Ammonium dosing is a bit overrated

[Miami Reef]

Nitrate enrichment does seem to have a bit more negative reports in the literature compared to other nitrogen sources.

1) Ocean studies don’t really apply to reef tanks.

2) People use ammonium dosing to increase nitrate.

 

[rishma]

“I’m successful because of high no3”…..no, imo, you’re successful in spite of high no3. You should congratulate yourself because you are doing something that mother nature and eons of evolution can’t: growing corals with unnatural and unhealthy waste products.

We are smarter than this to continue this silly trend…corals don’t starve, dinoflagellate don’t overrun your tank because a hobby test kit shows undetectable levels of a waste product.

I agree ammonium dosing is overrated and unnecessary in a functional reef tank with fed fish but so is nitrate dosing based on hobby testing.

You are highly consistent and committed to your position, I’ll give you that.

Tanks are a limited approximation of the natural reef. We attempt to provide nitrogen and phosphorus to the animals but we have to compensate for not having the high levels of planktonic/particulate foods found in nature. Most of us also run higher alkalinity, don’t feed our fish constantly throughout the day, don’t have natural predators, and many other differences compared to the natural reef. The fact that it is different doesn’t make is suboptimal given the limitations of closed systems.

I don’t expect you to change your mind, and that is ok. I do suggest that your approach is not the higher percentage path to success for most people, which is why it’s less popular today than the silly trend.

 

[thedon986]

Yes because dinos grow without nutrients? Maybe in the Matrix, but in reality stuff doesn’t grow in and with nothingness…

Is this really the hill you want to die on?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I agree ammonium dosing is overrated and unnecessary in a functional reef tank with fed fish but so is nitrate dosing based on hobby testing.

I’m very surprised one could conclude that based on your beliefs:

1. Nitrate is an undesirable material for corals.

2. Ammonia is what they want to use.

How can you possibly conclude that ammonia is sufficiently available in every “ functional reef tank with fed fish”?

Doesn’t a tank with half as many fish produce half as much ammonia?

How do you know that all reef tanks have bacteria and other organisms that take that ammonia to the same extent before corals get it?

I’d think given your believe about nitrate, that one should provide all the ammonia corals need and then take away any excess nitrate left over, not just assume there is always enough ammonia.

 

[CHSUB]

You are highly consistent and committed to your position, I’ll give you that.

Thanks….haha! I’m not that committed, it is still a hobby.

Tanks are a limited approximation of the natural reef. We attempt to provide nitrogen and phosphorus to the animals but we have to compensate for not having the high levels of found in nature. Most of us also run higher alkalinity, don’t feed our fish constantly throughout the day, don’t have natural predators, and many other differences compared to the natural reef. The fact that it is different doesn’t make is suboptimal given the limitations of closed systems.

I don’t expect you to change your mind, and that is ok. I do suggest that your approach is not the higher percentage path to success for most people, which is why it’s less popular today than the silly trend.

My only argument is that nature reefs, imo, have an over abundant amount of planktonic/particulate foods and most gets swept into the abyss. I think it is possible to provide an optimal amount of particle foods. My proof is success with a sun coral.

 

[thedon986]

Thanks….haha! I’m not that committed, it is still a hobby.

My only argument is that nature reefs, imo, have an over abundant amount of planktonic/particulate foods and most gets swept into the abyss. I think it is possible to provide an optimal amount of particle foods. My proof is success with a sun coral.

Your corals are looking a little pale, have you considered dosing some nitrate?

 

[Troylee]

Pay no attention to Miami he’s just fishing for answers so he can win the sps growouts currently going on! . I’ll stick to ammonia and urea! . My tank loves it! The proof is in the pudding!

 

[CHSUB]

I’m very surprised one could conclude that based on your beliefs:

1. Nitrate is an undesirable material for corals.

2. Ammonia is what they want to use.

How can you possibly conclude that ammonia is sufficiently available in every “ functional reef tank with fed fish”?

Doesn’t a tank with half as many fish produce half as much ammonia?

How do you know that all reef tanks have bacteria and other organisms that take that ammonia to the same extent before corals get it?

I’d think given your believe about nitrate, that one should provide all the ammonia corals need and then take away any excess nitrate left over, not just assume there is always enough ammonia.

“I’d think given your believe about nitrate, that one should provide all the ammonia corals need and then take away any excess nitrate left over, not just assume there is always enough ammonia”

I believe a slight misunderstanding, because this is exactly my belief. I have found myself trying to add compatible fish to boost ammonia when nitrates are extremely low.

 

[CHSUB]

Your corals are looking a little pale, have you considered dosing some nitrate?

Not really the picture of the sun coral was take in the dark with a flash.

 

[BeanAnimal]

you are doing something that mother nature and eons of evolution can’t:

This same sentiment about nature keeps popping up in different threads; the context being that the natural way is the best, because that is what the life form evolved (adapted) to.

First of all, what is best? Is it growth, proliferation, color, lifespan, disease resistance, environmental tolerance, etc. The question is rhetorical and can’t be answered without more context. It’s entirely subjective.

But even if we define best, it is logical fallacy to think that a specimen’s natural environment is where it lives best. It adapted to live in that environment out of necessity, as it had no choice. That does not mean that moving it to a different means it will be better or worse off -- back to defining what that even means.

We can find countless examples where specimens are taken by accident or by purpose out of their natural environment and by some definition do better without adaptation. Think of something evolved for low energy use due to naturally sparse food. Put it where there is more food and it may grow larger but still be healthy. So better if larger is the goal. It may reproduce more if warmer, or reproduce less if colder; either may be a desired goal.

Bottom line: just because nature does something does not mean it is best. It means it was the only viable outcome given the circumstances of time.

 

[CHSUB]

Who are you quoting? Did a post get deleted?

Sorry, it was a general consensus about nitrate dosing, not a direct quote of anyone In particular.

 

[rtparty]

Here are some pics from my old 20g tank I had about 12-13 years ago. It was all the rage to have zeroes across the board. I even kept my fish population down (but fed) to make sure I had those coveted 0s.

The acan pachysepta should have looked like this:

This tank was well documented on RC and I even had “big name” hobbyists trying to help me diagnose the issues this 20g constantly had. It’s clear as day now that everything was starving. Back then though? I had “perfect” water quality with my awesome 0s

 

[CHSUB]

This same sentiment about nature keeps popping up in different threads; the context being that the natural way is the best, because that is what the life form evolved (adapted) to.

First of all, what is best? Is it growth, proliferation, color, lifespan, disease resistance, environmental tolerance, etc. The question is rhetorical and can’t be answered without more context. It’s entirely subjective.

But even if we define best, it is logical fallacy to think that a specimen’s natural environment is where it lives best. It adapted to live in that environment out of necessity, as it had no choice. That does not mean that moving it to a different means it will be better or worse off -- back to defining what that even means.

We can find countless examples where specimens are taken by accident or by purpose out of their natural environment and by some definition do better without adaptation. Think of something evolved for low energy use due to naturally sparse food. Put it where there is more food and it may grow larger but still be healthy. So better if larger is the goal. It may reproduce more if warmer, or reproduce less if colder; either may be a desired goal.

Bottom line: just because nature does something does not mean it is best. It means it was the only viable outcome given the circumstances of time.

I do believe “we” can do better than “nature” when necessity dictates. Farmers and cattle ranches for example, however, I don’t believe we understand enough about coral reefs to differ largely from their natural environment. I choose to mimic nature as closely as possible until proven otherwise of a better way.

 

[jeremie]

1) Ocean studies don’t really apply to reef tanks.

A lot of these studies are also conducted in experimental aquariums rather than on wild reefs. Although one could certainly argue that these results might not apply well to a typical reef tank, due to the presence of more environmental variables.

2) People use ammonium dosing to increase nitrate.

I actually find it quite interesting that most people can use nitrate concentration as an indicator for adjusting ammonia dosing. In my experience, whenever I increase my ammonia dose to the point where nitrate becomes detectable, I always end up with corals that are a bit too dark for my taste. I recall that @Hans-Werner once mentioned that nitrate might have the advantage of inducing iron limitation, which could result in brighter coloration. However, I still haven't found any good evidence to support this hypothesis.

 

[CHSUB]

Here are some pics from my old 20g tank I had about 12-13 years ago. It was all the rage to have zeroes across the board. I even kept my fish population down (but fed) to make sure I had those coveted 0s.

The acan pachysepta should have looked like this:

This tank was well documented on RC and I even had “big name” hobbyists trying to help me diagnose the issues this 20g constantly had. It’s clear as day now that everything was starving. Back then though? I had “perfect” water quality with my awesome 0s

I agree, looks like starving corals. However, if they were smothered in algae with zeros would you still think you needed to dose nutrients? I had a similar problem in the same timeframe also documented on RC. I dosed phosphates and the pushback on RC was significant.

 

[Fish Fan]

Who are you quoting? Did a post get deleted?

Please see post #8 in this thread, I believe that's what RT was quoting from.

EDIT: Sorry, I may have been a little late with this reply; should have refreshed the page lol!

 

[rtparty]

I agree, looks like starving corals. However, if they were smothered in algae with zeros would you still think you needed to dose nutrients? I had a similar problem in the same timeframe also documented on RC. I dosed phosphates and the pushback on RC was significant.

If the rocks were smothered in algae, I would know my CUC wasn't up to par. Even back then I kept urchins in all my tanks (including the one pictured) to fight algae.

But back then the vast majority of us talked about how algae was kept at bay with 0s. While true, true 0s that kill algae also kill the coral. That is exactly what I had going on. Life in general suffered in that tank because it had no N or P to live off.

 

[Miami Reef]

Pay no attention to Miami he’s just fishing for answers so he can win the sps growouts currently going on! . I’ll stick to ammonia and urea! . My tank loves it! The proof is in the pudding!

I don’t dose either, and I think I recall crushing you in the previous contest.

 

[Troylee]

I don’t dose either, and I think I recall crushing you in the previous contest.

You got lucky in the easiest coral of the batch.. we’ll see how you do with tenius.

 

[Miami Reef]

You got lucky in the easiest coral of the batch.. we’ll see how you do with tenius.

If you can’t keep the easy ones, what makes you think you have a chance with the harder ones?