Bubble algae problem

[ofzakaria]

thanks!


there is also large consensus that garlic cures inch, but that doesn’t mean it is true. There are all kinds of things people think, but turn out not to be so - most aquarist think there are reproductive spores in bubble algae bubbles, but there isn’t. “Common knowledge” it’s experimentation.



Lots of people think and say there are such things, but no one has ever been able to show them to me. I would love for you to find them and show me because I can’t find anything.

Lol.
Yeh maybe red sea, triton and aqua forest are lying when they say we did research before we release these products.

All am saying is that many tanks which use these products that simply control nutrients show good results.

How about natural sea water levels should not that be a good compass also...


there are some researches about this...this is one example from royal society

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2017.2718

"Here, we show that nutrient pollution could make reefs more vulnerable to global changes associated with ocean acidification and accelerate the predicted shift from net accretion to net erosion."


There is research out there...I think we only need to look

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[Thales]

I think there is a bit of mischaracterization here. Many, if not most, reefers would treat algae by simply adding GFO to bring down po4. Or in modern reef keeping use something like nopox(vodka..etc) to bring down no3.. Do not you think?/

I don’t. I think most do water changes, add herbivores, scrub and siphon, do water changes, change carbon, add other products in addition to what you mention.

To me gfo and carbon are targeted attempt to lower po4 to combat algae and if it did not work, it would have not been adapted for all these years..

I know right? It really is a bummer that that turns out not to be the case. A bigger bummer is that many reef products have literally no testing prior release and rely on hobbyists to do the testing because testing is expensive and time consuming and customers will by stuff regardless.

Fun discussion!

 

[ofzakaria]

All well said as usual.
Cheers Rich!

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[rygh]

The problem - asking for studies on this is asking for the impossible.

To do it right, you need "Scientific Control" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_control)
Where you very carefully eliminate variables other than the one you want to study.

How the heck can you possibly do that in a real reef tank??
Sure, you can do one small coral in a sealed tank. But that does not answer these big questions at all.
You could set up 100 reef tanks, all supposedly identical, and in 6 months they would all be completely different.
Corals grow randomly at different rates and in different ways.
Even almost identical fish will eat and grow differently.
Water flow is designed to be chaotic.
Skimmers rely on nutrients being randomly captured by the bubbles, which varies.
It goes on and on....

So basically - there never will be a real scientific study on this.

I don't know what the answer is.
Anecdotal evidence is not just flaky, but can be dead wrong. The "garlic cure" Rich pointed out is the obvious reminder.

 

[capescuba]

Lots of people think and say there are such things, but no one has ever been able to show them to me. I would love for you to find them and show me because I can’t find anything.

Rich -I just watched your Macna 2018 talk (

) and see where you are coming from .... BTW, I've got this miracle new salt!

FWIW - I just brush and catch bubble algae in my filter sock.

 

[ofzakaria]

The problem - asking for studies on this is asking for the impossible.

To do it right, you need "Scientific Control" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_control)
Where you very carefully eliminate variables other than the one you want to study.

How the heck can you possibly do that in a real reef tank??
Sure, you can do one small coral in a sealed tank. But that does not answer these big questions at all.
You could set up 100 reef tanks, all supposedly identical, and in 6 months they would all be completely different.
Corals grow randomly at different rates and in different ways.
Even almost identical fish will eat and grow differently.
Water flow is designed to be chaotic.
Skimmers rely on nutrients being randomly captured by the bubbles, which varies.
It goes on and on....

So basically - there never will be a real scientific study on this.

I don't know what the answer is.
Anecdotal evidence is not just flaky, but can be dead wrong. The "garlic cure" Rich pointed out is the obvious reminder.

That was exactly my point. In closed system like ours, I do not believe we can easily say high nutrients is the way, or low nutrients is the way.
Both can produce results and evidence for that is all over the place.
Contrast rich system (70ppm no3, 1.6 po4) to my system (0.25 no3, 0.08 po4)... both systems I would describe as successful...

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[Thales]

Lol.
Yeh maybe red sea, triton and aqua forest are lying when they say we did research before we release these products.

Some intentionally lie and some are just wrong. There is a lot about triton testing that is still unsubstantiated, even after promises to shed light stuff.
Doing research is also different from testing. ATS came about based on what might happen, but really no testing has been done to see if it actually does happen. It might not.

All am saying is that many tanks which use these products that simply control nutrients show good results.

Sure, but that doesn’t mean the products are actually doing anything. Just like garlic and ich.

