I Run the Most thriving SPS Tank on 0 P and 0 N

[SamsReef]

There are a lot of ways of successful thriving tanks with colorful corals. One of the them that works for me is to keep nitrate at 5 ppm and phosphate at around 0.04 ppm.

Thank you.

Sam

 

[sixty_reefer]

I’m pretty sure you can have 0’s across the board and be very successful via feeding...

Oregonreef.com

Oregonreef.com

I will challenge his parameters any day, on the basis that the person writing the article is talking nonsense. So he implemented the bare bottom philosophy? But he decided to put down 2 inches of sand. How does that work [emoji2369] pretty sure once sand is down there’s no more bare bottom advantages [emoji23]

Edited:
This kind of article is one of them things that annoys me, you can go on the internet and just post things like this and just randomly say i run all undetectable parameters, there will be numbers to replace “undetectable” and there will be a method behind it. Just saying I run bare “bottom philosophy” is wrong and misleading.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I was told many many years ago that it is harder to kill coral with high nutrients than with low nutrients. I feel that is great advice for anyone starting out but just my 2 pennies. A balance of in and out is the most important in reefing.

I support these thoughts healthier coral will be more tolerant to kh, ph and temperature swings for example

 

[mfollen]

Thought this was a good watch...

 

[Elegance Coral]

Easy killer..........

so your outcome from this hole mess is that is cool to advice new hobbiest to keep there tank at “zero”... nice advice...

I never suggested that we should advise new hobbyists of anything.
But now that you've brought it up, why not??? If a new hobbyist set up and maintained their system with the goal of undetectable N and P, with common hobbyist level testing, we'd have fewer threads asking how to get rid of hair algae, and we'd have fewer hobbyists selling their tanks on Craig's List because the wife is tired of looking at the swamp in their living room.

can you show us 2 ICPs 3 or 6 months apart to back that out?

No. For me, that would be a waste of time and money. I don't test for things like N and P. The only time a system of mine gets tested for such things is when a friend tries to catch me with detectable levels. So far, he's been unsuccessful.

There is a HUGE difference between saying a system has undetectable inorganic N and P (plant fertilizer), and saying the system is void of nutrients.

 

[Reefcowboy]

There are hundreds of tanks that run on extremely low nutrients, and will blow everyone away with how colorful corals are. Yes it can be done, but requires experience and knowledge to know what to dose to keep it flourishing

 

[sixty_reefer]

Easy killer..........



I never suggested that we should advise new hobbyists of anything.
But now that you've brought it up, why not??? If a new hobbyist set up and maintained their system with the goal of undetectable N and P, with common hobbyist level testing, we'd have fewer threads asking how to get rid of hair algae, and we'd have fewer hobbyists selling their tanks on Craig's List because the wife is tired of looking at the swamp in their living room.




No. For me, that would be a waste of time and money. I don't test for things like N and P. The only time a system of mine gets tested for such things is when a friend tries to catch me with detectable levels. So far, he's been unsuccessful.

There is a HUGE difference between saying a system has undetectable inorganic N and P (plant fertilizer), and saying the system is void of nutrients.

It not in a bad way my reply [emoji23] am not that kinda person, but I do like to discuss normal every day things that are sometimes not often discussed and just taken for granted.

I think the hair algae and phosphates connection is still to blow every ones mind in a near future and there’s a really good thread on here about it, will post a link here in a bit once I’ve find it.
In my opinion for someone new to reefing to be on such a low nutrient system doesn’t leave much room for mistake, if we look at the bigger picture they will easy become more vulnerable to

1. Dinoflagellates: due to ideal levels for outbreaks for as many algae threads we see many more due to the misunderstanding of low nutrient. I would much rather fight the GHA than dinos

2: Coral lost: as many will say a coral that is on a low nutrient system will be more vulnerable to RTN if any of the parameters change slightly especially on kh and ph

Unfortunately most ppl that you see giving up is mainly ppl with no access to the forums, have you ever seen some of the advice ppl give on FB and shops. R2R community is one of the best I’ve seen so far it’s crazy how ppl get out of their way just to help a stranger to succeed in the hobby.

Edited:

Link

#1 WHAT IF I TOLD YOU... Ammonia is causing your algae problems?
https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink?sh...ing-your-algae-problems?.558661/&share_type=t

 

[sixty_reefer]

There are hundreds of tanks that run on extremely low nutrients, and will blow everyone away with how colorful corals are. Yes it can be done, but requires experience and knowledge to know what to dose to keep it flourishing

No doubt about it but you do need to fully understand the redfield properly to even dare to try and do something like that, I’ve been researching on it for some time now as I want to give the next step up but it is almost like doing a phd in marine biology [emoji23]

 

[tripdad]

No doubt about it but you do need to fully understand the redfield properly to even dare to try and do something like that, I’ve been researching on it for some time now as I want to give the next step up but it is almost like doing a phd in marine biology [emoji23]

