Could we utilise the Redfield ratio a little better in aquaria?

Status
Not open for further replies.
OP
OP
sixty_reefer

sixty_reefer

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
6,009
Reaction score
8,116
Location
The Reef
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I think there is a small sprinkle of intellectual talking going on when this topic comes up. One of the more recent reefbum talks this subject came up and it was shot down quickly. Even though it was explained why it isn't applicable the other party kept saying but, but, but...
Redfield is poorly defended as the way that is interpreted by most is wrong, there is no scientific basis to indicate that you must keep a ratio of 16:1 in your residual Nitrate and phosphate. Therefore is a lost battle.

On the other hand no one can really argue against Redfield nutrient limitations as they are backed by scientific facts.
 

Hats_

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 15, 2023
Messages
368
Reaction score
296
Location
Assen, Netherlands
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Redfield is poorly defended as the way that is interpreted by most is wrong, there is no scientific basis to indicate that you must keep a ratio of 16:1 in your residual Nitrate and phosphate. Therefore is a lost battle.

On the other hand no one can really argue against Redfield nutrient limitations as they are backed by scientific facts.
You are constantly contradicting yourself and moving the goalpost here, 'ratio' is literally in the title of your thread. You mention in your initial post that it is widely agreed upon among aquarists.

What are you trying to achieve here?

Maybe reflect a little and reformulate your main research question and hypothesis.
 

GARRIGA

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 12, 2021
Messages
3,716
Reaction score
2,981
Location
South Florida
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
This is a interesting reading on the subject if you have a few minutes spare.

Wasn’t aware there were heterotrophic that could perform denitrification under aerobic conditions. Is that what’s happening when dosing carbon and if it is then are we to assume these bacteria exists in our aquariums and the lack of carbon why they are relatively ineffective under non dosing conditions?

Way father into the weeds then I prefer to go. I was content just knowing dosing worked without any clue exactly the mechanism as to why it worked :rolling-on-the-floor-laughing:
 
OP
OP
sixty_reefer

sixty_reefer

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
6,009
Reaction score
8,116
Location
The Reef
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
You are constantly contradicting yourself and moving the goalpost here, 'ratio' is literally in the title of your thread. You mention in your initial post that it is widely agreed upon among aquarists.

What are you trying to achieve here?

Maybe reflect a little and reformulate your main research question and hypothesis.
I’ve been trying to be careful with what I write to not confuse anyone.

There is a difference between the assimilation ratio of bacteria vs your residual.

The ratio is on the assimilation of nutrients by the bacteria, your residual can be how you feel comfortable running your system.


You could have 100 nitrates and 0.05 phosphates and still have a balanced system. All I’m saying is that the pelagic heterotrophic bacteria will decrease/assimilate those nutrients at 16:1 or near ratio.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
sixty_reefer

sixty_reefer

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
6,009
Reaction score
8,116
Location
The Reef
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Wasn’t aware there were heterotrophic that could perform denitrification under aerobic conditions. Is that what’s happening when dosing carbon and if it is then are we to assume these bacteria exists in our aquariums and the lack of carbon why they are relatively ineffective under non dosing conditions?

Way father into the weeds then I prefer to go. I was content just knowing dosing worked without any clue exactly the mechanism as to why it worked :rolling-on-the-floor-laughing:
We don’t have to dose to have doc in the water column, there is several sources of DOC in our systems that contribute to more mature systems having a pro dominant heterotrophic biological filter.
 

areefer01

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Jun 28, 2021
Messages
3,592
Reaction score
3,725
Location
Ca
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
On the other hand no one can really argue against Redfield nutrient limitations as they are backed by scientific facts.

Maybe because it is being used incorrectly? Isn't it based on oceanic phytoplankton? Not corals. Also I think you need to do some math, conversion, before you try to do a ratio. This isn't my lane so will defer to chemists.

These discussions never end well.
 
OP
OP
sixty_reefer

sixty_reefer

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
6,009
Reaction score
8,116
Location
The Reef
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Maybe because it is being used incorrectly? Isn't it based on oceanic phytoplankton? Not corals. Also I think you need to do some math, conversion, before you try to do a ratio. This isn't my lane so will defer to chemists.

These discussions never end well.

No. Not sure why folks keep going back to phytoplankton as the discussion is heterotrophic bacteria.

