Zero No3 on Salifert Test kit is actually not 0.0

[CHSUB]

Turns out zero on hobby test kits is not zero and “bottoming” out nutrients can’t be determined with hobby kits. Imo, eye tests is more reliable: pale colors would be best indicator.

Fauna Marin ICP results: no3 = .1 ppm, Salifert =0.0; po4= .015, Hanna =0.0.
Corals colorful and growing!

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I'll just repeat myself that ANY association of a reef tank look with a particular nitrate level as an indication of whether it is a problem or not ignores all the other sources of N in a reef tank, such as ammonia, organics (amino acids and others), particulates, and whole organisms such as bacteria. Those certainly vary tank to tank.

Undetectable nitrate with a test kit can be a serious problem, or it can be OK. It all depends on these other sources.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I believe that’s why is advisable to run a system with detectable residual no3, a minimum of 1ppm is advisable and higher or lower will depend on how experienced are you in the hobby.
At the end of the day you only determining the residual no3 not what the system is producing and using.

 

[CHSUB]

Coral growth at 0.0 no3 Salifert Test kit since September. 7 tips vs 1 on SPS, no reason to have readable no3 on a hobby test kit, imo.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Coral growth at 0.0 no3 Salifert Test kit since September. 7 tips vs 1 on SPS, no reason to have readable no3 on a hobby test kit, imo.

If you have other adequate sources of N, that is true. If you do not, it is not true, and the only way to know is to try it, which may have negative consequences if it is not true.

 

[BriDroid]

If you have other adequate sources of N, that is true. If you do not, it is not true, and the only way to know is to try it, which may have negative consequences if it is not true.

That is why I dose 0.2ppm of ammonium bicarbonate daily. Just to keep that safety buffer there. My N runs about 1-3ppm when tested. If my tank was bigger and I could add more fish, I'm sure that would get rid of the need to dose ammonium daily.

 

[CHSUB]

If you have other adequate sources of N, that is true. If you do not, it is not true, and the only way to know is to try it, which may have negative consequences if it is not true.

Agreed with regards to corals. How would this apply to dinoflagellates? A new tank at 0.0 no3 since April, if you use todays common misconception that bottoming out nutrients causes dinos, shouldn’t my tank be overrun with toxic algae killing and smothering everything? Yet it’s thriving and the once sterile dry white rock is now almost all purple and covered with coralline algae.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Agreed with regards to corals. How would this apply to dinoflagellates? A new tank at 0.0 no3 since April, if you use todays common misconception that bottoming out nutrients causes dinos, shouldn’t my tank be overrun with toxic algae killing and smothering everything? Yet it’s thriving and the once sterile dry white rock is now almost all purple and covered with coralline algae.

I believe that bottomed out N is a significant risk factor for dinos if there are any surfaces not fully colonized with competitors. It is leaving an opening for them to grow. Ensuring some N and P availability can help ensure surfaces are colonized with something else that competes with dinos for space, such as diatoms, algae, or perhaps bacteria.

 

[CHSUB]

I believe that bottomed out N is a significant risk factor for dinos if there are any surfaces not fully colonized with competitors. It is leaving an opening for them to grow. Ensuring some N and P availability can help ensure surfaces are colonized with something else that competes with dinos for space, such as diatoms, algae, or perhaps bacteria.

Yes, however I’m not a fan of that idea and believed it’s flawed and false, and imo many believe it’s not a competition for space, which has merit maybe, but that bottomed out N spontaneously produce dinos. I’m a believer that Dinos are simply first, misidentified, and easiest to see; requiring no less or more N than diatoms, algae, or bacteria. The uncolonized area only needs time and not more N. If dinos have enough N to grow so does everything else.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Yes, however I’m not a fan of that idea and believed it’s flawed and false, and imo many believe it’s not a competition for space, which has merit maybe, but that bottomed out N spontaneously produce dinos. I’m a believer that Dinos are simply first, misidentified, and easiest to see; requiring no less or more N than diatoms, algae, or bacteria. The uncolonized area only needs time and not more N. If dinos have enough N to grow so does everything else.

I'm not going to defend what anyone else might think. I suspect they read that low nutrients may lead to dinos, and may misunderstand why.

I think enough folks have fairly rapidly solved dino issues by boosting competitors that I'm convinced it is part of the issue.

I agree that many pests are either misidentified or are a mixture of several at the same time, clouding what is useful and what is not.