GLA Supplements for raising Nitrate and Phosphate

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

If phosphate is only 0.03 ppm, nitrate should be as low as possible. .

That doesn't make sense to me.

You are literally suggesting that if phosphate is 0.03 ppm, that a reef tank would be better of with 0.0000000000001 ppm nitrate than 0.01 or 0.1 or 1 ppm nitrate?

 

[Carz]

now I am confused again...

 

[Belgian Anthias]

IMO, a ratio is not an appropriate target and is not a useful concept. It supposes that if one is extraordinarily high or low, that the other should be, which makes no sense. If phosphate is 2 ppm, should nitrate be 500 ppm? Of course not.

Best bet, IMO, is to target each individually to a desirable target range, such as about 0.01 to 0.1 ppm phosphate and 0.5 to 10 ppm nitrate.

It makes sense as it has been shown that in periods of increased growth (temp+DOC) supported by high nitrogen availability may cause phosphorus starvation in the coral holobiont, it was shown to be a main cause of coral bleaching.

Corals were exposed to unbalanced N: P ratios in long-term experiments and it was found that the under-supply of phosphate severely disrupted symbiosis, indicated by loss of coral biomass, malfunction of algae photosynthesis and coral bleaching. In contrast, the corals tolerated an under-supply of nitrogen at high phosphate concentrations with no negative effects on symbiont photosynthesis, suggesting better adaptation to nitrogen restriction. [(RossetEnCo2017)]

If phosphate is only 0.03 ppm, nitrate should be as low as possible, not x 100. Below x 10 is a practical target. Keeping a detectable nutrient reserve will avoid critical availability. if 0.1 ppm phosphate < 1ppm nitrate, not 10 ppm!!!!
Nitrate availability does not harm corals! As long as a nutrient deficiency during increased growth ( high temp, high DOC content) can be avoided.
Phosphate availability will not harm or kill corals! Increased availability will increase the calcification rate and growth.

If algae grow well undetectable levels should not be a problem but I try to avoid it.

I agree ratios are not a useful concept but why targeting a nutrient reserve which may lead to nutrient insufficiency having such low phosphorus reserve? Nitrate not produced by natural processes will be available and used!? The fact only nitrate or phosphate will be added, normally the end product of the remineralization process providing building materials, doing so is turning nature upside down. if supplemented phosphate and or nitrate is made useful, where do the other building materials come from? It will mess up the entire ecosystem in the tank!

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

It makes sense as it has been shown that in periods of increased growth (temp+DOC) supported by high nitrogen availability may cause phosphorus starvation in the coral holobiont, it was shown to be a main cause of coral bleaching.
Corals were exposed to unbalanced N: P ratios in long-term experiments and it was found that the under-supply of phosphate severely disrupted symbiosis, indicated by loss of coral biomass, malfunction of algae photosynthesis and coral bleaching. In contrast, the corals tolerated an under-supply of nitrogen at high phosphate concentrations with no negative effects on symbiont photosynthesis, suggesting better adaptation to nitrogen restriction. [(RossetEnCo2017)]

If phosphate is only 0.03 ppm, nitrate should be as low as possible, not x 100. Below x 10 is a practical target. Keeping a detectable nutrient reserve will avoid critical availability. if 0.1 ppm phosphate < 1ppm nitrate, not 10 ppm!!!!
Nitrate availability does not harm corals! As long as a nutrient deficiency during increased growth ( high temp, high DOC content) can be avoided.
Phosphate availability will not harm or kill corals! Increased availability will increase the calcification rate and growth.

If algae grow well undetectable levels should not be a problem but I try to avoid it.

I agree ratios are not a useful concept but why targeting a nutrient reserve which may lead to nutrient insufficiency having such low phosphorus reserve? Nitrate not produced by natural processes will be available and used!? The fact only nitrate or phosphate will be added, normally the end product of the remineralization process providing building materials, doing so is turning nature upside down. if supplemented phosphate and or nitrate is made useful, where do the other building materials come from? It will mess up the entire ecosystem in the tank!

ok, I recognize that you have that opinion. I do not agree with it.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

now I am confused again...

