Nutrient´s ratio - of importance or not?

X-37B

Fight the Good Fight
View Badges
Joined
Sep 10, 2018
Messages
9,011
Reaction score
15,634
Location
Outer Limits
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Great info. My BB 120 runs .04-.08 po4, hanna, and 1-2 no3 salifert. 11 fish.
Some hair algae growing under overhangs, wierd. Tang and cleanup crew keep it to where you have to look for it to see it. I feed 1.5 cubes frozen 4 times a day.
Coralline is growing heavily and I have to clean the front and sides weekly to keep it at bay.
I dont test for po4 and no3 much maybe once a month.
Colors and growth are good.
Parameters seem to be in the 100 to 1 range. Very interesting thread.
 

Hans-Werner

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Aug 24, 2016
Messages
1,480
Reaction score
2,263
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Hi Lasse,
you asked for me. Sorry for showing up a week later. :)

For me one of the most interesting reads is this Dissertation of Andrew A. Shantz.

The ratio is only one factor of at least three very important factors.

The other two are the absolute concentration, of course, and in the case of phosphate the "growth history", especially in SPS.

The absolute concentrations are important because there are threshold concentrations below which corals will not show a net uptake anymore. These threshold concentrations are remarkably close together for phosphate and ammonium and nitrate in corals. This means that maybe 0.1 ppm nitrate fulfills the N needs of corals just as good as 0.03 ppm phosphate the P needs. 0.06 or 0.1 ppm of phosphate may divide the community into "high" - "ok" - "I have even more". With 0.2 or 0.3 ppm nitrate everyone will agree this is virtually nothing.

Another very interesting thing with these low concentrations is that while corals maybe P limited in a tank with 0.02 or 0.03 ppm phosphate and 0.1 ppm nitrate at the same time algae may be N limited. One reason for this may be that algae have access to phosphate in gravel, rocks and dead coral skeletons while corals seem to have not.

The "growth history" means that SPS and especially Acropora spp. seem to have no problems with rising phosphate concentrations while they seem to have problems with dropping phosphate concentrations. When phosphate drops, Acroporas stop growing, and if it continues to drop further they show damages, also at concentrations that are more than sufficient when they have a growth history of low phosphate concentrations.

This means if an Acopora coral was growing up at 0.02 or 0.03 ppm phosphate, this concentration is, of course, sufficient for slow growth. If the same Acropora clone was growing up at 0.12 ppm phosphate, a drop to 0.02 or 0.03 ppm phosphate will stop growth completely at once and may cause damage and even death in the following weeks and months.

Regards

Hans-Werner
 
OP
OP
Lasse

Lasse

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
10,830
Reaction score
29,794
Location
Källarliden 14 D Bohus, Sweden
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Hi Lasse,
you asked for me. Sorry for showing up a week later. :)

For me one of the most interesting reads is this Dissertation of Andrew A. Shantz.

The ratio is only one factor of at least three very important factors.

The other two are the absolute concentration, of course, and in the case of phosphate the "growth history", especially in SPS.

The absolute concentrations are important because there are threshold concentrations below which corals will not show a net uptake anymore. These threshold concentrations are remarkably close together for phosphate and ammonium and nitrate in corals. This means that maybe 0.1 ppm nitrate fulfills the N needs of corals just as good as 0.03 ppm phosphate the P needs. 0.06 or 0.1 ppm of phosphate may divide the community into "high" - "ok" - "I have even more". With 0.2 or 0.3 ppm nitrate everyone will agree this is virtually nothing.

Another very interesting thing with these low concentrations is that while corals maybe P limited in a tank with 0.02 or 0.03 ppm phosphate and 0.1 ppm nitrate at the same time algae may be N limited. One reason for this may be that algae have access to phosphate in gravel, rocks and dead coral skeletons while corals seem to have not.

The "growth history" means that SPS and especially Acropora spp. seem to have no problems with rising phosphate concentrations while they seem to have problems with dropping phosphate concentrations. When phosphate drops, Acroporas stop growing, and if it continues to drop further they show damages, also at concentrations that are more than sufficient when they have a growth history of low phosphate concentrations.

This means if an Acopora coral was growing up at 0.02 or 0.03 ppm phosphate, this concentration is, of course, sufficient for slow growth. If the same Acropora clone was growing up at 0.12 ppm phosphate, a drop to 0.02 or 0.03 ppm phosphate will stop growth completely at once and may cause damage and even death in the following weeks and months.