You could read the part that says reduce phosphates. The math has been done by Randy itself I believe, Not sure if I can challenge his maths skills.

Edit: there is other companies that also refer to 16:1 nutrient assimilation not just the article above.
 
Last edited:

Garf

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
5,810
Reaction score
6,773
Location
BEEFINGHAM
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Wasn’t aware there were heterotrophic that could perform denitrification under aerobic conditions
Certainly without carbon limitations bacteria can consume ammonia, nitrite and nitrate, in aerobic conditions.
 

Hats_

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 15, 2023
Messages
368
Reaction score
296
Location
Assen, Netherlands
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
No. Not sure why folks keep going back to phytoplankton as the discussion is heterotrophic bacteria.
Maybe because its in the title? Redfields research was based on phytoplankton in the open ocean?

If i understand your idea for this topic correctly there is no reason to even mention Redfield since this does not have any overlap with his ratio whatsoever

You could have named it something along the lines of "how do we better understand and provide for important heterotrophic bacteria responsible for nutrient control in our reef tanks" and there would have been 0 issues
 

Garf

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
5,810
Reaction score
6,773
Location
BEEFINGHAM
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Not sure why folks keep going back to phytoplankton as the discussion is heterotrophic bacteria.
Because that is the "Redfield" experiment as as I'm aware. He certainly didn't liquidise whales and test their N and P ratio.
 

areefer01

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Jun 28, 2021
Messages
3,592
Reaction score
3,725
Location
Ca
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Because that is the "Redfield" experiment as as I'm aware. He certainly didn't liquidise whales and test their N and P ratio.


Thank you. I was going to say the same thing.

Not that wikipedia can't be wrong but it also says the same thing. Delbeek was just talking about this on the reefbum episode and even provided some background and math.

Wheel goes round and round :) Hope your day is well.

 

areefer01

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Jun 28, 2021
Messages
3,592
Reaction score
3,725
Location
Ca
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
You could have named it something along the lines of "how do we better understand and provide for important heterotrophic bacteria responsible for nutrient control in our reef tanks" and there would have been 0 issues

Interesting point.
 

Garf

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
5,810
Reaction score
6,773
Location
BEEFINGHAM
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
… liquidized whales. I dunno, but liquidized bacon…. Think of the possibilities.
I would say though, that the N : P ratio of bacon is probably as close to the Redfield ratio as that of bacteria, considering that's not the test subject of Redfield.
 
OP
OP
sixty_reefer

sixty_reefer

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
6,009
Reaction score
8,116
Location
The Reef
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Maybe because its in the title? Redfields research was based on phytoplankton in the open ocean?

If i understand your idea for this topic correctly there is no reason to even mention Redfield since this does not have any overlap with his ratio whatsoever

You could have named it something along the lines of "how do we better understand and provide for important heterotrophic bacteria responsible for nutrient control in our reef tanks" and there would have been 0 issues
I don’t feel the title needs changing if it’s applied correctly.


Quote:

In 1958, Alfred Redfield (1958) found that the planktonic biomass ratio of C, N, and P was similar to C, N, and P in marine water (i.e., 106:16:1), suggesting that organisms interacted closely with the environment. After that, the C:N:p ratio of 106:16:1 (i.e., Redfield ratio) was widely applied to reveal either N or P limitation for net primary production and C storage in the aquatic environment
 

Hats_

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 15, 2023
Messages
368
Reaction score
296
Location
Assen, Netherlands
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I don’t feel the title needs changing if it’s applied correctly.


Quote:

In 1958, Alfred Redfield (1958) found that the planktonic biomass ratio of C, N, and P was similar to C, N, and P in marine water (i.e., 106:16:1), suggesting that organisms interacted closely with the environment. After that, the C:N:p ratio of 106:16:1 (i.e., Redfield ratio) was widely applied to reveal either N or P limitation for net primary production and C storage in the aquatic environment
I quit, this paper makes no sense in this context to me
 

Garf

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
5,810
Reaction score
6,773
Location
BEEFINGHAM
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I quit, this paper makes no sense in this context to me
Any context to bacteria in relation to Redfield is wrong. To me, Redfield indicates phytoplanktonic organisms extracting the maximum out of a nutrient poor medium. I delved into this Stoichiometry many years ago, gave up, far too complicated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TOP 10 Trending Threads

Back
Top