Ammonium dosing is a bit overrated

[Dburr1014]

My experiment (using that term loosely) has begun. My tank is at 0.0 nitrate based on two tests (Hanna HR and Red Sea Pro). I think it’s been there about one week. I’ve been dosing a small amount of ammonia daily for 6 weeks. I’m going to increase that dose until a see a fairly steady but low nitrate level. I ordered some urea and will mix that into the ammonia solution when it arrives.

Corals look fantastic at the moment, though I admit to being a bit nervous about my 0 nitrate. We shall see…

Let us know how this works out. I'm very interested.
My Tank as been zero no3 on my checker for two years now.
Well, to be perfectly honest, I haven't checked anything for 8 months now.

 

[CHSUB]

Simply summing up "inorganic nutrients" is not helpful. This is something I try to tell for years. There are fundamental differences in the different nutrient limitations.

The mechanisms are complex. There is also the coral host and for scleractinians the calcification process that consumes and demands phosphate. If the corals are doing bad because there is a lack of phosphate this could limit corals ability to limit zooxanthellae inside and also to compete with dinoflagellates outside.

There are several articles confirming that dinoflagellates have ecologic advantages at phosphate limitation yes. , i. e. by producing more toxins, inhibiting growth of competitors.

Yes, I was again just using example as a head scratcher.

I have seen studies and attended talks about dinoflagellates and how they survive and compete. It is a major challenge in SW Florida with red tide the dinoflagellate Karenia brevis. However from my understanding they only become a plague and bloom when nutrients are abundant. In glass boxes when the hobbyist attempts to combat dinos with increasing nutrients it is exactly opposite the correct approach, imo. The simple most effective solution is removal and cleaning. I believe many hobbyists don’t understand how to properly clean an aquarium regardless how simple it appears. It reminds me of my grandmother telling me to clean my room and thinking it was clean but when she cleaned it was different; not because I was lazy or unwilling but I lacked the knowledge of what clean was.

 

[CHSUB]

My tank is at 0.0 nitrate based on two tests (Hanna HR and Red Sea Pro)

Yes however both test kits are not much better than useless. You should get Hanna LR, it is an eye opener for me. The resolution is outstanding and the test is actually fun to do.

 

[BeanAnimal]

is exactly opposite the correct approach, imo. The simple most effective solution is removal and cleaning

Back to the weed analogy.

A trigger event is just that... a trigger.

A drought may allow weeds to take over a field, but ending the drought doesn’t restore the crops; it only accelerates weed growth.

Poor soil may allow weeds to dominate, but adding fertilizer doesn’t restore the crops; it accelerates weed growth.

Too much fertilizer may burn crops and allow weeds to spread, but stopping fertilization doesn’t restore the crops; it simply lets weeds take over.

Likewise, reversing the nutrient condition that allowed unwanted dinoflagellates to explode won’t necessarily remove them. In most cases it will likely give them the food to dominate.

It is not that the ocean and an aquarium are opposites, it is how balance is maintained to prevent trigger conditions.

 

[CHSUB]

Back to the weed analogy.

A trigger event is just that, a trigger. A drought may allow weeds to overtake a field, but ending the drought doesn’t restore the crops, and instead just accelerates weed growth.

Reversing the nutrient condition that allowed unwanted dinoflagellates to explode won’t necessarily remove them, and more than likely give them the food to dominate once established.

Dinoflagellate are not going anywhere, ever; they are part of every aquarium and body of water on earth. Manual removal controls anything, will not eliminate, in a tiny glass box. Increasing nutrients because hobby testing reveals a deficiency is a non starter.

 

[CHSUB]

dinoflagellates to explode

Will never happen unless nutrients are available and abundant….will only survive!

 

[BeanAnimal]

Dinoflagellate are not going anywhere, ever; they are part of every aquarium and body of water on earth. Manual removal controls anything, will not eliminate, in a tiny glass box. Increasing nutrients because hobby testing reveals a deficiency is a non starter.

You’re arguing a different point. My post wasn’t about whether dinos can establish without abundant nutrients, or whether they always exist in some form.

My point was that once they (the nuisance type) are established (call it at a nuisance level if you wish, or passed a balanced tipping point), simply reversing the original trigger condition doesn’t remove them, and can in many cases give them a chance to explode in numbers. That point was made in response to your posts, which seem to suggest there is a contradiction in nutrient levels between dinos “in coral” and those that are a nuisance on substrate or in the water column.

 

[rishma]

My tank is at 0.0 nitrate based on two tests (Hanna HR and Red Sea Pro)

Yes however both test kits are not much better than useless. You should get Hanna LR, it is an eye opener for me. The resolution is outstanding and the test is actually fun to do.

I don’t agree they are useless. The Red Sea Pro in particular has shown to be accurate below 1ppm. The Hanna HR is probably not very accurate below 2ppm.

 

[CHSUB]

That point was made in response to your posts, which seem to suggest there is a contradiction in nutrient levels between dinos “in coral” and those that are a nuisance on substrate or in the water column

, that post was more in the spirit of, “Why do they call it Ovaltine? The mug is round; the jar is round... they should call it Roundtine.”,Bania…..

 

[Stamboli]

In my opinion a very interesting but also confusing topic. There are reefers who use zeolith to reduce ammonium and dose aminos. There are reefers who dose urea to increase ammonium. And other reefers dose nitrate.

So I asked ChatGPT what are the pros and cons of these different nitrogen sources:

The form of nitrogen you add to a reef tank — ammonium, nitrate, or amino acids — makes a real difference in terms of biology, water chemistry, and even algae control.

1. Ammonium (NH₄⁺ / NH₃)​

• Uptake:
  Many corals (via their zooxanthellae) and algae prefer ammonium directly because it’s the most energy-efficient to assimilate. They don’t have to reduce it first like nitrate.
• Biological effect:
  In moderate amounts it strongly promotes zooxanthellae growth → corals may become browner.
• Risks:
  Toxic to fish and invertebrates at surprisingly low concentrations (especially NH₃, the un-ionized form).
  Around ~0.05–0.1 mg/L NH₃ can already be dangerous.
• Chemistry:
  If not taken up immediately, it’s quickly oxidized to nitrite and then nitrate by nitrifying bacteria.

2. Nitrate (NO₃⁻)​

• Uptake:
  Corals can use nitrate, but it must be reduced first — this takes energy, so uptake is generally slower than ammonium.
• Biological effect:
  Supplies nitrogen without causing an immediate surge in zooxanthellae density.
  Carefully maintained nitrate can help intensify coral coloration (especially in SPS).
• Risks:
  High levels (>20–30 mg/L) encourage nuisance algae and can inhibit sensitive corals.
  Excess can also destabilize the microbial balance.
• Chemistry:
  Very stable in water; tends to accumulate if overdosed.

3. Amino acids (organic nitrogen)​

• Uptake:
  Many corals can absorb certain amino acids directly without fully mineralizing them → this saves energy and also provides carbon and structural molecules.
• Biological effect:
  Often stimulates tissue and pigment growth (especially in colorful SPS/LPS).
  Can improve polyp extension and production of pigments like pocilloporin.
• Risks:
  Excess is broken down by bacteria → produces ammonium/nitrate → can fuel bacterial blooms or film algae if filtration is weak.
• Chemistry:
  Broken down quickly; best dosed in small amounts multiple times per day.

In short​

• Ammonium: Fast, efficient, but potentially toxic. Good for quick nitrogen delivery; dose with care.
• Nitrate: Stable, predictable, slower uptake, lower acute toxicity risk.
• Amino acids: Energetically valuable, also provide carbon, but can be overdosed easily.

Practical rule of thumb in reef aquariums:

• SPS-dominated tanks: Mix of nitrate + amino acids for stable baseline nitrogen and enhanced color.
• Soft/LPS tanks: Amino acids + moderate nitrate or occasional ammonium to avoid excessive zooxanthellae density.
• Problem prevention: Use ammonium only in small, well-distributed doses; amino acids sparingly; nitrate as the baseline source.

---

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

In my opinion a very interesting but also confusing topic. There are reefers who use zeolith to reduce ammonium and dose aminos. There are reefers who dose urea to increase ammonium. And other reefers dose nitrate.

So I asked ChatGPT what are the pros and cons of these different nitrogen sources:

The form of nitrogen you add to a reef tank — ammonium, nitrate, or amino acids — makes a real difference in terms of biology, water chemistry, and even algae control.

1. Ammonium (NH₄⁺ / NH₃)​

• Uptake:
  Many corals (via their zooxanthellae) and algae prefer ammonium directly because it’s the most energy-efficient to assimilate. They don’t have to reduce it first like nitrate.
• Biological effect:
  In moderate amounts it strongly promotes zooxanthellae growth → corals may become browner.
• Risks:
  Toxic to fish and invertebrates at surprisingly low concentrations (especially NH₃, the un-ionized form).
  Around ~0.05–0.1 mg/L NH₃ can already be dangerous.
• Chemistry:
  If not taken up immediately, it’s quickly oxidized to nitrite and then nitrate by nitrifying bacteria.

2. Nitrate (NO₃⁻)​

• Uptake:
  Corals can use nitrate, but it must be reduced first — this takes energy, so uptake is generally slower than ammonium.
• Biological effect:
  Supplies nitrogen without causing an immediate surge in zooxanthellae density.
  Carefully maintained nitrate can help intensify coral coloration (especially in SPS).
• Risks:
  High levels (>20–30 mg/L) encourage nuisance algae and can inhibit sensitive corals.
  Excess can also destabilize the microbial balance.
• Chemistry:
  Very stable in water; tends to accumulate if overdosed.

3. Amino acids (organic nitrogen)​

• Uptake:
  Many corals can absorb certain amino acids directly without fully mineralizing them → this saves energy and also provides carbon and structural molecules.
• Biological effect:
  Often stimulates tissue and pigment growth (especially in colorful SPS/LPS).
  Can improve polyp extension and production of pigments like pocilloporin.
• Risks:
  Excess is broken down by bacteria → produces ammonium/nitrate → can fuel bacterial blooms or film algae if filtration is weak.
• Chemistry:
  Broken down quickly; best dosed in small amounts multiple times per day.

In short​

• Ammonium: Fast, efficient, but potentially toxic. Good for quick nitrogen delivery; dose with care.
• Nitrate: Stable, predictable, slower uptake, lower acute toxicity risk.
• Amino acids: Energetically valuable, also provide carbon, but can be overdosed easily.

Practical rule of thumb in reef aquariums:

• SPS-dominated tanks: Mix of nitrate + amino acids for stable baseline nitrogen and enhanced color.
• Soft/LPS tanks: Amino acids + moderate nitrate or occasional ammonium to avoid excessive zooxanthellae density.
• Problem prevention: Use ammonium only in small, well-distributed doses; amino acids sparingly; nitrate as the baseline source.

---

Just an fyi, the ammonium binding aspects of zeolites are greatly misunderstood by some (probably including ChatGPT) and likely accomplish almost nothing, good or bad, about ammonium. A little binds when first added, then it has no more impact on ammonia or ammonia bioavailability unless fresh zeolite is added.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

In my opinion a very interesting but also confusing topic. There are reefers who use zeolith to reduce ammonium and dose aminos. There are reefers who dose urea to increase ammonium. And other reefers dose nitrate.

So I asked ChatGPT what are the pros and cons of these different nitrogen sources:

The form of nitrogen you add to a reef tank — ammonium, nitrate, or amino acids — makes a real difference in terms of biology, water chemistry, and even algae control.

1. Ammonium (NH₄⁺ / NH₃)​

• Uptake:
  Many corals (via their zooxanthellae) and algae prefer ammonium directly because it’s the most energy-efficient to assimilate. They don’t have to reduce it first like nitrate.
• Biological effect:
  In moderate amounts it strongly promotes zooxanthellae growth → corals may become browner.
• Risks:
  Toxic to fish and invertebrates at surprisingly low concentrations (especially NH₃, the un-ionized form).
  Around ~0.05–0.1 mg/L NH₃ can already be dangerous.
• Chemistry:
  If not taken up immediately, it’s quickly oxidized to nitrite and then nitrate by nitrifying bacteria.

2. Nitrate (NO₃⁻)​

• Uptake:
  Corals can use nitrate, but it must be reduced first — this takes energy, so uptake is generally slower than ammonium.
• Biological effect:
  Supplies nitrogen without causing an immediate surge in zooxanthellae density.
  Carefully maintained nitrate can help intensify coral coloration (especially in SPS).
• Risks:
  High levels (>20–30 mg/L) encourage nuisance algae and can inhibit sensitive corals.
  Excess can also destabilize the microbial balance.
• Chemistry:
  Very stable in water; tends to accumulate if overdosed.

3. Amino acids (organic nitrogen)​

• Uptake:
  Many corals can absorb certain amino acids directly without fully mineralizing them → this saves energy and also provides carbon and structural molecules.
• Biological effect:
  Often stimulates tissue and pigment growth (especially in colorful SPS/LPS).
  Can improve polyp extension and production of pigments like pocilloporin.
• Risks:
  Excess is broken down by bacteria → produces ammonium/nitrate → can fuel bacterial blooms or film algae if filtration is weak.
• Chemistry:
  Broken down quickly; best dosed in small amounts multiple times per day.

In short​

• Ammonium: Fast, efficient, but potentially toxic. Good for quick nitrogen delivery; dose with care.
• Nitrate: Stable, predictable, slower uptake, lower acute toxicity risk.
• Amino acids: Energetically valuable, also provide carbon, but can be overdosed easily.

Practical rule of thumb in reef aquariums:

• SPS-dominated tanks: Mix of nitrate + amino acids for stable baseline nitrogen and enhanced color.
• Soft/LPS tanks: Amino acids + moderate nitrate or occasional ammonium to avoid excessive zooxanthellae density.
• Problem prevention: Use ammonium only in small, well-distributed doses; amino acids sparingly; nitrate as the baseline source.

---

The ammonia toxicity recounted in your ai list is misleading/inaccurate. It is not that toxic. It takes more than 10 ppm total ammonia to kill a marine fish.

 

[BeanAnimal]

That list is a set of loose facts, barely applicable biochemistry, and hobby lore cobbled together by AI correlation, not science, study, or reality.

To me, it is more evidence that AI generated responses almost universally have no place here. Even when partially true, they are only partially relevant and often do more to spread authoritative-sounding misinformation than to give valid advice or advance knowledge and understanding.

If the person posting doesn’t have the knowledge or understanding to generate the content themselves, how can they possibly evaluate whether what the AI produced is valid?

Worse, the forum itself is ingested by AI as “trusted source” of training data, which means this kind of nonsense will get recycled and amplified as if it were fact.

Using AI to refine wording or to better articulate an original thought is one thing. Using it as a substitute for thinking once one has reached the limits of their knowledge is something entirely different.

 

[Stamboli]

To me, it is more evidence that AI generated responses almost universally have no place here. Even when partially true, they are only partially relevant and often do more to spread authoritative-sounding misinformation than to give valid advice or advance knowledge and understanding.

The same you can say about nearly every single post in a forum. I mean how many posts are 100 % relevant? And how many people get into trouble because doing things they read in a forum? Or because they believe product advertising? So this is not only a problem of ChatGPT. I think the best thing you can do is to be skeptical in general, no matter who or what claims something.

 

[BeanAnimal]

The same you can say about nearly every single post in a forum. I mean how many posts are 100 % relevant? And how many people get into trouble because doing things they read in a forum?

Most people don't tend to "make stuff up" just to sound smart. Sure, people are wrong all of the time, or conflate fact and opinion or mistake loose correlation to fact. But, more often than not it is usually contextually clear when someone is speculating or wrong. That transparency is what actually drives discussion. AI responses are different. AI presents itself as a single uniform authoritative source, especially when used and posted as was above.

So this is not only a problem of ChatGPT.

The problem is amplified by ChatGPT (or other LLMs). People tend to assume its responses are authoritative and intelligent. Many (most?) repeat its claims without questioning them, often directly as seen above. In a forum, that misinformation is recycled and reinforced by others and even by the model itself when it re-ingests the same content. That feedback loop gives the misinformation even more authoritative weight.

 

[Miami Reef]

AI posts are very obvious and have a very clear writing format — It just makes the forum feel superficial and dystopian.

I used the em-dash on purpose as that’s one of ChatGPT’s signature writing styles. In general, I am very good at detecting when someone is using AI. Life sucks when you’re so painfully aware and naturally over analyze the simplest things. Ignorance is bliss.

But yeah, I hate AI. It’s plagiarism to use someone or something’s words verbatim without disclosing or citing the source. If they’re not your words or thoughts, don’t pretend they are. It’s simple writing etiquette.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

The same you can say about nearly every single post in a forum. I mean how many posts are 100 % relevant? And how many people get into trouble because doing things they read in a forum? Or because they believe product advertising? So this is not only a problem of ChatGPT. I think the best thing you can do is to be skeptical in general, no matter who or what claims something.

It’s a good point that lots of individuals fall prey to the same issues that lead many AI answers astray.

However, the owner of Reef2Reef has asked that folks not answer questions using answers generated by AI. He wants the site to be about people interacting with other people.

It is certainly fine to learn from an ai, but then folks should post their own synopsis or “take” on the ai generated info.

 

[Stamboli]

AI presents itself as a single uniform authoritative source, especially when used and posted as was above.

That's why it's good that people like you (and me) make clear that ChatGPT is NO authority but can only be helpful. As well as so called authorities should be taken with a pinch of salt.

In my opinion the ChatGPT reply was not really bad. Maybe the claimed ammonium toxicity was inaccurate, I don't know. But its statement about the ammonium binding effects of zeolites is exactly what you can read in forums and literature since many years. Maybe you are right and this is a greatly misunderstood. But that's what ChatGPT does: Reflecting mainstream opinions.

However, the owner of Reef2Reef has asked that folks not answer questions using answers generated by AI. He wants the site to be about people interacting with other people.

I'm sorry, I didn't know that. I will not post any more ChatGPT replies.

 

[BeanAnimal]

AI posts are very obvious and have a very clear writing format — It just makes the forum feel superficial and dystopian.

I used the em-dash on purpose as that’s one of ChatGPT’s signature writing styles.

Hey now -- I use em-dash a good bit!

You can tell if I am posting from my Mac, as they appear as -- (two dashes) and my iPhone or iPad as they appear as — (a true em-dash).

If you look at my historical posts, I used ellipses instead... but in an effort to improve my writing style I have consciously adopted the proper punctuation for those cases. Likewise, I have worked to improve the readability of my posts -- though I get lazy and revert to bad habits often. When I was younger, I was taught not to use contractions in formal or technical writing -- and now that has changed and contractions are considered proper, that's, it's, I'd, wasn't, isn't, etc. You will find me flipping back and forth, conflicted regarding proper usage.

Aside from this forum, I am starting to see clearly AI edited content all over print media, some of it at a national level from household name news and content personalities. So many tell-take signs.

In my opinion the ChatGPT reply was not really bad.

It was terrible unless we are using broken clock accuracy logic. It lacked context and had errors -- deriving conclusions from those errors -- providing the answers as authoritative advice. Some of us may be able to sort through the weeds, but to other's it appears to be a trustworthy answer and sound advice.

Maybe the claimed ammonium toxicity was inaccurate, I don't know.

Why the hedge? An actual authority has indicated that it was not accurate.

Anyway, thanks for understanding why we prefer to have your thoughts and not those of AI. I do look forward to your further input in these conversations

 

[Miami Reef]

Hey now -- I use em-dash a good bit!

I knew you were going to say that. I felt it when making my post.

Em-dashes are fine and are appropriate punctuations to use. They can be a little informal for peer reviewed, scientific papers, but we are on Reef2Reef, not Science Direct. lol

It’s only when used in a certain stylistic way and frequency that can hint AI usage. It’s only one of the methods in determining it. I know you aren’t using AI; that may or may not be an insult. lol