May I make a request of you? If I read correctly the origin of this thread is to help new reefers wade thru the fog of information out there? In your remarks about the Redfield Ratio you seem to be saying that if we understand and use the math correctly then we can have success. I've been in the hobby since 1983 and have read, seen or heard a lot of talk about this ratio. I have listened to many people much smarter than I am discuss this ratio and it's relevance to reefing. There is absolutely no disputing it's significance to life, but there is really no scientific proof of a Redfield Ratio that applies directly, without compromise, to reefing. These reefs are a dynamic system, ever changing, ever evolving. In such applying any ratio is hard. I do agree an understanding of the relationship of the parts expressed in the ratio is helpful. However I think it's a disservice to say we can just "use the math" and bingo!, success. I'm not sure that's what your saying but just feel that for noobs that may read this it's important to not "state" things as fact that are not proven and verifiable. Again , I think educating oneself about the Redfield Ratio is helpful, just not the magic bullet. If I have misunderstood you please disregard this.

 

[sixty_reefer]

May I make a request of you? If I read correctly the origin of this thread is to help new reefers wade thru the fog of information out there? In your remarks about the Redfield Ratio you seem to be saying that if we understand and use the math correctly then we can have success. I've been in the hobby since 1983 and have read, seen or heard a lot of talk about this ratio. I have listened to many people much smarter than I am discuss this ratio and it's relevance to reefing. There is absolutely no disputing it's significance to life, but there is really no scientific proof of a Redfield Ratio that applies directly, without compromise, to reefing. These reefs are a dynamic system, ever changing, ever evolving. In such applying any ratio is hard. I do agree an understanding of the relationship of the parts expressed in the ratio is helpful. However I think it's a disservice to say we can just "use the math" and bingo!, success. I'm not sure that's what your saying but just feel that for noobs that may read this it's important to not "state" things as fact that are not proven and verifiable. Again , I think educating oneself about the Redfield Ratio is helpful, just not the magic bullet. If I have misunderstood you please disregard this.

Sorry if you miss understood me, I wasn’t implying that we need to know the redfield to run a successful reef tank, all I was trying to say was, if you chose to go the ULNS is a must to understand the redfield especially if you chose that path because you looking for rapid coral growth.

Here’s how triton explains it I find it very easy to absorb the information.

https://www.triton-lab.de/fileadmin/user_upload/support-uploads/TRITON_RATIOS/Triton_Tech_Paper_-_TRITON_Ratios_1.2.pdf

 

[tripdad]

"To deal with this some have used biochemical proxies ( e.g. Redfield ratio ) derived from analysis of plankton in the open ocean as a guideline for the behaviour of seawater in closed reef systems. Here, based on modelling of a large database of closed system reef tank seawater analyses, we can report this assumption to be misguided. Instead we propose a suite of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus ratios (TRITON Ratios) for use in closed reef systems".

The above quote from your Triton link exactly addresses my concern. They state there the Redfield Ratio cannot be applied directly to reef keeping. Therefore they have come up with a suite of "Triton ratios" to address specific instances. A noob could very easily find a lot of posts saying follow redfield ratio and try and do just that. It does not directly translate to reef keeping, unless your growing plankton.

 

[Nano sapiens]

The Redfield Ratio pertains to the makeup of the phytoplankton themselves, not the makeup of the water that they happen to be in. So, it's a bit of a stretch to think that this would be the optimal ratio for a reef aquarium.

Redfield ratio
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Redfield ratio or Redfield stoichiometry is the consistent atomic ratio of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus found in marine phytoplankton and throughout the deep oceans

Triton has made an attempt to determine a ratio that should result in a healthy, balanced reef system. Time will tell if they got it right...

 

[sixty_reefer]

"To deal with this some have used biochemical proxies ( e.g. Redfield ratio ) derived from analysis of plankton in the open ocean as a guideline for the behaviour of seawater in closed reef systems. Here, based on modelling of a large database of closed system reef tank seawater analyses, we can report this assumption to be misguided. Instead we propose a suite of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus ratios (TRITON Ratios) for use in closed reef systems".

The above quote from your Triton link exactly addresses my concern. They state there the Redfield Ratio cannot be applied directly to reef keeping. Therefore they have come up with a suite of "Triton ratios" to address specific instances. A noob could very easily find a lot of posts saying follow redfield ratio and try and do just that. It does not directly translate to reef keeping, unless your growing plankton.

Exactly my thoughts, and the reason I didn’t wanted to go deep in to it, just a basic low nutrient is bad for first marine aquarium.

 

[sixty_reefer]

The Redfield Ratio pertains to the makeup of the phytoplankton themselves, not the makeup of the water that they happen to be in. So, it's a bit of a stretch to think that this would be the optimal ratio for a reef aquarium.

Redfield ratio
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Redfield ratio or Redfield stoichiometry is the consistent atomic ratio of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus found in marine phytoplankton and throughout the deep oceans

Triton has made an attempt to determine a ratio that should result in a healthy, balanced reef system. Time will tell if they got it right...

