Sixty’s Understanding of Nutrient Ratios

[sixty_reefer]

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.

I agree, unfortunately I don’t have the means or the funds to execute such a task, I stumbled on the formula by accident wile doing hobby research to find a way to keep nps corals alive and thriving as I needed a more efficient way to control nutrients than the ones available at the moment, more in specific I needed a way to control high P without reducing microbes in a system.
my goal here it isn’t to gain anything, to be honest if you go back to the beginning of the thread I actually thought that most of what I’m talking about was common knowledge, I’ve only realised that this may be something new as it appears that no one knows what I am talking about.

 

[Nano sapiens]

my goal here it isn’t to gain anything, to be honest if you go back to the beginning of the thread I actually thought that most of what I’m talking about was common knowledge, I’ve only realised that this may be something new as it appears that no one knows what I am talking about.

In closing, here's what I see:

1. The relationship between changing levels of C, N & P and how to fix/balance them isn't new. A quick Google search and one can find this information on hobbyist as well as commercial websites.

2. What is new to me is your statement that all of our reef systems conform to the Redfield ratio (C, N & P utilized in a ratio of 106:16:1) or a similar ratio, whether we realize it or not.

Any proclamation (that is not a logical absurdity) is a possibility, but without scientific testing it can't be taken as anything more than what it is, 'a possibility'.


Ralph.

 

[sixty_reefer]

In closing, here's what I see:

1. The relationship between changing levels of C, N & P and how to fix/balance them isn't new. A quick Google search and one can find this information on hobbyist as well as commercial websites.

still interested that at page 6 only you mentioned that, we have been using this fix balance for some time

2. What is new to me is your statement that all of our reef systems conform to the Redfield ratio (C, N & P utilized in a ratio of 106:16:1) or a similar ratio, whether we realize it or not.

Yes, note I’ve said approximately in no occasion I said it was that value, although it doesn’t really matter to make the formula work.
If anyone were to google a few of the main species of bacteria living in our reefs would see that the molar ratio for most of them is on a C N P ratio with C being the highest and P being the lowest.

I think on the tree main ones living in the ocean the molar ratio average is something like 138:25:1 C N P
Heterotrophic bacteria on its own is 69:16:1 the formula would still work with any of those number.

The molar ratio for phytoplankton is also the molar ratio for organic marine detritus not just phytoplankton.

The ratio could wel be 3:2:1 and still work that’s why I wasn’t to concern in being tested by some of the most respected members on here as this will only give a indication of which one is in abundance or limited it won’t give absolute values.

it was still interesting to see everyone discrediting the formula because there was redfield at the title. A few knowledgeable people not made that connection yet.

Any proclamation (that is not a logical absurdity) is a possibility, but without scientific testing it can't be taken as anything more than what it is, 'a possibility'.


Ralph.

Thank you it has been a interesting discussion for me, this always make me think of new alternatives to do things.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Closing argument, is there anything in a ecosystem that doesn’t have a C N P ratio I can’t find a P N C ratio does such a thing even exists.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Closing argument, is there anything in a ecosystem that doesn’t have a C N P ratio I can’t find a P N C ratio does such a thing even exists.

I've posted them many times. You just ignore it. Bye bye Redfield.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I've posted them many times. You just ignore it. Bye bye Redfield.

You do know that wend I’ve researched redfield your comments did showed up a lot. We will say by for now, 4 years ago I had a suspicion, this year I got a formula that can’t be discredited, What will happen in the next few years could be interesting

 

[JCM]

You do know that wend I’ve researched redfield your comments did showed up a lot. We will say by for now, 4 years ago I had a suspicion, this year I got a formula that can’t be discredited, What will happen in the next few years could be interesting

Have you shared this formula explicitly here?

 

[sixty_reefer]

Have you shared this formula explicitly here?

Yes a few comments back

 

[Garf]

Yes a few comments back

You know I like your enthusiasm but trends are surely more important than ratios.

 

[sixty_reefer]

You know I like your enthusiasm but trends are surely more important than ratios.

There’s a difference between a trend and a depleting rate, for example Heterotrophic bacteria has a ratio of 69:16:1, we can have a trend on what no3 and po4 we keep but that bacteria is still using nutrients at that rate.

 

[Garf]

There’s a difference between a trend and a depleting rate, for example Heterotrophic bacteria has a ratio of 69:16:1, we can have a trend on what no3 and po4 we keep but that bacteria is still using nutrients at that rate.

The bit that baffles me is ratios are generated by numbers, why not just stop at the numbers and take action. Nobody knows the ideal numbers, or ratios, if they do, I ain’t heard of them.

 

[sixty_reefer]

The bit that baffles me is ratios are generated by numbers, why not just stop at the numbers and take action. Nobody knows the ideal numbers, or ratios, if they do, I ain’t heard of them.

We don’t talk about ratios

Why do we have to still feed a tank wend we move fish to quarantine? If we stop feeding, the most important thing in our system will die or go dormant.

 

[sixty_reefer]

How could one use the understanding of the depletion of nutrient In a system to try and eradicate Cyanobacteria:

how I understand the behaviour of Cyanobacteria in our systems.

Over the years I’ve always encountered Cyanobacteria in a form or another, in particular wend something dies or there is a imbalance on the nutrients levels. Some of the observation I made was that Cyanobacteria do consume a lot of nutrients wile in a tank it’s not unusual to see no3 and po4 decreasing in a system that is affected by Cyanobacteria, sometimes almost depleting them fully, the more maths of Cyanobacteria I had the fastest the Cyanobacteria would deplete those nutrient. This will leave a system with little to no nutrients available for the beneficial bacteria to carry on their life cycle, as they need nutrients to multiply themselves, if beneficial bacteria finishes its life cycle and it have enough nutrients available to reproduce it self, this will reduce the amount the overall bacteria in a system leaving the Cyanobacteria to dominate a system as it seems that they can assimilate nutrients faster than the beneficial bacteria.
from a quick google most Cyanobacteria could be depleting nutrient in a 301:49:1 rate to C N P
Looking at this ratio it doesn’t surprise me that we do associate Cyanobacteria to carbon dosing as many of us do observe.

with the above thought what would be a way to outcompete Cyanobacteria and re establish healthy colonies of beneficial bacteria, my thoughts would be that by removing the maths from the system wile increasing the Carbon, Nitrogen and Phosphorus sources available to the system would give the beneficial bacteria a chance to re colonise the system surfaces eventually growing to a number where Cyanobacteria wouldn’t have a chance to have enough nutrients available to them. That’s my current thought on Cyanobacteria

 

[sixty_reefer]

Other though would be increase nitrogen and phosphates if needed to limit the growth of Cyanobacteria by becoming carbon limited, this thought would make more sense to me as it’s feeding the nitrifying bacteria that is important and starving the Cyanobacteria as there won’t be enough carbon available to carry on reproducing. Due to their high demand in carbon to stay alive.

 

[Aqua Man]

How could one use the understanding of the depletion of nutrient In a system to try and eradicate Cyanobacteria:

@Lasse has mentioned many times that to help get rid of mats of cyano he dose nitrogen.

Have also heard that nitrate will not come down if system is phosphate limited. Redfield aside, does make some sense to me.
How would someone actually test for Carbon?

Some of the foods I feed do have a number for phosphorus. .1% value or even less.

 

[sixty_reefer]

@Lasse has mentioned many times that to help get rid of mats of cyano he dose nitrogen.

Have also heard that nitrate will not come down if system is phosphate limited. Redfield aside, does make some sense to me.
How would someone actually test for Carbon?

Some of the foods I feed do have a number for phosphorus. .1% value or even less.

I really start to regret having named redfield in this, should of called it understanding limitations in a closed system using molar ratios, as it’s a really interesting topic, by looking at the molar ratio in most organisms in our systems we could create very efficient ways to resolve problems in our tanks. The way I am looking at the molar ratio is what a organism needs to carry on multiplying. If we do changes to what they need to survive we can make them stronger or remove if they are not desired.

looking at the molar ratio of Cyanobacteria 301:49:1 we can see that we can starve it by reducing the carbon available, the best way I know to reduce the carbon available is by increasing nitrogen and phosphorus (if needed)

over this thread I’ve come up with a formula that will tell anyone what’s in abundance in a system or limited. It doesn’t tell you by how much in absolute values although it can tell you if there is excess carbon in a system for example. Without the need of expensive testing.

using molar ratios in a smart way, we could also eliminate pest algaes and deny algaes the nutrients they need to thrive without weakening the overhaul biological filter

Lasse in my view is 100% right and it’s astonishing that am just hearing now what Lasse has been saying for a wile now.

 

[sixty_reefer]

For example, if @AquaBiomics were to start giving us a molar ratio from all the bacteria they find in a system, this number could be used to create a average ratio that our tanks need to keep thriving, instead of a map for the existing bacteria we could have a test with the average needs of our systems. Making it more interesting imo

 

[JCOLE]

Interesting topic!

@Randy Holmes-Farley @Lasse Do we know the rate at which bacteria/corals consume NO3/PO4? It is to my understanding that the readings we get while testing are just residual unused nutrients. So does this mean that the corals have not taken up those nutrients yet, or is it that they have taken what they can and won't take the rest up and they need to be removed(water changes, carbon dosing, etc)?

If it means they won't take up the left over residual nutrients then it would make since to feed heavy while keeping NO3 and PO4 low.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Interesting topic!

@Randy Holmes-Farley @Lasse Do we know the rate at which bacteria/corals consume NO3/PO4? It is to my understanding that the readings we get while testing are just residual unused nutrients. So does this mean that the corals have not taken up those nutrients yet, or is it that they have taken what they can and won't take the rest up and they need to be removed(water changes, carbon dosing, etc)?

If it means they won't take up the left over residual nutrients then it would make since to feed heavy while keeping NO3 and PO4 low.

I don’t think the rate is known as we don’t discuss it enough.
if it was discussed a certain C N P rate could be determined for optimal function of a system.
All we know is that they are being produced and utilised on a constant movement. Very similar to Ca dosing the only difference being we know how much Ca we adding to the system. So we know how much Ca the System is utilising by testing the residual unused Ca

I personally believe that we can interpret the residual unused nutrients to determine what’s limiting or in abundance in a system. Giving the end user enough information to adjust the C N P input of a system to reduce residual unused nutrients.
The same way we do for dkh Mg and Ca

 

[Lasse]

It is to my understanding that the readings we get while testing are just residual unused nutrients. So does this mean that the corals have not taken up those nutrients yet, or is it that they have taken what they can and won't take the rest up and they need to be removed(water changes, carbon dosing, etc)?

If it means they won't take up the left over residual nutrients then it would make since to feed heavy while keeping NO3 and PO4 low.

It means that the whole system is overloaded - both biological uptake and chemical bond PO4 - see this

Sincerely Lasse