Sixty’s Understanding of Nutrient Ratios

[sixty_reefer]

For my own knowledge and to follow this. What exactly do you mean by Closed System

“Closed system” in this thread means a aquarium or tank something that is not connected to the ocean as this method could work to measure open water limitations also and by open water I mean the ocean or sea

 

[sixty_reefer]

Yea... The Redfield numbers just do not apply. However, understanding that some ratio exists is important when considering carbon dosing. It is understood that while N & P are required, the carbon dosing process uses N at a much higher rate than P. In understanding that, we can consider if the N condition in out tank is favorable for carbon dosing. Unfortunately, it is not only inorganic nitrate that is used/bound in carbon dosing process, so it is difficult to be very precise when making that consideration just based on a nitrate and phosphate test.

That’s all this thread is about, there is a connection between the no3 and po4 shifts and the ratio. The ratio in carbon dosing is similar to redfield. If you look at import export and not at the nutrient level of the test. As nutrient starting to bottom out no3 and po4 you can see redfield N and P momentarily.

 

[areefer01]

How can you be so sure? Can you show me that we don’t use it?

Well if I don't use the formula with my results, or care about it, that would mean I don't use it. It really is as simple as that. I think that holds true to other hobbyists.

I'm not here to say your thought is right or wrong I was just nit picking when you said we all use it. We don't. Test results are just numbers that we compare to another number somebody set. We never really ask why that number was chosen but everyone spends a lot of time and energy trying to reach it.

Edit: and honestly I'm reading way too much into it when I replied Hope your day is going well!

 

[sixty_reefer]

I struggle to understand how it has any relevance to a hobbyist's aquarium. We aren't worried about optimal growth rates of phytoplankton or microbial population dynamics. Similarly, nearly no hobbyist has the necessary equipment (and accompanying precision) to gather meaningful data and what is the end goal of targeting Redfield ratios? Increased coral growth or limiting algae growth? Both have proven methods of resolution that don't involve calculating/accurately measuring nutrients to that level of precision.

Here's a pretty cool paper I found but IMO the importance of Redfield ratios in regards to reefs is relevant when considering large scale (time/space) shifts that can arise when corals are at their optimal or not so optimal growth rates rather than chasing it in a closed system that doesn't have the time for dominance shifts. https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/2232/v48n3-234-246.pdf

and a big +1 to everything @Nano sapiens said

Well if I don't use the formula with my results, or care about it, that would mean I don't use it. It really is as simple as that. I think that holds true to other hobbyists.

I'm not here to say your thought is right or wrong I was just nit picking when you said we all use it. We don't. Test results are just numbers that we compare to another number somebody set. We never really ask why that number was chosen but everyone spends a lot of time and energy trying to reach it.

Edit: and honestly I'm reading way too much into it when I replied Hope your day is going well!

Is going quite well thank you, and yours.

 

[ReefGeezer]

That’s all this thread is about, there is a connection between the no3 and po4 shifts and the ratio. The ratio in carbon dosing is similar to redfield. If you look at import export and not at the nutrient level of the test. As nutrient starting to bottom out no3 and po4 you can see redfield N and P momentarily.

OK, at the risk of appearing even more ignorant... "what is a no2 and no4 shift"?

 

[Garf]

OK, at the risk of appearing even more ignorant... "what is a no2 and no4 shift"?

I think I figured this one, it’s the rate of increase or decrease of nitrate or phos. Maybe, lol

 

[sixty_reefer]

OK, at the risk of appearing even more ignorant... "what is a no2 and no4 shift"?

To be honest it may be me, the subject it’s controversial and trying to explain my theory in words makes it harder
“No2 and po4” shifts means po4 going up or down and the same for no3.

if no3 and po4 are stable ( every day or week wend we test they stay at the same value) mean that the ratio is working

If po4 or no3 moves from stable and starts to rise or lower, then it means that the C N P nutrient available in the system are out of balance

 

[sixty_reefer]

I don’t see a limitation in a

I think I figured this one, it’s the rate of increase or decrease of nitrate or phos. Maybe, lol

Yes garf, if you look at no3 and po4 as left over nutrient and not as absolute values you are half way to understand what I mean.

 

[ReefGeezer]

To be honest it may be me, the subject it’s controversial and trying to explain my theory in words makes it harder
“No2 and po4” shifts means po4 going up or down and the same for no3.

if no3 and po4 are stable ( every day or week wend we test they stay at the same value) mean that the ratio is working

If po4 or no3 moves from stable and starts to rise or lower, then it means that the C N P nutrient available in the system are out of balance

OK. Could it also mean that the inorganic nutrient input is balanced with export & usage that is not carbon related? How does the ratio you refer to account for all the pathways that yield, bind, or otherwise use inorganic nutrients?

