NO3 Vs Acropora

[Reefahholic]

It’s funny how much less algae there seems to be at the higher ratio. I’ve experienced the same.

Yeah, and I took it extremely slow to get down there. At one point it was like I had this weird mini cycle. I saw the overflow teeth all turn brown and a buildup of algae all over the rocks. Now that I’m back up over 50:1 the tank looks way better and so do the corals. A lot of people don’t believe in ratios, but from what I’ve seen from being at both extremes is that it appears to be important not only for algae control, but also overall stability of the system. The tank really got dirty at lower levels of NO3 and the lingering Dino’s become more dominant on the rocks. Also, somewhere along the way down to 14:1, the low NO3 also triggered a spionid worm outbreak. Now that the NO3 is back up they seem to be thinning out again.

 

[Reefahholic]

Out of curiosity what algae did show up?
There are so many different types, green powder on panes, other type on back wall, ones on rocks etc….
Just recently I had the green powder show up on glass and it disappeared as quickly. Still scratching my head, I swear I did nothing!!!

It was more like a brownish-dark maroon mixed with some Dino’s and Cyano. Those two were already in the system, but they definitely became more evident at lower NO3 levels. I think this had more to do with the ratio than the actual NO3 level itself. After getting the ratio back in check now…the rocks have really cleaned up. I’ll post a comparison pic of the rocks at the lower NO3 level/ratio, and now at higher NO3 level/ratio. Look specifically at the rock itself. Top picture is at the lower NO3 level/ratio. Obviously I was trying to clean the tank in that pic so not really a good comparison, but you can see now it looks way better at higher NO3 level/ratio. Even the snails got covered in that brown-maroon type algae. Now they’re almost clean again. Also, notice the back wall started to explode with small specks of coralline algae once the ratio was back up. The sump also started to get more coralline all over the front and bottom panels. I also noticed big green patches of coralline algae as well.

 

[Hans-Werner]

A lot of people don’t believe in ratios, but from what I’ve seen from being at both extremes is that it appears to be important not only for algae control, but also overall stability of the system. The tank really got dirty at lower levels of NO3 and the lingering Dino’s become more dominant on the rocks. Also, somewhere along the way down to 14:1, the low NO3 also triggered a spionid worm outbreak. Now that the NO3 is back up they seem to be thinning out again.

I doubt that it really has something to do with ratios. From all I have read in the last postings, it looks even more to me it is all about nitrate as oxidant inhibiting availability of iron.

This means, the nitrate concentration matters, it just needs to be high enough to inhibit reduction of iron(III) effectively, not the ratio.

It would be very helpful to post also the nitrate concentrations found. Then we will see if there is the chance to get also the phosphate concentrations high enough to either verify of falsify one of both theories.

 

[Reef Psychology]

I doubt that it really has something to do with ratios. From all I have read in the last postings, it looks even more to me it is all about nitrate as oxidant inhibiting availability of iron.

This means, the nitrate concentration matters, it just needs to be high enough to inhibit reduction of iron(III) effectively, not the ratio.

It would be very helpful to post also the nitrate concentrations found. Then we will see if there is the chance to get also the phosphate concentrations high enough to either verify of falsify one of both theories.

There’s so much we can’t test for that it makes these kinds of discussions almost pointless. There are so many tanks out there that don’t follow these ratio‘s that are gorgeous, stable and long lived. It’s obviously more complex than 100:1, 50:1, 16:1 or 10:1. Plus, what we see in our tanks is likely weeks or more likely months old reactions. Like you said, nitrates, and probably phosphate, need to be high enough…. But why? Is it because another chemical bond is forming at some marked level whi is different in each tank or an inhibitory reaction due to lower levels. What does pH tell us?

I think most of us like playing scientist, but at the end of the day I have a sneaky suspicion this fad too will pass and we’ll learn that it’s more complicated than a ratio.