How about natural sea water levels should not that be a good compass also...

a great place to start but closed systems simply are not the same as the ocean


[there are some researches about this...this is one example from royal society

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2017.2718

"Here, we show that nutrient pollution could make reefs more vulnerable to global changes associated with ocean acidification and accelerate the predicted shift from net accretion to net erosion."


There is research out there...I think we only need to look

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
[/QUOTE]

That isn’t reasheaexh showing that lowering nutrients in aquaria control algae!
Thanks for talking. I think this stuff is important

 

[ofzakaria]

That was a fun stimulating morning! Thank you!

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[rygh]

[there are some researches about this...this is one example from royal society

That isn’t reasheaexh showing that lowering nutrients in aquaria control algae!
Thanks for talking. I think this stuff is important

Agree. But that study does show that nutrient pollution is a stressor on corals, and explains why.
That can be legitimately extrapolated as likely having a similar effect in our reef tanks.
Of course, "extrapolation" is prone to errors and is far from scientific proof.
So the study is in-between. It should not be immediately dismissed, but neither should it be taken as solid evidence.

 

[Thales]

Agree. But that study does show that nutrient pollution is a stressor on corals, and explains why.
That can be legitimately extrapolated as likely having a similar effect in our reef tanks.
Of course, "extrapolation" is prone to errors and is far from scientific proof.
So the study is in-between. It should not be immediately dismissed, but neither should it be taken as solid evidence.

Correct. Many manufacturers do exactly that.

 

[Thales]

And don’t bother to check to see if it does work in reef tanks. This is why we have so many things in the hobby that don’t work, yet people keep using them.

 

[Thales]

One of the shining horrible examples of extrapolating into fact without doing the work to see if it is true is the whole nano bubble thing. Astounding.

 

[ofzakaria]

One of the shining horrible examples of extrapolating into fact without doing the work to see if it is true is the whole nano bubble thing. Astounding.

Lol!!

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[Thales]

The problem - asking for studies on this is asking for the impossible.

To do it right, you need "Scientific Control" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_control)
Where you very carefully eliminate variables other than the one you want to study.

How the heck can you possibly do that in a real reef tank??
Sure, you can do one small coral in a sealed tank. But that does not answer these big questions at all.
You could set up 100 reef tanks, all supposedly identical, and in 6 months they would all be completely different.
Corals grow randomly at different rates and in different ways.
Even almost identical fish will eat and grow differently.
Water flow is designed to be chaotic.
Skimmers rely on nutrients being randomly captured by the bubbles, which varies.
It goes on and on....

So basically - there never will be a real scientific study on this.

I don't know what the answer is.
Anecdotal evidence is not just flaky, but can be dead wrong. The "garlic cure" Rich pointed out is the obvious reminder.

We don't need rigorous science, but we do need more than 'It seems like this should work', which is what a lot of vendors say. I am not asking for studies, but evidence. Anecdote is evidence, and can be useful, but is limited and often fallacious. The next step is not difficult IMO.
Studies of full scale reef tanks are hard, partially because of the problems you mention, but they are not impossible - foe example, there is a great robust study by Feldman and Joshi on skimmers, but people would rather go with the marketing the see because marketing is sexy. These kinds of studies take, time, space and money - the reasons I stopped doing a lot of them and why I am so happy BRS is trying. I think that companies should be doing more of that work themselves, and sharing the results.
But more basic studies are totally doable and easy for any hobbyist. Does lowering nutrient levels reduce algae growth? Easy - set up 2 5 gallon tanks or buckets with an airline and a heater and a light, fill it with tank water that has high nutrients and rock that has algae. Lower the nutrients in one, and not the other. Wait, add top off as needed, and there should be some results. Here is a reef tank having an algae problem...stop trying anything about the algae for a few weeks and just do normal maintenance, then just reduce the nutrients and see what happens. Not robust by any means, but more usful than 'people say it works'.

Oh, I talk about this stuff in this article -

Skeptical Reefkeeping XIV: Everyone Can Do Science

From Reefs Magazine 
By Richard Ross


 In reefkeeping, there are a million products and techniques, each claiming to be a necessary ingredient for a successful reef tank. The problem is that many…

packedhead.net

and anecdote in this one -

Skeptical Reefkeeping X – The Power of Anecdote

From ReefsMagazine by Richard Ross In the last nine installments of Skeptical Reefkeeping we have looked at varied topics from phosphate to marketing to fallacious lines of reasoning to communicati…

packedhead.net

The interceptor treatment for red bugs is a great example of what I am talking about.

