Too Much Chaeto?

[Sherman]

It is not we it is you and Sherman

Yeah, I didn't think I'd be clumped in with Jobiwan. I retract all statements.

 

[Jobiwan]

Be afraid, be very very afraid Sherman, you are judged by the company you keep....:evil:

 

[Krish]

Well, actually I have tried the balling method, I found it to be less effective due to the much smaller biomass neccessary to create a situation where it would tumble, I sell my excess on ebay, my quantity available to sell went way up about threefold in the same refugia, perhaps the amount of biomass is way more than three times the tumbling mass and is hence less efficient, but who cares, the end result is I export more nutrients with my less efficient system, as I said, in this hobby focusing too much on scientific minutia can lead to a less optimal approach, just my two cents...

Just curious, but was it really less effective or more effective?? Less growth by the ball of tumbling chaeto could possibly indicate less excess nutrients in your system, so less provided for growth. The fact that you use a bigger block with no tumbling (or whatever the case may be) may mean more waste gets trapped in the huge mass which is then broken down thus providing more "food" for the chaeto to grow and thus giving you the impression that it is working better for you that way when in reality, it is just adding "fuel to the flame" in a sense. Did you test your levels (nitrate, phosphate etc) to see where they were at at both times to see if one was actually working better for you or did you just go by how quickly each mass seemed to grow? Just a few thoughts... Like I said before, I've never used chaeto before so I can't really give my own personal take on it. However, logically thinking on how plants grow, I can see where the smaller mass, pruned frequently would be more effective. Also, let's not forget how many times Anthony Calfo expressed here that the smaller ball tumbling is the most efficient way of going about it (not the only way) but in all things with this hobby, go with what works best for you

 

[burning2nd]

While ive had both.... In my system. (and i think its just me) I cant get the ball to stay a ball... it gets caught up on something, and one way of aother the spinning ball turns to a snake..... I dont know if you would call it a block. but it uselly grows all over the place.

it gets long and stringy and dies... at the same time its cheto, then byropsis, then grape culpa, for me it comes in cycles, but I think if i had a larger system, and several tanks plumbed together. i would go for WHAT ever gives me a nice Dence, dark green pod filled cheto mass..... weather its block or spining ball

a dark green ferm, dence cheto mass thats the key. IMO

but i dont know anything so

 

[Jobiwan]

Hi Krish, how are ya, you have a point, I'm judging "effectiveness" by the amount of chaeto mass removed in a given period of time. Didn't notice any change in water parameters either way though, and I don't know about the "trapped waste" thing, since the fuge takes on water that has been prefiltered and skimmed in my setups, nevertheless there is lots of detritus produced, more in the static setups by far, could be from the metabolic processes of the immense populations of pods, stars, worms etc that live in the static chaeto vs tumbling, or it could be other things. I don't put out a lot of energy trying to analyze these things, but having said that I do think a scientific approach to this hobby is essential, we wouldn't be where we are today without it. I myself have been trained in the mystic ways of molecular biology, but that background just gives me an appreciation that due to the many variables at work in our hobby the same methodology can yield different results, and as you rightly pointed out there can be many explanations for a given outcome.

 

[Krish]

Hi Krish, how are ya, you have a point, I'm judging "effectiveness" by the amount of chaeto mass removed in a given period of time. Didn't notice any change in water parameters either way though, and I don't know about the "trapped waste" thing, since the fuge takes on water that has been prefiltered and skimmed in my setups, nevertheless there is lots of detritus produced, more in the static setups by far, could be from the metabolic processes of the immense populations of pods, stars, worms etc that live in the static chaeto vs tumbling, or it could be other things. I don't put out a lot of energy trying to analyze these things, but having said that I do think a scientific approach to this hobby is essential, we wouldn't be where we are today without it. I myself have been trained in the mystic ways of molecular biology, but that background just gives me an appreciation that due to the many variables at work in our hobby the same methodology can yield different results, and as you rightly pointed out there can be many explanations for a given outcome.

Yeah...I was just curious why I asked I have so much to learn about the hobby still....Wished my post count reflected my level of intelligence but it is all a learning experience and will always be. Like always though, I feel if something is working great for a person and they are happy as well as their tank's inhabitants then more power to them.

 

[Jobiwan]

You'd be hard pressed to find a hobby that can provide more opportunities for learning than this one Krish, I started 30 years ago, but I didn't realize how limited my knowledge was until I started participating on Reef Frontiers, the ideas and experiences of fellow hobbyists has done as much or more for me than all the books I've read, I believe that the expansion of reefkeeping in the last 15 years is directly related to the resources and support the internet and sites such as this provides....

 

[Reeferdude]

Another vote for the 'let it grow' method..LOL

My fuge is stuffed full. I doubt very much if there exists any scientific proof one way or another. Just seems to make more sense that a larger amount of Chaeto will absorb a larger amount of nutrients...No Brainer!

 

[mmkeeper]

Ok, I have a question is it the existing cheato that uses or captures the nitrates or is it the growth that holds it? So when you cull some cheato that is when you export it. So wheater you have a ball of cheato that is growing or a mass that is growing doesn't mater, it is which grows faster?

 

[thumperss]

one reason i keep my chato in a block is couse my lil pods and stars fall out if i tumble if you block your chato thay stay there and breed which in the end more pods & stars biger biomass. biger biomass = healthier tank
Brandon

 

[Reeferdude]

Ok, I have a question is it the existing cheato that uses or captures the nitrates or is it the growth that holds it? So when you cull some cheato that is when you export it. So wheater you have a ball of cheato that is growing or a mass that is growing doesn't mater, it is which grows faster?

I would say both. Also, it may reach a point where it stops growing either because of lack of nutrient or lack of light or space.

 

[Scooterman]

Just seems to make more sense that a larger amount of Chaeto will absorb a larger amount of nutrients...No Brainer!

Not true, If you would read what was already posted you'd get a better idea of what we're saying, think about it, the more you trim back the faster it will grow & the more it will absorb.

 

[krisfal]

So I am trying to get a good understanding of what is being discussed here.

It seems to me like all other plants, the the new growth on the macro algea is going to take up more nitrients than the old growth. That these nutrients are what actually fuels the cell division that creates the new growth. That part makes sense to me.

What I am struggling with is the softball size of the macro, to me it seems you would need more for a larger tank, less for a smaller tank. If I compare to a rose if I only have a two branches on my rose I will only get so much growth per branch regardless of how much nutrients I feed it. If my rose had 20 branches I would get more inches of growth as I have more branches growing, this in turn would require more nutrients to sustain the growth. For this reason it seems to me that I would get more nutrient uptake from a larger mass of growing macro algea as long as the nutrient requirements, space and light demands were being met.

 

[Reeferdude]

Not true, If you would read what was already posted you'd get a better idea of what we're saying, think about it, the more you trim back the faster it will grow & the more it will absorb.

With all due respect if you'd read what I've written you'd get a better idea of what I wrote. Furthermore why would you imply I didn't read or mis-understood what I've read? Nevermind don't answer that. I don't care to know. I suppose I need to quantify all my post with the caveat ending "IMO".

A small ball growing faster absorbs more than a large ball growing slower? PROVE IT!

 

[Scooterman]

With all due respect if you'd read what I've written you'd get a better idea of what I wrote. Furthermore why would you imply I didn't read or mis-understood what I've read? Nevermind don't answer that. I don't care to know. I suppose I need to quantify all my post with the caveat ending "IMO".

A small ball growing faster absorbs more than a large ball growing slower? PROVE IT!

I read exactly what you wrote, you implying that a big bail would out preform nutrient absorbing but you have no proof yourself. If you read what I & Boomer posted & understand it then you'd know what I was saying, no need to get all huffy though, It is more logical that trimming frequently while using Anthony's design would out preform one large bail comparing it to any plantings grown, it is proven there, no I don't have more proof than that as you already know that but we do have a lot to base what we're saying on compared to your one bail, like it or not.

 

[Krish]

Maybe we need to get Anthony in here to see what his thoughts are on the subject (although he already stated it many times before) and see if there is an actual data from tests conducted Like I mentioned before though, if something seems to be working great for you and you are happy with the results, then more power to you and you should go with what works best for you. However, what is being argued here is not that one method won't work for you and that only the other would, but what is the more effective way about going about it. Both methods will yield results (and probably many others), but one method will probably be more effective than the others. Just think about corals for eg. Someone may say that they can keep SPS corals in a tank under PC lighting and they will live which may be true, but that doesn't mean that PC lighting is the best thing for SPS corals. PC lighting may only allow them to just stay alive and nothing more, but under more intense lighting like halides, they will actually live and grow...

