Nitrate- cannot get it to fall

[areefer01]

At low nutrient levels, the checkers are basically very expensive random number generators.

Probably why we have stressed to stop chasing numbers be it nitrate, phosphate, ph, alkalinity, PAR, or any other number that a hobbyist can generate these days.

Question remains though - are the numbers good enough if we are not trying to cure cancer?

 

[Dan_P]

Why then just nitrate and phosphate? Should we not included any of the other hobby grade results or ICP for that matter?

Traditional hobbyist are somewhat limited to what we can use as you are very much aware of. We are not trying to reach low earth orbit or fly on mars. We have to have faith in how we conducted the test and its result - ratio or not.

Interesting thread never the less.

The issue is not the test results but what we try to infer from those results.

 

[Dan_P]

I didn't know how crude the measurements actually are, so I took the time to calculate it through and see how badly we would actually be approximating the ratios... (the math nerd in me kept me from going to bed. It's 01:00am here)

If you just want the results, ignore the colored part.

The Hanna LR Nitrate checker (HI781) reads 0.00 - 5.00ppm NO₃ with an accuracy of "±0.25ppm ±2% of reading".
The ULR Phosphate checker (HI774) reads 0.00 - 0.90ppm PO₄ with an accuracy of "±0.02ppm ±5% of reading".
Let's say the true values are in the middle of each checker's range: 2.50ppm NO₃ and 0.45ppm PO₄.

The expected readings are then within the following ranges:
NO₃: [2.21; 2.81]
because
2.21ppm + 2.21ppm ⋅ 2% + 0.25ppm ≈ 2.50ppm, and
2.81ppm - 2.81ppm ⋅ 2% - 0.25ppm ≈ 2.50ppm

PO₄: [0.41; 0.49]
because
0.41ppm + 0.41ppm ⋅ 5% + 0.02ppm ≈ 0.45ppm, and
0.49ppm - 0.49ppm ⋅ 5% - 0.02ppm ≈ 0.45ppm

Now convert the readings to N and P masses:
[2.21; 2.81]ppm NO₃ ≈ [0.499; 0.634]ppm N (NO₃ to N by dividing by 4.427)
[0.41; 0.49]ppm PO₄ ≈ [0.134; 0.161]ppm P (PO₄ to P by dividing by 3.066)
True masses:
2.50ppm NO₃ ≈ 0.565ppm N
0.45ppm PO₄ ≈ 0.147ppm P

So we would expect an N:P mass ratio between 0.499 / 0.161 ≈ 3.1:1 and 0.634 / 0.134 ≈ 4.7:1
while the true mass ratio is 3.85:1

Converting to molar/atomic ratios (multiply the mass ratio by 30.974 / 14.007 ≈ 2.211)
we get a molar N:P ratio between 6.8:1 and 10.5:1
while the true molar ratio is 8.5:1
(Shortcut: molar N:P = ppm NO₃ / ppm PO₄ × 1.532)

That's roughly -20% / +23% in the worst case, where both checkers are off in opposite directions. If the errors are random, the error will typically be smaller, though.
However, this isn't the Hanna Checkers' worst-case scenario. The fixed error terms (0.02ppm & 0.25ppm) will make it really messy when you have low nutrient levels. If we had 1.0ppm NO₃ and 0.05ppm PO₄ (true molar ratio ≈ 31:1), the readings could produce much larger errors: anything from ≈ 15:1 to ≈ 68:1 or so.

All that work, just to say: You're right, Dan. At mid-range levels we get a ballpark figure. At low nutrient levels, the checkers are basically very expensive random number generators.

Good night and pleasant dreams. I hope you aren’t too excited to sleep now. And thanks for the calculations. They clarify the point.

 

[EnterName]

At low nutrient levels, the checkers are basically very expensive random number generators.

Probably why we have stressed to stop chasing numbers be it nitrate, phosphate, ph, alkalinity, PAR, or any other number that a hobbyist can generate these days.

Question remains though - are the numbers good enough if we are not trying to cure cancer?