 

[Hans-Werner]

There’s so much we can’t test for that it makes these kinds of discussions almost pointless. There are so many tanks out there that don’t follow these ratio‘s that are gorgeous, stable and long lived. It’s obviously more complex than 100:1, 50:1, 16:1 or 10:1. Plus, what we see in our tanks is likely weeks or more likely months old reactions. Like you said, nitrates, and probably phosphate, need to be high enough…. But why? Is it because another chemical bond is forming at some marked level whi is different in each tank or an inhibitory reaction due to lower levels. What does pH tell us?

I think most of us like playing scientist, but at the end of the day I have a sneaky suspicion this fad too will pass and we’ll learn that it’s more complicated than a ratio.

I am quite sure it is even more complicated, and it has less to do with testing: Corals have different uptake dynamics for different available N compounds and for phosphate. This means, at every given low concentration, the ratio may and will be different. An extreme example: If you have 0.02 ppm phosphate and 0.04 ppm nitrate, both nutrients may be at the limit and just be enough to keep the corals alive and growing.

I sometimes talk about ratios too, but I mean something completely different, something that is quite independent from uptake dynamics. When I talk about N : P ratios I talk about consumption and supply. This is a fundamental difference, please think about it for a moment.

If consumed in a certain ratio it makes sense to supply nutrients in a certain ratio to form a dynamic equilibrium. The standing stock may be completely different from this ratio because it is influenced by the uptake dynamics during coral (and algae) growth.

Since I have developed products for nutrient supply, I have done some experiments on nutrient supply. This is not only theory but also empiricism.

 

[Hans-Werner]

Like you said, nitrates, and probably phosphate, need to be high enough…. But why? Is it because another chemical bond is forming at some marked level whi is different in each tank or an inhibitory reaction due to lower levels.

Well, it is the uptake mechanisms, they work only against a certain gradient. Imagine a pump. It works only with a certain pressure to reach a certain height. The uptake mechanisms are also called ion pumps (there are others also).

 

[Reefahholic]

I doubt that it really has something to do with ratios. From all I have read in the last postings, it looks even more to me it is all about nitrate as oxidant inhibiting availability of iron.

This means, the nitrate concentration matters, it just needs to be high enough to inhibit reduction of iron(III) effectively, not the ratio.

It would be very helpful to post also the nitrate concentrations found. Then we will see if there is the chance to get also the phosphate concentrations high enough to either verify of falsify one of both theories.

IDK…I keep seeing a cleaner tank and better looking corals at higher nitrate level and ratio. Say at 100:1 vs 14:1

Observe the rocks now vs at the lower ratio:

Higher Ratio/NO3 14K lighting (Now)

Lower Ratio/NO3

 

[Reefahholic]

For the record…I always post pics and data as to what I’m seeing. Why do I never see anybody else posting pictures and data? :-)

 

[Reefahholic]

it looks even more to me it is all about nitrate as oxidant inhibiting availability of iron.

Dosing iron also has an effect on the phosphate level due to increased algae and coral growth.

 

[Charlie the Reefer]

For the record…I always post pics and data as to what I’m seeing. Why do I never see anybody else posting pictures and data? :)

Just would like to further elaborate on this point made here... Lol.

I preface this post with the disclaimer that I am a humble newcomer to this hobby and forum. Hopefully I don't wax too philosophic. :beaming-face-with-smiling-eyes: :rolling-on-the-floor-laughing:

There’s so much we can’t test for that it makes these kinds of discussions almost pointless. There are so many tanks out there that don’t follow these ratio‘s that are gorgeous, stable and long lived. It’s obviously more complex than 100:1, 50:1, 16:1 or 10:1. Plus, what we see in our tanks is likely weeks or more likely months old reactions. Like you said, nitrates, and probably phosphate, need to be high enough…. But why? Is it because another chemical bond is forming at some marked level whi is different in each tank or an inhibitory reaction due to lower levels. What does pH tell us?

Would love to see this data. Still, if it isn’t randomized and blind it can still be biased.

Can tell me what measurement you used as your criteria? Algae per square inch? Color and consistency of algae?

I'm taking this very seriously, else I wouldn't be replying.

