Boiling tank water releases phosphate

[East1]

This doesn’t really address the fact that ratios can be created an infinite number of ways, like 0.6/0.2 or 0.06/0.02. And why would 0.06 and 0.6 ppm mean the same thing to cyanobacteria growth?

The ratio of N and P affects coral growth and by extension all photosynthetic growth.

in a closed system when the corals aren't able to grow healthily, other things can and will take hold, in a healthy system ideally the majority of nutrients should be provided in forms that the corals can uptake readily and the excess be processed by bacteria and mechanical filtration.

The absolute values will influence coral health for example how much of the coral microbiome can be supported and will influence how much tissue can be supported, but the ratio will dictate how much growth can occur or lack thereof, and in the absence of coral growth then the absolute values will dictate how large a crop of algae etc can be supported.

This is how ultra low nutrient tanks will tend to have light pastel coloured corals where as higher nutrient tanks can tend to have darker coloured corals and supports more fleshy animals. Usually in these scenarios the level of P will provide the index for the nutrient level and the level of N (and whether it is ammonium, urea, amino or nitrate addition primarily) will dictate how healthy the coral is. When there isn't adequate N in a form that corals can uptake readily the tank will respond by growing other organisims that can take advantage of the conditions.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

The ratio of N and P affects coral growth and by extension all photosynthetic growth.

I don’t agree with that starting assertion at all.

Corals and other photosynthetic organisms need a sufficient amount of N, P, and many other elements. If they have enough to meet their needs, then it make no difference if there is more beyond that. At least not until some sort of toxic concentration is reached.

 

[East1]

I don’t agree with that starting assertion at all.

Corals and other photosynthetic organisms need a sufficient amount of N, P, and many other elements. If they have enough to meet their needs, then it make no difference if there is more beyond that. At least not until some sort of toxic concentration is reached.

NPK ratios are the basis for how fertilisers are employed, the only difference is that in an aquarium it's all within the water and so it cannot be as easily targeted as fertiliser can.

You can reliably induce tissue necrosis in both fast and slow modes by influencing the ratio of N and P in an aquarium, it's particularly easy to do with Acropora as they strip very fast. It is not the absolute value but the ratio that will cause it and it is how ultra low nutrient tanks can exist and keep healthy corals.

see here:

from the Fauna Marin knowledge base on Phosphate:

To illustrate this with an example: Just look at the ingredients of a normal plant fertilizer. Besides the usual elements nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K), these fertilizers also contain metals such as iron, manganese or magnesium. If the corresponding ratios in the fertilizers are changed, this causes problems with plant growth and promotes weed growth, and similar effects occur with corals.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

NPK ratios are the basis for how fertilisers are employed, the only difference is that in an aquarium it's all within the water and so it cannot be as easily targeted as fertiliser can.

You can reliably induce tissue necrosis in both fast and slow modes by influencing the ratio of N and P in an aquarium, it's particularly easy to do with Acropora as they strip very fast. It is not the absolute value but the ratio that will cause it and it is how ultra low nutrient tanks can exist and keep healthy corals.

Fertilizers do come in ratios, but that does not lead to the false conclusion that you have drawn that ratios matter.

Riddle me this, if a coral thrives at 5 ppm nitrate and 0.1 ppm phosphate, does that mean it will thrive at 50,000 ppm nitrate and 1,000 ppm phosphate? Or at 0.00005 ppm nitrate and 0.0000001 ppm phosphate?

All have the same ratio. Obviously, ratios are not telling the whole story. Absolute values always tell the full story, no matter what values you think are good.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

see here:

That link is a meaningless assertion by folks for whom I do not have scientific respect, that neither addresses your point nor provides any evidence. Plants and weeds?

 

[Dan_P]

The ratio of N and P affects coral growth and by extension all photosynthetic growth.

in a closed system when the corals aren't able to grow healthily, other things can and will take hold, in a healthy system ideally the majority of nutrients should be provided in forms that the corals can uptake readily and the excess be processed by bacteria and mechanical filtration.

The absolute values will influence coral health for example how much of the coral microbiome can be supported and will influence how much tissue can be supported, but the ratio will dictate how much growth can occur or lack thereof, and in the absence of coral growth then the absolute values will dictate how large a crop of algae etc can be supported.

This is how ultra low nutrient tanks will tend to have light pastel coloured corals where as higher nutrient tanks can tend to have darker coloured corals and supports more fleshy animals. Usually in these scenarios the level of P will provide the index for the nutrient level and the level of N (and whether it is ammonium, urea, amino or nitrate addition primarily) will dictate how healthy the coral is. When there isn't adequate N in a form that corals can uptake readily the tank will respond by growing other organisims that can take advantage of the conditions.

Still not addressing how 0.6/0.2, 6/2, 60/20, and 0.06/0.02 all have the same influence on cyanobacteria growth.

