Ammonia as route cause to all nuisance in the hobby.

[sixty_reefer]

I see that

And still, you can’t provide any material to determine that the nutrient are not the issue.
did you know that ammonium nitrate is the most commonly form of nitrogen in NPK fertiliser used in farming?
Did you knew that redfield is used worldwide to study limitations?

Many papers like this around

Effect of Nitrate, Ammonium and Urea on Growth and Pinnatoxin G Production of Vulcanodinium rugosum

Vulcanodinium rugosum, a recently described dinoflagellate species producing a potent neurotoxin (pinnatoxin G), has been identified in French Mediterranean lagoons and was responsible for recurrent episodes of shellfish toxicity detected by mouse bioassay. ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

it’s at the minimum insulting to pop in and claim that we don’t have the tools or the intelligence to make a simple connection that is based on common knowledge. I would have a different view if someone come in and added that iron for example is used often to induce blooms in phytoplankton although iron in those cases is just a limiting factor.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

And still, you can’t provide any material to determine that the nutrient are not the issue.

IMO, someone proposing a new theory generally needs a better argument than the opposition not having data that definitively proves it wrong.

Otherwise, you end up with theories such as "People eat more chocolate every time Jupiter and Saturn are in close proximity in the sky".

It is certainly possible to test that and prove it right or wrong, but I seriously doubt anyone has ever tried so no data disproving it exists.

 

[sixty_reefer]

IMO, someone proposing a new theory generally needs a better argument than the opposition not having data that definitively proves it wrong.

Otherwise, you end up with theories such as "People eat more chocolate every time Jupiter and Saturn are in close proximity in the sky".

It is certainly possible to test that and prove it right or wrong, but I seriously doubt anyone has ever tried so no data disproving it exists.

In all honesty I thought some of the papers we spoke on this thread, had already reached to that conclusion in the sea, as a direct result of fertilisers used in farming.
Regarding the blooms in aquaria, would proving that there is a increase in ammonia concentration once heterotrophic bacteria becomes limited a start? in both high and low nutrients residual.

 

[Timfish]

I do not really know what you mean with the word labile in this context. The definition of DOC says Dissolved Organic Carbon - it means that they all are available for uptake. But you are right in one way - the result is not reported as DOC - its reported as Total Organic Carbon - it means it also shows particulate organic carbon. But that´s its easy to fix - if you want to know just DOC - send in a filtrated sample. Its true that different organisms prefer different type of DOC and therefore you need to be careful and not overdose.

Sincerely Lasse

An important point I think is missing is when we talk about DOC we're talking about a lot more than just sugars. DOC can be roughly grouped into three subsets. "Labile" DOC is readily available to be metabolized by microbial processes, both autotrophic and heterotrophic. "Semi-Refractory" DOC can be used by some microbes. Refractory DOC is generally not available to be used by microbes but can be used by heterotrophs when labile DOC is available. The DOC produced by corals is largely refractory. One of the causes researchers ahve found for coral disease and death is carbon pollution or excess labile DOC allows the heterotrophic bacteria that already exist within the coral holobiont to proliferate. Unfortunately this process where heterotrophic microbes use excess labile DOC to consume the refractory DOC depletes the oxygen levels in the coral surface mucus layer suffocating the coral.

 

[GARRIGA]

An important point I think is missing is when we talk about DOC we're talking about a lot more than just sugars. DOC can be roughly grouped into three subsets. "Labile" DOC is readily available to be metabolized by microbial processes, both autotrophic and heterotrophic. "Semi-Refractory" DOC can be used by some microbes. Refractory DOC is generally not available to be used by microbes but can be used by heterotrophs when labile DOC is available. The DOC produced by corals is largely refractory. One of the causes researchers ahve found for coral disease and death is carbon pollution or excess labile DOC allows the heterotrophic bacteria that already exist within the coral holobiont to proliferate. Unfortunately this process where heterotrophic microbes use excess labile DOC to consume the refractory DOC depletes the oxygen levels in the coral surface mucus layer suffocating the coral.

Will the Triton carbon test or other remedies avaible to hobbyist reveal these distinctions and how would that be applied to reef keeping? This is where the science loses my appreciation because if I can't determine or apply then are we just theorizing what might be happening or finding actual solutions or understanding of why something happened.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

In all honesty I thought some of the papers we spoke on this thread, had already reached to that conclusion in the sea, as a direct result of fertilisers used in farming.
Regarding the blooms in aquaria, would proving that there is a increase in ammonia concentration once heterotrophic bacteria becomes limited a start? in both high and low nutrients residual.

There's no doubt that elevated nitrogen (as ammonia, or nitrate) can spur algae. Phosphate too.

