Ammonia is our Friend 2: Article Outline

[Hans-Werner]

I also don’t like the ratio below 50:1, because my tank gets dirty and becomes more prone to algae.

... also this statement is very clear: What is the logic behing less algae with more nutrients? The only thing that comes to my mind is that nitrate is kind of "blocking" some nutrient which corals need in lower concentrations than algae, and this is not nitrogen as we know.

 

[SDchris]

When uptake systems are saturated by certain concentrations they are saturated, no additional uptake how high you will ever go. You can read it from uptake curves.

It is no secret or unknown how Michaelis-Menten kinetics of uptake looks like.

I not familiar with how some of the data is generated, so more just thinking out loud. Would altering the density of zoox change uptake rates either directly or indirectly via changing concentration gradients?

 

[Hans-Werner]

I not familiar with how some of the data is generated, so more just thinking out loud. Would altering the density of zoox change uptake rates either directly or indirectly via changing concentration gradients?

I think yes, quite sure. Someone, I think Lasse, linked an article about zooxanthellae farming by corals. It says, most nutrients and 100 % of nitrate-N are taken up through the zooxanthellae. Without zooxanthellae no nitrate reduction and so no nitrate-N uptake.

 

[SDchris]

Let me see if I've got this straight.
Nutrient uptake rates are determined by depletion experiments. In the case of nitrate that would be zoox only. Phosphate and ammonia would be both coral and zoox.
If uptake is enzyme mediated, the resulting plotted curve will have a particular shape. The Michaelis-Menten equation is a mathematical representation of that curve. While that equation is useful for comparing nitrate/enzyme affinity and/to different forms of N, for us it adds complexity and is probably better to look at the original uptake curves?

I would imagine at higher zoox densities, diffusion might become rate limiting. Increasing the nitrate concentration would overcome that limitation. That doesn't change the 1ppm enzyme saturation point, so no laws are broken. But allows for some reasoning as to why nitrate concentration above 2-3ppm still cause a change in zoox/chl. density.
Given the suggested 10ppm nitrate is probably as safe place past maximum where no more change is observed, the likely point is probably closer to 4-5ppm, taking into account some testing error.

that nitrate concentrations higher than 2 or 2.5 ppm have any additional benefit. There is hardly any additional uptak at concentrations higher than 1 ppm. Its the biochemistry. When uptake systems are saturated by certain concentrations they are saturated, no additional uptake how high you will ever go. You can read it from uptake curves.

They definitely seem to be more robust at 10-15 ppm vs 2-3 ppm.

I'm not sure if I prostituted some math in the above, but it seems plausible.

 

[Reefahholic]

... also this statement is very clear: What is the logic behing less algae with more nutrients? The only thing that comes to my mind is that nitrate is kind of "blocking" some nutrient which corals need in lower concentrations than algae, and this is not nitrogen as we know.

I just hate the way a tank looks with dirty rocks. I mean maybe the corals still grow the same (maybe better who knows), but if the tank looks like a mess, and it’s not pleasing to the eye or looks bad in pictures…I mean that really sucks.

For example…look at my rock in top pic, and look at the rocks in bottom pic. Both tanks are same age. My tank had 100:1 ratio and his tank was very low in nutrients and ratio was below 20:1. So this is not something that I’m imagining. I can reproduce a cleaner system over and over with higher nutrient ratio.

 

[Lasse]

Someone, I think Lasse, linked an article about zooxanthellae farming by corals. It says, most nutrients and 100 % of nitrate-N are taken up through the zooxanthellae.

Nutrient uptake rates are determined by depletion experiments. In the case of nitrate that would be zoox only. Phosphate and ammonia would be both coral and zoox.

I do not think they - in that article - investigate the NH3/NH4 uptake of inorganic N from the water - only NO3-N from the water. I do think that some NH3/NH4 - N can be taken from the coral animal's body fluids - a form of advanced recirculation (along with some of the PO4-P) - the coral animal still eat but in their investigation only internally (by the zooxanthella) produced food.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Hans-Werner]

While that equation is useful for comparing nitrate/enzyme affinity and/to different forms of N, for us it adds complexity and is probably better to look at the original uptake curves?

I would imagine at higher zoox densities, diffusion might become rate limiting. Increasing the nitrate concentration would overcome that limitation. That doesn't change the 1ppm enzyme saturation point, so no laws are broken. But allows for some reasoning as to why nitrate concentration above 2-3ppm still cause a change in zoox/chl. density.

