Optimal phosphate level? (Mixed Reef)

[Lasse]

​

14 days between pictures. rather good growth IMO. NO3 around 3 ppm and PO4 around 0.02-0.04 ppm but I dose 0.06 ppm PO4 a day in order to withhold a waste concentration in the water column of around 0.04 - 0.06 ppm PO4.

I agree that the PO4 demand is underestimated normally - but it is not the waste concentration in the water column that is important - it is the flux of PO4 that´s important. You can have 0 in the water and have - as I have - a flux of 0.06 PO4 a day. For safety reason - I aim at 0.04 - 0.06 ppm as waste concentration. (Waste - is not used as a resource for the moment)

How my tank looks like - latest FTS - a month ago

​

Sincerely Lasse

 

[living_tribunal]

I have a headache reading this thread... So I should be dosing bleach 50x the normal amount to stop algae

Fortunately, no one is forcing you to read this thread. No reason to cause self-induced headaches.

 

[Jmart]

Fortunately, no one is forcing you to read this thread. No reason to cause self-induced headaches.

I like to read things that could potentially keep me from making some of the same mistakes that others have made... There is no one perfect and only way to have a thriving reef tank so I try and soak up as much information as possible before making my final decision on things... The information didn't give me a headache it was the close minded comments and attack on someone only trying to help share some of the knowledge they have... Since I'm still new to this hobby the information others share is extremely helpful if your being ridiculed for your opinion on something would you continue to share?

 

[Nick Rose]

@living_tribunal So if Nitrates are at 5ppm how high would Phosphates be at?

 

[living_tribunal]

@living_tribunal So if Nitrates are at 5ppm how high would Phosphates be at?

To make things more manageable, I opt to keep nitrate at or below 1. Otherwise, phosphates will be at pretty lofty levels. Following the 5-7x N/P we observe in the oceans, 5ppm nitrate would be .5-1Ppm phosphate at a range of 5-10x.

 

[RevMH]

​

14 days between pictures. rather good growth IMO. NO3 around 3 ppm and PO4 around 0.02-0.04 ppm but I dose 0.06 ppm PO4 a day in order to withhold a waste concentration in the water column of around 0.04 - 0.06 ppm PO4.

I agree that the PO4 demand is underestimated normally - but it is not the waste concentration in the water column that is important - it is the flux of PO4 that´s important. You can have 0 in the water and have - as I have - a flux of 0.06 PO4 a day. For safety reason - I aim at 0.04 - 0.06 ppm as waste concentration. (Waste - is not used as a resource for the moment)

How my tank looks like - latest FTS - a month ago

​

Sincerely Lasse

Looking great, as always, Lasse!

 

[Lasse]

There is a lot of theories trying to explain the problems with the coral reefs of the world. Theories like something change the reefs from being ecosystem driven by corals to be ecosystem driven of bacteria resulting in that algae take over. It is probably true if you look at some reefs actual situation but does not say what was the tipping point that start this development. Every reefer that have going through all theories, testing all but keeping out from PRIME and chemical treatment have realized that having thriving corals and no algae problem have nothing with too high nutrient flux or residue of unused PO4 or NO3 in the water column to do. Our photosynthesizing zooxanthellae in our corals need free inorganic nutrients from the water or from the coral animal and sometimes free living algae is faster to utilize low concentration of both inorganic P and N. I write P and N instead for PO4 and NO3 because I´m not sure if NO3 have minor or any importance at all for microalgae and/or corals uptake of inorganic N. NO3 is a waste product from the nitrification process and if it should be used by photosynthetic organism it needs to be transferred into NH3/NH4 before it can be transported between and into different cells. I think that NH3/NH4 and amino acids are more important than NO3 for the inorganic N uptake.

What is of importance if you want few problems with algae? IMO - the only answer to this is grazers - organisms that eat algae as fast as they show up. When grazers is missing (over over fishing or other reasons) - algae is able to compete for space and they grow much faster than corals - they will win. After victory - they recreate the environment in a way that it promote their own existence.

Let us one for ever leave the track that connect nutrients in the water column with algae take over automatically. It will only take over if we let them take over


Sincerely Lasse

 

[living_tribunal]

@living_tribunal So if Nitrates are at 5ppm how high would Phosphates be at?

Another way to think about this is the goal is to basically maintain nitrates at a level where the zooxanthelle is receiving most all of it's nitrate via the host coral so that the amount of sugars the coral receives is optimized. When there is excess nitrate in the column, zooxanthelle can process this directly and the coral in turn does not receive the sugars it would have had it been the one to transfer the nitrate to the zooxanthelle.

