Tank Trials: Ultra Low Maintenance Tanks | BRStv Investigates

[SantaMonica]

One way to view nutrients is "flow" instead of "level", just like a river. By keeping a very high "flow" of nutrients by providing heavy inputs and exports, it's like a fast flowing but shallow river. This type of flow is how natural water systems work (reef, lake, etc). They might measure "low" nutrients, but their internal flow of nutrients is high; so high it's hard to believe.

A fast flow is capable of filling up voids quickly when needed, like if you put a bucket down into the flowing river. The void can be corals growth, of course. So by inputting more (feeding, dosing, etc) and exporting more (macro growth, etc), the flow is large and available for coral growth when demanded.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Since folks have been discussing nutrient ratios, I thought I'd chime in...

As I've discussed in many other threads, there is zero justification for thinking the ratio of nitrate and phosphate is the important factor to use to guide setting target levels.

No one has EVER tested these ratio hypotheses in a reef tank, at least not that I have ever seen.

To assert that the ratio is important, both of these things would need to be shown:

1. That if you take some set of values for nitrate and phosphate that you believe are desirable (say, 0.03 ppm phosphate and 10 ppm nitrate), then if the ratio was the main point of importance, that you could raise or lower both by the same factor and have the same "desirability". What about 0.0003 ppm phosphate and 0.1 ppm nitrate. Or 30 ppm phosphate and 1,000 ppm nitrate. Those are all the same ratio. Do we think them equally suitable?

2. That starting from good values at a good ratio, and altering them to a different ratio, would do something undesirable. 0.02 ppm phosphate and 10 ppm nitrate as a starting point. move to 0.05 ppm phosphate and 2.5 ppm nitrate . The ratio changed by a factor of 10. Can anyone claim definitively that the second set of values is going to be much less desirable?

I really think that folks should focus on demonstrably optimal levels, and leave out the misleading discussions of the ratio.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

the fact that more complex algae and organisms do require Nitrate (vs simpler forms of algae that are extremely adaptable and can thrive with alternative elements in the water) and ....

Is that true? What organisms in a reef tank have a demonstrated need for nitrate?

Most studies I've seen suggest that most organisms prefer ammonia when both are available.

 

[BigJohnny]

Since folks have been discussing nutrient ratios, I thought I'd chime in...

As I've discussed in many other threads, there is zero justification for thinking the ratio of nitrate and phosphate is the important factor to use to guide setting target levels.

No one has EVER tested these ratio hypotheses in a reef tank, at least not that I have ever seen.

To assert that the ratio is important, both of these things would need to be shown:

1. That if you take some set of values for nitrate and phosphate that you believe are desirable (say, 0.03 ppm phosphate and 10 ppm nitrate), then if the ratio was the main point of importance, that you could raise or lower both by the same factor and have the same "desirability". What about 0.0003 ppm phosphate and 0.1 ppm nitrate. Or 30 ppm phosphate and 1,000 ppm nitrate. Those are all the same ratio. Do we think them equally suitable?

2. That starting from good values at a good ratio, and altering them to a different ratio, would do something undesirable. 0.02 ppm phosphate and 10 ppm nitrate as a starting point. move to 0.05 ppm phosphate and 2.5 ppm nitrate . The ratio changed by a factor of 10. Can anyone claim definitively that the second set of values is going to be much less desirable?

I really think that folks should focus on demonstrably optimal levels, and leave out the misleading discussions of the ratio.

Yea, I was actually surprised BRS brought up the Redfield ratio. I cringed a bit.

 

[jcl123]

OK, so I am watching the video about dosing Nitrate and I have to say I started to smile. Triton is (one of) the methods available now that is so effective at nutrient export that it is almost too good.... I am surprised because before I came back into the hobby, I always thought that for an algae scrubber type setup to work, it would need to be many times the size of the aquarium (like a tennis court for a 200 gallon tank or something). I am impressed that this can be done in such a small area. And water changes sort of kept me away from marine tanks in general.... so here I am.