Interesting problem. What is "original uptake curves"? Which "original uptake curves"?

The diffusion rate problem should not be specific for nitrate but also apply to other nutrients including trace elements. In diffusion, ion sizes and charges should play some role. This would mean bigger problems for PO4---. Maybe interesting approach. Increasing flow may help. I recall the title of an article, "Flow is more important than ...".

 

[SDchris]

Diffusion is definitely a factor, although I think I may have been a little optimistic in suggesting it could account for a 1 -> 5ppm increase in max. That might be a step to far. But I am having trouble coming up with a realistic number.
Some papers describe a modified Michaelis-Menten expression that includes the addition of a diffusion constant.
See: The dissolved nitrogen flux of reef corals. D'Elia (1977).
- I'm still not sure how that constant correlates with zoox. density?
And:
Nutrient uptake kinetics of freshly isolated zooxanthellae

This evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that nutrient uptake by intact zooxanthellae-host symbioses occurs by diffusion down a concentration gradient created by localized substrate depletion by the zooxanthellae in host tissue.

When nutrients are NOT saturated, flow has an effect.
Nitrate uptake by the reef coral Diploria strigosa: effects of concentration, water flow, and irradiance . See: fig 6

This would mean bigger problems for PO4---. Maybe interesting approach. Increasing flow may help

Since flow appears to have a large effect on uptake rates at lower concentrations. Would that also change the lower uptake threshold? Maybe that describes the differences in Sorokin vs Randy's papers?

 

[Hans-Werner]

@SDchris: From

Nutrient uptake kinetics of freshly isolated zooxanthellae

"In particular, zooxanthellae isolated from Australian corals seemed to give low or negligible uptake rates, supporting the notion that the ability to take up nitrate is not a universal feature of zooxanthellae"

Looks like the theoretical possibility of zooxanthellae without nitrate assimilation, i. e. without assimilatory nitrate reductase, is already known.

There are certain strains of zooxanthellae that are more resistant against coral bleaching. Would be interesting if there is a correlation to nitrate assimilation.

 

[brandon429]

This is a large case study in tanks that add copious extra bottled bacteria for months on end. Some are 2 yrs now consistent

Bacterial Driven System: A Recipe for Success.

EDIT 10/20/2023 Well, the system has preformed beyond expectations and grown corals quicker than what I would have imagined. You can read about the "Bacteria-Powered Reef" in the latest issue of Reef Hobbyist Magazine. Original article...

www.reef2reef.com

How much bleaching, harm or coral recession? (The opposite is inside, more growth, linked to ? Debatable but it's not harm to command all that ammonia)

Those tank owners can be searched to find every update for the life arc of each reef there. In searching, I find no harm

This is why work threads, collections of several tanks all running the same method, the group data keeps variables in play that single point- source material can't

I realize that extra ammonia command is taking from corals but above enough gets around


There's proof above its no harm in my opinion. That poster should have been shown all materials. It's not decided it's bad yet. It's directly OK for any reef in that thread to add, that's what's on file.

over command of ammonia seems bad on paper am thinking, like peroxide does.
 
the number of reefs we saved with peroxide where no valid alternate science from legit reef articles was helping/ doing anything/ working against us in forums the entire time to fix them: hundreds and hundreds on file ongoing.


In my opinion whatever claims the article makes needs to withstand giant workthread testing.

It'll be a challenge to see what claims hold up over time and mass outbound testing.

 

[brandon429]

I never thought it was harmful. I thought it was a waste, couldn't beat cyano with it was my bet

Heck I can't say they haven't established some invasion control ability. The pattern speaks. That's where forum collections provide things we can not get from peer reviewed material. It's invaluable. Any claim made in reefing should be able to withstand fifty pages of outbound checking.

There are a lot of hard fast reef rules told to us that for sure did not hold up to fifty page outbound tests. Cycling, substrate handling, what live rocks do and can't do reliably (reduce nitrate, as once told to us in copious denitrification articles) what bacteria can withstand in the reef tank, disease control models, pretty much our entire last 25 years of hard fast rules are under revision


Work threads will be the decider of reef truth in my opinion for all claims made in reefing.

 

[Garf]

But I saw Randy you told someone recently adding extra bottle bac was likely harmful

This is a large case study in tanks that add copious extra bottled bacteria for months on end. Some are 2 yrs now consistent

I don't think the bacteria in the thread you linked are largely likely nitrifyers, but carbon hungry heterotrophs.