 

[East1]

Still not addressing how 0.6/0.2, 6/2, 60/20, and 0.06/0.02 all have the same influence on cyanobacteria growth.

all of those values indicate a store of phosphor within the tank that is measurable but not present as phosphate and indicate a poor phosphate processing mechanism in the biology and mechanics of the hypothetical systems.

 

[Dan_P]

all of those values indicate a store of phosphor within the tank that is measurable but not present as phosphate and indicate a poor phosphate processing mechanism in the biology and mechanics of the hypothetical systems.

Not theoretical, but according to Fauna Marin, a ratio of 3, boiled aquarium water phosphate to aquarium water phosphate, indicates good growing conditions for cyanobacteria. Any ratio that is three, like 0.6/0.2, 0.45/0.15, 0.30/0.10, 0.15/0.05, 0.045/0.015, etc.. Aal these ratios pose a risk of cyanobacteria growth.

And while we are talking about stored phosphate, boiling aquarium water might release phosphate from dead organic particles or from living microorganisms. Why would phosphate in living organisms have anything to do with cyanobacteria growth? This another reason the ratio is nonsense.

 

[East1]

Not theoretical, but according to Fauna Marin, a ratio of 3, boiled aquarium water phosphate to aquarium water phosphate, indicates good growing conditions for cyanobacteria. Any ratio that is three, like 0.6/0.2, 0.45/0.15, 0.30/0.10, 0.15/0.05, 0.045/0.015, etc.. Aal these ratios pose a risk of cyanobacteria growth.

And while we are talking about stored phosphate, boiling aquarium water might release phosphate from dead organic particles or from living microorganisms. Why would phosphate in living organisms have anything to do with cyanobacteria growth? This another reason the ratio is nonsense.

They are still theoretical, FM hasn't provided case studies for those specific tanks. They have an order of magnitude more raw data from all of their ICP tests and associated photographs and tank details they ask customers for, so I'd assume those theoretical limits are put forward from data aggregation.

We're talking about phosphate that can be detected but is not immediately bioavailable, regardless of how this manifests in the water or where it is located, it is evident of a tank that has an excess of sequestered phosphate, and typically cyanobacteria have adaptations for growing in conditions like these.

 

[East1]

That link is a meaningless assertion by folks for whom I do not have scientific respect, that neither addresses your point nor provides any evidence. Plants and weeds?

fertilisation tends toward eutrophication unless it's kept in balance, plants and weeds, ponds and algae, reefs and cyanobacteria.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

fertilisation tends toward eutrophication unless it's kept in balance, plants and weeds, ponds and algae, reefs and cyanobacteria.

Fertilization tends toward eutrophication even if kept any balance you want.

The idea that ratios of N and P cause cyano problems is a false theory with no supporting evidence that I have ever seen.

Have you ever seen any evidence for this theory that you propose? Can you show it?

 

[East1]

Fertilization tends toward eutrophication even if kept any balance you want.

The idea that ratios of N and P cause cyano problems is a false theory with no supporting evidence that I have ever seen.

Have you ever seen any evidence for this theory that you propose? Can you show it?

Agreed, and many tanks will tend toward excess phosphate - even if just viewed by how many people have been commenting in the ammonium dosing thread.

I agree that it's not just the ratio of N to P that cause cyano, I think that's too simplistic a view. I believe it's more broad that the N and P ratios will just determine what kind of organism can succeed within the relative biology of the tank - it's possible to have a ratio that would allow something to thirve but it be outcompeted in the closed ecosystem of one specific tank.

There are nutrient bounds that give rise to dinoflagellate blooms, however corals are just dinoflagellate closed systems in their own right and it's possible to brown out corals by providing excess nutrient which is just a dinoflagellate bloom within the coral tissue.

I have noticed a reduction of cyano growth when the nutrient ratios are balanced toward coral growth. This includes calcification and micronutrient balance simply to avoid limitation as well as removal of areas of sludge where locally, give rise to lower oxygen higher nutrient zones that contribute to the issue in question. I have also noticed instances where excess micronutrient dosage will contribute to algal blooms with all other parameters kept stable.

 

[Daniel@R2R Verified Admin]

Maybe I'm the dumbest guy in the room, but as I read this thread, I kept thinking that the initial experiment has way too many undefined variables to draw conclusions? It seems to me that (as was asserted in this thread) heating the water will break down certain types of compounds in the water, thus, the impact of heating the water will vary greatly depending on what and how many compounds are found in whatever water you do this to. Thus, YMMV so much that this doesn't seem all that helpful? Or am I missing something?