Judging from the different opinions in this thread, you can't make everyone happy at once. But you can get close

To reasonably approximate the N:P ratio and stay within Delbeek's recommendations, you will need to stay at the upper limit of Randy's phosphate target range. And even then it's a gamble. This is also above the study's "safety threshold" of 0.03ppm phosphate, so Randy, the study, and Delbeek are all happy . Not happy are those who prefer low nutrient levels closer to nature, and those who say to stop worrying about ratios all together. Also unhappy will be the people who know that the detectable nitrate and phosphate are just a fraction of the available N and P, but Delbeek made the same simplification.

If you want to keep phosphate levels low, you are lost when it comes to ratios. The readings are just too random, so all you can really do is look at absolute values. This makes those who don't want you to look at ratios happy. If you stay above 0.03ppm phosphate (above 0.06ppm with the Hanna Checker, including its error), the study will also say you are probably fine. But those who believe Delbeek will be very angry with you, since your ratios could be all over the place. Whether 0.06ppm phosphate is low enough for those who like low/natural levels will depend on the individual, but at least you are within Randy's target ranges

You can't make everyone happy, that's just life

 

[areefer01]

The issue is not the test results but what we try to infer from those results.

That is a fair point. Is that not the case though when a hobbyist uses said results to inquire about a issue or cause? I don't believe we are saying the number can be used for A but not B so maybe I am nit picking.

 

[Dan_P]

That is a fair point. Is that not the case though when a hobbyist uses said results to inquire about a issue or cause? I don't believe we are saying the number can be used for A but not B so maybe I am nit picking.

I think there is an appropriate use for a test result. A trivial example is alkalinity. It is very useful for maintaining coral but it is an after thought for fish. That’s almost like A but not B.

In this thread several members assert that the N:P ratio affected coral growth, which seems true below a certain phosphate level in the laboratiory. When the hobbyist uses the ratio it is worthless because N:P cannot be known for an analytical reason (large variability) and biological reason (the many sources of inorganic nitrogen). A=scientist use, controlled experiment; B=hobby aquarium use, uncontrolled, inadequately described and controlled. Another example of A but not B.

 

[mcarroll]

Probably why we have stressed to stop chasing numbers be it nitrate, phosphate, ph, alkalinity, PAR, or any other number that a hobbyist can generate these days.

Question remains though - are the numbers good enough if we are not trying to cure cancer?

It's funny we've stressed not chasing numbers since at least the 1990's.....but chasing pH numbers is more popular than it's ever been.

 

[Lasse]

One thing that must be clear is when you analyze one specific aquarium - the concentration of NO3 and PO4 mirror the part of N and P that has not been used for growth or been removed in another way. In my case - the molar ratio of N and P netto input every day is 12:1 but the average molar rate for the period 26/7 to 23/9 of the waste (not used nutrients - concentration in the water column) was 26:1. The reason for this can be separately different things or/and a combination of these things. Examples : poorer N removal, an exclusive N input from a separate source (i.e., N fixation), and internal decomposition of organic matter with a high internal N:P ratio (algae) are some of the scenarios

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Dan_P]

One thing that must be clear is when you analyze one specific aquarium - the concentration of NO3 and PO4 mirror the part of N and P that has not been used for growth or been removed in another way. In my case - the molar ratio of N and P netto input every day is 12:1 but the average molar rate for the period 26/7 to 23/9 of the waste (not used nutrients - concentration in the water column) was 26:1. The reason for this can be separately different things or/and a combination of these things. Examples : poorer N removal, an exclusive N input from a separate source (i.e., N fixation), and internal decomposition of organic matter with a high internal N:P ratio (algae) are some of the scenarios

Sincerely Lasse

The first and foremost reason for the accumulation of nitrogen nitrate is heterotrophic growth. The food added to aquaria has more nitrogen than is needed for the amount of carbon it contains (the aquaculture world has figured this out years ago). This nitrogen excess results in the excretion of ammonia. From there, ammonia is likely consumed mostly by autotrophs that obtain their carbon needs from CO2. These are algae and ammonia nitrifiers. If the balance of ammonia passes to the nitrifyers, nitrate is produced. Algae convert their share of ammonia to biomass which is visible but typically not measured. Secondarily, there are the various devices that remove food or inorganic nitrogen. A similar scenario exists for phosphate, although in this case, there doesn’t seem to be a clear division of labor by trophic type.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

It's funny we've stressed not chasing numbers since at least the 1990's.....but chasing pH numbers is more popular than it's ever been.