About what?

 

[Belgian Anthias]

That doesn't make sense to me.

You are literally suggesting that if phosphate is 0.03 ppm, that a reef tank would be better of with 0.0000000000001 ppm nitrate than 0.01 or 0.1 or 1 ppm nitrate?

Do you have such a test kit?
Keeping nutrients as low as possible means detectable with normal test equipment which seems to be more logical. What you suggest is not practical at all and out of the question. I advise keeping nitrate below phosphate content X10 and both detectable, which is a practical approach for keeping it safe for the coral holobiont.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

ok, I recognize that you have that opinion. I do not agree with it.

I just provide information. The knowledge about reefing evolves! I try to follow and base myself on what is known and published. A lot of new scientifical information about corals husbandry becomes available. A lot of new information gives prove for rules followed by reefers for decades being not correct or are followed for the wrong reason.

 

[Carz]

the whole dosing of Nitrates and Phosphates. I plan on doing so to get the nitrates at 5ppm (approx) and the phosphates at .04 ppm (approx) . My tank has this break out now which I think is "new tank" but I cant thos readings at 0.

Tank sand bed...

Sump.....

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Do you have such a test kit?
Keeping nutrients as low as possible means detectable with normal test equipment

Really? That is certainly not the normal interpretation of the words you wrote. I'd suggest stating a specific value if you have one in mind. "As low as possible" doesn't mean detectable with a hobby kit.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I just provide information. The knowledge about reefing evolves! I try to follow and base myself on what is known and published. A lot of new scientifical information about corals husbandry becomes available. A lot of new information gives prove for rules followed by reefers for decades being not correct or are followed for the wrong reason.

No one can access the links you posted, but in the past, when you suggested an article referred to phosphate starvation, it was well below 0.03 ppm, with 0.03 ppm being fine. Maybe that is the case here too.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Really? That is certainly not the normal interpretation of the words you wrote. I'd suggest stating a specific value if you have one in mind. "As low as possible" doesn't mean detectable with a hobby kit.

In Dutch we call this "muggenziften"

 

[Carz]

any thoughts on my sand bed or sump???

 

[Belgian Anthias]

No one can access the links you posted, but in the past, when you suggested an article referred to phosphate starvation, it was well below 0.03 ppm, with 0.03 ppm being fine. Maybe that is the case here too.

Of course this is fine, if the nitrate level can be kept < 0.3 ppm or detectable. This supposes a very stable daily nitrogen production and consumption which in practice will be difficult to sustain using passive nitrogen management.
What would be a good reason for keeping the phosphate level at 0.03ppm and nitrate level at 10ppm as was advised previously? I do bring up good reasons for not doing this, reasons about which you seem to disagree. In that case, you must have good arguments for not supporting the findings of Rosset and Co 2017 and others. I am interested to know what those arguments may be.
,

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

What would be a good reason for keeping the phosphate level at 0.03ppm and nitrate level at 10ppm as was advised previously?

The good reason is that a great many reefers have success at levels similar to these. They are happy with their aquaria and do not see apparent problems. I fit in this category.

Is there a scientific study that proves them wrong? Seems unlikely.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

The good reason is that a great many reefers have success at levels similar to these. They are happy with their aquaria and do not see apparent problems. I fit in this category.

Is there a scientific study that proves them wrong? Seems unlikely.

Are these the words of a scientist who wants to improve reefing? I am very disappointed.
And yes, there are a lot of papers proving we can do a lot better.
For decades reefers try to keep nutrients low for the wrong reasons.
It is about limiting the risks as much as possible and keep corals and other habitants for which we are responsible as healthy as possible for as long as possible and keep happy reefers happy for as long as possible. Maybe some of those reefers you are talking about will not be as successful within a few months and demand themselves: " my God, what has happened? Why?"
It is about all those reefers who were NOT as successful and those who left the hobby very disappointed. We try to ameliorate!!!!