My summary of what I understood your theory to be is that ammonia specifically is an issue and if we somehow reduced ammonia, corals and other organisms we like will not suffer but pests will de deterred.

I may have missed it, but I do not recall ever seeing data to support that assertion.

 

[Dom]

I use an Oxydator in my reef tank which dispenses small amounts of hydrogen peroxide 24/7 which reacts with the Ammonia converting it into something less potent to our animals.

So, is this an around-the-clock drip dispensing? Also, are you using off-the-shelf H2O2 from the local pharmacy?

 

[sixty_reefer]

There's no doubt that elevated nitrogen (as ammonia, or nitrate) can spur algae. Phosphate too.

My summary of what I understood your theory to be is that ammonia specifically is an issue and if we somehow reduced ammonia, corals and other organisms we like will not suffer but pests will de deterred.

I may have missed it, but I do not recall ever seeing data to support that assertion.

Not what I said, reducing nitrogen will affect all organisms, not just nuisance. That’s why I said reducing ammonia at a earlier stage will be beneficial and allowing it to increase at a later stage will also be beneficial. It’s not a one hat fits all kinda solution.
I’ve also said that limiting nutrients for heterotrophic bacteria for growth and division, will allow ammonia levels to rise in our systems to residual concentration that will be major source of energy to allow all nuisances to bloom.

the question is:
Knowing that the nitrogen cycle in our systems is being made by heterotrophic and autotrophic organisms, do you agree that if heterotrophic beneficial bacteria becomes limited for grow and division at the nutrient level, will that allow for ammonia to rise?

in my view this is a good thing and a bad thing depending how old the system is and how many photosynthetic nuisances are present to take advantage of the ammonia rising levels. In a mature system with large colonies, limiting the heterotrophic bacteria is actually beneficial as the ammonia will be used by the same colonies. Limiting the heterotrophic bacteria by lowering phosphates to almost undetectable is not uncommon in thriving mature systems. The same limitation on a new tank without coral would probably end up in a system full of nuisance.

 

[Dan_P]

Did you knew that redfield is used worldwide to study limitations?

Many people see evidence of Bigfoot too.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Many people see evidence of Bigfoot too.

I said redfield, not the phytoplankton molar ratio

 

[Garf]

The DOC produced by corals is largely refractory

Can’t these be mitigated by UV and activated carbon though?

Edit - I can imagine large amounts of green algae and the soup of bacteria food they release could make activated carbon useless in a very short period, however.

 

[djf91]

I think that the focus on ammonia is not as clear cut when considering this statement made in the same paper:

"Taken together, these observations suggest that dinoflagellates possess a full suite of transporters for inorganic N and organic N forms, that they have the biochemical means to assimilate these N forms, and that they show a great physiological plasticity in response to external N types and concentrations."

This may be, perhaps, why dinos dominate at lower N availability in reef tanks, and it may be the thriving of competitors for space or trace elements that is more important to keeping them in check than trying to limit N to them.

That hypothesis also is consistent with hobbyists experiences with dinos at low nutrients.

Yes, but then what happens on tropical ocean reefs where N and P values are practically 0, much lower than what we consider 0 in our home aquariums. Shouldn’t Dino’s take over with lack of competition from nutrient limited competitors?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Yes, but then what happens on tropical ocean reefs where N and P values are practically 0, much lower than what we consider 0 in our home aquariums. Shouldn’t Dino’s take over with lack of competition from nutrient limited competitors?

Not necessarily, because the surfaces are already covered with microorganisms and macroorganisms that have adapted over millenia to thrive in those conditions.

Worst case for reefers seems to be starting with dead rock that has no such organisms.

I agree its a theory and not an established fact, but I think it fits most recognized data.

 

[djf91]

Not necessarily, because the surfaces are already covered with microorganisms and macroorganisms that have adapted over millenia to thrive in those conditions.

Worst case for reefers seems to be starting with dead rock that has no such organisms.

I agree its a theory and not an established fact, but I think it fits most recognized data.

I would totally agree with this. I’ve stated this before.

We used to keep undetectable nutrient levels in SPS systems in the past and had no Dino’s, and had beautiful Acropora. What changed? We no longer start our systems with indo-pacific live rock.

I believe live rock from the ocean is full of bacteria and other microfauna that can outcompete Dino’s at undetectable nutrient levels. I believe this is the ideal way to start and run an SPS system.

 

[Garf]

I would totally agree with this. I’ve stated this before.

We used to keep undetectable nutrient levels in SPS systems in the past and had no Dino’s, and had beautiful Acropora. What changed? We no longer start our systems with indo-pacific live rock.

I believe live rock from the ocean is full of bacteria and other microfauna that can outcompete Dino’s at undetectable nutrient levels. I believe this is the ideal way to start and run an SPS system.

