients they take in as food. There will always be waste at the minimum. So, your fish eats the macro and then they poop out the nutrients from the macro they couldn't absorb. Plants are not exempt from having waste biproducts either nor is bacteria. It is a cycle not a linear progression for a reason. That, btw, is the important difference between our aquaria and that chart. We do not have the means to complete the ecosystem and recycle/reduce phosphate levels without us actively removing biomass that has absorbed nutrients or by maintaining good husbandry practices.


Again, you are ignoring the fact that macro exports phosphate. By your admission in your last sentence, when you say "us actively removing biomass" you are confirming what I said in a mathematical equation. What does "to complete the ecosystem" mean in this context?
Patrick

[jcnkt_ellis]

I am not ignoring that macro algae does bind phosphate, I'm questioning the efficiency at which it does so and feel that your static mathematical representation of the process is overly optimistic and fails to take into account the cyclical nature of biological processes.

[Subsea]

The efficiency is not 100%. In earlier post, I acknowledged that fact. If we agreed that the efficiency was 90%, is it reasonable to say that it is effective.
In my original post, I made no outcry that everyone should use macro as a nutrient export mechanism. You projected that in your comments on post #11. I wrote up a basic formula that illustrates a simple nutrient export equation. The fact that you have focused on the 10% indicates to me an attitude that wishes to downplay the use of macro algae. I have read some of your recent post on that subject. To ignore the other 90% prevents the exchange of knowledge. Of course I lift up what I believe in. We all have a predisposition to a point of view.
Viva la difference,
Patrick

[ramsey]

I think macro does export nutrients but I also think most people don't have a large enough fuge to rely solely on that. An ATS may be more effective but a lot of people rely on a small fuge and a small skimmer. While this may help, I don't think it's possible to achieve a low nutrient system by itself.

Personally, I think growing macro is fun. :P I have a pretty big fuge with various macro and a large protein skimmer which has been handling the bioload in my 185 nicely so far. Of course, it's a softy tank so slightly elevated nitrates would not bother me. In my 38 though, I have limited space so I have a small fuge, oversized HOB skimmer and I'm running zeovit. This is an SPS tank so I'm far more concerned with nutrient levels. I'm not sure how much the fuge does, but the chaeto grows in it and have had less algae in my display so I keep it. Plus, it's a pod haven.

Ultimately, there's more than one way to skin a cat (so I've heard), and a lot of it depends on the goals for your tank. However, Nutella is by far the best! :)

[jcnkt_ellis]

1. I'm biased, but you, a person who owns and runs a website that sells only macro algae and live rock, is not...

2. Your "90%" efficiency number is my only complaint with your formula...and you have not provided any sources that corroborate that number.

3. This from post #23: "While it is true that nutrients removed from the water column are now in the biomass of the fish, it is no longer available for uptake unless the fish died." Is false. Fish are not perfect machines, fish will poop out the bulk of the nutrients from the macro they ate in the display. Only a tiny fraction of what they intake will ever be locked up in their biomass until they die.

4. I'd like to add the reservations expressed in this link, where you posted the same formula as above:
http://www.nano-reef.com/topic/343536-how-effective-is-macro-algae-at-phosphate-export/

[Subsea]

We could quibble on many things. It would be difficult to be rock solid with the percentage. Many experts could be quoted with different and conflicting numbers. On my part, I will inquire with the Molecular Bioscience Department at the University of Texas. Jerry Brand has toured my facility as I have toured the UT facility. He has pHD credentials. I will request his educated opinion on the nutrient balance equation of phosphate. If his educated opinions will satisfy your need to qualify, I will take that step.

Your point of contention in point #3 is correct. I did not include the fish inefficiency loss to poop and respiration. It was and is a simplification. If the efficiency ratio of fish was 80%, then I was 20% false and 80% true.

With respect to point #4, the complexities of dynamic equilibrium are not required to understand simple nutrient export. Why does it need to get complicated to understand a general principal?


Jason,
The principals involved with the equation in question come from EPA literature for Waste Water Treatment. It has been some years since I have studied the subject matter. I will go to the Code of Federal Regulations and link the appropriate EPA literature on waste water management, if I can find them. What other action on my part will satisfy the dissemination of factual knowledge on your part?
I will pursue two independent references to the equation in question; academia and CFR
Regards,
Patrick

[Subsea]

3. This from post #23: "While it is true that nutrients removed from the water column are now in the biomass of the fish, it is no longer available for uptake unless the fish died." Is false. Fish are not perfect machines, fish will poop out the bulk of the nutrients from the macro they ate in the display. Only a tiny fraction of what they intake will ever be locked up in their biomass until they die.

Your item #3 on post #33 merits further discussion. When you say that fish excrete the bulk of the macro they eat and only a tiny fraction of what they intake remains in their biomass, what is your source of reference for this information?

http://seafoodforthefuture.org/aquaculture-efficiency-and-feeds/seafoodforthefuture.org/aquaculture-efficiency-and-feeds/

The above link shows aquaculture food conversion rates using standard high efficiency fish foods to be 60%. Higher food conversion rates up to 100%% are achieved. With a loss of 40% I do not consider that to be the the bulk compared to 60% of food going to fish biomass. For certain, 60% is a long way from the tiny fraction that you claim.
Patrick

[Subsea]

From Martin A. Moe, Jr. (1989). The Marine Aquarium Reference: Systems and Invertebrates: Chapter 3: page 94-96, attached below.

Notice how the Dissolved Organic Phosphate makes a never ending loop in and out of the algae square. Also, notice the additional outflows of phosphates from algae. Algae is not a static phosphate sponge that never puts anything back in the water.

I was not trying to be rude earlier when I asked about your sources. I just have not found any articles to support your claim laid out in mathematical proof as to the efficiency of macro algae. In fact, most research I've seen has been inconclusive as to macro's long term usefulness. This is an educational site, and with that said, I welcome your argument and would love to learn more about where your info and numbers come from.


In reading Advanced Aquaria, Randy Holmes Farley, as a pHD in Chemistry, claims that all nutrients are tied up in macro biomass until the macro dies. Obviously, he has simplified the dynamic processes going on. Using standard engineering principals for calculations, the initial equation list all components of the process, then individual components in the process are calculated or eliminated as their value approaches zero. I did that in the original post. In reviewing the flow chart which you attached, Martin Moe does not attempt to quantify the percentage of macro outflow to organic phosphate. Obviously, it is specific to the macro and it is specific to environmental parameters.

Using the dynamics that macro in a captive reef tank will be manicured by the reef keeper, I say that the leaching of nutrients from the macro back to the water column will be eliminated/greatly reduced as macro is exported from the aquarium. I will not quibble on the efficiency ratio of macro. While I am not sure of the efficiency ratio, I can document a ten fold increase of biomass in 30 days using Gracilaria Parvispora.

In reviewing the original post, there is an error using the 1% phosphate content of macro algae. The percentage was derived from the dry weight of macro algae. It takes 10 pounds of wet macro to produce one pound of dry weight. Instead of .4g of macro, it takes 4 grams of wet macro to export .004 grams of phosphate from an aquarium with 20 gallons of water at .5 ppm phosphate. Four grams of chaeto is about golf ball size. I consider that effective nutrient export.
Patrick