Theory on nutrient ratios and algae/bacteria
- Thread starter Brew12
- Start date
- Tagged users None
OP
OP
Brew12
Electrical Gru
That is fascinating! I wish I knew more about lighting....
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2016
- Messages
- 11,262
- Reaction score
- 30,666
- Location
- Källarliden 14 D Bohus, Sweden
- What state or country do you live in
- Other International
@MnFish1
I have try to stay out from this discussion of ratio because I thought that we all was clear that we talk about marine aquatic primary producers (i.e. they use photosynthesis together with uptake (from the water column) of inorganic nutrients.
For me - it’s totally clear that these organisms (algae and photosynthetic bacteria) content of nutrients – mostly C, N and P mirror their uptake from the water column – and hence the ratio in the water can play a roll for their uptake. Our marine algae – and the most used macro algae chaeto – has its all nutrient uptake from the water column – therefore it is rather good to no their N/P ratio
It´s true that the well-known Redfield Ratio only is valid for phytoplankton. In contrast to this - the N-P ratio for some macroalgae can be as high as 70 - 1 and are we not aware of this – we can easily crash a fuge.
Of many reasons – over time - the losses of nitrogen will be higher than the losses of phosphorus in a system – this because nitrogen has a couple of airborne phases (NH3 and N2) in contrast to P that’s do not have any natural occurring airborne phases. The amount off P that has been put in most be taken away from the water column through growth or chemical precipitation.
This is one of the reason why I in my system all the time add nitrogen and of other reasons (that should be very clear now why) I prefer KNO3.
I calculate with a NO3 level of around 2 - 3 ppm if I want a PO4 level around 0,05 ppm. N/P ratio in calculated to 70. To maintain these ratio between PO4 and NO3 will prevent a nitrogen crash if my macro suddenly starts to consume all of my phosphate. It’s a safety level
Prove me wrong
Sincerely Lasse
I have try to stay out from this discussion of ratio because I thought that we all was clear that we talk about marine aquatic primary producers (i.e. they use photosynthesis together with uptake (from the water column) of inorganic nutrients.
For me - it’s totally clear that these organisms (algae and photosynthetic bacteria) content of nutrients – mostly C, N and P mirror their uptake from the water column – and hence the ratio in the water can play a roll for their uptake. Our marine algae – and the most used macro algae chaeto – has its all nutrient uptake from the water column – therefore it is rather good to no their N/P ratio
It´s true that the well-known Redfield Ratio only is valid for phytoplankton. In contrast to this - the N-P ratio for some macroalgae can be as high as 70 - 1 and are we not aware of this – we can easily crash a fuge.
Of many reasons – over time - the losses of nitrogen will be higher than the losses of phosphorus in a system – this because nitrogen has a couple of airborne phases (NH3 and N2) in contrast to P that’s do not have any natural occurring airborne phases. The amount off P that has been put in most be taken away from the water column through growth or chemical precipitation.
This is one of the reason why I in my system all the time add nitrogen and of other reasons (that should be very clear now why) I prefer KNO3.
I calculate with a NO3 level of around 2 - 3 ppm if I want a PO4 level around 0,05 ppm. N/P ratio in calculated to 70. To maintain these ratio between PO4 and NO3 will prevent a nitrogen crash if my macro suddenly starts to consume all of my phosphate. It’s a safety level
Prove me wrong
Sincerely Lasse
OP
OP
Brew12
Electrical Gru
Lasse, I hope you don't mind my asking a few questions.
My question is, do you take testing error into consideration or do you just assume that testing error will average out over multiple tests?
Or maybe I just need practice with my Hanna ULR phosphorus checker...
Why would you prefer KNO3 over NaNO3? I keep KNO3 for the rare occasion that I see cyano creeping in. I've heard that long term the sodium nitrate makes for a better aquarium additive to prevent too much build up of potassium.
I've tried to do the math but I was never satisfied with the answers of what I have available in my water. My biggest issue is that lack of accuracy of the PO4 tests. I feel user error gives me too much deviation since I can do tests just minutes apart and get results over 50% off. A 50% error causes large changes in the necessary amount of NO3 needed which is why I don't try to maintain a ratio. Hence the reason I started this thread, to try and identify visual symptoms we can use to try and identify when we have reached a nutrient limit.
My question is, do you take testing error into consideration or do you just assume that testing error will average out over multiple tests?
Or maybe I just need practice with my Hanna ULR phosphorus checker...