 

[East1]

Maybe I'm the dumbest guy in the room, but as I read this thread, I kept thinking that the initial experiment has way too many undefined variables to draw conclusions? It seems to me that (as was asserted in this thread) heating the water will break down certain types of compounds in the water, thus, the impact of heating the water will vary greatly depending on what and how many compounds are found in whatever water you do this to. Thus, YMMV so much that this doesn't seem all that helpful? Or am I missing something?

this is correct,
the test only tells you if there's a significant excess of those phosphate containing compounds or organisms in the water relative to the available phosphate. It doesn't give you anything beyond that. I take it like I take TDS, it's not entirely useful to know what is in the water but if it's too high that's something that should be addressed anyway.

 

[Dan_P]

They are still theoretical, FM hasn't provided case studies for those specific tanks. They have an order of magnitude more raw data from all of their ICP tests and associated photographs and tank details they ask customers for, so I'd assume those theoretical limits are put forward from data aggregation

OK, let’s try something different. The Fauna Marin ratios are useless without anchoring one of the numbers in the ratio. If that simple fact is not understood by Fauna Marin, then I have to wonder how much thought and data went into correlating the ratio to aquarium conditions.

We're talking about phosphate that can be detected but is not immediately bioavailable, regardless of how this manifests in the water or where it is located, it is evident of a tank that has an excess of sequestered phosphate, and typically cyanobacteria have adaptations for growing in conditions like these.

Any scientific studies on this notion of hidden phosphate and cyanobacteria growth or is it all anecdotal data from hobby aquaria?

 

[Dan_P]

Maybe I'm the dumbest guy in the room, but as I read this thread, I kept thinking that the initial experiment has way too many undefined variables to draw conclusions? It seems to me that (as was asserted in this thread) heating the water will break down certain types of compounds in the water, thus, the impact of heating the water will vary greatly depending on what and how many compounds are found in whatever water you do this to. Thus, YMMV so much that this doesn't seem all that helpful? Or am I missing something?

Correct, heating aquarium may not helpful.

Nor are the conclusions drawn from the ratio of phosphate measurements. Why? For the simple reason that there is nothing but a vendor pamphlet claiming some dubious relationship between a ratio of phosphate measurements (which in itself is a red flag) and cyanobacteria growth. For the cynics in the crowd, this pamphlet is a good marketing ploy to double the number of phosphate tests performed by an aquarist.

 

[Northern Flicker]

It’s far from perfect but it is surprisingly accurate. For simple questions of this type it is certainly good enough.

We have a literal chemist so I would disagree with it being "good enough"/

 

[Pod_01]

OK, let’s try something different. The Fauna Marin ratios are useless without anchoring one of the numbers in the ratio.

They do anchor the points, but the information is sprinkled all over the place,
ICP reports has it:

Knowledge base has it:

FM does like all types of ratios and they do provide lot of bottles to get there.

I never had success with this particular N/P ratio, Claude insists that it works and perhaps under some conditions it does work. I am sure the ratio is based on his experience .

I had better results with NO3 in the 1-5 ppm range and PO4 above 0.1ppm. From this site some have success with higher or lower values.
I always seem to have some type of algae so now I just roll with it.

 

[Dan_P]

They do anchor the points, but the information is sprinkled all over the place,
ICP reports has it:

Knowledge base has it:

FM does like all types of ratios and they do provide lot of bottles to get there.

I never had success with this particular N/P ratio, Claude insists that it works and perhaps under some conditions it does work. I am sure the ratio is based on his experience .

I had better results with NO3 in the 1-5 ppm range and PO4 above 0.1ppm. From this site some have success with higher or lower values.
I always seem to have some type of algae so now I just roll with it.

Thanks for this!

 

[East1]

Any scientific studies on this notion of hidden phosphate and cyanobacteria growth or is it all anecdotal data from hobby aquaria?

I'm not proposing a notion that 'hidden' phosphate increases cyanobacterial growth. I'm stating that a theoretical tank with a 'phosphate depot factor' of 3, compared to a tank with a depot factor anything less than 3, will have more P within said system.

Phosphorous increases risk for cyanobacterial growth, and is often the limiting factor for cyano growth in most ecosystems, so much so that cyanobacterium can uptake excess P relative to metabolic demand.

Taken from here:

Cyanobacteria developed a broad array of acclimations to cope with P shortage. One of the most widespread is the capability of taking up P in large excess of the current metabolic demand, termed “luxury P uptake” (LPU) [3]. The ability of the P-deprived culture to accumulate excessive amounts of inorganic polyphosphate (PolyP) after refeeding with Pi is known as “hyper-compensation” or “phosphate overplus”

Further excerpt from here (this is actually from a book covering cyanobacteria published in the journal Progress in Biochemistry and Biophysics, full copy available here ):

Phosphate, the available form of phosphorous, is a major bottleneck for the cyanobacterial growth in various ecosystems. To ensure their survival under phosphate-limiting conditions, cyanobacteria have developed their own systems for mineralization and utilization of a range of inorganic phosphorous salts and organophosphorus compounds present in their habitats.