Redfield Ratio / Old tank Syndrome

[Subsea]

While on RC thread on nutrient management using phyto, a member posted this link. Even though I don’t do SPS or skim, I found the authors presentation rock solid and relevant to all types of reefers.

The authors last sentence about how the imbalance of carbon may be the contributor of old tank syndrome got my attention.

In the conclusion of his research paper on carbon dosing in reef aquarium; Microbiologist, Ken Feldman said that due to protein skimming removing specific groups of bacteria in the water column, an imbalance of bacteria types may contribute to old tank syndrome.

 

[rtparty]

That’s a great video by Abe and anecdotally I’ve seen a lot of the same things in my own tanks.

However, the Redfield Ratio is completely irrelevant to our systems

 

[Subsea]

That’s a great video by Abe and anecdotally I’ve seen a lot of the same things in my own tanks.

However, the Redfield Ratio is completely irrelevant to our systems

You say it’s irrelevant. I say chemistry, physics, biology is the same. The difference is the large buffer that the ocean has, which makes Reefing a balancing act that I call dynamic equilibrium.

 

[rtparty]

You say it’s irrelevant. I say chemistry, physics, biology is the same. The difference is the large buffer that the ocean has, which makes Reefing a balancing act that I call dynamic equilibrium.

The ratio is completely irrelevant. It doesn’t even hold true in nature. The Redfield Ratio is talking about a very specific plankton in one part of the ocean. It has no bearing on our tanks. Hans Werner has great posts on this topic all over R2R

 

[Subsea]

The ratio is completely irrelevant. It doesn’t even hold true in nature. The Redfield Ratio is talking about a very specific plankton in one part of the ocean. It has no bearing on our tanks. Hans Werner has great posts on this topic all over R2R

When I sent macro algae, Gracilaria Hayi to regional agriculture lab The results reflected redfield ratio for carbon and the ratio of nitrogen to phosphorous was 30:1 which for a phytoplankton was 16:1.

I could care less about the name Redfield Ratio. I thought we might talk reef chemistry.

 

[areefer01]

In the conclusion of his research paper on carbon dosing in reef aquarium; Microbiologist, Ken Feldman said that due to protein skimming removing specific groups of bacteria in the water column, an imbalance of bacteria types may contribute to old tank syndrome.

I'm curious if this is the case when a hobbyist does normal water changes. For example using an effective water change calculator on a 210 gallon system I change 5 gallons of water a day for 30 days I have 51% new water and 101 gallons of original water left. If I change it to 10 gallons per day I have 76% new water and 49% of old water left. At 20 gallons per day I'm at 95% new water, 10% old. 30 gallons only 2 gallons of original water are left. Using 30 days for calculation.

What about if someone alternates days of the week running a skimmer or by the hour?

So many different options.

 

[MnFish1]

You say it’s irrelevant. I say chemistry, physics, biology is the same. The difference is the large buffer that the ocean has, which makes Reefing a balancing act that I call dynamic equilibrium.

Let's take 3 examples. In tank A the Nitrate is 160 and the PO4 10 (of course this is not possible or at least highly unlikely). In tank B the nitrate is 16 and the PO4 is 1. Both have the same ratio. Likewise a nitrate of 1.6 and a PO4 0.1 all have the same ratio. Forgive me if I made a quick math mistake - I think you understand the point. There has to be some more information thats 'important' aside from the ratio - yet people are constantly looking to match it.

This also ignores the fact that Redfield's findings contradict the concept that the water causes the ratio in phytoplankton but rather its the opposite - additionally, We do not measure N and P.

 

[Subsea]

Feldman research indicated that with protein skimming only free swimming microbes were removed and of those removed from the water column, only ones that were attracted by the air bubble electrical charge. So bacteria group populations were skewed by protein skimming.

 

[Subsea]

Let's take 3 examples. In tank A the Nitrate is 160 and the PO4 10 (of course this is not possible or at least highly unlikely). In tank B the nitrate is 16 and the PO4 is 1. Both have the same ratio. Likewise a nitrate of 1.6 and a PO4 0.1 all have the same ratio. Forgive me if I made a quick math mistake - I think you understand the point. There has to be some more information thats 'important' aside from the ratio - yet people are constantly looking to match it.

This also ignores the fact that Redfield's findings contradict the concept that the water causes the ratio in phytoplankton but rather its the opposite - additionally, We do not measure N and P.