Learning to be able to detect and or solve problems that are not apparently present as long they are not recognized or ignored.
Apparently we do disagree.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Are these the words of a scientist who wants to improve reefing? I am very disappointed.
And yes, there are a lot of papers proving we can do a lot better.
For decades reefers try to keep nutrients low for the wrong reasons.
It is about limiting the risks as much as possible and keep corals and other habitants for which we are responsible as healthy as possible for as long as possible and keep happy reefers happy for as long as possible. Maybe some of those reefers you are talking about will not be as successful within a few months and demand themselves: " my God, what has happened? Why?"
It is about all those reefers who were NOT as successful and those who left the hobby very disappointed. We try to ameliorate!!!!

Learning to be able to detect and or solve problems that are not apparently present as long they are not recognized or ignored.
Apparently we do disagree.

My recommendations are based on several decades of reefing myself and reading posts from thousands of reefers with all sorts of different nutrient levels.

What problem was my reef suffering from at 0.03 ppm phosphate and 10 ppm nitrate that would be corrected by reducing nitrate to as low as possible?

 

[trmiv]

FWIW I’ve been using these Greenleaf aquariums supplements for months and they’ve worked well for me. Only took a few nitrate doses to get my nitrate to a level that was maintainable (12 ppm is where I keep mine). For phosphate I need to dose around .04 ppm per day to maintain the levels I’m looking for, which is between .07 and .1 ppm

 

[Belgian Anthias]

My recommendations are based on several decades of reefing myself and reading posts from thousands of reefers with all sorts of different nutrient levels.

What problem was my reef suffering from at 0.03 ppm phosphate and 10 ppm nitrate that would be corrected by reducing nitrate to as low as possible?

Does it justify advice based on assumptions when advice based on proven facts is possible but ignored?
This is why reefers do things for decades for the wrong reasons, living their own life on the internet.


I did explain everything in previous posts and provided references.
Advice is given not to solve a problem but to prevent known possible problems may occur, to prevent there is nothing to solve anymore.
Keep the nitrate/phosphate balance below 10/1 .Why? Why not?


As far as I know, there is no database of reefing problems and why reefing ended disappointed. How reefers may recognize what is going wrong and link it to a situation if they are not advised properly, where to look and why?

It seems assumptions made based on experience are considered to have more value as scientific proof.
Or is it denial?

We had our first marine tank based on the publication of Frank de Graaf , published in 1969. Published in English in 1973 " Marine aquarium guide" (Graaf, Frank de. Marine Aquarium Guide. Harrison, N.J.: Pet Library, 1973.) The book explains what will be called the Dutch system in the 80's and 90's although Frank de Graaf was never credited for the "Dutch system" Information published by Spotte in 1979 and Martin A Moe in 1989 is available in the book by Frank de Graaf. F.De Graaf, then conservator of Artis Aquarium Amsterdam, explains the bio-chemics of a closed marine aquarium in a way almost everybody is able to understand what he is talking about. He explains the biofilter and how to manage it. He explains the use of a sump, skimmer, UV, ozon, GAC, diatom filter,l ight, sand and shell grit and why. He made active nutrient management in a marine aquarium easy by introducing the bio as a sump with compartments. We are 1969.
In 50 years, what has improved concerning nutrient management?



We have a library of +- 80 books concerning marine aquaria and marine aquaculture in Dutch, French, German and English from before the internet and more recent.
We published > 100 articles in the Makazi Baharini wiki about marine and reef aquaria based on the knowledge base we collected over the years, containing > 500 references of approved research publications that can be consulted. We follow and participate on 8 specialized fora from all over the world in Dutch, French, German and Engish. If we see problems we try to find answers based on proper research.
We collected our findings in the Makazi Baharini wiki as a knowledge base for personal use. For a few years we are publishing articles based on the collected information. We add new information daily.
Makazi Baharini does not contain commercial information and is free to read, for personal use only.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Does it justify advice based on assumptions when advice based on proven facts is possible but ignored?
This is why reefers do things for decades for the wrong reasons, living their own life on the internet.


I did explain everything in previous posts and provided references.
Advice is given not to solve a problem but to prevent known possible problems may occur, to prevent there is nothing to solve anymore.
Keep the nitrate/phosphate balance below 10/1 .Why? Why not?