 

[sixty_reefer]

OK. Could it also mean that the inorganic nutrient input is balanced with export & usage that is not carbon related? How does the ratio you refer to account for all the pathways that yield, bind, or otherwise use inorganic nutrients?

We have to think first what we mean with export. Export is not just made via protein skimmer, roller filters etc.
the main export in our tanks is being made by different bacteria In different stages and wend I say different bacteria I’m not just referring to nitrifying bacteria we got loads of different species doing different things and using different nutrients.
The addition of mechanical filtration is just reducing the amount of bacteria in a system, we can do our hobby without all the high tech we got available for us today, by just utilising microbes to control nutrients.

I know you love the natural paths but on can we keep natural path ways and food webs if we keep forgetting the reason they exist.

 

[ReefGeezer]

We have to think first what we mean with export. Export is not just made via protein skimmer, roller filters etc.
the main export in our tanks is being made by different bacteria In different stages and wend I say different bacteria I’m not just referring to nitrifying bacteria we got loads of different species doing different things and using different nutrients.
The addition of mechanical filtration is just reducing the amount of bacteria in a system, we can do our hobby without all the high tech we got available for us today, by just utilising microbes to control nutrients.

I know you love the natural paths but on can we keep natural path ways and food webs if we keep forgetting the reason they exist.

I'm not buying it. Many microbes certainly bind C, N, & P but unless exported, return it to the water column at the end of their existence. I'll buy that those microbes can then be consumed as part of the food chain, but then, while the carbon may be contained in the new host, I've recently learned (Thanks @RHF) that most of the N&P will be returned to the water column. The cycle of bioavailable nutrient creation, use, release, and export is just too complicated to be defined by a simple ratio.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I'm not buying it. Many microbes certainly bind C, N, & P but unless exported, return it to the water column at the end of their existence. I'll buy that those microbes can then be consumed as part of the food chain, but then, while the carbon may be contained in the new host, I've recently learned (Thanks @RHF) that most of the N&P will be returned to the water column. The cycle of bioavailable nutrient creation, use, release, and export is just too complicated to be defined by a simple ratio.

The thing is I’m not selling it, I’m sharing a relationship I’ve made between nutrient shifts and a useless ratio.
why would I made this up? Why go trough an effort to make something up and ask some of the most respected members on here to test the theory, risking to lose the little credibility I got. Some things in life are just simple we just make them complicated for no reason

 

[ReefGeezer]

The thing is I’m not selling it, I’m sharing a relationship I’ve made between nutrient shifts and a useless ratio.
why would I made this up? Why go trough an effort to make something up and ask some of the most respected members on here to test the theory, risking to lose the little credibility I got. Some things in life are just simple we just make them complicated for no reason

Sorry... it's just a euphemism for not agreeing with a theory. Did not intend to imply anything else. I have yet to see an objective relationship stated. Did I miss it? if so, help me out.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Sorry... it's just a euphemism for not agreeing with a theory. Did not intend to imply anything else. I have yet to see an objective relationship stated. Did I miss it? if so, help me out.

I know, just thought it’s better to put it out there. What would you consider a objective relationship, I was under the impression that I had made a few connections over the last few pages. What would be the ultimate connection in your view?

 

[ReefGeezer]

I know, just thought it’s better to put it out there. What would you consider a objective relationship, I was under the impression that I had made a few connections over the last few pages. What would be the ultimate connection in your view?

I’m sharing a relationship I’ve made between nutrient shifts and a useless ratio.

Simply state the relationship in some objective terms. Something like "The change in C equals the change in (N*.16 ), or the change in (P * .01). Sorry, I borrowed Redfields for the example.

Edited math... probably still not right.

 

[shwareefer]

Simply state the relationship in some objective terms. Something like "The change in C equals the change in (N*.16 ), or the change in (P * .01). Sorry, I borrowed Redfields for the example.

Edited math... probably still not right.

I'm going to take a stab based on what he told me based on the numbers I gave him earlier in the thread. The phosphate drops fast and the nitrate drops slow, that means the system has excess carbon and some nitrogen and is phosphate limited. If the phosphate and nitrate drop rapidly the system is excess in carbon. If they move not at all or rise, the system is carbon limited. If nitrate and phosphate drop slowly but stay in ratio all is well. Etcetera I think.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Simply state the relationship in some objective terms. Something like "The change in C equals the change in (N*.16 ), or the change in (P * .01). Sorry, I borrowed Redfields for the example.

