Theory on nutrient ratios and algae/bacteria

[Flippers4pups]

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.

I just had this vision of true UV lamps that are used in UV sterilizers/water clarification in a array above a DT, To combat cyanobacteria. Crazy thinking, I must say. Don't think that would bode well for corals, even short term. Lol

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

I just had this vision of true UV lamps that are used in UV sterilizers/water clarification in a array above a DT, To combat cyanobacteria. Crazy thinking, I must say. Don't think that would bode well for corals, even short term. Lol

Haha! Just pull the safety glass off the MH.

 

[Flippers4pups]

Haha! Just pull the safety glass off the MH.

Now still more crazy thinking.......

What if you had a UV lamp fixture that focused a beam of UV light and was water proof . You ran it over you sand bed to disrupt cyanobacteria? Crazy? Or mad scientist genus? Lol

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

Now still more crazy thinking.......

What if you had a UV lamp fixture that focused a beam of UV light and was water proof . You ran it over you sand bed to disrupt cyanobacteria? Crazy? Or mad scientist genus? Lol

Hahaa. Not crazy , tryptophan dream possibly.

But yea. Manual removal is always reccomeded.

 

[Dana Riddle]

I'm up for bout 2 minutes more. Help me out here. In the water treatment field DT means detention time. What does it mean in this context. Yup, the tryptophan is kicking in.

 

[chefjpaul]

Now still more crazy thinking.......

What if you had a UV lamp fixture that focused a beam of UV light and was water proof . You ran it over you sand bed to disrupt cyanobacteria? Crazy? Or mad scientist genus? Lol

[emoji12]
I think Paul B is working on that after his move.

 

[Flippers4pups]

I'm up for bout 2 minutes more. Help me out here. In the water treatment field DT means detention time. What does it mean in this context. Yup, the tryptophan is kicking in.

Lol

 

[MnFish1]

@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

Hi Lasse. I dont disagree with anything you've said. Im not sure what you want me to prove wrong?

One problem with Ratios, though - is that a nitrate level of 200--300 and a po4 level of 5 ppm is also an N/P ratio that is the same as you describe - Likewise, a NO3 level of 0.2-0.3 and a PO4 level of .005 ppm is also the same - but the actual chemical amounts are quite different.

Here is a question - do you think that if you have a tank with a PO4 of .05 PPM an and a nitrate level of 10 ppm - which is a much different ratio - than 70 - that the macroalgae would be affected? (note im ignoring another other things that may be affected by the higher nitrate level). The interesting thing about the Redfield ratio is that the breakthrough was proving how similar the ratio was in different conditions locations etc in phytoplankton - and that it was the organisms affecting the levels in the water not vice versa.

In any case - I was asked not to post here by Brew12 - so I will respect that - I only answered because you asked me specifically - Have a good day

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

I'm up for bout 2 minutes more. Help me out here. In the water treatment field DT means detention time. What does it mean in this context. Yup, the tryptophan is kicking in.

Lol.
Display Tank.

Happy Tirkey Day man!

Personally , it was the Pie that did me in.

 

[Lasse]

Clarification

I decide which level of PO4 I want to be at – after that a fast calculation of the No3 level in case of I´m running down to zero in PO4. Its an insurance. And the calculation is between the thumb and the forefinger. Its not written in stone. I do not run to the panic room if the measurement shows different.

@MnFish1 With my example – I only want to show that the ratio can be used sometimes – you can´t role it out the way you did.

@Brew12 Yes, there is measurements error – but I´m so old that I probably do the same mistake every time

I do not use the ULN Hanna – IMO its always show to much (at least in my measurements) but measurements error – you must live with – and the errors in NO3 reading are worse. It’s a tool that you should not decide your future with but have as a tool together with others. I use Hanna Low PO4 meter

The Redfeld ratio is in atoms – 16 atoms of N to one atom of P. To have the ratio it in ppm – you must – in this case take the relative weight of 16 molecules of NO3 and divide that with the relative weight of 1 molecule of PO4. I did my calculation at 01.30 in the night – they can be wrong.

