Ammonium dosing is a bit overrated

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

See above separate replies where I lay the fundamental assumptions to everything I've been saying about NO3 by stating there is an N source.



If I'm dosing N and the by increasing and decreasing the N supply I can see that 1ppm NO3 number change, then what?

But only corals know if they are getting enough. Not you, not me, not anyone else.

You assume 1 ppm nitrate is “ enough”. Why assume that?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

My tank today more closely resembles my tank from 2001 than my tank from 2017 and all three are very similar.

Here is a quote from a paper where the results are backed in the lab. Regardless, I don’t believe success is achieved because a Salifert Nitrate Test Kit shows pink vs clear.

‘Increased input of inorganic nutrients, in particular dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN), has also been associated with reef decline. Numerous field observations and laboratory simulations have shown adverse effects of nitrogen enrichment on coral growth and calcification (Silbiger et al. 2018), coral heat resistance (Wooldridge et al. 2013), the resilience of individual species of corals (Hall et al. 2018), and incidence and severity of coral disease (Vega Thurber et al. 2014)’

Again, that ignores that corals are already getting lots of N from other sources in the ocean, but perhaps not in a reef tank.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Thought question…

is 6” of rain desirable or undesirable?

Is 10 ppm nitrate desirable or undesirable?

The only valid answer in both cases is: sometimes it is desirable, sometimes it is undesirable, and sometimes it does nothing special at all. In both cases, the other details around the question are critical.

 

[Reefering1]

Again, that ignores that corals are already getting lots of N from other sources in the ocean, but perhaps not in a reef tank.

But if the coral's "want/ need" more N, wouldn't they just consume more ammonia? If no3 is rising, doesn't that mean everything has all the ammonia(N) it wants? Isn't this the basis of your ammonia is our friend thread?

 

[CHSUB]

So the new tread of higher No3 (15ppm for example) is good for corals but doesn’t increase nuisance algae. However low no3 (.5 ppm for example) is bad for corals and increases nuisance algae, potentially even toxic algae blooms like dinoflagellate which happens to be the same kind of symbiotic algae in the coral. So dinoflagellate “in” corals grow with high nutrients but don’t grow out of the coral with high nutrients….yup not following the “new”.

 

[CHSUB]

Again, that ignores that corals are already getting lots of N from other sources in the ocean, but perhaps not in a reef tank.

Imo, that is it…I believe I can provide all the N needed without the necessity of seeing it on a no3 hobby test kit. If my LR Hanna showed 0.00 I would be more concerned but only if corals looked unhealthy.

 

[rtparty]

But if the coral's "want/ need" more N, wouldn't they just consume more ammonia? If no3 is rising, doesn't that mean everything has all the ammonia(N) it wants? Isn't this the basis of your ammonia is our friend thread?

No

The bacteria converting ammonia may get the ammonia before the corals do

Something else that wants ammonia may get it before the coral does

 

[buruskeee]

But only corals know if they are getting enough. Not you, not me, not anyone else.

You assume 1 ppm nitrate is “ enough”. Why assume that?

I'm not assuming that 1ppm nitrate is "enough". I'm assuming that dosing an N source to consistently stay above "0.1 ppm" at all times is enough.

Or are you implying now that corals uptake nitrate directly and not convert it first to N when an N source runs out in the water column?

Here's my question rephrased:

If there is a consistent N sourced being dosed, enough so that nitrate is created as a biproduct consistently, would there be difference if the left over nitrate is 0.1ppm (as in never instantaneously measured below that if per second testing was available) or 10ppm?

 

[buruskeee]

No

The bacteria converting ammonia may get the ammonia before the corals do

Something else that wants ammonia may get it before the coral does

This is the best answer/speculation so far, IMO.

But here's my input on this - if there is available ammonia, why would a coral convert NO3 to N over just consuming the N. I know it's different than what you are sayin - I guess we need to know nitrogen conversion rate vs consumption rate of corals.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

But if the coral's "want/ need" more N, wouldn't they just consume more ammonia? If no3 is rising, doesn't that mean everything has all the ammonia(N) it wants? Isn't this the basis of your ammonia is our friend thread?

Why do you think they will get it and not nitrifiers?

 

[rtparty]

So the new tread of higher No3 (15ppm for example) is good for corals but doesn’t increase nuisance algae. However low no3 (.5 ppm for example) is bad for corals and increases nuisance algae, potentially even toxic algae blooms like dinoflagellate which happens to be the same kind of symbiotic algae in the coral. So dinoflagellate “in” corals grow with high nutrients but don’t grow out of the coral with high nutrients….yup not following the “new”.

What strain of dinoflagellates are in corals? Is it the same we see blooms of in the water column and on the sand?

Imo, that is it…I believe I can provide all the N needed without the necessity of seeing it on a no3 hobby test kit. If my LR Hanna showed 0.00 I would be more concerned but only if corals looked unhealthy.

Awesome! Glad you have the eye for healthy coral. Did you have that day 1 or was it learned?

Describe to someone brand new what enough N “looks like”

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

This is the best answer/speculation so far, IMO.

But here's my input on this - if there is available ammonia, why would a coral convert NO3 to N over just consuming the N. I know it's different than what you are sayin - I guess we need to know nitrogen conversion rate vs consumption rate of corals.

Right. The entire assumption is that they have to compete for ammonia, do not always get all the N they need that way, and have to use nitrate for the remainder.

 

[Reefering1]

No

The bacteria converting ammonia may get the ammonia before the corals do

Something else that wants ammonia may get it before the coral does

Why do you think they will get it and not nitrifiers?

Good point. Let me think about this

 

[FishLvR]

Every instance I have had of a dinoflagellate bloom has been linked to flashing zeros on my Hanna eggs. I can always tell when PO4 is getting too low in my display because my rainbow monti starts retracting polyps in the center. Probably a an evil plot coordinated by Hanna to sell more reagent!

Ah yes rainbow montis the health gauge of the reef. Mine is actually doing really good even though the tank is covered in algae. I'm very intrigued with this ammonia dosing.

 

[Stamboli]

Some years ago I had to maintain a 250 gallon reef tank in a bad condition. Yellow water, some brown SPS frags without growth, no skimmer and no water changes since years. At this time nitrate was about 100 ppm and phosphate 1 ppm. I started to do weekly 10 % water changes and put some carbon in the filter tank to make the water clear. After two weeks the corals started growing and changing colors although the nitrate and phosphate levels haven't really changed until this time. I went on like this and after a year the tank was full of colorful corals.

I did never have such a fast growth like in this year. Then nitate was zero, phophate 0.1 and this easy tank became a problem tank. Coral growth stopped and cyano growth started.

So from this experience I can say that there's no need of dosing ammonium, aminos or other nitrogen sources, nitrate (and phosphate) is all what corals need.

 

[buruskeee]

Right. The entire assumption is that they have to compete for ammonia, do not always get all the N they need that way, and have to use nitrate for the remainder.

This is assuming N is limited. There would be no need to compete if N is available.

Which brings me back to my question from earlier - if increasing and decreasing ammonia dosing linearly dictates resulting NO3, that would imply abundant N, yes? In that scenario, what difference would having 0.1ppm vs 10ppm NO3 make to the health of corals?

 

[buruskeee]

there's no need of dosing ammonium, aminos or other nitrogen sources, nitrate (and phosphate) is all what corals need.

Nitrate becomes the nitrogen source. Corals do not consume Nitrate directly. They turn it into said nitrogen source that you are claiming is not needed.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

This is assuming N is limited. There would be no need to compete if N is available.

Which brings me back to my question from earlier - if increasing and decreasing ammonia dosing linearly dictates resulting NO3, that would imply abundant N, yes? In that scenario, what difference would having 0.1ppm vs 10ppm NO3 make to the health of corals?

No. There is no level of nitrate, whether dosing ammonia or not, that ensures corals get all the ammonia they want.

But having significant nitrate does ensure they can get all the N they want, if they need to use nitrate to do so.

 

[buruskeee]

No. There is no level of nitrate, whether dosing ammonia or not, that ensures corals get all the ammonia they want.

But having significant nitrate does ensure they can get all the N they want, if they need to use nitrate to do so.

The second part of my question covers this, doesn’t it? (Or at least replies elsewhere).

If there was a magic tester that tests every second instantaneously what’s in the tank, having NO3 maintain 0.1ppm and never go below 0.1ppm implies corals would be getting all the N they need, no?

 

[Stamboli]

Nitrate becomes the nitrogen source. Corals do not consume Nitrate directly. They turn it into said nitrogen source that you are claiming is not needed.

I did NOT say that corals don't need a nitrogen source, of course they do, rather I did say if there is nitrate (a nitrogen source) corals don't need other nitrogen sources.