My fuge is stuffed full. I doubt very much if there exists any scientific proof one way or another. Just seems to make more sense that a larger amount of Chaeto will absorb a larger amount of nutrients...No Brainer!

Please don't take it that I am picking on your anything (because I'm not that kind of person ), but your quote brought up a thought! Have you ever thought about the saying "Less is more"??? What I think everyone is forgetting is in some cases, it is possible to have too much of something. Just take a cleanup crew for example...You may argue that 200 hermits can clean up a tank more effectively than 50 hermits can, but we all know that if there isn't sufficient food available for all 200 hermits, then some will begin to die-off until an equilibrium is reached where there will only be so many hermits living being supported by the available food produced to feed them. On that same note, there is only so much chaeto will absorb in a given system whether you have a huge ball or a small ball. If there isn't sufficient food for a huge mass of chaeto to grow then it won't grow as fast or some will die-off. Also, it's only a thought, but my guess is the larger the mass of chaeto, the less light will be allowed to penetrate it so some of the chaeto will not be getting all the light it needs and therefore could affect it's growth. Just a few thoughts...I think in my own personal opinion, it's probably a much safer bet to go with a smaller ball of chaeto that gets all of the light it needs as well as flow (let's not forget about nature) which will probably grow pretty quickly and can be pruned back more frequently, than going with a huge mass of chaeto that your system may not be able to support in which some of the food provided for the chaeto to grow could possibly come from it's own die-off (due to lack of food produced by the tank) or the waste from the tank that get's trapped in it do to lack of flow. What do I know though...I've been wrong many times before

 

[Reeferdude]

I read exactly what you wrote, you implying that a big bail would out preform nutrient absorbing but you have no proof yourself. If you read what I & Boomer posted & understand it then you'd know what I was saying, no need to get all huffy though, It is more logical that trimming frequently while using Anthony's design would out preform one large bail comparing it to any plantings grown, it is proven there, no I don't have more proof than that as you already know that but we do have a lot to base what we're saying on compared to your one bail, like it or not.

"No need to get huffy" then you write "& understand it" What's that supposed to mean? Just because I don't buy into your opinion or Boomers opinion Or Anthonys opinion, I don't understand it? Heck! I don't even know who you people are. Most importantly, I don't really care. All my posts are rooted in opinion from experience (about 20years of opinion) as are all others. They have been respectful and I'll continue to express my respectful opinions as I see fit as long as I do not break any forum rules it seem appropriate. like it or not. Oh btw, Boomer actually said things work different in different systems. So that blows your whole "trimming frequently" notion right out of the water...

 

[Reeferdude]

Krish, I actually think you're spot on with the Equilibrium factor. A larger ball will eventually die off or slow in growth if the food and light are in any way restricted but it still doesn't change the fact that the larger the plant the larger the demand. Same with animals, birds, fish, humans, insects, and yes....Chaeto

 

[Curtswearing]

I have not done any tests on Chaetomorpha so I can only predict based on other experiences. At one time, I probably had 50 bonsai trees and several hundred bonsai cuttings. With those, pruning would be a growth stimulant leading me to believe the smaller ball would be more effective.

I have used Caulerpa and if Caulerpa is allowed to grow too big, two things happen. Growth actually slows and you run the risk of it sporulating (going "sexual"). I have also used Halimeda with similar results. Here's what happened to a friends tank when all of his Halimeda sporulated. He lost most animals in the tank.

 

[Scooterman]

"No need to get huffy" then you write "& understand it" What's that supposed to mean? Just because I don't buy into your opinion or Boomers opinion Or Anthonys opinion, I don't understand it? Heck! I don't even know who you people are. Most importantly, I don't really care. All my posts are rooted in opinion from experience (about 20years of opinion) as are all others. They have been respectful and I'll continue to express my respectful opinions as I see fit as long as I do not break any forum rules it seem appropriate. like it or not. Oh btw, Boomer actually said things work different in different systems. So that blows your whole "trimming frequently" notion right out of the water...

I wasn't questioning your opinion I have no problems with that also I see no reason to question rules, you make it sound like I'm out to get you or something & this isn't true, I question that one statement & you take it as if I was targeting you, yes implied that maybe you either missed it or didn't get the point. I agree things aren't the same in so many different systems & things will react differently.