Regards

Hans-Werner
Thank you for the link - I will study it later on

We seems to have more or less the same standpoints - but for me - it is important with a NO3 level around 2 ppm - let us say that the reason spells cyanobacteria/Dinoflagellates :)

Sincerely Lasse
 

pygoplites77

Community Member
View Badges
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
42
Reaction score
61
Location
Rome, Italy
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Hi

The goal with this tread is to openly discuss a rather "hot" topic - and maybe state that is time to change "chasing" numbers in favour for chasing ratios.

First some remarks

For me - a compound (read mostly nutrient) is the limited factor for growth if adding it directly will be transferred to more growth of the organism in question. This mean that you can come up to a concentration in the water when adding more - not will result in more growth. Instead something else had become growth limited

I´m not a chemist - I´m not so used of calculating in M and μM - so please correct me if I doing any wrong calculations. Most scientists reports use μM as concentration instead of mg/l. I use the conversion factors - 1 μM PO4 is 0.095 mg/L as PO4 (app 0.095 ppm) - 1 μM NO3 is 0,062 mg/l as NO3 (app 0.062 ppm)

Since the 80:ties - nitrogen have been seen as the limited factor for photosynthetic growth in seawater. Phosphorous (as orto-phosphate) is nearly always present in values around 0.04 mg/l. (around 0.42 μM PO4) Since 2010 - there has been reported some results according to NO3 and bleaching of corals in the wild. The figures mentioned is for us very low (around 0.5 mg/l and lower). For me that want to have a concentration of 2 - 4 ppm NO3 because - IMO - I will not have any serve Cyanobacteria problems with that concentration has it been a problem how to handle this findings. I also know that @Hans-Werner is very careful with NO3 levels.

I recently have a lot of problems with my aquarium - got some cyano, low growth on many types of corals, slowly death of SPS and euphyllia. Since the summer - it looks like it was going downhill - slowly. However - my clams show a good growth and health. In November TRITON ICP test show that my PO4 was lower than 0.018 and the tank was definitely not going well. The reason that it was as low as that was that my new Hanna HI-774 show 0.1 ppm and I try to press it down. The NO3 level was around 4 ppm

I have rise my PO4 level - last Triton show around 0.04 mg/l - and total N around 2.41 mg/l (if all was NO3 - it correspond to 10.65 mg/l NO3) The TRITON DOC test measure all forms of N available for the photosynthesis in aquarium - it means both the inorganic forms - NH3/NH4 and NOX and organic forms like amino acids. In nature - i can´t see any more important source than NO3 because all other forms may only show up locally. For the moment - it all looks very good and the tank improve every day (and it all my corals have improved in growth)

During the last 5 years - there have been some studies according to different ratios between PO4 (the only P source available for photosynthesis) and NO3 (the mos available source in nature)

I have looked into two studies https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2015.00103/full and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X17301601

Sono letture interessanti perché indicano che un'elevata concentrazione di NO 3 può far morire di fame lo ZOOX a causa della limitazione del fosforo (se la concentrazione di PO 4 è bassa (circa 0,02 ppm a concentrazioni di NO 3 già circa 2 ppm) In uno studio precedente hanno visto che a una concentrazione di PO 4 intorno a 0,035 mg / l - una concentrazione di NO 3 intorno a 0,4 mg / l andava bene, gli autori ipotizzano che potrebbe essere un valore soglia intorno a 0,03 mg / l PO 4 - e che è anche in linea con le mie esperienze.

Il rapporto TR / TR N / P sembra essere circa 70 N rispetto a una P che corrisponde a un rapporto NO 3 / PO 4 di circa 100 - ciò significa che se si dispone di 0,04 mg / l PO 4 - si potrebbero avere circa 4 mg / l di NO 3 se NO 3 è l'unica fonte N disponibile per la fotosintesi. Tuttavia, non è la cosa normale in acquario. Nel mio caso - NO 3 sembra essere circa il 50% del mio totale disponibile N per la fotosintesi. Il mio obiettivo - per il momento è di circa 0,06 - 0,01 mg / l PO 4 - il che significa che probabilmente potrei correre intorno a 4 ppm come NO 3senza alcun problema. Tuttavia, ho intenzione di introdurre un filtro di nitrificazione molto efficace e probabilmente scremerò più "bagnato" in futuro - questo dovrebbe rendere le mie concentrazioni di NO 3 la fonte N più importante per la fotosintesi - quindi più facile da gestire.