I am smiling because I have an idea. Before I got to the point of actually dosing Nitrate (not that I am opposed per-se) I think I will pull my wet/dry filter out of the closet and put it back into my system.... They are so well known as "Nitrate factories" and fell out of favor because of it, but aside from that they were really effective, and extremely ULM at that..... As much as I like the Berlin method, I always loved my wet/dry (on fresh or saltwater tanks). With Berlin I am worried about how much rock and sand I will actually need to get where I want, and the tank will look too full by the time you have allot of coral and fish. I want to be able to have some open areas, and I don't always want to be scared of adding too many fish strictly due to how much Ammonia and Nitrite I can handle.

So, specifically, I am thinking of putting my wet/dry on the output of my protein skimmer. At that point the water has already gone through the chaeto and the skimmer, so most of the detritus has been removed and you should not get much clogging. You are also putting potentially highly oxygenated (or high gas exchange in general) water into the wet/dry, so there is some synergy there. I also don't have to add another pump for this.

Does this sound like an interesting idea?

-JCL

 

[Ryanbrs]

Yea, I was actually surprised BRS brought up the Redfield ratio. I cringed a bit.

Understandably so. It is a messy conversation from all angles and a bit of a flyer for us to talk about

First I will openly state there are marine biologists on this forum who know more about this than I can ever hope to but right along with them we are all searching not just for our own answers but more importantly generally agreed upon recommendations backed by a critical mass of results we can share with new reefers.

Sometimes no advice is better than bad advice but no advice is not a path to success either. In the case of this video I am trying to give a reasonable range with some direct numbers backed with a reasonable thought process and as always track and share the results over time. In this case 1-2ppm nitrate and 0.09 -0.19 phosphate. Then direct advice to not chase this like a mad scientist. This is just general vicinity target.

As to the redfield ratio. I personally believe it is far from critical to perfectly match that ratio in a reef tank but for those who are looking for advice, I do think this is a helpful place to start a thought process. This is particularly valuable in a world where reefers have found ways to maintain near-zero levels of phosphate (GFO) but may have 30ppm nitrate. They may also have undetectable nitrates but sky high phosphates with carbon dosing or refugiums. Also, a world where some reefers are very likely significantly overdosing organic carbon sources with near-zero insight into how that may affect the tank long term. So the ratio can be a helpful tool to make sure we avoid some of these extreme environments. It's very possible that the ratio has no significant role here but I personally think the further you deviate from the some of these known ratios in the ocean the more likely you are going find issues. Particularly when an element is severely limited or many thousands of times ocean values and uptake is directly connected to others which may be at the opposite end of that spectrum.

Here is the conundrum as I see it. I agree 100% that the "right levels" are far more important than a ratio. That's a pretty easy concept to get behind however there is very little agreement on what "the right" nitrate and phosphate levels are. Leaving the average reefer in the wild west where anything goes. We do know a majority of ocean reefs have very low near zero inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus levels but it isn’t generally understood in the reefing community if corals in the ocean are getting nitrogen and phosphorus dominantly from organic or inorganic sources. More importantly how that applies to a reef tank which may have a fraction of the organic nitrogen availability and may be in sizes or forms where the corals are not able to utilize it.

I think it would be incredibly valuable to hear from the R2R community. Do you believe there is value in attempting to make sure the ratio of carbon to nitrogen to phosphorus doesn't deviate drastically from a variety of the commonly referenced ocean/coral ratios? Not just in reference to coral health but also the likelihood of promoting an environment where undesirable organisms may thrive, particularly when one element is extremely limited or extremely high? In relation to that do you have goals for nitrate and phosphate levels? Are these levels based on personal success or based on a different scientific concept?

BTW this is something we have all been debating at the shop for some time. I very much enjoy the evolution of the nutrient conversation

 

[Gareth elliott]

Does this sound like an interesting idea?