FWIW, I have no issue with people chasing numbers. We all do it is some sense for temp, salinity, etc.

The only issue, IMO, are which targets you select to chase, and how you go about the chase,

 

[Lasse]

The food added to aquaria has more nitrogen than is needed for the amount of carbon it contains

I do not use dry food - I only use frozen natural food like cyclops, artemia and mysidae. The food I put in has the same C:N:P ratio as the organism I feed with. A quick search say that the molar C:N:P ratio for artemia is around 60–85 : 12–16 : 1, Cyclops . 100-140:15-25:1 and mysidae 90:22:1. In my mix I have calculate with 60:12:1 because is mostly artemia I feed with. I also feed the system with around 0,06 mol C a day.

(the aquaculture world has figured this out years ago).

Not realy what´s happens. Commercial dry food is spare in P by design. Most of the food developed is target the open cage market and different countries EPA has demand limitation of P in the formula because of environmental concern.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[mcarroll]

FWIW, I have no issue with people chasing numbers. We all do it is some sense for temp, salinity, etc.

The only issue, IMO, are which targets you select to chase, and how you go about the chase,

Chasing test numbers is a tendency people have across aquarium disciplines.

How you are trying to use the term is not how it's traditionally been used. Nobody chases temperature numbers, they test with a thermometer and set a heater. And nobody is claiming one temperature is better than another, we all admit that a range is acceptable. If we don't set a heater, animals will perish.

So that's not what we are talking about when we refer to chasing numbers. That's husbandry. I'm not sure there's any worth in conflating the two things.

For example, pH is the most famous number to chase.

We don't chase pH for a few reasons, but mostly IMO because the number is tied to the air more than to the tank.

In other words, the tank chemistry can be in perfect condition with animals, including corals, as happy as can be, but the pH could not be predicted except within a pretty generous range.

Further, there's no valid reason to chase a specific pH number. No animals or plants (or anything else) require a specific pH number.

So now, just as in the past, when someone starts trying to dink with their tank's pH directly, they are chasing a pH number.

When that happens, the best thing in most cases is to remind them that a range is acceptable, and to ask is whether there is an actual problem in the tank or not.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Chasing test numbers is a tendency people have across aquarium disciplines.

How you are trying to use the term is not how it's traditionally been used. Nobody chases temperature numbers, they test with a thermometer and set a heater. And nobody is claiming one temperature is better than another, we all admit that a range is acceptable. If we don't set a heater, animals will perish.

So that's not what we are talking about when we refer to chasing numbers. That's husbandry. I'm not sure there's any worth in conflating the two things.

For example, pH is the most famous number to chase.

We don't chase pH for a few reasons, but mostly IMO because the number is tied to the air more than to the tank.

In other words, the tank chemistry can be in perfect condition with animals, including corals, as happy as can be, but the pH could not be predicted except within a pretty generous range.

Further, there's no valid reason to chase a specific pH number. No animals or plants (or anything else) require a specific pH number.

So now, just as in the past, when someone starts trying to dink with their tank's pH directly, they are chasing a pH number.

When that happens, the best thing in most cases is to remind them that a range is acceptable, and to ask is whether there is an actual problem in the tank or not.

I agree that most people use it as a negative term, and apply it to those parameters they do not consider worthy of chasing.

That’s a reason I never say it, but rather focus on what targets are chosen and how they intend to get to those targets.

 

[mcarroll]

I think there's a tendency to overlook fundamentals and to focus on ephemera that is at the core of it.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I think there's a tendency to overlook fundamentals and to focus on ephemera that is at the core of it.

That could be true for some folks. :)