Ammonium dosing is a bit overrated

[CHSUB]

A goal of mimicing nature is obviously a fine way to go. That does not mean it is optimal even if done perfectly, but most especially may be suboptimal when a reefer not be properly mimicing other aspects of nature that directly impact on the parameter in question, such as (for nitrate) amount and type of particulate foods, ammonia levels, urea levels, bacteria species and numbers present, etc.

I agree and try my best.

 

[CHSUB]

I’m a bit lost. It seems some here rely on their own observations and experiences as valid evidence, which is fine. But then dismiss others’ similar observations as unreliable because they aren’t backed by science.

To me that is very inconsistent. If personal observation is acceptable for supporting your own position, it can’t be rejected outright when it supports someone else’s. It feels a bit circular, at best.

I disagree, if I make an observation and later discover it is not back by science I don’t dismiss it immediately but I’m skeptical of my observation.

 

[jonelder68]

Not true. Most of us dose ammonia to feed the coral more efficiently and have NO3 as the biproduct. If we want to hit a certain ppm number for our comfort level, we dose NO3 directly to do that.

But from what I’ve read (or lack of evidence from what I’ve read) and IMO, 1ppm vs 10ppm makes no difference as long as there’s not a deficiency (aka undetectable as there is no ammonia to convert to waste after corals consumed what they can).

I believe this already exists. can’t remember who, but someone took Randy’s DIY thread and made a dosing guide.

Yes Miami Reef the OP just created the ammonium dosing guide him and Randy contribute a ton to our group here! And I am extremely grateful for both of them.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I agree and try my best.

But our reef tanks are not the ocean and there are significant differences.

If even one variable departs from natural conditions -- is it not reasonable to expect a shift in the balance and interaction of the others as they relate to biology, chemistry, behavior, etc.?

Is it unreasonable to postulate that here may be cases where fully mimicking nature is not ideal, and could in fact be detrimental -- where intentional adjustments are needed to keep the system healthy?

Or are we simply selecting pieces and parameters of “nature” we think should be mimicked, rather than using the scientific method to determine what should and should not be replicated? Your example was was aiptasia and aiptasia eating nudibranchs. What benefit is there to intentionally incorporating them into a captive reef, other than they are "natural"? Following that logic, wouldn't we also need to include the predators of the nudibranchs, and their predators, and so on?

 

[CHSUB]

But our reef tanks are not the ocean and there are significant differences

I would say giant differences, but I’m trying to be a close as I can.

But our reef tanks are not the ocean and there are significant differences.

If even one variable departs from natural conditions -- is it not reasonable to expect a shift in the balance and interaction of the others as they relate to biology, chemistry, behavior, etc.?

Is it unreasonable to postulate that here may be cases where fully mimicking nature is not ideal, and could in fact be detrimental -- where intentional adjustments are needed to keep the system healthy?

Or are we simply selecting pieces and parameters of “nature” we think should be mimicked, rather than using the scientific method to determine what should and should not be replicated? Your example was was aiptasia and aiptasia eating nudibranchs. What benefit is there to intentionally incorporating them into a captive reef, other than they are "natural"? Following that logic, wouldn't we also need to include the predators of the nudibranchs, and their predators, and so on?

i think one could make adjustments to enhance growth, for example, beyond what occurs in the ocean by elevating Alk or some mineral for brighter colors maybe. My aiptasia example is a fascination with nature. I would prefer none but when they appeared i looked for a biological control. Now when I see an aiptasia I don’t see something spoiling my reef but excitement in seeing its demise. I’m not seeking someone else’s perfection I’m seeking mine.
Here:

Vermetid snail…who else likes them!

No sure why the hate? Some say they bother corals but I have never seen any problems with them. I think they look cool…I have hundreds that grow in places nothing else grows and I like them! Anyone else agree?

www.reef2reef.com

To the no3 discussion, I find it similar to the magnesium discussion with regards to “fluffier” torch corals with higher levels. I have been guaranteed that raising magnesium will produce fuller torch corals, which may be true, however I not a believer.

 

[rishma]

But our reef tanks are not the ocean and there are significant differences

I would say giant differences, but I’m trying to be a close as I can.

But our reef tanks are not the ocean and there are significant differences.

If even one variable departs from natural conditions -- is it not reasonable to expect a shift in the balance and interaction of the others as they relate to biology, chemistry, behavior, etc.?

Is it unreasonable to postulate that here may be cases where fully mimicking nature is not ideal, and could in fact be detrimental -- where intentional adjustments are needed to keep the system healthy?

Or are we simply selecting pieces and parameters of “nature” we think should be mimicked, rather than using the scientific method to determine what should and should not be replicated? Your example was was aiptasia and aiptasia eating nudibranchs. What benefit is there to intentionally incorporating them into a captive reef, other than they are "natural"? Following that logic, wouldn't we also need to include the predators of the nudibranchs, and their predators, and so on?

i think one could make adjustments to enhance growth, for example, beyond what occurs in the ocean by elevating Alk or some mineral for brighter colors maybe. My aiptasia example is a fascination with nature. I would prefer none but when they appeared i looked for a biological control. Now when I see an aiptasia I don’t see something spoiling my reef but excitement in seeing its demise. I’m not seeking someone else’s perfection I’m seeking mine.
Here:

Vermetid snail…who else likes them!

No sure why the hate? Some say they bother corals but I have never seen any problems with them. I think they look cool…I have hundreds that grow in places nothing else grows and I like them! Anyone else agree?

www.reef2reef.com

To the no3 discussion, I find it similar to the magnesium discussion with regards to “fluffier” torch corals with higher levels. I have been guaranteed that raising magnesium will produce fuller torch corals, which may be true, however I not a believer.

I’ve seen issues with corals when nitrate is too low in my tanks and in others, likely because nitrogen was deficient. Not that corals necessarily want all that nitrate, but it’s an indicator of available nitrogen.

On the other hand I have not seen issues attributable to higher nitrate levels, much higher than the ocean.

Since being too low is a risk but being much higher than the ocean seems to work well, I don’t understand the advocacy for very low levels.

I think you run a successful tank with very low nitrate. That doesn’t make it good advice.

 

[CHSUB]

I’ve seen issues with corals when nitrate is too low in my tanks and in others, likely because nitrogen was deficient. Not that corals necessarily want all that nitrate, but it’s an indicator of available nitrogen.

On the other hand I have not seen issues attributable to higher nitrate levels, much higher than the ocean.

Since being too low is a risk but being much higher than the ocean seems to work well, I don’t understand the advocacy for very low levels.

I think you run a successful tank with very low nitrate. That doesn’t make it good advice.

Speaking personally I have never had a problem that I felt would be attributed to a nitrogen deficiency although i do believe it is possible. I have lost corals, many for that matter, but never felt it was a nitrogen deficiency. I struggled in 2014 with a bunch of stony corals; mariculture, wild, and aquaculture that I attribute to a po4 deficiency. Corals paled and stn over months and I tried numerous changes including returning to MH lights from LEDs. Thinking back I’m not entirely convinced it was entirely a po4 deficiency even though it likely was.

I can quote many sources backed by scientific evidence that elevated no3 is detrimental to corals, none which has been proven false. Borneman in his book Corals writes directly about “ nitrogen- enriched water on coral growth” and describes how the information can be misinterpreted. I don’t have my own advice as I haven’t done the work to prove or disprove what I’ve learned from others, i simply convey what others have researched, published and proven. My tanks “success” comes from my efforts, the method is Sprung and Borneman’s.

 

[rtparty]

Giving advice to raise N and P doesn't need to be studied, peer reviewed, studied again by 1000 people, reviewed again, and then explained down to the molecule what is happening to every organism in our systems to be "good advice".

Like the vast majority of topics in this hobby, it starts with anecdotal evidence that is repeated time and time again over years and years. When we watch thousands of people test a theory and a large majority of them report the same findings, we absolutely have actionable data to use.

Not only do we see dozens of dino threads here every week, I also see them day in and day out on AskBRS where I have been a moderator for at least 5 years. Over 90k members there and I see 95% of the questions/posts. Then we also have Mack's Dino Support group that is solely based on solving dino issues. To say we have "fixed" a few tanks is a major understatement. We are well into the thousands and maybe even 10,000+ at this point.

If we are to gamble with our tanks and others' tanks, it is only wise to suggest the highest percentage fix. Raising N and P is undoubtedly the higher percentage play compared to "keep your N and P at 0 and hope it corrects"

 

[Troylee]

I don’t think there’s any science to this to be honest! Tanks run what they wanna run or you make them run.. I’ve ran a zeovit tank with ulns all the way up to 100 n03 and 2 on my p04…”BOTH WORK” my current tank is happiest between 10-20 nitrates and .15 on my phosphates.. that’s where my sticks show the best colors, growth and pe! So that’s where I keep it.

 

[CHSUB]

Giving advice to raise N and P doesn't need to be studied, peer reviewed, studied again by 1000 people, reviewed again, and then explained down to the molecule what is happening to every organism in our systems to be "good advice".

Like the vast majority of topics in this hobby, it starts with anecdotal evidence that is repeated time and time again over years and years. When we watch thousands of people test a theory and a large majority of them report the same findings, we absolutely have actionable data to use.

Not only do we see dozens of dino threads here every week, I also see them day in and day out on AskBRS where I have been a moderator for at least 5 years. Over 90k members there and I see 95% of the questions/posts. Then we also have Mack's Dino Support group that is solely based on solving dino issues. To say we have "fixed" a few tanks is a major understatement. We are well into the thousands and maybe even 10,000+ at this point.

If we are to gamble with our tanks and others' tanks, it is only wise to suggest the highest percentage fix. Raising N and P is undoubtedly the higher percentage play compared to "keep your N and P at 0 and hope it corrects"

So I guess everything published by Sprung, Borneman and many many others, studies, documents and research,100s of TOTM from Reef Central and anything else that differs from the current trend should just be tossed because of Mack’s Dino Group and “hobby” observations…hard pass.

 

[buruskeee]

Yes Miami Reef the OP just created the ammonium dosing guide him and Randy contribute a ton to our group here! And I am extremely grateful for both of them.

Oh you know what, I'm confusing the vodka dosing guide with this one. I believe Miami Reef also did that one and it looked similar so that's what I was thinking of lol

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

So I guess everything published by Sprung, Borneman and many many others, studies, documents and research,100s of TOTM from Reef Central and anything else that differs from the current trend should just be tossed because of Mack’s Dino Group and “hobby” observations…hard pass.

So Troylee should ignore his visual observations because someone else thought it was a bad idea?

 

[buruskeee]

my current tank is happiest between 10-20 nitrates

Based on what? What is the corals doing differently from, lets say your tank has 5ppm?

From what has been mentioned here, along with other readings I've come across, doesn't the coral convert the NO3 to some form of ammonia first before it's able to consume?

So given that, assuming there is sufficient ammonia in the tank for the coral to consume, what difference does 1ppm make versus 10 or 20ppm? Like functionally/biologically/etc

 

[buruskeee]

I really don’t get the chic way of dissing nitrate by calling it waste. It has pros and cons of various sorts, but to call it it waste is misguided, IMO.

I’m not sure why that was your takeaway.

I have no strong opinion on dosing NO3 directly - if a tank’s NO3 is undetectable, I’d rather correct it with NO3 than ammonia. I didn’t mean “waste” literally - I was referring to the byproduct of leftover, unused ammonia from the nitrogen cycle.

I’m no expert - those of you who research and experiment know more. From your articles/threads, I’ve gathered that corals don’t take in NO3 directly.

Given that, I’m still waiting to see evidence that 10 ppm NO3 benefits corals more than 1 ppm. Even if there’s uncertainty, surely there’s at least a general theory?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

So given then, assuming there is sufficient ammonia in the tank for the coral to consume, what difference does 1ppm make versus 10 or 20ppm?

Doesn’t that seem like an assumption without evidence?

Why would it be true?

 

[CHSUB]

So Troylee should ignore his visual observations because someone else thought it was a bad idea?

I not saying 20 ppm no3 is a bad idea, however I’m being told 0 on a Salifert no3 test kit is not the percentage play, not good advice, asking for dinos, starving corals….

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I’m not sure why that was your takeaway.

I have no strong opinion on dosing NO3 directly - if a tank’s NO3 is undetectable, I’d rather correct it with NO3 than ammonia. I didn’t mean “waste” literally - I was referring to the byproduct of leftover, unused ammonia from the nitrogen cycle.

I’m no expert - those of you who research and experiment know more. From your articles/threads, I’ve gathered that corals don’t take in NO3 directly.

Given that, I’m still waiting to see evidence that 10 ppm NO3 benefits corals more than 1 ppm. Even if there’s uncertainty, surely there’s at least a general theory?

I think there’s a simple explanation why low nitrate is not best in some tank while it may be in others: there are multiple sources of N that vary tank to tank.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I not saying 20 ppm no3 is a bad idea, however I’m being told 0 on a Salifert no3 test kit is not the percentage play, not good advice, asking for dinos, starving corals….

Well, I think the best advice for someone asking is to ensure that there is adequate N, rather than giving them advice that assumes they have adequate amounts of sources other than nitrate.

 

[buruskeee]

Doesn’t that seem like an assumption without evidence?

Why would it be true?

My assumptions are based on what has been written by yourself and others. As I said, I'm no expert and rely on what you all find, hence why I used the word "assume". Again, I'm only here to search for evidence to help guide us to better coral care when it comes to this topic.

I think there’s a simple explanation why low nitrate is not best in some tank while it may be in others: there are multiple sources of N that vary tank to tank.

What is that explanation? What is quantitively a low nitrate tank? Are we positive NO3 doesn't go undetected in these tanks? Does PO4 remain constant? Or is there a spike or dip to PO4 when tanks see low NO3 for the tank to suddenly show signs of stress?

If there is a simple explanation with evidence or strong theory, please share, we are eager to learn (at least I am anyway).

 

[Troylee]

Based on what? What is the corals doing differently from, lets say your tank has 5ppm?

From what has been mentioned here, along with other readings I've come across, doesn't the coral convert the NO3 to some form of ammonia first before it's able to consume?

So given that, assuming there is sufficient ammonia in the tank for the coral to consume, what difference does 1ppm make versus 10 or 20ppm? Like functionally/biologically/etc

I said happier looking sticks! Better colors and better polyp extension.. not to mention growth off the charts!