-JCL

I have used a wet/dry trickle filter for a long time on a freshwater system, around 10 years too tired to remember exactly. My belief on the nitrate generator properties is directly related to flow in the filter itself. If able to produce areas of high flow and low within the filter you can achieve nitrification and denitrification if the media is placed advantageously to these areas.

That said, im not sure you would achieve stable levels of nutrients if your goal was to feed tank bacteria. There will be varying levels of decay going on based on your cleaning schedule of the wet/dry(ime this is necessary to maintain proper flow exiting the filter). It doesnt take long for the bacteria to correct its population size downward after nutrient drop(mini cycle after an overly deep tank cleaning as an example).

I dont dose nitrate on my reef but i do on my high tech planted tank. Here i do use a ratio of NPK, but with plants this is much better understood. The dosing of the nutrient compounds directly allows me to maintain higher stability by knowing exactly what i add and easily verified by testing.

Dosing directly also allows you to make these a constant if changing other parameters. Ie if i dose x KNO3, y KHPO4, and z K2SO4, and see marginal growth but some algae growth. I can maintain the dosing and increase a light channel intensity by 10% and monitor the results. If i was using a biological source of unknown varying levels i am less sure which parameter needs to change.

Sorry kinda sleepy, really long day not sure if that made any sense lol.

 

[jcl123]

I have used a wet/dry trickle filter for a long time on a freshwater system, around 10 years too tired to remember exactly. My belief on the nitrate generator properties is directly related to flow in the filter itself. If able to produce areas of high flow and low within the filter you can achieve nitrification and denitrification if the media is placed advantageously to these areas.

If you are talking about something that can do both, you might be talking about something different or more complex, or not just the wet/dry. When I say wet/dry I refer only to the tower of media that is not submerged with water trickling over it. In that environment, you are taking advantage of the fact that air holds about 60K times more oxygen than water, and actually I think that is for freshwater, saltwater is even less. So, in an oxygen saturated environment such as that, I am going to assume denitrification is not possible. But that is OK, I am doing that elsewhere.

That said, im not sure you would achieve stable levels of nutrients if your goal was to feed tank bacteria. There will be varying levels of decay going on based on your cleaning schedule of the wet/dry(ime this is necessary to maintain proper flow exiting the filter). It doesnt take long for the bacteria to correct its population size downward after nutrient drop(mini cycle after an overly deep tank cleaning as an example).

Whenever I use wet/dry, I am very careful to feed it water that is relatively clean to begin with using sufficient mechanical pre-filtering, or whatever, so that I greatly reduce how often I would ever need to disturb it. On freshwater tanks (also where most of my experience is, including aquaculture and waste treatment) I can usually go a year or more like that. And when/if I do clean it, I carefully rinse by hand in a bucket of tank water to minimize effects to the bacteria population.

That said, I agree it is true that I won't have much direct control over what the wet/dry is doing. I am hoping, as you also say, that the population will be self-adjusting based on the availability of resource levels (Ammonia, Nitrite, etc.). What I would actually hope for would be a balanced cycle between the wet/dry and the refugium, even to the point where the effect of the fish and coral becomes insignificant and they end up being just along for ride. Just a theory though. I am sure there would be allot of variables you could play with such as lighting periods and intensity, but if you could get it so that it was at least *mostly* self-regulating, which it might be, I think it could have merit.

I dont dose nitrate on my reef but i do on my high tech planted tank. Here i do use a ratio of NPK, but with plants this is much better understood. The dosing of the nutrient compounds directly allows me to maintain higher stability by knowing exactly what i add and easily verified by testing.

Oh, I have had great fun with planted tanks especially when dosing CO2, they are there own category. It sounds like you are talking it to a more advanced level than I may have. This time around, this reef tank I am building (my first one) is my foray into something much more complex than I have ever tried before.

