Rock absorbing nutrients?

[sixty_reefer]

That is now two mocking deflections that avoid factual substantive points.

This tactic is not lost on anybody here.

Now 6 people are chasing you through deflections. This isn't about "me" or my comprehension, its about your deflections of at least 4 other responders' points, before I ever entered the thread. Every one of your posts has been a deflection away from accountability to your own words and claims, not furtherance of a conversation.

That’s the first factual ish thing you’ve said in a while, six members chasing me because their friend made an overly broad claim without providing evidence for it.

 

[A_Blind_Reefer]

Well, four pages in now and I still don’t know what nutrients can absorb rocks…..

 

[BeanAnimal]

So, fair questions, but I don’t think the onus is on @EnterName to fill gaps in your knowledge. Why don’t you just perform a quick search of the internet, it won’t take long, and report back here on what you find. If the internet search supports your skepticism, great let’s trash the generalization, Remember, EnterName is repeating a popular, and generally accepted generalization. It is not some nutty idea he imagined.

Are they fair questions in the context they were asked? The opening ignored context and moved it several times since, all riding on the gotcha question underpinned by the literal claim: some organisms prefer nitrate over ammonium. Does someone stuck with their own burden get to ignore context, ask questions to shift their way out of it, and call those questions fair?

EnterName, and everyone involved, has made their case. Sixty has yet to substantiate his.

 

[EnterName]

Can you elaborate what is missing?

I answered your intial question (post #35) in my first response (post #38) and split it into multiple sections to get both parts of your question right:
1. under what conditions ammonia would be preferred
2. and which organisms would prefer ammonia

Even if you disagree with denitrifiers being one of the exceptions, you yourself mentioned diatoms in a later post which was one of the other organisms I listed. So maybe you can read the rest of the response and find your answer? Otherwise, you will need to help me what is missing.

Post #38 still didn’t answer the specific part I’m asking about. Which bacteria in our reef tanks, besides cyanobacteria, have been shown to preferentially assimilate ammonium over nitrate? And which corals themselves, rather than their symbionts, have been shown to do the same? I’m looking for several examples if this is a general preference across bacteria and corals. We already know many algae have that preference, it’s the other two groups I’m not aware of.

Not sure why bacteria are the important part of the question when we are dosing ammonia for our corals and you answered yourself with cyanonacteria, but sure:

There are a lot of different bacteria that you may find in a reef tank, so I won't be able to give you a complete list, but if you are just looking for a few non-cyano examples, you can find them quite easily.
Candidatus Pelagibacter (SAR11 / Pelagibacteraceae) are an example
(https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mbio.00133-12)

Phaeobacter inhibens / roseobacters (Rhodobacteraceae) are another example (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30124819/)

I think (not entirely sure) the entire SAR11 has no nitrate assimilation mechanism at all so most or all of them should be a fit.

For ammonia oxidizers, it depends on whether you are talking about energy source or nitrogen source. I don't want to accidentally confuse them, so I would ask you to look for yourself.

If you are looking for more general sources (for example: heterotrophic bacteria "in general"), you can find sources as well: "[...] in oligotrophic oceans where bacteria turn to ammonium and nitrate, although the latter only as a last resort." (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00166816)

I think I have provided a decent collection of sources throughout my past responses that support the general consensus Dan mentioned.

 

[BeanAnimal]

That’s the first factual ish thing you’ve said in a while, six members chasing me because their friend made an overly broad claim without providing evidence for it.

That isn't a rebuttal, it's another reframe, now retreating to conspiracy. Every person who has challenged you on this site meets the same cycle of deflections. That is not a conspiracy, it is a matter of record with a single common denominator, your deflections.

It's only an "overly broad claim" if you ignore the context it was made in, for the purpose of turning it into a "claim" to hold him accountable to. What followed was a systematic pattern of reframing and narrowing to portray it as wrong, despite pages of evidence showing otherwise. That's not a conversation. He and others have refuted your deflections and supported the very thing he said to begin with.

Your engagement should have ended with Randy's response alone, but you ignored it and pivoted, making the exact kind of unsupported "overly broad claim," some organisms prefer nitrate over ammonium, you've spent two pages demanding everyone else be accountable to. This can't be overstated: he didn't make a broad claim, you did, while attacking his reasonable and supported position in this thread.