No one said that the ratio was required in water column. I said biomass of macroalgae matched the carbon component of redfield ration.

 

[MnFish1]

I was responding to this: "You say it’s irrelevant. I say chemistry, physics, biology is the same. The difference is the large buffer that the ocean has, which makes Reefing a balancing act that I call dynamic equilibrium."

But - I still don't understand why the carbon ratio being similar to Redfield makes any difference. And there are multiple people who dose Nitrate and PO4 to match the 'Redfield ratio'. I agree with @rtparty - I dont see the relationship to our tanks

 

[Debramb]

Oh Jeez, am I going to need a science degree to add soft corals in a few months guys?
Debra

 

[Subsea]

No one said that the ratio was required in water column. I said biomass of macroalgae matched the carbon component of redfield ration.

As things have worked out at this time I can’t find Ward lab report.

I was responding to this: "You say it’s irrelevant. I say chemistry, physics, biology is the same. The difference is the large buffer that the ocean has, which makes Reefing a balancing act that I call dynamic equilibrium."

But - I still don't understand why the carbon ratio being similar to Redfield makes any difference. And there are multiple people who dose Nitrate and PO4 to match the 'Redfield ratio'. I agree with @rtparty - I dont see the relationship to our tanks

Then listen to the video. His knowledge of reef chemistry is better than mine. I focus on holistic ecosystems.

 

[MnFish1]

As things have worked out, I lost the report from WRd Lab

Then listen to the video. His knowledge of reef chemistry is better than mine. I focus on holistic ecosystems.

Yes - I know - I read all of your posts. . So your comment does not relate to matching the Redfield ratio - I assume - with which I totally agree

 

[Subsea]

Yes - I know - I read all of your posts. . So your comment does not relate to matching the Redfield ratio - I assume - with which I totally agree

As in all things, the highest nutrient does not control nutrient uptake but one nutrient deficiency will limit nutrient uptake. It is only necessary to have sufficient of everything.

In the video, the author points to carbon as a molecular group that is removed thru aggressive protein skimming.

 

[MnFish1]

As in all things, the highest nutrient does not control nutrient uptake but one nutrient deficiency will limit nutrient uptake. It is only necessary to have sufficient of everything.

In the video, the author points to carbon as a molecular group that is removed thru aggressive protein skimming.

So the important point is that carbon decreases with skimming? Does it reach limiting proportion? Given that each day the fish are fed, etc?

 

[Subsea]

One

So the important point is that carbon decreases with skimming? Does it reach limiting proportion? Given that each day the fish are fed, etc?

I don’t test or skim and neither do I carbon dose, so I can’t detail those questions. I do agree what Abe‘s video showed. I watched it thru several times.

 

[KrisReef]

I'm curious if this is the case when a hobbyist does normal water changes. For example using an effective water change calculator on a 210 gallon system I change 5 gallons of water a day for 30 days I have 51% new water and 101 gallons of original water left. If I change it to 10 gallons per day I have 76% new water and 49% of old water left. At 20 gallons per day I'm at 95% new water, 10% old. 30 gallons only 2 gallons of original water are left. Using 30 days for calculation.

What about if someone alternates days of the week running a skimmer or by the hour?

So many different options.

I don’t know what to say about the correlation between water change dilution and the RedField Ratio linkage but it reminds me of the Kennedy/Lincoln coincidences that were popular discussion items when the internet was in its infancy.

I have not thought about the latter discussions in a long time but I do like the idea of continuous water changes as a method to manage water quality in our reefs.

The task of maintaining good water quality for long periods of time and adjusting parameters to keep the coral thriving is a challenge that many people debate over and few people are continually successful at, in my observation and also sadly in my own experience.

 

[rtparty]

When I sent macro algae, Gracilaria Hayi to regional agriculture lab The results reflected redfield ratio for carbon and the ratio of nitrogen to phosphorous was 30:1 which for a phytoplankton was 16:1.

I could care less about the name Redfield Ratio. I thought we might talk reef chemistry.

That is reef chemistry. The “ratio” is absolutely and wholly irrelevant.

You need carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus. The ratio matters not.

 

[Subsea]

That is reef chemistry. The “ratio” is absolutely and wholly irrelevant.

You need carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus. The ratio matters not.

Yea, I already said that the ratio in water column means nothing, but the ratio in marine biomass is a good approximation.

 

[PeterErc]

what about silicate and iron? Don’t they play a part? I only know enough to stir the pot