How do you define "...does much better..."? Then, how would you measure it? Come up with your null/alt hypothesis. Once you decide what those are, create a spreadsheet with randomized ICP data - but no other data like photos or descriptions. Find those which fall within your metrics and those that fall outside your metrics. Compare the results with your "...does much better..." measure, then use the raw data to form a statistical model. You could use the TotM aquariums as a control. Easy peasy lemon squeezy. No need to get other people's anecdotal observations.

I agree with everything you are saying. The amount of variables at play, the difficulty of testing/documenting, conducting actual controlled studies, creating non-subjective, consistent definitions of benchmarks. And it's true that the mechanisms at work with the nutrients may not be understood in totality by anyone. I actually think this dynamic is understood by most people that are actually able to grow acros.


However, is it a bit too far to call the discussion (almost) pointless? The thread was started in the spirit of discussing Nitrate's affect on acros, with some anecdotes discussed. The history of the discussion around nutrients was also briefly mentioned. There have been genuine leaps in understanding (from my possibly limited perspective) about nutrients over the last 10, 20, 30 years. Definitely leaps in technology, such as what is possible with water testing.

Would be interesting to do a randomized meta analysis of the data to see if your observations are supported or just confirmation bias. I randomly chose 5 tank of the month aquariums and none had those ratios. Also looked at couple of online retailers with the same results. I don’t see how anyone could rely on hobby grade test kits not to mention what’s binding to what in our aquariums to even attempt to lock down those ratios over a long period of time. I’m sorta new to acropora, but I’ve been keeping most other types off and on for 18 years and I’ve seen so many trends come and go. It’s hard not to be a sceptic in this hobby I guess.

So, there's a paper?

BRS made a short video on nitrate/phosphate ratios and I echo their rational.

At best that is an anecdotal observation, at worse an absolutist assertion. But, let's say you are correct, which I haven't see any evidence for yet. Does this ratio scale infinity? If not, what is the point of diminishing results (what measure constitutes 'results' anyway)? What are the mechanisms involved? Does adaptability play a role? What of the examples I mentioned?

You have brought up many valid points, discussing things like "meta-analyses", "psychological biases", "null hypotheses", and in general pointed out many holes and asked questions of Reefaholic's train of thought and data. You have also implied strong skepticism of Reefaholic's findings (rg ICPs/observations) due to the fact that there was no paper presented. I suppose you are relishing in your moniker.


All of these factors that preclude truly reliable analysis, again from my perspective, are all constantly being refined and improved upon by us hobbyists. I think posting further observations/anecdotes, rather than criticizing what has been presented, would be a far more fruitful contribution. I believe for these reasons, Reefaholic alluded to his doubt of your seriousness in this discussion.


Further, my observation is that there seem to be a cadre of individuals in this hobby that tend to lock themselves up in a psychological "Ivory Tower" of sorts which can easily shut your mind out to valuable insights and new techniques, and serve to discourage aforementioned progression of such techniques.


It's probably a terrible analogy, but it's like saying you should completely eschew the perspective of the guy benching 405 in the gym, in favor of the peer reviewed kinesiology dissertation. They both have their place. If that body builder tells me that his diet consists of a lot of kiwis and mangos, it might be totally incidental, but a worthwhile conversation and interesting thing to examine.

I think most of us like playing scientist, but at the end of the day I have a sneaky suspicion this fad too will pass and we’ll learn that it’s more complicated than a ratio.

After all my lurking here, I also noticed a constantly prevailing dichotomy (dare I say, tired circle****) between "old timers" and "new guys" where the "Old timers" have a strong reluctance to new "fads" and ideas. But aren't we stagnant without new paradigms to explore? I.e., there may be some wisdom to embracing the new waves.


I really appreciate and admire Reefaholic's musings on all of these topics, and the others that have attempted to present their own findings. I think he is digging deep and really trying to further the hobby, or at least his own understanding.


I (respectfully) strongly disagree with the attitude that these types of discussions and debates should be discouraged. If that is not your intention, then sorry I misunderstood! And I think we should encourage people to "play scientist" and indulge curiosity! The collective goal should be to push the envelope of what is possible, and gain understanding.