Corals are very good at regulating the water however to account for this.

 

[Lasse]

can process this directly and the coral in turn does not receive the sugars it would have had it been the one to transfer the nitrate to the zooxanthelle.

In this case - where does the produced sugar go? Out in the water without passing the host that grow all around the zooxanthellae. Stored in the Zooxanthellae? Reproduction of zooxanthellae? Does the host allow that? It is many questions just because of one statement that I have seen sometimes but never seen explained. Are you able to explain where the produced carbohydrates will be transferred if the host can´t use them. (carbohydrates = stored energy)

And if NO3 from the water should reach the zooxanthellae - it needs to pass at least one cell layer of the host and NO3 can´t be transported inside an organism. It need to be transformed to NH3/NH4 first.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[living_tribunal]

In this case - where does the produced sugar go? Out in the water without passing the host that grow all around the zooxanthellae. Stored in the Zooxanthellae? Reproduction of zooxanthellae? Does the host allow that? It is many questions just because of one statement that I have seen sometimes but never seen explained. Are you able to explain where the produced carbohydrates will be transferred if the host can´t use them. (carbohydrates = stored energy)

Sincerely Lasse

Up to 90% of the glycerol, glucose, and aminos created by the zooxanthellea are transferred directly into the coral hosts tissue.

The coral then uses these products from it's stomach tissue to perform cellular respiration i.e. growth.

 

[destro]

Great thread with plenty of opinions. Sorry guys, I'm going to go with Alexa on this one; being an immeasurable one or zero.

Jokes aside, I don't think there's going to be one answer that everyone will agreed on.

Every tank has different water volume, flow, lighting, fish, species, pests, etc. You're just going to have to find that equilibrium that works for you. Some have luck and find that magic number quickly and successfully. That magic number might not be the same for someone else.

It remains interesting to read what others are doing with their tanks to reach that magic. I'm still waiting for mine. I think I'll get there soon. Just have to get through the dinos, vermetid snails, receding corals, and leaking ATO! See you on the other side soon.

 

[living_tribunal]

Great thread with plenty of opinions. Sorry guys, I'm going to go with Alexa on this one; being an immeasurable one or zero.

Jokes aside, I don't think there's going to be one answer that everyone will agreed on.

Every tank has different water volume, flow, lighting, fish, species, pests, etc. You're just going to have to find that equilibrium that works for you. Some have luck and find that magic number quickly and successfully. That magic number might not be the same for someone else.

It remains interesting to read what others are doing with their tanks to reach that magic. I'm still waiting for mine. I think I'll get there soon. Just have to get through the dinos, vermetid snails, receding corals, and leaking ATO! See you on the other side soon.

Dino is the worst, you got this man

 

[RevMH]

Great thread with plenty of opinions. Sorry guys, I'm going to go with Alexa on this one; being an immeasurable one or zero.

Jokes aside, I don't think there's going to be one answer that everyone will agreed on.

Every tank has different water volume, flow, lighting, fish, species, pests, etc. You're just going to have to find that equilibrium that works for you. Some have luck and find that magic number quickly and successfully. That magic number might not be the same for someone else.

It remains interesting to read what others are doing with their tanks to reach that magic. I'm still waiting for mine. I think I'll get there soon. Just have to get through the dinos, vermetid snails, receding corals, and leaking ATO! See you on the other side soon.

If you haven't seen it, the Dino thread on here is awesome. Some great people assisted me through my Dino outbreak, too.

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/dinoflagellates-–-are-you-tired-of-battling-altogether.293318/

 

[zalick]

you're taking some info from some studies, forming a theory & then making statements such as - "Anything under 10-14x will be great. Over 20x is when you see less growth."

And glenns' success is not anecdotal. He's had this success constantly for years, with multiple systems, & so have others who use his system.

Here's glennf's 300 gallon system, which he maintains at a NP ratio of 50:1 - NO3 2ppm, PO4 0.04ppm.

It seems like Glenn's tank proves Lapointe's null hypothesis. And you only need to prove the null hypothesis once in order to disprove the alternative hypothesis.

This is not to say that Lapointe's research doesn't show one way to successfully operate a closed system reef, it may be sufficient; but I think Glenn's tank (and others) prove that Lapointe's conditions are not necessary.