 

[Thales]

Agree. But that study does show that nutrient pollution is a stressor on corals, and explains why.
That can be legitimately extrapolated as likely having a similar effect in our reef tanks.
Of course, "extrapolation" is prone to errors and is far from scientific proof.
So the study is in-between. It should not be immediately dismissed, but neither should it be taken as solid evidence.

Of course - but I am unsure why we are talking about that study, we were talking about nutrient reduction as a means to stop algal growth. There are studies that show that algal growth is impacted by nutrient levels. There are studies that show that algal growth is limited when certain ratios are off. Those studies show wha they show. What we don't have is good evidence that lowering nutrients will help stop algae issues in reef tanks - and the anecdote is at least equal in support that it doesn't as it does.
I am unsure where the idea that a study should be immediately dismissed, I hope I didn't give the impression that I think that is the case.

 

[ofzakaria]

We don't need rigorous science, but we do need more than 'It seems like this should work', which is what a lot of vendors say. I am not asking for studies, but evidence. Anecdote is evidence, and can be useful, but is limited and often fallacious. The next step is not difficult IMO.
Studies of full scale reef tanks are hard, partially because of the problems you mention, but they are not impossible - foe example, there is a great robust study by Feldman and Joshi on skimmers, but people would rather go with the marketing the see because marketing is sexy. These kinds of studies take, time, space and money - the reasons I stopped doing a lot of them and why I am so happy BRS is trying. I think that companies should be doing more of that work themselves, and sharing the results.
But more basic studies are totally doable and easy for any hobbyist. Does lowering nutrient levels reduce algae growth? Easy - set up 2 5 gallon tanks or buckets with an airline and a heater and a light, fill it with tank water that has high nutrients and rock that has algae. Lower the nutrients in one, and not the other. Wait, add top off as needed, and there should be some results. Here is a reef tank having an algae problem...stop trying anything about the algae for a few weeks and just do normal maintenance, then just reduce the nutrients and see what happens. Not robust by any means, but more usful than 'people say it works'.

Oh, I talk about this stuff in this article -

Skeptical Reefkeeping XIV: Everyone Can Do Science

From Reefs Magazine 
By Richard Ross


 In reefkeeping, there are a million products and techniques, each claiming to be a necessary ingredient for a successful reef tank. The problem is that many…

packedhead.net

and anecdote in this one -

Skeptical Reefkeeping X – The Power of Anecdote

From ReefsMagazine by Richard Ross In the last nine installments of Skeptical Reefkeeping we have looked at varied topics from phosphate to marketing to fallacious lines of reasoning to communicati…

packedhead.net

The interceptor treatment for red bugs is a great example of what I am talking about.

Am suprised and confused on what standards you want to follow rich, on one hand push back on common practices I cited in the hobby like the impact of lowering nutrients on algae, the scientific paper about high nutrients and its negative impact on reef, on other hand, you are citing BRS and calling it a study.....why you think what BRS is doing is more useful than collective knowledge and experince in the hobby?
I personally see alot of gaps in BRS methodologies and take it as just one anecdotal data point no more, no less...

Agreed the garlic thing was wacky and many reefers did not believe in it it was circulated on forums and new comer fell victims to it. But I would argue people learned and moved on..



Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[rygh]

One of the shining horrible examples of extrapolating into fact without doing the work to see if it is true is the whole nano bubble thing. Astounding.

Hey ... I do the nano-bubble thing, and it totally eliminated every problem and cured ich also.
Ok, actually it didn't. But I really do it.
Air stone under a power head in my fuge.

I have a PH problem. I do it to bring in outside air. Large air pump, not some tiny little one like on kids tanks.
The smaller the bubble the better the surface area ratio.
And I can see a visible PH difference on the probe.

But was it "good for my tank" ?? Not sure. In fact, I feel it had little effect.
The PH shift when I forget to refill my Kalk reactor is larger.

 

[Thales]

Am suprised and confused on what standards you want to follow rich, on one hand push back on common practices I cited in the hobby like the impact of lowering nutrients on algae, the scientific paper about high nutrients and its negative impact on reef, on other hand, you are citing BRS and calling it a study.....