To re-iterate, the above is my opinion, and I'm totally comfortable if you completely disagree :beaming-face-with-smiling-eyes:. Carry on y'all.

 

[Reefahholic]

I agree, to say that we can’t learn anything from anecdotal observations is a little fierce. :-) Yes, there are a lot of variables at play, and the chemistry is always changing, but when you keep data with several tanks over several years you start to see better results with certain ratios and nutrient levels. This is not exactly the same for every system, and does also depend on the age of the system, but from what I’ve observed in my own tanks is that higher PO4 level and N-P ratio just does better for me personally. This is coming from somebody that tried to run at the low end for years, and it always seemed that something was off. I’ve had much clearer water, less algae, cleaner rocks, and better coral growth at 100:1 then I’ve had at 14:1. Higher nutrients in general just seem to be better for Acro’s. I honestly don’t think many people realize just how low .03 ppm actually is. I’ve even seen well established systems at .02-.03 ppm, and the corals are just pale. Maybe they didn’t have enough nutrients/nutrition going in. Maybe their overall chemistry was lacking. IDK. Just because a coral can tolerate .02-.03 ppm doesn’t mean they like it. Our tanks really don’t have enough food available. What we do provide typically fuels undesirables more than it feeds the corals IMO. For that reason alone I’d almost rather dose organic carbon to give the corals a food source, but also strengthen the bacteria population. Elements that boost algae (Fe, Mn, NO3, PO4) also benefit coral health which is why I typically dose them all depending on demand even though it may seem counterintuitive to some.

 

[jda]

Why can’t this be achieved in the home aquarium?

It can. Remember that no3 and po4 are the residual leftovers of the system - waste products, if you will. Phosphorous P and nitrogen N are the true prize. Home systems which have processes or things that can use up the excess can still have very high amounts of N and P in the tank without high levels of no3 and po4 left over.

Zeo tanks work along these lines - heavy import and heavy export with low residuals. My tank operates this way.

You can also target intake to be just enough, but I have no idea how to do this safely. This seems dangerous to me and I would rather over supply and also over remove rather than risk under supplying. ...and I also like fish too much. :)

As HW has said, surplus is surplus.

 

[Reefahholic]

Zeo tanks work along these lines - heavy import and heavy export with low residuals. My tank operates this way.

ZEOvit really has it down to a science. Although I’m not entirely sure how it works exactly. They seem to use bacteria + some nutritional products to feed the corals + bacteria well while maintaining ULN’s to achieve color pop.

 

[jda]

The main tenents are heavy import, heavy export and they dose some metals to kill some zoox to provide more contrast. It is more detailed than this, but this is the overview. Plus, the folks who do it with huge success are really talented and would probably do great with any method.

 

[jda]

I will also suggest that anybody who thinks that their corals look great with higher no3 and po4 numbers to consider that it was the feedings and available nitrogen and phosphorous that made the corals look good, and not actually the higher backend numbers. If you lowered the backend without lowering the front end, the corals would likely do at least the same, or maybe even better.

 

[Reefahholic]

I will also suggest that anybody who thinks that their corals look great with higher no3 and po4 numbers to consider that it was the feedings and available nitrogen and phosphorous that made the corals look good, and not actually the higher backend numbers. If you lowered the backend without lowering the front end, the corals would likely do at least the same, or maybe even better.

I only feed TDO, Rinsed Mysis, and Nori for the tangs. I don’t feed any coral food, vitamins, or amino’s. I feel like my nitrogen and phosphorus is coming directly from the little amount of fish food I feed, but also from the fish poop and N&P that is being supplemented. I feel like major and trace elements make a big difference in regards to coral health and overall appearance of the corals. Before I started to dial in the metallic trace elements, almost all of those elements were depleted. What I’ve noticed since is a “marked” difference in color compared to what the color was prior to that. I don’t have the best color, but it’s night and day from what it was. Something so small can make a huge difference.

