sixty_reefer
5000 Club Member
View BadgesArticle Contributor
UK Reef Club Member
Hospitality Award
R2R Research
Ratios are a very useful tool if applied correctly, redfield ratio is used to identify limitations not to set a specific residual nitrate or phosphate. This means that anyone can use redfield to learn to identify if heterotrophic bacteria is becoming limited for example that’s why one can encounter problems with depleted phosphates.Hello,
the issue of ratios indeed is that it should work in both ways…
Side remark, I saw the video and, if I understand correctly, everything happens in a very short period of time - week: including dosing nitrate, water change, syphoning the substrate, cyano back…
And at the end, the result is not much different from a typical cyano case in mature system.
The main point would be indeed (as Randy raised) - reducing phosphate would also bring the same outcome?
We can play around: increasing both (one more than the other) or decreasing both (one more than the other) would also need to deliver the same outcome in that sense...
I like the topic of ratios… it is a good discussion, but it is really tricky.
Note: imagine if we start to consider also the error range from the hobby tests… then more fun math starts with ratios
What folks often miss is that carbon can sometimes be a limiting factor also.
Have you never herd anyone saying I got a residual phosphates and nitrates and still got Cyanobacteria, dinoflagellates etc.. if we had a home test kit for it it would be fairly easy to put the discussion forward.
the truth is that if any of the CNP nutrients get depleted it often causes a imbalance on the system. This will depend on what organisms you have in the system, limitations at the CNP level often only occur in the absence of beneficial competition
redfield ratio applied to heterotrophic bacteria can answer any question nutrient related issues in our systems and also resolve it at the nutrient level.
Look at Randy paper on carbon dosing and the ratio of nitrates to phosphates conclusion 16:1 is that coincidence? Would be interesting to see if the carbon input had been calculated also.
Last edited: