I believe that to be true.
Bacteria ratios, putting a end to it!
- Thread starter sixty_reefer
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I believe that to be true.
18 hours results are in:
phosphates are a clear zero
nitrates climbed back up to 20 as @taricha predicted
this is consistent with the nutrient limitations that tell us if a tank becomes limited in phosphates a increase in nitrates is expected I still got a few more hours to go so I’ve added 0.6 ppm of phosphates again to see the changes. This morning there was jus a small haze to the tank and now is almost milky white.
At 10 hours
At 18 hours and around 7 hours after being phosphates limited
At this point Dino’s would set in and the funky algae species would begin to thrive and take control of the tank if you didn’t dose back up to 0.6 ppm. Personally I try to keep at ratio of about 100:1 N : P. I think most pro reefers I speak with keep their tanks around there. Although I do see some more like 200:1 and I have seen 70:1. Maybe if you can stay a little closer to a normal reef tank ratio we could observe things that might happen in a normal reef, but without rock, sand, fish, skimmer, etc…not sure how well that would work.
Example…the NO3 is 20 ppm. Dose up to 0.2 ppm PO4 instead of 0.6 ppm. That inverse ratio could potentially start to grow algae and create other events that may not happen if you were close to a good ratio.
For every 1 ppm NO3 and .01 ppm PO4 if possible.
the bacteria responsible for this last bloom is unknown although is still consuming phosphates like crazy, I’ve added since the 18 hours mark 2.1ppm of phosphates and it fully depleted almost instantly. I would suspect that nitrifying bacteria couldn’t use this much phosphates
I wonder if this is what happened to my current rock. Maybe it was just so loaded with bacteria that they’ve been sucking down the PO4. Maybe they never died in the last 6 months, but multiplied to insane numbers.? Hmm…could it be?!?
Maybe I need to kill some bacteria and the system will stop sucking my PO4 down. Heh…who knows.
Actually, there’s no way because if there were that many Heterotrophs in the system the water would be cloudy. Although I did have a nasty Heterotrophic bloom in the beginning for over 1 month.
OP
OP
sixty_reefer
5000 Club Member
Thank
I would say that besides the rock binding some phosphates you may have some of the bacteria you dosed thriving in your tank, I would have a feeling that you may have some heterotrophic bacteria that has a great need for phosphates living in your reef.
thank you for all you done during those times of need, your bravery and effort is really appreciated by us all.
I would say that besides the rock binding some phosphates you may have some of the bacteria you dosed thriving in your tank, I would have a feeling that you may have some heterotrophic bacteria that has a great need for phosphates living in your reef.
OP
OP
sixty_reefer
5000 Club Member
In my view the problem with ratios is that we can’t see them, the ratios is what’s gets consumed by the tank in this case for example we knew the total of nutrients added to the system, we had 20ppm of nitrates 0.3 ppm of phosphates and 5ml of carbon ( not sure how much in ppm).At this point Dino’s would set in and the funky algae species would begin to thrive and take control of the tank if you didn’t dose back up to 0.6 ppm. Personally I try to keep at ratio of about 100:1 N : P. I think most pro reefers I speak with keep their tanks around there. Although I do see some more like 200:1 and I have seen 70:1. Maybe if you can stay a little closer to a normal reef tank ratio we could observe things that might happen in a normal reef, but without rock, sand, fish, skimmer, etc…not sure how well that would work.
Example…the NO3 is 20 ppm. Dose up to 0.2 ppm PO4 instead of 0.6 ppm. That inverse ratio could potentially start to grow algae and create other events that may not happen if you were close to a good ratio.
For every 1 ppm NO3 and .01 ppm PO4 if possible.
I’m the first 10 hours we had 10 ppm of nitrates and 0.2 ppm of phosphates used by the system ( not sure how much carbon was used )
This is the numbers that we can make ratios from, we need to do a ratio from what’s utilised and not by what’s left. This is why wend talking about redfield some folks try and make ratios from residual and that’s wrong, we don’t have a way to make ratios as we don’t know how much C N P we added to our systems and how much C N P fish produce by respiration and waste
Eventually once understood experiments like this could take us closer from usable ratios.
For example if we were able to determine the C N P content of the food we added to our system daily we could be close to make a ratio by determining what was used from what we added.
What’s not been utilised by tank organisms will show as residual phosphates and residual nitrates.
Last edited:
I agree with that.
From an anecdotal standpoint we know that corals do really pretty darn well at around 100:1 I’d even say there’s a lot of pros running bouncing between like 100:1 & 150-200:1
Yes, corals can and will adapt to pretty much any conditions (as long as stability is provided), but I can tell you form experience that 100:1 is pretty good.
Somewhere there is a study and I forget where I read or heard this (you may recall) but they found that all the corals from “multiple reefs” were up taking nutrients close to that ratio. I don’t believe this was the Redfield ratio as those numbers look crazy to me, but it was pretty amazing that all the corals were consuming the same amounts of N : P across several different reefs. I wish I could recall where I read or saw that study. If I find it I’ll post it up. Very interesting read.
Anyway, from my viewpoint I’d like to see it closer to a normal reef tank ratio, but that’s just me and this is not my experiment.
OP
OP
sixty_reefer
5000 Club Member
I agree with that.
From an anecdotal standpoint we know that corals do really pretty darn well at around 100:1 I’d even say there’s a lot of pros running bouncing between like 100:1 & 150-200:1
Yes, corals can and will adapt to pretty much any conditions (as long as stability is provided), but I can tell you form experience that 100:1 is pretty good.
Somewhere there is a study and I forget where I read or heard this (you may recall) but they found that all the corals from “multiple reefs” were up taking nutrients close to that ratio. I don’t believe this was the Redfield ratio as those numbers look crazy to me, but it was pretty amazing that all the corals were consuming the same amounts of N : P across several different reefs. I wish I could recall where I read or saw that study. If I find it I’ll post it up. Very interesting read.
Anyway, from my viewpoint I’d like to see it closer to a normal reef tank ratio, but that’s just me and this is not my experiment.
This ratios would theoretically only be helpful to determine what is being removed by assimilation from a system by bacteria, this would be of some importance as if the bacteria is removing excess nutrients then it will mean corals would have less or none available.
Mechanical filtration doesn’t remove nutrients as many misinterpret the actual use of mechanical filtration.
Bacteria does remove excess nutrients. If you dose Waste Away or Eco Balance the nutrients decline (differently) depending on the system. A lot of reefers use bacteria to control nutrients and to feed the corals.
Yes, Mechanical filtration removes organics that would become nutrients or in many cases excess nutrients.
OP
OP
sixty_reefer
5000 Club Member
that’s my understanding as well, I have seen threads where for example people thought that they could remove more nitrates and phosphates by increasing the size of a protein skimmer for example, this is only correct to avoid more nutrients to be released in to the tank by organics as you mentioned, the existing excess in nutrients can only be address with bacteria, phosphates absorbing medias or macro algaes that will export nutrients by assimilation also.
Similar threads