I want any evidence beyond "it seems like it should work". I want to look at that evidence, see if it is compelling and see what questions it clarifies and which it doesn't. I want to use that to create more evidence.
I am not really talking about the paper cited about high nutrients having a negative impact on the reef because we were talking about nutrient reduction to combat problematic algae. Mark hit it on the the head, many studies are great starting places for us to start thinking about what goes on in reef tanks, but the studies almost aren't ever about reef tanks, so they shouldn't be taken as right for reef tanks just because they are studies. What BRS does is often helpful, but often also makes more questions and sometimes the conclusions are a little goofy. What I like is that they are trying!
Common practices often become common because someone said it should work and people took that as true and now it is entrenched in the general reefing mindset. There are lots of practices that were once common that upon further examination, we have now largely abandoned.

why you think what BRS is doing is more useful than collective knowledge and experince in the hobby?

Because they are documenting what they are doing and the results. It allow for a better starting point for anyone that wants to look at that question in the future. Much of the collective knowledge is really old reefers tales passed on, and sometimes they are just wrong. Also, the collective knowledge is different from community to community - there are communities where they still recommend cycling tanks with live fish.

I personally see alot of gaps in BRS methodologies and take it as just one anecdotal data point no more, no less...

There are a lot of gaps, but I'll take what they are doing over someone saying "I reduced nitrate and my tank looks better" anyday.

Agreed the garlic thing was wacky and many reefers did not believe in it it was circulated on forums and new comer fell victims to it. But I would argue people learned and moved on..

The garlic thing is alive and well. Still recommended a lot on lots of forums, still included in many foods.


[/QUOTE]

 

[Thales]

Hey ... I do the nano-bubble thing, and it totally eliminated every problem and cured ich also.
Ok, actually it didn't. But I really do it.
Air stone under a power head in my fuge.

I have a PH problem. I do it to bring in outside air. Large air pump, not some tiny little one like on kids tanks.
The smaller the bubble the better the surface area ratio.
And I can see a visible PH difference on the probe.

But was it "good for my tank" ?? Not sure. In fact, I feel it had little effect.
The PH shift when I forget to refill my Kalk reactor is larger.

For sure. Bubbling outside air into a sump or skimmer seemed to make sense. Some people tried it, and it seemed to work. More people tried it and it really seemed to work. It is also very easy to document - just like you, when I tried it, the pH obviously went up. This one is simple, well defined, and easy to test.
Though I will argue about smaller bubbles. I go for lager bubbles because the data shows that gasses dissolving from bubbles isn't great for gas exchange, however, breaking the surface tension is great for gas exchange. I run big, roiling bubbles in my sump.

Does it matter? I don't know either. Since it is so easy to do, and because it might matter, I do it. If I had to keep buying stuff to get the same effect, I might not do it. There is some good evidence that corals metabolize everything better at pH above 8.2, pre industrial levels. Does it matter to what we are doing - I don't really know.

 

[ofzakaria]

I want any evidence beyond "it seems like it should work". I want to look at that evidence, see if it is compelling and see what questions it clarifies and which it doesn't. I want to use that to create more evidence.
I am not really talking about the paper cited about high nutrients having a negative impact on the reef because we were talking about nutrient reduction to combat problematic algae. Mark hit it on the the head, many studies are great starting places for us to start thinking about what goes on in reef tanks, but the studies almost aren't ever about reef tanks, so they shouldn't be taken as right for reef tanks just because they are studies. What BRS does is often helpful, but often also makes more questions and sometimes the conclusions are a little goofy. What I like is that they are trying!
Common practices often become common because someone said it should work and people took that as true and now it is entrenched in the general reefing mindset. There are lots of practices that were once common that upon further examination, we have now largely abandoned.



Because they are documenting what they are doing and the results. It allow for a better starting point for anyone that wants to look at that question in the future. Much of the collective knowledge is really old reefers tales passed on, and sometimes they are just wrong. Also, the collective knowledge is different from community to community - there are communities where they still recommend cycling tanks with live fish.



There are a lot of gaps, but I'll take what they are doing over someone saying "I reduced nitrate and my tank looks better" anyday.


The garlic thing is alive and well. Still recommended a lot on lots of forums, still included in many foods.

[/QUOTE]Well you are starting to contradict one of your talk points where you stated that reefers in this hobby have contributed more than anyone else to the knowledge of reef keeping( the micro fraging talk)
I feel you are being selective to what you want to call right and wrong..which is ok ofcourse.

I personally would take actual scientific study over all..

I would take s collective believe that I seen it work on my system over some. (The caveat here is that the data should come from an experienced reefer).... I truly believe most experienced reefers would not do most of the wacky things we are citing or have learned its effectiveness.

So a data generated by BRS is one data point I will not give it more or less than any individual anecdotal point by an experienced reefer.



Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk