Theory on nutrient ratios and algae/bacteria

[saltyfilmfolks]

I wouldn't worry about trying to maintain any specific ratio.

Thus the diffulit in calling this balancing. It shouldn't be at all.

The balance is in the organisms uptake not the tank amount.
Just like alk cal and mag. Imbalances in those aren't a problem either save in extremes.

If had Dino's or cyano I'd just clean the tank check , the flow so there's no build up and look at my ph.maybe. Nah, I wouldn't even do that.
Also my food regimine.

Rods foods give me the reds something awful. Not many other folks though.

Really this is why I Highly discourage the practice.
I'll read those articles , in may have already , but all the ones sent to me and that I've forms are organisms uptake and environmental limitation.

And let's blow some minds here and possibly off topic , I actually think with a lot of Dino's in apperanly nutrient limited tank systems the organizims are feeding in something else. We've all seen new egg crate make a dino bloom in a what was a healthy system. And no. Not all egg crate. And not all systems.
Not to mention the dino bloom factor of some salt mixes. Ie don't change the water it makes it worse thing. It doesn't always.

Looking at the overall biology of the organisms is better from an overall undstanding of what they feed on is a good idea. For the common reeefer it's impossible to know what every single thing in the tank (or house ) that it may feed on.

Pointing strictly at nutrients imo is a mistake. (just like identifying the specific organism )
But it makes us feel better cuz it's the one thing we can test for.

 

[Scott.h]

There are plenty of publicly available scientific studies discussing nutrient uptake in regards to both dino's and cyanobacteria. Just because you haven't taken the time to find and read them does not mean that this discussion has no basis in fact.
https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream...on_the_Occurrence_of_Harmful_Algal_Blooms.pdf
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1017/S0967026201003456
https://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/handle/1903/11423/Li_umd_0117E_10168.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

I believe you should have public access to all 3 of these. Otherwise, let me know and I can post more. I've read through at least 20 of them and am sure I can dig up a few more with public access.



I strongly suggest you do not try to use the Redfield Ratio in this manner! It will cause all sorts of problems! The N: P ratio is not the same as NO3 to PO4. They do not correlate well at all. Another thing to keep in mind is that the Redfield Ratio only applies to phytoplankton. These nutrients are also consumed by corals, nitrifying bacteria, macro algae and many other life forms. The more complex and diverse the life forms in our systems are the more the total consumption of nutrients changes. Even intense lighting can cause the Redfield Ratio to shift from 16:1 up to 35:1. Dim lighting can cause it to drop to 5:1. The 16:1 is just an average of the mass he found in various oceans.

I hope people don't feel my intent with this thread was to encourage use of this ratio to maintain nutrients. That couldn't be further from the case. It was really to explain, using the N: P ratio, how deficiencies in certain nutrients can promote the growth of some problematic bacteria. I wouldn't worry about trying to maintain any specific ratio. If I had a cyano problem I would look at adding Nitrates. If I had a Dino problem I would consider adding Phosphates. If I had detectible nitrates and phosphates and still had a problem I would look at trace elements.

No, I didn't take it as your intent. I simply don't know the correct answers. You get to a point sometimes in your learning where it's trail and error. There is a different answer out there for everything. I will say,.. cyano in the sump aside, my coral success with whatever I have going on in that system is better then it ever has been for me. Maybe lower nutrients, maybe the ratio, maybe implementing no water changes is contributing to that as well.

This topic made me test my other system that I rarely test. That system is many years old, and knock on wood, I've never had cyano, Dino's, or anything in between in there. (That I've noticed). But that was all built before carbon dosing or gfo was around. (Or at least before I knew about it) In fact one of the only problems I experienced in that system was when we started freaking out about phosphate and I added gfo. Anyway this system drives my curiously with whatever I did or didn't do. Prior to carbon dosing I was 60/.08. (No gfo). Now adding 54 ml of vinegar per day and implementing no water changes im at 25/.027. I may have to add p03. But I'm more so curious as to what I might see with potential nuisance problems changing things.

 

[Brew12]

Thus the diffulit in calling this balancing. It shouldn't be at all.

The balance is in the organisms uptake not the tank amount.
Just like alk cal and mag. Imbalances in those aren't a problem either save in extremes.

I think I understand your dislike of the term balance now. Our systems are way too complex and varied to try and do anything to alter the balance in which nutrients are consumed. We would have no hope of balancing nutrients based on anticipated uptake.

I like the Alk and Calc example. As long as we have enough of both we will be fine. It is only when one becomes too deficient that being out of balance matters. The only significant difference is that calc/alk uptake is limited by the rate at which coral can grow. The bacteria/algae in our systems grows much faster making it so that consumption isn't self limiting.

And let's blow some minds here and possibly off topic , I actually think with a lot of Dino's in apperanly nutrient limited tank systems the organizims are feeding in something else.

I think we touched on this earlier. Dino's are crazy. I was fascinated reading about a species that receives almost all of its phosphate uptake by consuming cyanobacteria. This resilience and diversity are on reason Dino's are so challenging imo.

Pointing strictly at nutrients imo is a mistake. (just like identifying the specific organism )
But it makes us feel better cuz it's the one thing we can test for.

Nobody wants to belive me about the Fiji mud. Or Garf.

Agreed. Nutrients are only one part of the puzzle. Biodiversity is another. Trace elements are another issue. And I believe you with the mud. It sounds like GARF isn't what it used to be sincethe company restarted. The next best option for me was Walt Smith mud. Can't say for sure if it helped but I promise you it will be going in my sump after my tear down/restart next month. It could have added beneficial bacteria. It may be trace elements. Not sure, but I believe it helped.

 

[Brew12]

I simply don't know the correct answers

whew!

I don't think their are correct answers. We have no way of knowing what bacteria/algae and other biodiversity are in our systems. The best we can do is observe our tanks for symptoms and try to understand possible causes.

Now adding 54 ml of vinegar per day and implementing no water changes im at 25/.027. I may have to add p03. But I'm more so curious as to what I might see with potential nuisance problems changing things.

Does the tank have symptoms you don't like?

Knowing my current system comes down in a month is making me feel free to play. Especially since my CuC is way too small right now. I can turn Cyano on and off using nothing but GFO. Takes 2 days. Coral don't much care for it. I find it interesting just how easy it is for me to make cyano come and go. Haven't had as much luck getting dino's to come back after dosing an iron supplement.

 

[MnFish1]

There are plenty of publicly available scientific studies discussing nutrient uptake in regards to both dino's and cyanobacteria. Just because you haven't taken the time to find and read them does not mean that this discussion has no basis in fact.
https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream...on_the_Occurrence_of_Harmful_Algal_Blooms.pdf
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1017/S0967026201003456
https://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/handle/1903/11423/Li_umd_0117E_10168.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

I believe you should have public access to all 3 of these. Otherwise, let me know and I can post more. I've read through at least 20 of them and am sure I can dig up a few more with public access.



I strongly suggest you do not try to use the Redfield Ratio in this manner! It will cause all sorts of problems! The N: P ratio is not the same as NO3 to PO4. They do not correlate well at all. Another thing to keep in mind is that the Redfield Ratio only applies to phytoplankton. These nutrients are also consumed by corals, nitrifying bacteria, macro algae and many other life forms. The more complex and diverse the life forms in our systems are the more the total consumption of nutrients changes. Even intense lighting can cause the Redfield Ratio to shift from 16:1 up to 35:1. Dim lighting can cause it to drop to 5:1. The 16:1 is just an average of the mass he found in various oceans.

I hope people don't feel my intent with this thread was to encourage use of this ratio to maintain nutrients. That couldn't be further from the case. It was really to explain, using the N: P ratio, how deficiencies in certain nutrients can promote the growth of some problematic bacteria. I wouldn't worry about trying to maintain any specific ratio. If I had a cyano problem I would look at adding Nitrates. If I had a Dino problem I would consider adding Phosphates. If I had detectible nitrates and phosphates and still had a problem I would look at trace elements.

I read at least the abstracts of the 3 articles. At least one of them seemed to relate to large amounts of extra nutrients (mich higher than our aquaria) so I’m not sure how it applies to the levels in our tanks

The second article has this as a conclusion ‘Neither the analysis of laboratory C:N data nor a more theoretical approach based on the relative abundance of the major biochemical molecules in the phytoplankton can support the contention that the Redfield N reflects a physiological or biochemical constraint on the elemental composition of primary production.’

The third article says one bad algae grows at one ratio and another bad algae grows at the opposite in marine estuaries.

So. My point was applying these ideas to reef aquaria is a theory not based in fact and likely a fruitless endeavor. The point I was trying to make is the same as one of the articles. No matter what the ratio is, something bad can grow. And none of it was meant to diminish your post or idea. It’s an interesting discisaion

 

[Brew12]

My point was applying these ideas to reef aquaria is a theory not based in fact and likely a fruitless endeavor.

I have a hard time agreeing with this statement. By this logic, any science conducted in a laboratory has no value because we don't live in a lab.

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

It is only when one becomes too deficient that being out of balance matters.

Lol. It's still not balance. Just deficient.

 

[Brew12]

Lol. It's still not balance. Just deficient.

It is a balance and can be defined by a balanced equation. Nutrients in - nutrients out = nutrients remaining.

 

[MnFish1]

I have a hard time agreeing with this statement. By this logic, any science conducted in a laboratory has no value because we don't live in a lab.

No - the studies you quoted had to do with adding chemicals to 'experimental lakes' in one and measurements in estuaries I another - not coral reefs - and I dont remember the other one lol... In any case - the point was if the ratio is skewed in one way - one bad algae grew - if its skewed in the other another bad algae grew. It was exactly the point I said to you - like in the movie jurassic park - nature will fill the void. I was saying the science you quoted had very little to do with the aquarium. But - to use your analogy - scientific experiments conducted in a volcano - may not help to decide what to do in a house fire - even though both are 'hot'.

My theory - heretical as it is - is that the more coral/good stuff you have in a given tank - i.e. not 200 gallons with 5 acorapora frags you want to grow massively - the more successful you will be against nuisance 'stuff'. JHMO

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

It is a balance and can be defined by a balanced equation. Nutrients in - nutrients out = nutrients remaining.

That's different. That's a tank balance. Biosphere , herb harmed. Not the no3 Po4 fad were talking about.

 

[Brew12]

That's different. That's a tank balance. Biosphere , herb harmed. Not the no3 Po4 fad were talking about.

Umm.... That is exactly the balance I am talking about. Isn't that what is important is the balance in the tank?

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

Umm.... That is exactly the balance I am talking about. Isn't that what is important is the balance in the tank?

Not if your implying N/p have to maintain a ratio.

 

[chefjpaul]

Nutrient we add in are consumed until the organisms don't need anymore, then we / most "try" and remove the rest, thus throwing a "balance" out of whack, no?

Now, if there is a true balance of nutrients in equilibrium in a glass box, wouldn't everything, (good and our version of bad), either thrive, or die, as they would have all (or none), the resource to consume.

To me, each environment per box is vastly different, needing the individually assessed.

To put an equation on it seems impossible???

So, we just push our nutrient limits to the highest point to where our organisms won't take anymore and our equipment can't extract the remaining, leaving us to find out "limit" which leads us to our "balance ratio", meaning each is unique and each element will have a different consumption per tank via organisms available, probably not being consumed equally.

 

[Brew12]

Not if your implying N/p have to maintain a ratio.

N/P do maintain a ratio, we just don't have to know what the exact ratio is and so we shouldn't try to maintain a ratio. My goal in this post was to show how nutrient unbalance can be matched up with tank symptoms based on known nutrient consumption of different organisms.

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

N/P do maintain a ratio, we just don't have to know what the exact ratio is and so we shouldn't try to maintain a ratio. My goal in this post was to show how nutrient unbalance can be matched up with tank symptoms based on known nutrient consumption of different organisms.

Understood. But cyano can be from a lot more than just measurable nutrients no?(accumulated detritus ect.
And how do you measure comsuption of known organisms?

Sorry , I don't agree that its indicative of any tank symptom.

Willing to look at anything that proves me wrong naturally.

 

[Brew12]

But - to use your analogy - scientific experiments conducted in a volcano - may not help to decide what to do in a house fire - even though both are 'hot'.

That is a completely disingenuous comment and is nothing like my analogy.

A better example would be taking lava from a volcano and reheating it a furnace to study its properties. Perfectly valid to do that.

 

[Brew12]

But cyano can be from a lot more than just measurable nutrients no?

I would go so far as to say cyano cannot be from measurable nutrients. That is the big fallacy of water testing. You are only testing what is currently available in the water. Water tests are only a small part of nutrient consumption in a tank. Understanding the tank inhabitants, visual symptoms, and biological maturity of a tank all come into play.

The one thing that is true about most strains of cyano is that they can thrive when a low level of nitrates are available. This is not to say that they cannot thrive in a system with high nitrates. Only that there are normally other organisms that will outcompete the cyano when enough nitrates are present.

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

I would go so far as to say cyano cannot be from measurable nutrients. That is the big fallacy of water testing. You are only testing what is currently available in the water. Water tests are only a small part of nutrient consumption in a tank. Understanding the tank inhabitants, visual symptoms, and biological maturity of a tank all come into play.

The one thing that is true about most strains of cyano is that they can thrive when a low level of nitrates are available. This is not to say that they cannot thrive in a system with high nitrates. Only that there are normally other organisms that will outcompete the cyano when enough nitrates are present.

Agreed , but this lends no credence to the argument of the n/p ratio Balance thing.


Here's the thing. If the n/p balance was a big a deal as a lot of folks say it is , there would be an article by a scientist or aquarist on it.
In dino articles from the same it would say check your ratio. Also nitrate and phosphate and nutrients articles and papers. I can show you science from PHD Aquarists At national reasarch aquariums that say don't prophylacticly med your fish in qt. I can show you articles on using ph to cure Dino's and bryopisos , why sponges appear in young aquariums , forced maturation , test kit error and understanding how they work , light , spectrum , bacterial symbiosis etc etc .
I looked for years for a similar article on the n/p balance thing and I found none. Only anecdote and limitation examples, and red field uptake science. Most all of these had been rolled into an elaborite "theory."
Thus my repeated request for articles an papers by scientists and recognized aquarists on the subject matter and still have not been shown one.
I am still totally willing to read it. If it under my nose that's cool.
I have a hard time finding my
Reading glasses sometimes.

 

[Flippers4pups]

The one factor, and it's just not fully understood, is the role of bacterial strains, good or bad, that are available to a hobbyist in their glass boxes. Because in all reality, it's what ties all of this banter back and forth here. Yes the available nutrients will determine their numbers, but their relationship with coral, rock and water is just being uncovered scientifically. Fascinating studies of symbiotic relationship between coral and bacteria living on the outside of the coral host, just as zooxanthellae lives within the tissues, are mind blowing. But what does that do for me, the hobbyist?

But just as the discussion of nutrients, their relationship to coral, the amount and up take/out put..... In relationship to bacteria, doesn't really matter because we can't measure it and quite frankly, it's too complex anyway because every system is different.

This leads to much of all of this as anecdotal. "What works for me, may not work for you". There couldn't be a more true statement in this hobby.

In other words, bacteria play a much larger role than any of us realize, or will ever understand. (At least in my lifetime) lol

 

[MnFish1]

That is a completely disingenuous comment and is nothing like my analogy. A better example would be taking lava from a volcano and reheating it a furnace to study its properties. Perfectly valid to do that.

Below is what I said in its entirety - taking one sentence out of context does not negate the entire discussion. This post was in response to one in which you suggested you had scientific evidence for your theories - and I humbly disagreed (and still do). I would suggest that adding supra-physiologic amounts of nitrate and phosphate to an 'experimental lake' is not anything like a normal reef tank. I gave an opinion about each of your articles - you ignore those posts and pick out the sentence above. I dont think its a 'completely disingenuous comment' - I think the articles you quoted are pretty much like comparing a volcano and a hot car. Im sorry you dont like or agree with that opinion - but it doesn't make it 'disingenuous' - which is defined as "lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; insincere."

No - the studies you quoted had to do with adding chemicals to 'experimental lakes' in one and measurements in estuaries I another - not coral reefs - and I dont remember the other one lol... In any case - the point was if the ratio is skewed in one way - one bad algae grew - if its skewed in the other another bad algae grew. It was exactly the point I said to you - like in the movie jurassic park - nature will fill the void. I was saying the science you quoted had very little to do with the aquarium. But - to use your analogy - scientific experiments conducted in a volcano - may not help to decide what to do in a house fire - even though both are 'hot'. My theory - heretical as it is - is that the more coral/good stuff you have in a given tank - i.e. not 200 gallons with 5 acorapora frags you want to grow massively - the more successful you will be against nuisance 'stuff'. JHMO