 

[living_tribunal]

It seems like Glenn's tank proves Lapointe's null hypothesis. And you only need to prove the null hypothesis once in order to disprove the alternative hypothesis.

This is not to say that Lapointe's research doesn't show one way to successfully operate a closed system reef, it may be sufficient; but I think Glenn's tank (and others) prove that Lapointe's conditions are not necessary.

Lapointe’s research was more or less supporting material to the initial research done on the hammer and others testing corals at various absolute phosphate levels as well as relative to N.

I don’t think these are necessary to maintain coral health, especially when you factor in additional variables outside of solely the N and P relative/absolute levels. The question is what is optimal under most conditions for most coral however.

 

[zalick]

The question is what is optimal under most conditions for most coral however.

I can agree with that. And it certainly seems the research shows at a minimum, a good starting point for people to operate their own tanks. But reefer's must not interpret these studies as giving necessary conditions for N/P ratios.

Reefer's too often grasp on to a certain theory, post, suggestion, etc. and chase that number blindly, when that number may not be optimal for their particular system.

 

[Dennis Cartier]

This thread reminded me about some posts by @Hans-Werner where he outlined how he runs test tanks at Tropic Marin. His method of keeping Nitrogen bound and available for corals to uptake, but only in organic forms and reading 0 on test kits, was quite unique.

His posts start at: 0 nitrate in a sps tank: Good or Bad?

I found his point of view on managing nitrate in a reef tank quite interesting.

Dennis

 

[Lasse]

Up to 90% of the glycerol, glucose, and aminos created by the zooxanthellea are transferred directly into the coral hosts tissue.

The coral then uses these products from it's stomach tissue to perform cellular respiration i.e. growth.

I know that but my question was linked to the statement below - my bold

When there is excess nitrate in the column, zooxanthelle can process this directly and the coral in turn does not receive the sugars it would have had it been the one to transfer the nitrate to the zooxanthelle.

If the coral not receive the sugars from The zooxanthellae - as you state happens if the Zoox get their NO3 directly from the water column - Where will the produced sugar (energy) end up?

Sincerely Lasse

 

[TexasReefer82]

What makes you think that more of a surplus of a building block is any better than less of a surplus? If the organism has enough to build new tissue, then what does more do? Get to the crux of this question and you will have gotten further than 95% of the people on this board who think that N and P are "food" and that more does more. ...like somehow even a very small surplus of nitrogen or phosphorous is growth limiting in any way to corals.

This has been a very interesting thread to read through. I have also observed in my 2+ year old SPS reef that letting phosphate bottom out is far worse than letting Nitrate bottom out.

JDA, you ask the question whether a large surplus differs from a small surplus. What if the corals' rate of consumption (of Nitrate, phosphate, some element, etc) is a function of its concentration in the water? Whether the N or P gets across the corals' cell membrane by means of either passive diffusion or active transport a higher concentration will make it more available to the coral. And if Phosphorus was the limiting nutrient for the coral's growth additional concentration in the water will increase its consumption in the presence of excess "everything else needed". As an analogy land plants grow faster with increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration as well as when fertilized with N, P, & K above ambient soil levels. Are corals any different?

If the consumption was truly independent of water column concentration then the magnitude of the surplus would make no difference (assuming it didn't reach toxic levels due to some other mechanism).

 

[jda]

Are corals any different?

The ocean would tell you so. The places where most of our corals are collected are about 1-2 ppb of phosphate and they are not limited in anyway - some grow at an outstanding clip while also being out of the water for hours at a time (there is not anything for them to catch or eat in these places, so they get what they get from the sun and the elements in the water). I am afraid that wanting more building blocks is a recent human phenonomen likely taking the blame for inferior biodiversity, or something else in modern husbandry, in most tanks set up in the last five years, or so.

With your land plant analogy, remember what happens if you keep with that surplus all of the time... they suffer. Your analogy is a sparse occurrence... maybe once or twice a year with a fertilization. Would anybody care to succumb these plants to 24x7 higher levels of building blocks? Anybody spill some fertilizer on your lawn and see what happens? It is probably non-sequitur between plants and corals anyway.

My question still stands, in actual science and the rest of nature, what evidence is there that a larger surplus is better than a smaller one? Do you need 100 cheeseburgers in the car when 1 will fill you up? Do you need more fertilized that what a plant can process, or just enough? There is evidence that higher levels are harmful to all living tissue at various intervals and that a low, but enough balance is what matters.