As far as I know, there is no database of reefing problems and why reefing ended disappointed. How reefers may recognize what is going wrong and link it to a situation if they are not advised properly, where to look and why?

It seems assumptions made based on experience are considered to have more value as scientific proof.
Or is it denial?

We had our first marine tank based on the publication of Frank de Graaf , published in 1969. Published in English in 1973 " Marine aquarium guide" (Graaf, Frank de. Marine Aquarium Guide. Harrison, N.J.: Pet Library, 1973.) The book explains what will be called the Dutch system in the 80's and 90's although Frank de Graaf was never credited for the "Dutch system" Information published by Spotte in 1979 and Martin A Moe in 1989 is available in the book by Frank de Graaf. F.De Graaf, then conservator of Artis Aquarium Amsterdam, explains the bio-chemics of a closed marine aquarium in a way almost everybody is able to understand what he is talking about. He explains the biofilter and how to manage it. He explains the use of a sump, skimmer, UV, ozon, GAC, diatom filter,l ight, sand and shell grit and why. He made active nutrient management in a marine aquarium easy by introducing the bio as a sump with compartments. We are 1969.
In 50 years, what has improved concerning nutrient management?



We have a library of +- 80 books concerning marine aquaria and marine aquaculture in Dutch, French, German and English from before the internet and more recent.
We published > 100 articles in the Makazi Baharini wiki about marine and reef aquaria based on the knowledge base we collected over the years, containing > 500 references of approved research publications that can be consulted. We follow and participate on 8 specialized fora from all over the world in Dutch, French, German and Engish. If we see problems we try to find answers based on proper research.
We collected our findings in the Makazi Baharini wiki as a knowledge base for personal use. For a few years we are publishing articles based on the collected information. We add new information daily.
Makazi Baharini does not contain commercial information and is free to read, for personal use only.

My scientific advice is based on an integration of many different inputs, but high among those is the very clear evidence of what works in home reef aquaria.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I did explain everything in previous posts and provided references.

If, in the future, you expect readers to look into scientific references, please post the actual literature reference in a normal scientific form, not a link to a password protected private database.

Something like this:

Sabrina Rosset, Jörg Wiedenmann, Adam J. Reed, Cecilia D'Angelo,
Phosphate deficiency promotes coral bleaching and is reflected by the ultrastructure of symbiotic dinoflagellates, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 118, Issues 1–2, 2017, Pages 180-187

I would also suggest that such papers need careful reading and that extrapolating to a reef tank requires one to read deeply.

For example, this paper has this statement, which if read with a lack of deep understanding, would seem to support your theory:

"Recently, we demonstrated that corals exposed to HN/LP conditions were more susceptible to bleaching when exposed to heat stress and/or elevated light levels (Wiedenmann et al., 2013). "

(this is a link to a free pdf of the full bleaching article referenced there:
http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/Nutrient enrichment.pdf )

They go on to show several potentially undesirable effects on zoox of this level of nutrients.

BUT, when you look carefully into what they mean by low phosphate high nitrate conditions, they actually mean:

"high nitrogen/low phosphorus (HN/LP = ~ 38 μM NO3−/~0.18 μM PO4−; N: P ratio = 211:1) "

38 uM nitrate = 2.4 ppm
0.18 uM phosphate = 0.017 ppm phosphate

and what are they comparing to that represents a better case, in their experiments?

"In our experiments, a phosphate concentration of ~ 0.3 μM at a N: P ratio of 22:1 yielded an overall healthy phenotype. Accordingly, it is likely that the absolute N: P ratio becomes also less critical for the proper functioning of the symbionts when phosphate concentrations exceed a vital supply threshold (> 0.3 μM), even when the symbionts are rapidly proliferating. "

What are these levels?
0.3 uM phosphate = 0.029 ppm phosphate
38 uM nitrate = 2.4 ppm nitrate

Interesting. THAT IS well within the range I have recommended (0.03 ppm phosphate, a few ppm nitrate). QED.