Example: Let’s say many of those elements were present, but only showing up at 0.1-0.2 ug/L. Just getting many of them up to 0.5-0.6 ug/L completely changed the colors. Doesn’t sound like much, but it is more beneficial than you may think. Not only that, but many reefers have depleted iodine, potassium, boron, and bromide. For me, these are absolutely critical. Yes, corals can survive with depleted elements, but just because they can survive doesn’t mean we shouldn’t intervene if we know something will be beneficial for them. IMO, if we see the corals are utilizing it, they need it. They don’t uptake what the don’t need. The tighter we dial in chemistry, the better our chances at avoiding STN/RTN events, enhancing color, and optimizing growth. We’re all here on the same team, so being able to share data and anecdotal observations is really helpful if we want to move forward in the hobby.

For me it’s a balance of everything that
makes corals come alive and thrive. I need all the help I can get. Maybe if I can get Jda to send me a syringe of his detritus and a bottle of that 10 year old water in his system I’ll be able to catch up with him in the future. :-)

 

[Reef Psychology]

Just would like to further elaborate on this point made here... Lol.

I preface this post with the disclaimer that I am a humble newcomer to this hobby and forum. Hopefully I don't wax too philosophic. :beaming-face-with-smiling-eyes: :rolling-on-the-floor-laughing:







I agree with everything you are saying. The amount of variables at play, the difficulty of testing/documenting, conducting actual controlled studies, creating non-subjective, consistent definitions of benchmarks. And it's true that the mechanisms at work with the nutrients may not be understood in totality by anyone. I actually think this dynamic is understood by most people that are actually able to grow acros.


However, is it a bit too far to call the discussion (almost) pointless? The thread was started in the spirit of discussing Nitrate's affect on acros, with some anecdotes discussed. The history of the discussion around nutrients was also briefly mentioned. There have been genuine leaps in understanding (from my possibly limited perspective) about nutrients over the last 10, 20, 30 years. Definitely leaps in technology, such as what is possible with water testing.







You have brought up many valid points, discussing things like "meta-analyses", "psychological biases", "null hypotheses", and in general pointed out many holes and asked questions of Reefaholic's train of thought and data. You have also implied strong skepticism of Reefaholic's findings (rg ICPs/observations) due to the fact that there was no paper presented. I suppose you are relishing in your moniker.


All of these factors that preclude truly reliable analysis, again from my perspective, are all constantly being refined and improved upon by us hobbyists. I think posting further observations/anecdotes, rather than criticizing what has been presented, would be a far more fruitful contribution. I believe for these reasons, Reefaholic alluded to his doubt of your seriousness in this discussion.


Further, my observation is that there seem to be a cadre of individuals in this hobby that tend to lock themselves up in a psychological "Ivory Tower" of sorts which can easily shut your mind out to valuable insights and new techniques, and serve to discourage aforementioned progression of such techniques.


It's probably a terrible analogy, but it's like saying you should completely eschew the perspective of the guy benching 405 in the gym, in favor of the peer reviewed kinesiology dissertation. They both have their place. If that body builder tells me that his diet consists of a lot of kiwis and mangos, it might be totally incidental, but a worthwhile conversation and interesting thing to examine.



After all my lurking here, I also noticed a constantly prevailing dichotomy (dare I say, tired circle****) between "old timers" and "new guys" where the "Old timers" have a strong reluctance to new "fads" and ideas. But aren't we stagnant without new paradigms to explore? I.e., there may be some wisdom to embracing the new waves.


I really appreciate and admire Reefaholic's musings on all of these topics, and the others that have attempted to present their own findings. I think he is digging deep and really trying to further the hobby, or at least his own understanding.


I (respectfully) strongly disagree with the attitude that these types of discussions and debates should be discouraged. If that is not your intention, then sorry I misunderstood! And I think we should encourage people to "play scientist" and indulge curiosity! The collective goal should be to push the envelope of what is possible, and gain understanding.

To re-iterate, the above is my opinion, and I'm totally comfortable if you completely disagree :beaming-face-with-smiling-eyes:. Carry on y'all.

I won’t go into all the juicy details, but I’ve got a ton of documented data,

I’ve seen it with my own systems, and have also looked at 1,000’s of ICP’s along side pictures of the systems. If you see a depleted PO4 or NO3 level (dependent upon system age) it almost always results in problems. I have seen that over and over again.

On the flipside…I’ve have seen very few issues when a tank is sitting at 50:1 or 100:1 or as long as they have enough of each for that particular system’s demand. It really depends on the system.

You can look at 50 ICP’s with tank pictures. Most systems keeping 50-100:1 ratio look much better and experience less problems.

It’s based off hundreds of ICP’s (both OES and MS), and observations from the pictures and videos included with the ICP data. Indicators such as the surfaces of sand, rock, glass, snail shells, water clairity, etc…but also individually taking with many reefers about the issues their having in their reefs.

He claimed to have accumulated thousands of data points and I asked to see them. I have no issue with anecdotal observations. They are fun to read, actually. However, he's making some bold claims with no supporting data[?] If he has posted the spreadsheets and I missed them I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm no biologist, but I have participated in psychological studies and know general statistical modeling. Maybe I could help with crunching some numbers. For now, I'm in the Julian Sprung camp. I'll wait for more solid data. Also, I have less problem following @Hans-Werner because he's providing data and published analysis for his observations.

 

[Reef Psychology]

I am quite sure it is even more complicated, and it has less to do with testing: Corals have different uptake dynamics for different available N compounds and for phosphate. This means, at every given low concentration, the ratio may and will be different. An extreme example: If you have 0.02 ppm phosphate and 0.04 ppm nitrate, both nutrients may be at the limit and just be enough to keep the corals alive and growing.

I sometimes talk about ratios too, but I mean something completely different, something that is quite independent from uptake dynamics. When I talk about N : P ratios I talk about consumption and supply. This is a fundamental difference, please think about it for a moment.

If consumed in a certain ratio it makes sense to supply nutrients in a certain ratio to form a dynamic equilibrium. The standing stock may be completely different from this ratio because it is influenced by the uptake dynamics during coral (and algae) growth.

Since I have developed products for nutrient supply, I have done some experiments on nutrient supply. This is not only theory but also empiricism.

Getting neurophysiology and microbiology flashbacks lol... I was thinking about consumption and availability as interchangeable, but you're centering more on consumption then? I'm not even sure if coral's exhibit or present the same 'starvation' signs as other animals. This thread seems to be more focused on algae and not on the corals themselves (in relation to dinoflagellates within and without the coral body).

Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate your attention to the minutiae and keeping the information both informative and lay.

 

[Reefahholic]

I will also suggest that anybody who thinks that their corals look great with higher no3 and po4 numbers to consider that it was the feedings and available nitrogen and phosphorous that made the corals look good, and not actually the higher backend numbers. If you lowered the backend without lowering the front end, the corals would likely do at least the same, or maybe even better.

I know we can test for atoms like phosphorus regardless of chemical form with ICP, so wouldn’t it make sense to look and see how much we actually have available when the tank is doing well. I think this would give us a clue when using home test kits. Comparing back-end numbers
to front-end numbers could be very helpful. From what I’ve seen ICP seems to get nutrients pretty accurate. Those that are coming back depleted make corrections and the system turns around. I’m not sure if it’s able to measure 100% of what’s there (probably not), but what it does measure seems to be very close.

 

[Reefahholic]

He claimed to have accumulated thousands of data points and I asked to see them. I have no issue with anecdotal observations. They are fun to read, actually. However, he's making some bold claims with no supporting data[?] If he has posted the spreadsheets and I missed them I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm no biologist, but I have participated in psychological studies and know general statistical modeling. Maybe I could help with crunching some numbers. For now, I'm in the Julian Sprung camp. I'll wait for more solid data. Also, I have less problem following @Hans-Werner because he's providing data and published analysis for his observations.

What nutrient data did Dr Balling provide. I missed it.