Something that sets the stage I think are the fundamental differences between these environments. Most of my experience is with African Cichlids, I think they are hands-down the easiest fish to keep, even more than goldfish. With a pH of between 8.3 and 9.0, the aerobic bacteria go "super active", even with just conventional things like undergravel filters (or whatever), and wet/dry filters become basically super-weapons. I can setup a tank where the only limit on fish is how many will physically (or socially) fit in the tank. I had a friend with a 110G tank that had several hundred 3-4" fish, I think that was a bit too busy, but is was amazing to see. In these cases, the Nitrate export is somewhat irrelevant because I have run tanks with Nitrates above 400ppm with no ill effects (these fish eat the algae), even breeding the fish. I think this is because freshwater fish don't directly drink the water they are in, but saltwater fish do (so any slight thing in the water affects them really fast). And also since Ammonia and Nitrite become more toxic as pH increases, you have some higher stakes. On the other hand, in something like a Discus or some planted tanks where you are down around 6.0 pH or so, the aerobic bacteria shut down, but not as big a problem as you also have lower toxicity.

But I digress. With conventional saltwater tanks (fish only or otherwise) I generally consider them to be capable of about 1/5 the fish capacity of a similar freshwater tank, and this is partially because of the effect of the salt on the oxygen carrying capacity of the water.

So this is where I really find using Triton and refugiums and now possibly with wet/dry to be a really interesting idea.

Dosing directly also allows you to make these a constant if changing other parameters. Ie if i dose x KNO3, y KHPO4, and z K2SO4, and see marginal growth but some algae growth. I can maintain the dosing and increase a light channel intensity by 10% and monitor the results. If i was using a biological source of unknown varying levels i am less sure which parameter needs to change.

I will have to say I pretty much 100% agree with you here, and as we both touch on above, I don't know what will happen here. But, I think the risk of it causing a problem is low, I think worst case it will just not work as I hope (or not as well).

On that same note, this talk of ratios like redfield is not something I am familiar with at all. As Ryan states above, we are getting into marine biologist territory here and this also appears to be starting to re-hash an old debate that never really went anywhere. I think if we are on to something at all, such as an underlying math equation of some sort hidden in the complex chemistry of natural or artificial reefs that actually does dictate what we are trying to guess at here, then it would take something much more controlled and scientific to find it. There are just too many variables in every direction here. You would need something probably even more involved than the BRS160 or tank trials to ferret that out.

But maybe we will stumble upon something interesting along the way here with what we do have.

-JCL

 

[jcl123]

OK, so I am watching the video about dosing Nitrate and I have to say I started to smile. Triton is (one of) the methods available now that is so effective at nutrient export that it is almost too good.... I am surprised because before I came back into the hobby, I always thought that for an algae scrubber type setup to work, it would need to be many times the size of the aquarium (like a tennis court for a 200 gallon tank or something). I am impressed that this can be done in such a small area. And water changes sort of kept me away from marine tanks in general.... so here I am.

I am smiling because I have an idea. Before I got to the point of actually dosing Nitrate (not that I am opposed per-se) I think I will pull my wet/dry filter out of the closet and put it back into my system.... They are so well known as "Nitrate factories" and fell out of favor because of it, but aside from that they were really effective, and extremely ULM at that..... As much as I like the Berlin method, I always loved my wet/dry (on fresh or saltwater tanks). With Berlin I am worried about how much rock and sand I will actually need to get where I want, and the tank will look too full by the time you have allot of coral and fish. I want to be able to have some open areas, and I don't always want to be scared of adding too many fish strictly due to how much Ammonia and Nitrite I can handle.

So, specifically, I am thinking of putting my wet/dry on the output of my protein skimmer. At that point the water has already gone through the chaeto and the skimmer, so most of the detritus has been removed and you should not get much clogging. You are also putting potentially highly oxygenated (or high gas exchange in general) water into the wet/dry, so there is some synergy there. I also don't have to add another pump for this.

Does this sound like an interesting idea?

-JCL

Hey Ryan, thank you for the like.