Lezione da imparare qui?

Il mio primo è: non inseguire i numeri PO 4 senza regolare la N totale disponibile per la fotosintesi e non scendere al di sotto di 0,04 mg / l PO 4 .

TRITONS N-DOC può essere uno strumento utile

Cordiali saluti Lasse
[/CITAZIONE]
Lo studio conferma l'equazione dei nutrienti bassa = acropores colorati. Infatti, ad un rapporto ln / lp corrisponde la più bassa densità di zooxantelle, di conseguenza il corallo appare alleggerito, ma lo bombardiamo di luci e quindi il corallo, non avendo più la zooxantella per proteggerlo, produce le cromoproteine, che gli conferiscono colore in relazione alla lunghezza d'onda che riflette. Questa è la base del sistema ULNS, che ritengo adatto a un sistema sps dominante che vuole evidenziare il colore massimo. Credo anche che sia giusto avere no3> po4 per evitare problemi di ciano, ma sempre con valori estremamente bassi, rispettando un rapporto di circa 100: 1.
Mi scusi per il mio inglese..:)
 

pygoplites77

Community Member
View Badges
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
42
Reaction score
61
Location
Rome, Italy
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Hi

The goal with this tread is to openly discuss a rather "hot" topic - and maybe state that is time to change "chasing" numbers in favour for chasing ratios.

First some remarks

For me - a compound (read mostly nutrient) is the limited factor for growth if adding it directly will be transferred to more growth of the organism in question. This mean that you can come up to a concentration in the water when adding more - not will result in more growth. Instead something else had become growth limited

I´m not a chemist - I´m not so used of calculating in M and μM - so please correct me if I doing any wrong calculations. Most scientists reports use μM as concentration instead of mg/l. I use the conversion factors - 1 μM PO4 is 0.095 mg/L as PO4 (app 0.095 ppm) - 1 μM NO3 is 0,062 mg/l as NO3 (app 0.062 ppm)

Since the 80:ties - nitrogen have been seen as the limited factor for photosynthetic growth in seawater. Phosphorous (as orto-phosphate) is nearly always present in values around 0.04 mg/l. (around 0.42 μM PO4) Since 2010 - there has been reported some results according to NO3 and bleaching of corals in the wild. The figures mentioned is for us very low (around 0.5 mg/l and lower). For me that want to have a concentration of 2 - 4 ppm NO3 because - IMO - I will not have any serve Cyanobacteria problems with that concentration has it been a problem how to handle this findings. I also know that @Hans-Werner is very careful with NO3 levels.

I recently have a lot of problems with my aquarium - got some cyano, low growth on many types of corals, slowly death of SPS and euphyllia. Since the summer - it looks like it was going downhill - slowly. However - my clams show a good growth and health. In November TRITON ICP test show that my PO4 was lower than 0.018 and the tank was definitely not going well. The reason that it was as low as that was that my new Hanna HI-774 show 0.1 ppm and I try to press it down. The NO3 level was around 4 ppm

I have rise my PO4 level - last Triton show around 0.04 mg/l - and total N around 2.41 mg/l (if all was NO3 - it correspond to 10.65 mg/l NO3) The TRITON DOC test measure all forms of N available for the photosynthesis in aquarium - it means both the inorganic forms - NH3/NH4 and NOX and organic forms like amino acids. In nature - i can´t see any more important source than NO3 because all other forms may only show up locally. For the moment - it all looks very good and the tank improve every day (and it all my corals have improved in growth)

During the last 5 years - there have been some studies according to different ratios between PO4 (the only P source available for photosynthesis) and NO3 (the mos available source in nature)

I have looked into two studies https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2015.00103/full and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X17301601

It is interesting readings because they indicate that a elevated NO3 concentration can make the ZOOX to starve because of Phosphorous limitation (if the PO4 concentration is to low (around 0.02 ppm at NO3 concentrations already around 2 ppm) In an earlier study they saw that at a PO4 concentration of around 0.035 mg/l - a NO3 concentration around 0.4 mg/l was okay. The authors speculate that it could be a threshold value around 0.03 mg/l PO4 - and that is also in line with my experiences.