Edited math... probably still not right.

I’ll give it a try on the formula to increase bacteria and the formula to reduce bacteria population in a reef tank. With my theory we got two options every time one reduces and one increase bacteria.

I will assume po4 is stable in both options as it would of changed this formula

No3 1 ppm up = (X) Carbon + (Y) Phospates

I can’t calculate X and Y because every system has a different input of X and Y but I know that X and Y are limited to reduce 1ppm no3 at this point in time we can only gauge by adding some of each in small quantities.
using redfield you can see that you will need more C than P to balance the equation so you can’t add the same ml of C and P. By gauging doses of C and P in small amounts over time you could figure the amounts that your tank requires to reduce 1ppm spike by dosing X and Y ml of C and P. One a 1ppm spike I would imagine the dosage of P to be very small but if we were trying to remove 20ppm of build up no3 P would of had a larger impact if not corrected.

formula to reduce bacteria

1ppm no3 up = - (X) Nitrogen

we can’t remove just N
But we can remove N and P with a algae bed and then add P to balance the equation, algae beds don’t remove C as they produce they’re own C at some point you may need to add N and C to keep the formula balanced or remove the algae bed all together wend the build up desired is removed.

there’s a total of 8 situations that require different adjustments adjustments can be as simple as the below:

0.01 po4 up = (X) Carbon + (Y) Nitrogen to increase bacteria

or

0.01 po4 up = - (X) Phosphorus

this could be done by adding GFO

is this what you asked? Do you want to see we’re everyone keeps messing regarding invasive pest algaes. Redfield got a explanation for that to that if understood will blow everyone’s mind.

this formulas should be used to remove the build up No3 or po4 only and not used constantly as this will impacts different species of microbes.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Another way to look at the import export that am referring in this thread is to look at Ca that it’s easier for most to understand.

imagine two tanks of the same volume one has one coral and the other is full of lovely colony’s

both tanks run at a concentration of 440ppm

will the import export on both tanks of Ca be the same?

The same happens with nutrients we all look at majestic tanks and look at their concentration of ppm wend what’s important is the import export of those tanks.
We wouldn’t be able to recreate what they did by just mimicking they’re concentration of ppm.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Ok, this is the only high nutrient event that I have experienced in recent memory (I don't use any man-made mechanical or chemical filtration, just LR and LS).

Due to an incorrect shipment, I had too many fish residing in my system (ergo too much food input/waste excretion for my export methods to properly deal with) which drove NO3 up to 30+ ppm. As an experiment, I implemented a gradual low dose carbon dosing plan using vinegar and increased water changes/detritus/bacteria removal since there is no skimmer. Within a few weeks this worked to drive NO3 down to 5 ppm. Some sensitive stony corals reacted negatively by partially bleaching, so I slowly discontinued carbon dosing. Since carbon dosing is known to also drive PO4 lower (PO4 has always been 'undetectable' in my system), this is likely to have been the cause of the bleaching and something that I was actually expecting.

I then let the system settle out over time at whatever NO3 level it wanted to (it stabilized at 10 ppm) and it's been that way for months now.

I’ll give it a try on the formula to increase bacteria and the formula to reduce bacteria population in a reef tank. With my theory we got two options every time one reduces and one increase bacteria.

I will assume po4 is stable in both options as it would of changed this formula

No3 1 ppm up = (X) Carbon + (Y) Phospates

I can’t calculate X and Y because every system has a different input of X and Y but I know that X and Y are limited to reduce 1ppm no3 at this point in time we can only gauge by adding some of each in small quantities.
using redfield you can see that you will need more C than P to balance the equation so you can’t add the same ml of C and P. By gauging doses of C and P in small amounts over time you could figure the amounts that your tank requires to reduce 1ppm spike by dosing X and Y ml of C and P. One a 1ppm spike I would imagine the dosage of P to be very small but if we were trying to remove 20ppm of build up no3 P would of had a larger impact if not corrected.

formula to reduce bacteria

1ppm no3 up = - (X) Nitrogen

we can’t remove just N
But we can remove N and P with a algae bed and then add P to balance the equation, algae beds don’t remove C as they produce they’re own C at some point you may need to add N and C to keep the formula balanced or remove the algae bed all together wend the build up desired is removed.

there’s a total of 8 situations that require different adjustments adjustments can be as simple as the below:

0.01 po4 up = (X) Carbon + (Y) Nitrogen to increase bacteria

or

0.01 po4 up = - (X) Phosphorus

this could be done by adding GFO

is this what you asked? Do you want to see we’re everyone keeps messing regarding invasive pest algaes. Redfield got a explanation for that to that if understood will blow everyone’s mind.

this formulas should be used to remove the build up No3 or po4 only and not used constantly as this will impacts different species of microbes.