I appreciate it because I was waiting for someone like you or others to strike me down on this idea and slap me, pointing out something I am missing. That could still happen of course ;-)

But, if you think it is at least worth trying and you can't immediately think of a reason why not, i'm game. I am already running the measurements ;-)

-JCL

 

[VJV]

Is that true? What organisms in a reef tank have a demonstrated need for nitrate?

Most studies I've seen suggest that most organisms prefer ammonia when both are available.

First, thank you for taking the time to quote my post [emoji4]. When a Master does it it is either because you screwed big time or because you have said something right. Probably the latter one here... [emoji12].

Anyway, my question would than be whether you are saying that NO3 is irrelevant for coral or Macro Algae and should be kept at zero?

Not a Biologist here (though I do know a few and most openly declare that there is not a lot of research specific on reef aquarium processes and that most knowledge is either anecdotal or derived from research done for other purposes) and not a chemist.

However, what I do know from observation, is that if I have zero Nitrates and some phosphates in my tank I quickly go into trouble, with cyano being he first to poke its ugly head.

As I said, I do not target. Specific ratio, and I try first to keep both within general accepted ranges of 5-10ppm NO3 and 0,02-0,05 PO4, which is way off the red field ratio. But, what I can also observe is that my corals (especially the colors) always improve when at these levels. And what I have also s that every time I go into a zero NO3 situation and PO4 is detectable, chaetomorpha starts to turn pale and gets covered in slime algae as it dies off, cyano pops up, etc...

Maybe this is due to some other reason but the fact is that it happens and is repeatable in my case, so I see at least some correlation.

I find this video extremely useful and what Triton is doing invaluable so we can get a bet understanding of what actually happens in our reefs.

 

[Ryanbrs]

Hey Ryan, thank you for the like.

I appreciate it because I was waiting for someone like you or others to strike me down on this idea and slap me, pointing out something I am missing. That could still happen of course ;-)

But, if you think it is at least worth trying and you can't immediately think of a reason why not, i'm game. I am already running the measurements ;-)

-JCL

I like it when people are thinking outside the box and challenging common thought

That said, I think the claim that a wet/dry is a nitrate factory is not accurate. It's not creating anymore nitrate than any other biological filtration in the tank. The amount of nitrate that all of the primary biological filtration methods produce is directly tried to the amount of food added to the tank and really should all be the same. However, a wet/dry isn't removing any nitrate and that's probably where this nitrate factory concept comes from.

Finding ways to adjust your filtration to meet your needs before dosing isn't a bad idea

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

As to the redfield ratio. I personally believe it is far from critical to perfectly match that ratio in a reef tank but for those who are looking for advice, I do think this is a helpful place to start a thought process.

Your targets are fine targets. You should, IMO, just say that corals need both a good source of N and P, and leave it at that. Further, these target levels are far, far from the actual levels on a coral reef. I understand the reasons why, but once you make the leap that target levels might need to be VERY different than in the ocean, using different chemicals to supply the N and P that corals have more or lease ease at attaining from the water, it seems odd to go back and assume that these different chemicals at different concentrations should somehow desirably be at the same ratio that they are present in particular organisms..

To try to justify them with a discussion of the Redfield ratio (which does not apply to consumption in a reef tank where denitrification takes place) seems to just mislead people who easily confuse consumption ratios with desirable tank levels.

Why would one assume that the consumption ratio somehow tells you what the optimal concentration ratio in the water should be? For other processes that take up ions in a particular ratio (e.g., calcification), it clearly doesn't. No one thinks that if calcium is at 420 ppm, that alkalinity should be supplied at the balanced consumption ratio of 62 dKH.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Anyway, my question would than be whether you are saying that NO3 is irrelevant for coral or Macro Algae and should be kept at zero?

I'm just poking at the statement that "more complex algae and organisms do require nitrate."