And with the UV thing – this is a case there I totally agree with Mnfish1 about how to handle scientific reports – yes, they have proven this for Cyanobacteria – probably they could prove this for every living organism they put below the UV radiation. Its rather known effect – why do you think we have a large industry producing sunscreens for us pale guys in Northern Europe?

According to UV-C that we use in our filtration systems – the important wavelength there is around 254 nm and its only effective in water to a depth of around 5 cm from the source. Be very careful with at least UV-B and C but even for UV-A – you do need to be a redneck to understand that (note – a joke according to the origin of the term redneck)

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Dana Riddle]

I've got a notebook full of UV data on halides and fluorescent lamps, all taken with a UV radiometer. If you want info on a certain source, let me know. Be aware reflector geometry makes a big difference. As far as nutrient ratios go... And Im a little hesitant to get involved as I had time this morning to read pages 1 thrust 4 and 13.
UV and corals: Go to Advanced Aquarist and search for Riddle UV Poison.
Nutrients: Background: My real job was managing water, wastewater and irrigation systems. If you stayed at the 4 Seasons or Kukio resorts in Kona Hawaii I might have been working in the background. The wastewater systems were always challenging - I had one shot at making right decisions or I would be on the carpet PDQ. These observations are food for thought only. We controlled diatoms by keeping alkalinity high (>100 mg/l.) This was repeatable in pond systems. Organic carbon could cause Nocardia (filamentous bacteria) outbreaks. Organic carbon can be measured by the Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) test but is expensive and time consuming and in aquariums has always been low ( in my systems but I've nevEr added vodka, vinegar, etc.) Im not at all sure that trying to balance N and P is realistic. Conversion of organic N and P to forms usable( ammonia nd ortho-P) could be slow enough that they are used by algae, bacteria, whatever immediately and therefore not testable. Unless there is something grossly out of whack I tend to think this could be a case of the dog chasing its tail. I have plenty more to say but my laptop died Wednesday and Im using this **** tablet. Just in time for Black Friday.

 

[Lasse]

Your background is interesting Dana - I´m not very far from that Below - pictures from a experiment wastewater treatment plant at Stensunds Folkcollege.

I was working there for nearly ten years with start in the early 90:ties. After that - I have been working with water treatment in different places. But as you can see on the last picture - it was not in Hawaii

​

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Dana Riddle]

Fascinating Lasse! Looks like a trickling filter followed by water hyacinths for nutrient removal. Yes aquarists are actually managers of small wastewater treatment systems.

 

[MnFish1]

@Lasse
Im not trying to rule out the use of ratios to try to help decide how to care for reef inhabitants.

If the relative conclusion after 13 pages of posts is: In the reef tank, its best to keep your phosphate between .02 and .06 and the Nitrate at 2-3 ppm. Its best to do this because levels tend to minimize nuisance algae, dinoflagellates and Cyanobacteria these levels benefit corals and fish. Great.

But other than that general statement - Realize that the ratios of these numbers (max and min) - range between 10 and 100 depending on which phosphate(.02-.05 ppm) value and which nitrate (2-3ppm) value you use). (and depending on the margin of error of the tests as well)

My second conclusion - in a balanced reef aquarium - with proper feeding etc. the inhabitants of the tank will HELP keep the values of nitrate and phosphate within these ratios without much help from us as they use them in the tank. Which is what is predicted by Redfield in the first place. If the absolute numbers of N and P are too low - (even with a proper ratio) the inhabitants will do poorly - If the absolute number of N and are too high - the inhabitants will do poorly - except the various kinds of nuisance algae/cyanobacteria etc

 

[MnFish1]

PS - here is a fantastic article from Nature - that reviews a lot of the things people have been discussing (including the troll - i.e. myself). . And its a short article.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2319.