Yes but redfield is not just applied to phytoplankton, the most popular redfield ratio is phytoplankton, redfield can be applied to all living things even humans have a redfield ratio. Also triton states they’re as a guideline, not as a rule. And for they’re advances in the hobby I would trust it more than any other useless ratio.

 

[MnFish1]

Said no one ever....

I’ve noticed that most of the threads lately on here are all related to none of the above be present in the tank. I could go scientific on you but that’s not the goal here. 0 nutrients and 0 phosphate is BAD and it will cause most of the issues in your tank. Let’s not forget that there’s a big difference between running a low nutrient tank and a 0 nutrient tank.

Is always hard to repeat yourself so let’s make this a informative thread on running 0 nutrient tanks, share your opinions and information.

This is 'wrong' (kind of) - but it depends on what you're trying to accomplish. Lets say you have a certain amount of coral that requires x amount of Nitrate and y amount of phosphate/day. If your tank is balanced - and producing x amount of nitrate and y amount of phosphate/day - the measured nitrate and PO4 will be zero - with no ill effects. Now - the coral won't grow well - and in the long-term it will be a negative. Its too bad you didnt go 'scientific' on us - because it would've been interesting to see you defend what you're saying.

To get the coral in the above mentioned example to grow, they need to be supplied with x+ a small amount of nitrate and PO4. You do not need a nitrate of 5 constantly - even if you maintain a nitrate of 1 constantly - it means that the coral is using what It needs to live and grow - and there is still 1 ppm left over.

Most people who say they have 'zero' nitrate or phosphate probably don't have kits accurate enough to even say that however. I think you're making a gross overgeneralztion to say that low nitrate and low phosphate will cause 'most' of the issues in your tank. Its all related - light, flow, nutrients and coral mix. (you asked for a discussion)

 

[MnFish1]

No doubt about it but you do need to fully understand the redfield properly to even dare to try and do something like that, I’ve been researching on it for some time now as I want to give the next step up but it is almost like doing a phd in marine biology [emoji23]

The Redfield ratio is not really applicable to reef aquaria. Or - if you think it is - why? I can give you a couple reasons why it is not. (And why the 'triton ratios' are not either)

 

[MnFish1]

Yes but redfield is not just applied to phytoplankton, the most popular redfield ratio is phytoplankton, redfield can be applied to all living things even humans have a redfield ratio. Also triton states they’re as a guideline, not as a rule. And for they’re advances in the hobby I would trust it more than any other useless ratio.

Yes - a brick has a Redfield ratio as well - but - no one calculates it.... The Redfield ratio is N to P of 16:1. This says nothing about the amounts of N and P - i.e. the Ratio of N to P in a tank with N 0.00016 and P 0.00001 is the same as the tank with the N being 160 and the P being 1. What is the benefit?

 

[sixty_reefer]

The Redfield ratio is not really applicable to reef aquaria. Or - if you think it is - why? I can give you a couple reasons why it is not. (And why the 'triton ratios' are not either)

Am always up for a discussion that’s why we are on here, I feel that wend we doing so we can learn a lot by reading people’s different views. Am just bathing and getting dinner ready for the kids, but please do feel free to share your views on the redfield and why is not applicable in reef aquaria meanwhile

 

[sixty_reefer]

Yes - a brick has a Redfield ratio as well - but - no one calculates it.... The Redfield ratio is N to P of 16:1. This says nothing about the amounts of N and P - i.e. the Ratio of N to P in a tank with N 0.00016 and P 0.00001 is the same as the tank with the N being 160 and the P being 1. What is the benefit?

What’s the brick consuming? And what does N stands for, in this equation?

 

[MnFish1]

Am always up for a discussion that’s why we are on here, I feel that wend we doing so we can learn a lot by reading people’s different views. Am just bathing and getting dinner ready for the kids, but please do feel free to share your views on the redfield and why is not applicable in reef aquaria meanwhile

The Redfield ratio was a measure of N to P (in marine biomass/phytoplankton) and subsequently C to N to P. Its significant because its remarkably similar in oceans around the world. This ratio was also found to be the same in seawater (without phytoplankton). Redfield discovered/decided in 1958 that it was the N in phytoplankton that created the N in seawater - not the other way around.

So - first - though the N to P ratio is similar to the NO3O4 ratio - we don't measure N or P in our test kits. Secondly - its the organisms that seems to create the ratio of N in the water - not the other way around. Lastly - as mentioned previously - a nitrate of 160 and a PO4 of 10 is the same 'Redfield ratio' as a nitrate of 0.016 and phosphate of 0.001.

Meaning - that just shooting for a specific ratio (whether its a Redfield ratio or a triton ratio or any other) - doesnt mean anything (or?). Also - if your main idea is that low nutrient systems are detrimental (which seems to be the case) - natural seawater (in which corals thrive) have much lower levels than most of our tanks.