TRITONS N/P ratio seems to be around 70 N to one P which correspond to a NO3/PO4 ratio of around 100 - it means that if you have 0.04 mg/l PO4 - you could have around 4 mg/l of NO3 if NO3 is the only N source available for photosynthesis. However - that´s not the normal thing in aquarium. In my case - NO3 seems to be around 50 % of my total available N for photosynthesis. My goal - for the moment is around 0.06 - 0.01 mg/l PO4 - which means that I could probably run around 4 ppm as NO3 without any problems. However - I plan to introduce a very effective nitrification filter and probably skim more "wet" in the future - this should make my NO3 concentrations the most important N source for photosynthesis - hence more easy to manage.

Lesson to learn here?

My first is - do not chase PO4 numbers without adjusting the total N available for photosynthesis and do not go down below 0.04 mg/l PO4.

TRITONS N-DOC can be a useful tool

Sincerely Lasse
The study confirms the low nutrient equation = colored acropores. In fact, to a ln / lp ratio corresponds the lowest density of zooxanthellae, consequently the coral appears lightened, but we bombard it with lights and therefore the coral, not having the zooxanthella to protect it anymore, produces the chromoproteins, which give it the color in relation to the wavelength it reflects. This is the basis of the ULNS system, which I consider suitable for a dominant sps system that wants to highlight the maximum color. I also believe that at the same time it is right to have no3> po4 to avoid cyano problems, but always with extremely low values, while respecting a ratio of about 100: 1.
Sorry for my English..:)
 

SeaDweller

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Messages
3,369
Reaction score
4,776
Location
.
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I started to paying attention to ratios around 2005 for my dominant acropora system. When they were at their best in coloration and growth it was approx. 100-1, nitrate to phosphate.

As the years went by I started to document other successful acro tanks and they ranged from 50-200 to 1 with most in that 100-1 range.

Tanks with reverse ranges were never really successful and/or had many algae problems.

As stated very low P04/N03 is an issue with pale corals or limiting factors.

My ball park range for actual numbers is--

Po4-.03-.10ppm
N03- 1.0ppm- 10.0ppm

They are just a general guide I use or suggest as the input of food and the actual throughput of the nutrients is more important.

The amount of fish plays an important role as well as they are the dosers.

As an example, you can have a 100g tank with 3 fish with .05 Po4 and No3 5ppm the tank is doing poorly. That same tank with 6 fish is doing well. The readings are what is left over.

There are also other variables as for example a large algae filter that is consuming a lot of this and out competing the corals especially if the tank is new or just frags starting out.

Also, if you had the same readings above with no fish the tank does poorly, so just adding coral food and getting that same Po4 isn't the same. This goes into the corals taking in ammonium and urea from the fish.

The actual balancing can be done by reducing nutrient control tools or adding fish and food. I like to do things at the front end. Dosing nitrate and phosphate isn't the way to go imo.

Some of this is from helping dozens of reefers and my own anecdotal experiences of 20 years. Whenever the numbers were back in acceptable range and ratio there were always improvements.

Some of this is science, art, math/analytics and personal experience.

There will always be someone to come along an say they run outside the bell curve on the edges but I'm focused on the large number of successes.

In the end the corals never lie so the most valuable tool is visual daily observation and documentation.

I always look at each individual system as well because the export tools, livestock and corals all need consideration along with evaluating the numbers.


This right here is the key to a successful SPS system, IMO. Big E made big strides years ago with these observations. If more people would adopt this thinking, there'd be less failures, IMO. This should be reefing mantra.
 

Lizdoesreef

Community Member
View Badges
Joined
Jun 1, 2020
Messages
46
Reaction score
48
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the redfeild ratio of 16:1 outdated? Wouldn't that be the rule for ulns? I know for a fact that successful reefers (mainly sps) tend to run higher nutrients, around 10-20 nitrates. I'm not one to chase numbers..but my system has always consistently had nitrates around 20-25 and many reefers would agree I had amazing sps color. My growth is ok, but I'm always looking for ways to improve that. Phosphate is easier to moderate. I used to keep it at .025 but was recommended to Increase that to .1 since my nitrates were higher. If I went by the 16:1 , then I would need phosphates to be as high as 1.5!!!!! Which I think isn't possible.
 