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

m - with proper feeding etc. the inhabitants of the tank will HELP keep the values of nitrate and phosphate within these ratios without much

I didn't get that from this thread no.
What I understood is some actually may pull one over the the other in some cases.
If I'm not mistaken, some will promote a systemic condition that best suits them. This is evidenced in cases of large chrysto, dino, and cyano probs. Basically creating a a feedback looo.
This is how we've been treating these probs in R2r quite a bit, removing/killing the large masses mats etc and increasing nutrients. Breaking the loop and allowing normal micofaunal competition to resume.


For me , when I'm promoting or adding biodiversity (say Fiji mud) I'm introducing a plethora of organisms , each one in theory competing for the common nutrients and some specialists , like diatoms and sponges exhausting excess mineral elements. Most of these are also quite likely braking these down even further for other organisms to process.

 

[MnFish1]

I didn't get that from this thread no.
What I understood is some actually may pull one over the the other in some cases.
If I'm not mistaken, some will promote a systemic condition that best suits them. This is evidenced in cases of large chrysto, dino, and cyano probs. Basically creating a a feedback looo.
This is how we've been treating these probs in R2r quite a bit, removing/killing the large masses mats etc and increasing nutrients. Breaking the loop and allowing normal micofaunal competition to resume.


For me , when I'm promoting or adding biodiversity (say Fiji mud) I'm introducing a plethora of organisms , each one in theory competing for the common nutrients and some specialists , like diatoms and sponges exhausting excess mineral elements. Most of these are also quite likely braking these down even further for other organisms to process.

See the thing is since I was asked not to post by brew12. I’m uncomfortable doing so.

Since I’m just a troll I’m surprised to be asked questions. Actually. I’m surprised that someone is allowed to call another person a ‘name’ here. Because that person disagrees with him/her

I have no clue what is in Fiji mud. So I can’t comment.

All I was saying is what redfield said. That why you haven’t heard it in this thread. It’s not like I just made it up

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

See the thing is since I was asked not to post by brew12. I’m uncomfortable doing so.

Since I’m just a troll I’m surprised to be asked questions. Actually. I’m surprised that someone is allowed to call another person a ‘name’ here. Because that person disagrees with him/her

I have no clue what is in Fiji mud. So I can’t comment.

All I was saying is what redfield said. That why you haven’t heard it in this thread. It’s not like I just made it up

I'm willing to speak to anyone civilly who is offering and exchange of ideas. I won't continue in bickering.


I understand redfield, what I offered was just a continuance of the conversation with other thoughts on diversity and it's role in the system.

Despite the ratio and imo it's often mis use or understanding in Reefing , what I'm pointing out is , organisms have developed both specialized feeding strategies and for some some a way to manipulate the environment to outcompete other organisms.

Fiji mud is cool. It's mud from the ocean in Fiji. I grew a TON of mind blowing micro critters in a dry rock cycle.

 

[MnFish1]

I'm willing to speak to anyone civilly who is offering and exchange of ideas. I won't continue in bickering.


I understand redfield, what I offered was just a continuance of the conversation with other thoughts on diversity and it's role in the system.

Despite the ratio and imo it's often mis use or understanding in Reefing , what I'm pointing out is , organisms have developed both specialized feeding strategies and for some some a way to manipulate the environment to outcompete other organisms.

Fiji mud is cool. It's mud from the ocean in Fiji. I grew a TON of mind blowing micro critters in a dry rock cycle.

No disageeement from me. On any of what you said

 

[Brew12]

My apologies for letting this thread lapse. I've had a very rough few days at work.


@MnFish1 If you continue with posts that add value to the thread, I have no issues with you continuing to post. My issue is when you use No True Scotsman arguments like saying studies of cyano in estuaries doesn't apply to marine environments despite the study being quoted specifically stated that the studied cyano strains were identical to those found in the ocean. Or using a Straw Man argument like saying that the CNP ratio of bacteria shouldn't be considered valid because it can't also be used to study the nutritional intake of an elephant.

You are more than welcome to continue posting if you do so in a manner that adds value.