OP
OP
Brew12
Electrical Gru
@saltyfilmfolks You are a lighting guy. I'm trying to dig into this more but my starting knowledge level is too low.
If UVA is 320nm to 400nm, would LED or T5 lighting in that range possibly work to limit cyanobacteria? Or is the intensity too low?
If UVA is 320nm to 400nm, would LED or T5 lighting in that range possibly work to limit cyanobacteria? Or is the intensity too low?
Flippers4pups
Fins up since 1993
I would think it would have to be very intense to have a effect on Cyanobacteria in that way. If we are talking lighting above a DT. It would have to emit UV-B, UV-A. If there was such a lighting system, it would be all that good for coral.
I was more thinking of a UV sterilizer/water clarifier’s effect on bacteria in the water column.
OP
OP
Brew12
Electrical Gru
That was my first thought also, and we know that UV sterilizers do work for cyano and dino's. I just don't have a good feel for the unit of intensity of UV they were using. I may be way off base, but they seemed lower than what you would see in a UV sterilizer.
So much to learn in this hobby!
It may just be the fact they are talking about UV increasing from depleted Ozone. That made me think they were referring to more natural levels.
Flippers4pups
Fins up since 1993
@Dana Riddle may know more about DT lighting UV than any of us. Would be interesting to see what he knows.
OP
OP
Brew12
Electrical Gru
Flippers4pups
Fins up since 1993
And here I thought calling in @saltyfilmfolks was calling in the big guns! You went even bigger!
Lol, Dana is a good guy and I highly respect his expertise. He usually responds to a request I ask for, but he too is probably full of turkey and sleeping it off like I was earlier! Lol
Thank god for coffee! Lol
By the way, @saltyfilmfolks is a TOP GUN in lights!
- Joined
- May 19, 2016
- Messages
- 2,434
- Reaction score
- 2,543
I keep seeing all of these threads about cyano saying to raise nitrates... But what if my nitrates are already too high? I am working on lowering them, but I am just not sure what to aim for.
OP
OP
Brew12
Electrical Gru
If your nitrates are high then I would begin looking at other trace elements.
Do you have much algae growing in your system or run a refugium?
Flippers4pups
Fins up since 1993
There’s a lot of variables in what N03 should be for ones tank. Bio load, tank inhabitants, water volume, filtering capacity (rock,sand)......etc.
For most, a good starting point would be 5ppm N03 and a trace P04.
- Joined
- May 19, 2016
- Messages
- 2,434
- Reaction score
- 2,543
I have a small amount of what I think is bryopsis that has been slowly getting worse over the past year. My cyano has slowly been getting worse over the last 2 to 3 months. I don't have a refugium but my sump has a spot for one, so I'm going to set that up hopefully by the end of the year.
- Joined
- May 19, 2016
- Messages
- 2,434
- Reaction score
- 2,543
Thanks, I'm pretty far above that, last I checked nitrates were somewhere between 32 and 64 (red Sea) and phosphate at 0.16 (red Sea) but slowly improving with better maintenance practices and dosing diy nopox.
Flippers4pups
Fins up since 1993
What lights are you using?
Try less feeding if possible. Blow off your rocks and vacuum your sand bed on next water change to help with nutrient reduction. I'm also an advocate on using UV on a system when experiencing cyanobacteria. Won't eliminate it by itself, but helps reduce it in the water collum.
What's your water pramameters?
OP
OP
Brew12
Electrical Gru
How brave are you feeling?
I'll tell you what I would do if this were my system. I would stop carbon dosing. As Lasse points out, some times inorganic NO3 can impede cyano. When you carbon dose you make the NO3 into an organic bacteria that could possibly be consumed directly.
If you have nutrients that high I would suspect that you have something else limiting your algae growth. I am thinking the most likely trace element you could be missing is iron and/or manganese. Refugium mud would be a great way to add a bunch of trace elements and cover all your basis. Not to mention possibly adding beneficial bacteria.
I would stir the sand bed daily. You don't have to vacuum it, you don't have to filter it. Just stir it. If you don't have a good way to do it, pick up a 3' section of 1/2" PVC from Home Depot. Takes minutes a day.
Will that work? Who knows! But it is what I would try.