@Nano sapiens could you put my formula to scrutiny as you had first hand experience, my formula is not deceptive as you mentioned before, would you have known of it before wouldn’t had been helpful to let you know the outcome of Carbon dosing with a low po4. If you had known that your po4 was going to bottom out before you had started carbon dosing this formula would of gave you time to order a source of po4 to balance the nutrients before they bottom out or would told you to increase po4 before starting carbon dosing if the po4 at the time was already low.
Knowing this formula would probably saved you the corals.
I find it genius, and if redfield wasn’t involved there wouldn’t be so much skepticism about it. Unfortunately the microbe population in our tanks deplete nutrients at a similar or same rate as redfield.
@ReefGeezer this is one of the reasons I keep telling you that phytoplankton is a good food to strengthen microbes, it comes with their preferred ratio, this is also why that is good to dose phytoplankton wend we got issues with our tanks as this will strengthen the microbes in the tank to outcome invasive species.

 

[Nano sapiens]

Sorry for your losses, and I understand that it’s a sticky situation to be in wend you get a sudden rise in nitrates, you gave the full story so I don’t have anything to predict in this situation. A few comments back I’ve wrote the quote above on what happens wend carbon dosing, do you see a relation, according to the relation between the ratio and no3 and Po4 shifts your po4 bottom out.

Thank you, but there were no losses as the few partially bleached corals fully recovered once I stopped carbon dosing.

Assuming that my stony coral bleaching issues were caused by phosphate bottoming out, then it follows that the cause would have been it's incorporation into the additional bacterial biomass brought about by carbon dosing.

Another perhaps less likely (but still possible) explanation is that my old system produced a sufficient amount of nitrite that would have interfered with my Salifert nitrate test kit reading. In such a scenario, a reading of '5 ppm NO3' could have been largely caused by that interference and I would have driven NO3 too low.

Or it could have been a combination of both phosphate and nitrogen concentrations driven too low.

The main point is that accurate measurement of potentially relevant items is very important when attempting to deduce what caused an event. If you don't/can't measure it, then you can only speculate and will never really 'know'.

@Nano sapiens could you put my formula to scrutiny as you had first hand experience, my formula is not deceptive as you mentioned before, would you have known of it before wouldn’t had been helpful to let you know the outcome of Carbon dosing with a low po4. If you had known that your po4 was going to bottom out before you had started carbon dosing this formula would of gave you time to order a source of po4 to balance the nutrients before they bottom out or would told you to increase po4 before starting carbon dosing if the po4 at the time was already low.
Knowing this formula would probably saved you the corals.
I find it genius, and if redfield wasn’t involved there wouldn’t be so much skepticism about it. Unfortunately the microbe population in our tanks deplete nutrients at a similar or same rate as redfield.

As I had mentioned in a previous post, I had anticipated the likely scenerio of PO4 being driven too low before starting and simply backed off on carbon dosing when I first saw signs of bleaching (disclaimer: one needs to know what the beginning signs of bleaching actually looks like or you could drive the coral to the point of no return). This is a well know effect of carbon dosing that many practitioners have reported, so no surprises there. While I could have countered the effect with the addition of a PO4 supplement, I deemed it not a necessity since I wasn't trying to drop NO3 to a specific low number (I typically don't chase numbers).

As for your idea/belief, I was considering what it might take to prove/disprove your assertion that 'all reef systems utilize C, N & P as per the Redfield ratio' (or something close to it). Off the top of my head as I mentally go through what would be required and all the potential pitfalls, I can see that it would be quite a tall order. But the basic idea would be to use a very basic mature reef system (one that doesn't utilize processes that selectively skew the C, N & P ratio such as Kalkwasser dosing binding P), determine the C, N & P of all the inputs into the system and then measure the 'leftover' C, N & P over a specific time period. A calculation could then be made to determine what the system had actually utilized (since we would know the input and leftover quantities) and from the difference between the two it should be possible to determine the ratio of C:N;P actually utilized by the system.

One important caveat that I can think of is that since the system as a whole is being tested, the result would indicate both organic and inorganic utilization/sequestration of C, N & P.