 

[BeanAnimal]

...Heck I can't say they haven't established some invasion control ability. The pattern speaks.

Hi - What does this mean, what is "established invasion control ability" to begin with? What pattern is speaking?

Are you attempting to say "It would appear that adding bottled bacteria helps to prevent nuisance algae, based on observation of several systems that dose it regularly"? If so, then say that instead the faux eclectic/eccentric and labored word soup, please. It would make your point clearer and conversation easier for all of us.

Debatable but it's not harm to command all that ammonia)

I realize that extra ammonia command is taking from corals

There's proof above its no harm in my opinion.

What is "ammonia command"? Are you alluding to the size of the nitrification system in the aquarium (piles of rock or substrate, vs none or bottled bacteria additions, vs none?) Please, for all of us, stop trying so hard to coin terminology for simple concepts. It makes conversation cumbersome.

In any case, If I am understanding what you are trying to say, then aren't you contradicting yourself and then contradicting yourself again? If you see "no harm" but realize "harm" (taking food from coral) but have the opinion there is no "harm"... If I am not understanding you, can you please explain?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

This is a large case study in tanks that add copious extra bottled bacteria for months on end. Some are 2 yrs now consistent

Bacterial Driven System: A Recipe for Success.

EDIT 10/20/2023 Well, the system has preformed beyond expectations and grown corals quicker than what I would have imagined. You can read about the "Bacteria-Powered Reef" in the latest issue of Reef Hobbyist Magazine. Original article...

www.reef2reef.com

How much bleaching, harm or coral recession? (The opposite is inside, more growth, linked to ? Debatable but it's not harm to command all that ammonia)

Those tank owners can be searched to find every update for the life arc of each reef there. In searching, I find no harm

This is why work threads, collections of several tanks all running the same method, the group data keeps variables in play that single point- source material can't

I realize that extra ammonia command is taking from corals but above enough gets around


There's proof above its no harm in my opinion. That poster should have been shown all materials. It's not decided it's bad yet. It's directly OK for any reef in that thread to add, that's what's on file.

over command of ammonia seems bad on paper am thinking, like peroxide does.
 
the number of reefs we saved with peroxide where no valid alternate science from legit reef articles was helping/ doing anything/ working against us in forums the entire time to fix them: hundreds and hundreds on file ongoing.


In my opinion whatever claims the article makes needs to withstand giant workthread testing.

It'll be a challenge to see what claims hold up over time and mass outbound testing.

I don’t see it that way.

First, Sunny is not just adding bacteria and may not be adding any nitrifiers,

Second, bacteria dosing is coral food. That may be at least as useful as ammonia. Many bacterial concoctions seem to not be nitrifiers despite the claims. MB7, for example.

A more telling test is to add media to promote nitrifying bacteria, not actually adding bacteria and the extra N they contain.

 

[Hans-Werner]

Second, bacteria dosing is coral food. That may be at least as useful as ammonia. Many bacterial concoctions seem to not be nitrifiers despite the claims. MB7, for example.

A more telling test is to add media to promote nitrifying bacteria, not actually adding bacteria and the extra N they contain.

I agree, and even the nitrifying bacteria may not do much nitrification under typical reef tank conditions. In contrast to ammonia oxidizing archaea (AOA) ammonia oxidizing bacteria (AOB) need higher ammonium concentrations to start oxidizing ammonium. To my knowledge none of the products promising to start nitrification contains AOA.

Even if adding nitrifiers it may be more coral food and nutrients from the growth medium than anything else.

I am wondering for a long time (ca. 20 years) whether the development of mineralizing and nitrifying microorganisms contributes to the "old tank syndrome". Just as long I doubt whether bacteria products work the way they are told to work. I think much is in the growth medium. This means likely you could sterilize many products and still get the same effects.

 

[Lasse]

IMO - the first nitrification step starts rather fast (NH4-< NO2) This step is done - as Hans-Werner state - probably by AOA (Ammonia Oxidizing Archaea) IMO - Its the second step NO2 -> NO3 that's problematic in a functional point of view. This step is done by NOB (Nitrite Oxidizing Bacteria) mostly from the genus nitrobacter and nitrospira. If i remember right in @taricha large tests of bottled bacteria - all of these that claim to content nitrifying bacteria succeeded with the first step but only a few with the second. The ones that claim was mixed with "useful" bacteria did not do much in either step.

Sincerely Lasse