I think that is untrue. They "require" a source of N. We may find it handy to supply nitrate since it may be trickier for us to provide ammonia or organic forms, but they can thrive just fine, and may even prefer other sources.

 

[jcl123]

I like it when people are thinking outside the box and challenging common thought

That said, I think the claim that a wet/dry is a nitrate factory is not accurate. It's not creating anymore nitrate than any other biological filtration in the tank. The amount of nitrate that all of the primary biological filtration methods produce is directly tried to the amount of food added to the tank and really should all be the same. However, a wet/dry isn't removing any nitrate and that's probably where this nitrate factory concept comes from.

Finding ways to adjust your filtration to meet your needs before dosing isn't a bad idea

Fair enough. I will follow up with my results, I have a ways to go.

BTW, I picked up an open-box Kessil H1200 from BRS, going to follow in your footsteps with the BRS160 as much as I can. Sometimes you need a little crazy in your life ;-)

-JCL

 

[BigJohnny]

Understandably so. It is a messy conversation from all angles and a bit of a flyer for us to talk about

First I will openly state there are marine biologists on this forum who know more about this than I can ever hope to but right along with them we are all searching not just for our own answers but more importantly generally agreed upon recommendations backed by a critical mass of results we can share with new reefers.

Sometimes no advice is better than bad advice but no advice is not a path to success either. In the case of this video I am trying to give a reasonable range with some direct numbers backed with a reasonable thought process and as always track and share the results over time. In this case 1-2ppm nitrate and 0.09 -0.19 phosphate. Then direct advice to not chase this like a mad scientist. This is just general vicinity target.

As to the redfield ratio. I personally believe it is far from critical to perfectly match that ratio in a reef tank but for those who are looking for advice, I do think this is a helpful place to start a thought process. This is particularly valuable in a world where reefers have found ways to maintain near-zero levels of phosphate (GFO) but may have 30ppm nitrate. They may also have undetectable nitrates but sky high phosphates with carbon dosing or refugiums. Also, a world where some reefers are very likely significantly overdosing organic carbon sources with near-zero insight into how that may affect the tank long term. So the ratio can be a helpful tool to make sure we avoid some of these extreme environments. It's very possible that the ratio has no significant role here but I personally think the further you deviate from the some of these known ratios in the ocean the more likely you are going find issues. Particularly when an element is severely limited or many thousands of times ocean values and uptake is directly connected to others which may be at the opposite end of that spectrum.

Here is the conundrum as I see it. I agree 100% that the "right levels" are far more important than a ratio. That's a pretty easy concept to get behind however there is very little agreement on what "the right" nitrate and phosphate levels are. Leaving the average reefer in the wild west where anything goes. We do know a majority of ocean reefs have very low near zero inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus levels but it isn’t generally understood in the reefing community if corals in the ocean are getting nitrogen and phosphorus dominantly from organic or inorganic sources. More importantly how that applies to a reef tank which may have a fraction of the organic nitrogen availability and may be in sizes or forms where the corals are not able to utilize it.

I think it would be incredibly valuable to hear from the R2R community. Do you believe there is value in attempting to make sure the ratio of carbon to nitrogen to phosphorus doesn't deviate drastically from a variety of the commonly referenced ocean/coral ratios? Not just in reference to coral health but also the likelihood of promoting an environment where undesirable organisms may thrive, particularly when one element is extremely limited or extremely high? In relation to that do you have goals for nitrate and phosphate levels? Are these levels based on personal success or based on a different scientific concept?

BTW this is something we have all been debating at the shop for some time. I very much enjoy the evolution of the nutrient conversation

I get it, I only cringed a bit because I could tell you were slightly hesitant in saying it in the first place (at least it appeared that way to me) and you did state that it was just a general guideline people could shoot for. My problem with it (besides the whole lack of evidence that it should be a target in the first place) is that it can easily lead people down the "chasing numbers" path, and even if they are good numbers, they might end up doing more harm than good trying to get there. I know you weren't suggesting people chase the numbers though.

 

[WhiteRaven]

Full disclosure: I'm new to salt water but have many years in planted tanks.

Your tank is thriving. Since you don't need to fix an issue, I feel you are chasing ideal numbers with 16:1 which leads to more issues. Let your tank inhabitants tell you how your tank is doing, and in your words your tank has never been better.

 

[clark griswold]

@Ryanbrs @randyBRS or any fellow reefers that care to chime in.

I know I can't achieve what you're doing with an all-in-one set-up lacking a real sump. But are there any suggestions you could provide on best practices for setting up the small rear sump in an AIO to be as ULM as possible?

I was saving for a real tank with a big triton style sump then I had my AC go out and spent all my cash on a repair but found a too good to pass on deal on a JBJ AIO on craigslist and figured I'd give it a go while I save up cash again and use it as a quarantine tank down the line. Thanks in advance for any advice you might have!

 

[Gareth elliott]

@Ryanbrs @randyBRS or any fellow reefers that care to chime in.

I know I can't achieve what you're doing with an all-in-one set-up lacking a real sump. But are there any suggestions you could provide on best practices for setting up the small rear sump in an AIO to be as ULM as possible?

I was saving for a real tank with a big triton style sump then I had my AC go out and spent all my cash on a repair but found a too good to pass on deal on a JBJ AIO on craigslist and figured I'd give it a go while I save up cash again and use it as a quarantine tank down the line. Thanks in advance for any advice you might have!

I use a bio-pellet reactor -> skimmer as my primary nitrate phosphate reduction. I dose microbacter 7 once a week. The outlet of the reactor enters my skimmer.

I was using gfo at first with this but actually hit zero phosphate. So now just carbon and the bio pellets in separate reactors.
I offset the unsteady ph by splitting my alkalinity dosing throughout the 24 hour cycle. Last nitrate test was .25 ppm 1 month without water changes. Feeding 1/2 a cube a day on a 40 gallon. I do also run a fuge, but i actually killed the gracillia i ordered giving it too much light. So why i call the reactor my primary nutrient filter.

 

[Bugger]

I think it would be incredibly valuable to hear from the R2R community. Do you believe there is value in attempting to make sure the ratio of carbon to nitrogen to phosphorus doesn't deviate drastically from a variety of the commonly referenced ocean/coral ratios? Not just in reference to coral health but also the likelihood of promoting an environment where undesirable organisms may thrive, particularly when one element is extremely limited or extremely high? In relation to that do you have goals for nitrate and phosphate levels? Are these levels based on personal success or based on a different scientific concept?

BTW this is something we have all been debating at the shop for some time. I very much enjoy the evolution of the nutrient conversation

Hi Ryan love what your doing and the videos but my question is what are these commonly referenced ocean/coral ratios? your refering to.

@Randy Holmes-Farley perhaps you can shed a light.

I tried elevated levels in my tank on two occasions and within three weeks algae was every where.

There are so many tanks out there that have undecetable levels of po4 and no3 the brs 160 included that have good growth and colouration

I have resorted to adding 4 drops a day of phosphorus because my first year the tank did not do so good with zeovit. I know the phosphate gets bound to the rocks fairly quickly but it is still availbile to the corals for a few hours each day

sorry corals are washed out in the photo because of the blue light

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Hi Ryan love what your doing and the videos but my question is what are these commonly referenced ocean/coral ratios? your refering to.

@Randy Holmes-Farley perhaps you can shed a light.

I tried elevated levels in my tank on two occasions and within three weeks algae was every where.

There are so many tanks out there that have undecetable levels of po4 and no3 the brs 160 included that have good growth and colouration

I have resorted to adding 4 drops a day of phosphorus because my first year the tank did not do so good with zeovit. I know the phosphate gets bound to the rocks fairly quickly but it is still availbile to the corals for a few hours each day

sorry corals are washed out in the photo because of the blue light

You can read what the Redfield ratio is here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redfield_ratio