I agree, I consider achieving comparible results wid dry rock, as success.

 

[sixty_reefer]

This is one of the reasons I enjoy looking at nutrition in more depth. The more I look into it the more it sends me it to reefing basics.
rocks covered with diversity and photosynthetic organisms seem to be more effective at controlling ammonia rises and sometimes a “little” carbon can be beneficial to aid some of the diverse microbiology that comes with it.
All this organisms working in harmony are major contributors for a balanced system.

 

[Spare time]

this is what I mean, ammonia in not big issue as long as the system is not limited by any of the 3 major nutrients. have you considered stopping dosing ammonium chloride



I fully agree with you, most photosynthetic organisms will thrive on ammonium and dinoflagellates that are a species of phytoplankton is no different. They will also be using some of that extra ammonia.



I would disagree, changing foods or a large snail dying can affect the amount of ammonia being produced in a system, wether we have detectable nutrients or not. From some work we done in the past on this forum, nitrifying bacteria needs 24 hours to be able to divide and grow to be able to process the new levels of ammonia, depending on the new levels of ammonia being produced the timescale can increase for more than 24 hours . This leaves plenty of time for nuisance to take advantage of the excess being produced during high nutrients.
many folks connected overfeeding with Cyanobacteria and increased algae growth, for the same reason above, the system didn’t had enough time to deal with the increase ammonia.
volume will also play a big role into this as more water volume and pelagic bacteria will minimise the issue at hand.
In addition there is a big difference between pellet food and frozen food, it’s not uncommon for folks to change from frozen to pellets as going on holiday and return to a really messy tank, this is due to pellets release more ammonia than frozen and not giving enough time for the beneficial bacteria to adjust to the new levels being produced.

That js not true about the timeline for bacteria. Nitrite producers take 30+ hours and nitrate producers take 40+ hours. This is discussed in Dr Tim's macna talk. Be careful to make confirmatory statements that you can't back up outside of anecdotes and phenomena. This is something that I have been hesitant to comment but to be honest I really don't like how nearly everything you say is based on observing a phenomena or anecdote of which you then state as fact. Even "experiments" that you do, should be taken as simply observing a phenomena and not fully processing through the scientific method. Again, I say this not really towards you but as a growing trend on this forum towards absolute statements on the grounds of the post ergo propter hoc logically fallacy.

Another sin of studying ecology that has been growing on here is believing that studies on wild reefs apply to captive reefs. Papers on how wild reef ecology functions is not easily transferable into explanations of phenomena within aquariums.


Again, I'm worried about the trend towards pseudo expertise in the hobby, the heavy used of absolute statements, and over confidence in the ability of an average forum user to partake in a literature review of very complicated topics.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Be careful to make confirmatory statements that you can't back up outside of anecdotes and phenomena. This is something that I have been hesitant to comment but to be honest I really don't like how nearly everything you say is based on observing a phenomena or anecdote of which you then state as fact.

name one thing I’ve said that it’s not backed up by recognised papers?

here’s dr. Tim hovanec, talking about multiple ways to control nutrients

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I said redfield, not the phytoplankton molar ratio

The Redfield ratio is the molar ratio in phytoplankton as well as the ratio in the ocean water.

The Redfield ratio at 80 : Nature Geoscience

Each month, Nature Geoscience will bring you top-quality research papers, reviews and opinion pieces - in print and online.

www.nature.com

"In 1934, Alfred Redfield discovered that the ratio of carbon to nitrogen to phosphorus is a nearly constant 106:16:1 throughout the world's oceans, in both phytoplankton biomass and in dissolved nutrient pools. "

 

[Timfish]

Will the Triton carbon test or other remedies avaible to hobbyist reveal these distinctions and how would that be applied to reef keeping? This is where the science loses my appreciation because if I can't determine or apply then are we just theorizing what might be happening or finding actual solutions or understanding of why something happened.

I think we'll all agree the tests reef aquarists have at their disposal leaves a great deal to be desired. I see the research being done in a very different light though even if we don't have the resources to quantify what's happening in our systems. It does give us insights to how complex the issues we are dealing with. A few years ago it was rare to see the discusion of nutrients go beyond the inorganic forms ammonia, nitrate and phosphate. Now more and more we're seeing it include both organic and inorganic forms of carbon, nitrogen and phosphate even though we can't test for the majority of forms. This certainly seems to me a better understanding by a larger number of aquarists of processes and parameters we can't test for, we can have carbon pollution in our systems just like we can have nitrogen pollution or phosphorus pollution. As far as knowing what to do about these, the old recommendation of doing consistant water changes still is the best way to deal with these since we don't have tests.