- Joined
- May 19, 2016
- Messages
- 2,434
- Reaction score
- 2,543
Thanks. I have a kessil ap700 mounted 18" above the tank maxing at 50% intensity and it's a 90g tank with mostly lps and softies. I have 7 fish. 2 clowns (about 2"), 2 jawfish, 3 wrasses. I always vaccum the sand when I do water changes and I use a powerhead or turkey baster to blow off the rocks at least once a week, sometimes more. I also usually clean the sand if I'm using the turkey baster,and it is never very dirty. I do feed pretty heavily and I think that's why my nutrients got so high because at one point I was doing 1 20g water change a month. Trying to get back to doing them once or twice a week until I can get my levels back down then I would like to go back to every other week. I would like to use a uv but money is tight right now.
Nitrate 32-64
Phosphate 0.16
Ph usually 8.0 haven't tested lately
Kh 8.4
Ca 420
MG 1420 last week if I remember correctly
Sg 1.026
How brave are you feeling?
I'll tell you what I would do if this were my system. I would stop carbon dosing. As Lasse points out, some times inorganic NO3 can impede cyano. When you carbon dose you make the NO3 into an organic bacteria that could possibly be consumed directly.
If you have nutrients that high I would suspect that you have something else limiting your algae growth. I am thinking the most likely trace element you could be missing is iron and/or manganese. Refugium mud would be a great way to add a bunch of trace elements and cover all your basis. Not to mention possibly adding beneficial bacteria.
I would stir the sand bed daily. You don't have to vacuum it, you don't have to filter it. Just stir it. If you don't have a good way to do it, pick up a 3' section of 1/2" PVC from Home Depot. Takes minutes a day.
Will that work? Who knows! But it is what I would try.
Thanks. I do frequently stir and clean the sand and rocks with either a turkey baster or a powerhead. At least once a week. They are never very dirty, only in the last few months has the cyano started.
I am considering stopping the carbon dosing but I'm really not sure yet... I first noticed the cyano in a few very small patches a few months ago and siphoned it out the best I could. My nitrates were at about 32 at this point. About 2 weeks after this is when I started carbon doing because I knew my water change schedule just wouldn't keep up with my feeding. I have been very very slowly ramping it up, I'm currently at 8ml of diy nopox in a 100g system. Honestly I'm not sure if it's even helping because I'm doing more water changes than I used to and that could just as easily be reducing my nutrients. I stopped carbon dosing for about a week (travel) and didn't really notice a difference.
I don't mean to derail this thread, I am certain that most of my algae problems could be solved with better maintenance habits and/or a uv sterilizer and/or a refugium. But I do appreciate the advice.
Dana has a thread started just recently on the appearance of dinoflagellates appearance with the addition of a narrow band of light. There is likely a correlation to the type aamd clade housed in the organisms yes. So you could look there. Any light source may contain these Nm frequencies. Any.
As far as Uva UVB it's the same as thier effec on coral. Mostly unknown as far as I know or have read. We do know some cells benifit from these.
You are directly feeding the bacteria with the carbon dosing.
A fwiw, I have little odd algae growth despite higher nutrients, it goes up and down over the years. Bla bla bla
I changed to tropic marine balling salts , and with no change in n/p, several of the algaes exploded with growth.
As did the pink corraline.
So , from salt to salt , dosing formula , you see different results in microfaunal growth.
Thus again , the math is far too complex really imo , to look at nutrients as a sole indicator and other more global environmental factors need to be consided in algal and likely bacterial growth limitation.
I had a mind blowingly good thread recently with Mr Farley in a probiotic salt thread and the likely guess work involved in the formulation process.
End result is , if it hurts to do that , don't do that.
This is in fact how many modern humans medicines and treatments work.
VIsual Observation of the symptom in these is the overall key to the use as treatment, despite the understanding of the what's and how's of the effects.
It's controlled trial and error. And not a set formula.
We know what cyano is and does and how it does it , but successful treatment will still vary depending on other factors. This was my point in the I have cyano in one spot.
I'm not changing my lights cuz I have cyano, others with these lights have no cyano. So change salt . Change foods. Etc.
this was my point in looking past the numbers in testing and the advanced calculations needed to understand the the minutiae of the workings of a single strain and look at the overall workings the this different species involved.
Ie, studying only the rook, would limit the ability to successfuly play the chess game.
Im not saying its wrong or a pursuit not worth perusing , some folks like to build leds etc, I'm saying it's not that useful overall in trouble shooting a system. Mainly , because the "cure" is still going to be pretty much the same.
There are a million ways to skin a cat.
The car is always mad, and it's always kinda gross.
Interested too. But carbon arc lamps put out a lot of UV , fluorescent less, led almost none at the same intensity.
There cyano in every type.