OP
OP
Lasse

Lasse

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
10,830
Reaction score
29,794
Location
Källarliden 14 D Bohus, Sweden
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
The study confirms the low nutrient equation = colored acropores. In fact, to a ln / lp ratio corresponds the lowest density of zooxanthellae, consequently the coral appears lightened, but we bombard it with lights and therefore the coral, not having the zooxanthella to protect it anymore, produces the chromoproteins, which give it the color in relation to the wavelength it reflects. This is the basis of the ULNS system, which I consider suitable for a dominant sps system that wants to highlight the maximum color. I also believe that at the same time it is right to have no3> po4 to avoid cyano problems, but always with extremely low values, while respecting a ratio of about 100: 1.
Sorry for my English..:)

This link is very interesting according to ULNS system and theirs "natural" claims


Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the redfeild ratio of 16:1 outdated? Wouldn't that be the rule for ulns? I know for a fact that successful reefers (mainly sps) tend to run higher nutrients, around 10-20 nitrates. I'm not one to chase numbers..but my system has always consistently had nitrates around 20-25 and many reefers would agree I had amazing sps color. My growth is ok, but I'm always looking for ways to improve that. Phosphate is easier to moderate. I used to keep it at .025 but was recommended to Increase that to .1 since my nitrates were higher. If I went by the 16:1 , then I would need phosphates to be as high as 1.5!!!!! Which I think isn't possible.


I´m not talking about redfield ratio that is on elementary level. 16 N atoms on 1 P atom. Because that N that photosynthetic organism can take up can be in many forms it is rather uninteresting to talk about a NO3/PO4 ratio (that is 10.4:1 if all N was as NO3) N-DOC tests in my aquarium and my own measurements of NO3 has shown that around 50% of all N (in my aquarium) is in the form of NO3 - the rest in all other forms. Triton has in their works suggested a ratio 147:1 - see my first post


Sincerely Lasse
 

Randy Holmes-Farley

Reef Chemist
View Badges
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
66,553
Reaction score
62,861
Location
Arlington, Massachusetts, United States
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the redfeild ratio of 16:1 outdated? Wouldn't that be the rule for ulns? I know for a fact that successful reefers (mainly sps) tend to run higher nutrients, around 10-20 nitrates. I'm not one to chase numbers..but my system has always consistently had nitrates around 20-25 and many reefers would agree I had amazing sps color. My growth is ok, but I'm always looking for ways to improve that. Phosphate is easier to moderate. I used to keep it at .025 but was recommended to Increase that to .1 since my nitrates were higher. If I went by the 16:1 , then I would need phosphates to be as high as 1.5!!!!! Which I think isn't possible.

I'll reiterate my belief that the Redfield ratio should not be used as a target, but just being ULNS does not necessarily violate the ratio, does it? A ratio just means that when N is low, P will also be low, and when N is high, P is also high.
 

HomeSlizzice

Wrasse/Angelfish nut!
View Badges
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
465
Reaction score
237
Location
OC
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I find this discussion very interesting, and something I wish I paid more attention to in the beginning. I only recently began to test consistently for my nitrates and phosphates and it really does help a lot and telling you what’s happening with your tank.
 

HuduVudu

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Jun 2, 2020
Messages
3,241
Reaction score
3,660
Location
Houston
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I think that it is important to note that the numbers we derive from test kits measuring the water column are those of free levels of those nutrients.

I like to think of it as a river flowing into a box and then draining out the bottom. If the volume of water coming in is equal to the volume of water coming out the level inside the box stabilizes at a particular level. This level can be changed by a short duration change in the input or output flow, or even from an outside influence thereby changing the level in the box permanently. Because the level inside the box has changed has anything else really changed? By this line of thinking the actual level inside of the box is really irrelavant. What is instead relevant is what is the hardest to determine, what is the inflow and what is the outflow. This is at it's root the reason that number chasing is a bad idea and produces such spurious results.

Just my 2 cents.
 

blasterman

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Feb 14, 2019
Messages
1,730
Reaction score
2,018
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Let me crush this P04 myth right here.

Where does P04 come from in the ocean? Anybody? Raise your hand. Dont be shy.
The main source of P04 is from agriculture and industry. If it wasnt for farm runoffs P04 would even be rarer in the open ocean as it is now. Anybody want to argue that point puts them at odds with every marine and environmental biologist on the planet.

So, what we are saying is the corals in the ocean have only existed for a hundred years or so because prior to that P04 didn't exist in levels like it does now because industrial fertilizers werent in use. That's pretty stupid.

Phosphate acts like methamphetamine in corals. It hyper stimulates symbiotic algae in corals and causes them to starve the coral tissue of nutrients.

A decade ago reefers targeted zero nitrate and phosphate. Now we are trying to balance nutrients on the head of a pin because we dont want to reduce our bioload and yet want to add calcium to tanks that arent consuming it.

My best growing SPS tanks test zero for phosphate and show a trace of nitrate or less. Softies like this junk ....SPS doesnt.
 

pigmo

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Jun 7, 2019
Messages
339
Reaction score
396
Location
los angeles
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Let me crush this P04 myth right here. ...

could not disagree more, it's not a myth

pictures or it didn't happen, nothing was crushed lol. you too @Randy Holmes-Farley ;Dead

@Lizdoesreef our levels are very similar to your new values

20200413_114254.jpg
 
Last edited:

HuduVudu

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Jun 2, 2020
Messages
3,241
Reaction score
3,660
Location
Houston
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
So, what we are saying is the corals in the ocean have only existed for a hundred years or so
This is patently untrue.
Phosphate acts like methamphetamine in corals. It hyper stimulates symbiotic algae in corals and causes them to starve the coral tissue of nutrients.
This is demonstrably untrue.
Growth of any organism will be hard limited by one or more inputs. Just because there is an abundance of any input is irrelevant to the max growth. Indeed coral reefs are case study in limited resource management. A coral isn't going to "starve out" because it consumed all of the "nutrients" needed. This is absurdity prima facie.

There is a case to be made in wild setting that phosphate enrichment causes problems but in our home aquaria, we are already on the very very high side of wild reef values.
 

Randy Holmes-Farley

Reef Chemist
View Badges
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
66,553
Reaction score
62,861
Location
Arlington, Massachusetts, United States
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Let me crush this P04 myth right here.

Where does P04 come from in the ocean? Anybody? Raise your hand. Dont be shy.
The main source of P04 is from agriculture and industry. If it wasnt for farm runoffs P04 would even be rarer in the open ocean as it is now. Anybody want to argue that point puts them at odds with every marine and environmental biologist on the planet.

So, what we are saying is the corals in the ocean have only existed for a hundred years or so because prior to that P04 didn't exist in levels like it does now because industrial fertilizers werent in use. That's pretty stupid.

Phosphate acts like methamphetamine in corals. It hyper stimulates symbiotic algae in corals and causes them to starve the coral tissue of nutrients.

A decade ago reefers targeted zero nitrate and phosphate. Now we are trying to balance nutrients on the head of a pin because we dont want to reduce our bioload and yet want to add calcium to tanks that arent consuming it.

My best growing SPS tanks test zero for phosphate and show a trace of nitrate or less. Softies like this junk ....SPS doesnt.

Well, stupid or not, the often-stated reason that natural reef levels of nitrate and phosphate do not work well in a reef aquarium is that the amount of organic materials such as plankton that the corals consume is far lower in a reef tank than in much of the ocean. That would potentially be their primary source of N and P.

Thus, it makes no difference that corals might live in zero P conditions in some past ocean, if they are getting P elsewhere.
 

Nano sapiens

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
2,493
Reaction score
3,677
Location
East Bay, CA
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I started to paying attention to ratios around 2005 for my dominant acropora system. When they were at their best in coloration and growth it was approx. 100-1, nitrate to phosphate.

As the years went by I started to document other successful acro tanks and they ranged from 50-200 to 1 with most in that 100-1 range.

Tanks with reverse ranges were never really successful and/or had many algae problems.

As stated very low P04/N03 is an issue with pale corals or limiting factors.

My ball park range for actual numbers is--

Po4-.03-.10ppm
N03- 1.0ppm- 10.0ppm

They are just a general guide I use or suggest as the input of food and the actual throughput of the nutrients is more important.

The amount of fish plays an important role as well as they are the dosers.

As an example, you can have a 100g tank with 3 fish with .05 Po4 and No3 5ppm the tank is doing poorly. That same tank with 6 fish is doing well. The readings are what is left over.

There are also other variables as for example a large algae filter that is consuming a lot of this and out competing the corals especially if the tank is new or just frags starting out.

Also, if you had the same readings above with no fish the tank does poorly, so just adding coral food and getting that same Po4 isn't the same. This goes into the corals taking in ammonium and urea from the fish.

The actual balancing can be done by reducing nutrient control tools or adding fish and food. I like to do things at the front end. Dosing nitrate and phosphate isn't the way to go imo.

Some of this is from helping dozens of reefers and my own anecdotal experiences of 20 years. Whenever the numbers were back in acceptable range and ratio there were always improvements.

Some of this is science, art, math/analytics and personal experience.

There will always be someone to come along an say they run outside the bell curve on the edges but I'm focused on the large number of successes.

In the end the corals never lie so the most valuable tool is visual daily observation and documentation.

I always look at each individual system as well because the export tools, livestock and corals all need consideration along with evaluating the numbers.

I really like the way this was put and jives with what I have personally experienced over the years.

IME, determining the PO4/NO3 ratio when a reef aquarium is 'at it's best' can be of value and it's something I've always taken into account along with the individual PO4/NO3 results.
 
Last edited:

Laith

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
May 16, 2017
Messages
881
Reaction score
1,591
Location
Nyon, Switzerland
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Let me crush this P04 myth right here.

Where does P04 come from in the ocean? Anybody? Raise your hand. Dont be shy.
The main source of P04 is from agriculture and industry. If it wasnt for farm runoffs P04 would even be rarer in the open ocean as it is now. Anybody want to argue that point puts them at odds with every marine and environmental biologist on the planet.

So, what we are saying is the corals in the ocean have only existed for a hundred years or so because prior to that P04 didn't exist in levels like it does now because industrial fertilizers werent in use. That's pretty stupid.

Phosphate acts like methamphetamine in corals. It hyper stimulates symbiotic algae in corals and causes them to starve the coral tissue of nutrients.

A decade ago reefers targeted zero nitrate and phosphate. Now we are trying to balance nutrients on the head of a pin because we dont want to reduce our bioload and yet want to add calcium to tanks that arent consuming it.

My best growing SPS tanks test zero for phosphate and show a trace of nitrate or less. Softies like this junk ....SPS doesnt.

I think you're missing the fact that the important part of PO4 is the phosphorous (P), not the PO4 molecule itself.

Life cannot exist without phosphorous. I'm curious as to why you think that is a myth?
:):)
 

Laith

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
May 16, 2017
Messages
881
Reaction score
1,591
Location
Nyon, Switzerland
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Let me crush this P04 myth right here.

Where does P04 come from in the ocean? Anybody? Raise your hand. Dont be shy.
The main source of P04 is from agriculture and industry. If it wasnt for farm runoffs P04 would even be rarer in the open ocean as it is now. Anybody want to argue that point puts them at odds with every marine and environmental biologist on the planet.

So, what we are saying is the corals in the ocean have only existed for a hundred years or so because prior to that P04 didn't exist in levels like it does now because industrial fertilizers werent in use. That's pretty stupid.

Phosphate acts like methamphetamine in corals. It hyper stimulates symbiotic algae in corals and causes them to starve the coral tissue of nutrients.

A decade ago reefers targeted zero nitrate and phosphate. Now we are trying to balance nutrients on the head of a pin because we dont want to reduce our bioload and yet want to add calcium to tanks that arent consuming it.

My best growing SPS tanks test zero for phosphate and show a trace of nitrate or less. Softies like this junk ....SPS doesnt.

I think you're missing the fact that the important part of PO4 is the phosphorous (P), not the PO4 molecule itself.

Life cannot exist without phosphorous. I'm curious as to why you think that is a myth?
 

Hans-Werner

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Aug 24, 2016
Messages
1,480
Reaction score
2,263
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Where does P04 come from in the ocean? Anybody? Raise your hand. Dont be shy.
The main source of P04 is from agriculture and industry. If it wasnt for farm runoffs P04 would even be rarer in the open ocean as it is now. Anybody want to argue that point puts them at odds with every marine and environmental biologist on the planet.
Very interesting statement! Fact is, that the phosphate put on fields by agriculture is from marine deposits for example in Morocco. It is mined as calcium phosphate from fossil shark teeth and fish bones etc.. and made more soluble with sulfuric or phosphoric acid. Then it is called "super phosphate" or "triple phosphate" for agriculture.
Originally phosphate is, like every other salt and element in the ocean, from the lithosphere, the rocks and stones of earth, and leached by rain and ocean waters.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top