Do we need Nitrate in a reef tank?

[Kato]

With all the respect to their efforts to make this hobby more popular I tend to agree. With their resources they can organize experiments in far better way to be scientifically sound. They can make partnership with an University and provide them with topic and resources. There are hundreds of scientifically challenging topics in this hobby and I can see tens of Masters and PhD thesis on them.

That would be nice. They'd have to interpret the results and present them for the majority of reefers to get anything out of it I'm sure, but that would be okay.

However, on experiments, I'm actually ok it's not 100% scientific. I'm also ok that for some of the results, the viewer has to come to his own conclusions. To me, the experiments they do are the single most interesting part (personally not super interested in other top10 fails or whatever) and the potential here is enourmous. I see a lot of opportunity here to further have them build a releationship with their viewers by:

1) Have the audience decide on what to test next (some vote)
2) Perhaps have a board of 'experts' from US/EU/other places that make the final decision among a pool of topics. This could be named industry experts (not scientists really, but reefers)
3) Scale it up, have many in parallel as some can many months (just buy 50 tanks or have them sponsored, fine)
4) It's ok to include vendors here as well. You'll likely see only some vendors would want to participate
5) Have a dedicated place to do this and live stream the tanks 24/7. With technology today it's not expensive, difficult or a problem really. It engages the viewers over longer periods of time. Have a reef2reef thread on each experiment.

If I think about it more, there's so much opportunity here. Even if not 100% accurate, it is much quicker to try and narrow in on conclusions vs having an opinion form over a decade via an online forum. Imagine some new theory around cyano is tested, some new product is dosed or a change made to the tank. Viewers can live stream it the following days, discuss what they see, among multiple tanks, etc. It would be fab.

That would be my 2c. If BRS doesn't do it, this would be _the_ opportunity for someone else to step in and start their own Youtube career. I bet the channel will get at least the same amount of subscribers as the BRS one.

I'd also like to see a set of recommendations/knowhow that form over time not just for the beginner, but also the more advanced reefers. I think the 'keep nitrate at 5+' one falls into this bucket. There's many many more (dkh, ph, dinos, cyano, burnt tips, encrusting vs light and what have you).

 

[Hans-Werner]

I have issues trusting Tropic Marin's people since they are using these statements to sell an extensive product line aimed to have you do everything but have nitrate.

Nothing would be easier as to sell a solution of cheap nitrate, and we could even sell our nitrate tests with this approach. Woudn't this be quite perfect? Nitrate is cheap, safe, easy to dose and test for. I think these are the best reasons to make it so popular.

The only problem is that I am convinced that it isn't the best option, I think we can have a better solution.

Yes, of course I want to convince you that my approach is the better one, but I would also do so if I wouldn't work for a company but still for a public aquarium. I have developed these products and we are selling them because I think it is the better approach, not vice versa. I don't tell this just because we are having these products.

 

[Dan_P]

Have you look at the old thread I was referring to? If the link is not working for you too here is the name of the paper to google it:
Use of Zeolite for Removing Ammonia and Ammonia-Caused Toxicity in Marine Toxicity Identification Evaluations

The research seems trustworthy - researchers from US EPA and Harvard School of Public Health. They found out ammonia adsorption in 30-35ppt saltwater is about 60-70% of the adsorption in 0 salinity, if i recall correctly.

About the Seachem Prime - I'm not sure how it is even possible to "detoxifies" ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate (nitrate is generally not considered toxic) , never heard such binders exist but this is another topic to discuss, there were a thread about this if I am not mistaken.

I read the paper. Nice work. Thank you.

I am still interested in the performance of the Zeovit product. Has anyone confirmed the vendor’s claim about ammonia adsorption?

 

[Dan_P]

The problem with BRS is they don't know how to run and analyze experiments.

Apropriate measurements, detailed observations, adequate controls and replicates are some of the elements missing from the BRS experiments. Conflict of interest must also be considered when viewing their experiment design and data interpretation. The BRS mission is to accumulate wealth not scientific knowledge. The experiments are not totally useless.

 

[Dolphis]

Interesting post!
Im curious, if Nitrate isn’t as much of value, if any, as phosphate, then why do we even test for it? Is it just old-school habit/mentality/myth?

My understanding, is that nitrate was to be kept an eye on for the sake of fish and would easily be kept in check with water changes.

In landscaping/farming, urea is the best way to fertilize for crops to grow.
it wouldn’t be too far fetched to think corals and other organism living in water would use the same methods

 

[sixty_reefer]

Interesting post!
Im curious, if Nitrate isn’t as much of value, if any, as phosphate, then why do we even test for it? Is it just old-school habit/mentality/myth?

My understanding, is that nitrate was to be kept an eye on for the sake of fish and would easily be kept in check with water changes.

In landscaping/farming, urea is the best way to fertilize for crops to grow.
it wouldn’t be too far fetched to think corals and other organism living in water would use the same methods

Testing for nitrates is a way to see if your system has a balance between import and export of nitrogen the absolute value is usually not important, folks tend to agree on an acceptable range.

the most common form of nitrogen in NPK fertiliser is usually ammonium nitrate terrestrial and aquatic organisms tend to have similar needs of nitrogen.

 

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

Note: For the combined solution (N : P), I found that a 1:10 N : P was not balanced enough. I would suggest 1: 15 - 20 as a starting point, or just keep them separate and dose them separately.

First, in the (largely irrelevant) "Redfield Ratio", the larger of the 2 numbers is N, not P (i.e. your comment above should say 10:1 N : P)

Second, N is nitrogen (not other forms of it) and P is phosphorus (not phosphate), which makes referencing the RR in relation to reef tank dosing confusing at best and, IMO, generally useless.

Third, anecdotally, many find that a nitrate to phosphate ratio of 100:1 is a better target... Not 10:1 or 16:1.

 

[Dennis Cartier]

First, in the (largely irrelevant) "Redfield Ratio", the larger of the 2 numbers is N, not P (i.e. your comment above should say 10:1 N : P)

Second, N is nitrogen (not other forms of it) and P is phosphorus (not phosphate), which makes referencing the RR in relation to reef tank dosing confusing at best and, IMO, generally useless.

Third, anecdotally, many find that a nitrate to phosphate ratio of 100:1 is a better target... Not 10:1 or 16:1.

Well I stand corrected. (I fixed the typo)

Note, I was not referring to a ratio of N : P in the tank, but in a DIY combined nutrient formula.

 

[biom]

First, in the (largely irrelevant) "Redfield Ratio", the larger of the 2 numbers is N, not P (i.e. your comment above should say 10:1 N : P)

Second, N is nitrogen (not other forms of it) and P is phosphorus (not phosphate), which makes referencing the RR in relation to reef tank dosing confusing at best and, IMO, generally useless.

Third, anecdotally, many find that a nitrate to phosphate ratio of 100:1 is a better target... Not 10:1 or 16:1.

In less than 10 years we will celebrate 100-th anniversary of Redfield ratio and yes it is still valid, relevant and fundamental for the understanding of the biogeochemical cycles of the oceans.
Original N: P(16:1) is in molar terms which transformed to NO3: PO4 by weight is (10:1) (rounded).
I dont see any problem if someone want to dose /keep NO3: PO4 in their aquarium water in 10:1 ratio or 100:1 (none of them is better or worse) but keeping absolute numbers in some ranges is by far more important IMO.

 

[jda]

With this observation, we might conclude an aquarium does not need detectable nitrate, but (repeating what you already said) detectable nitrate is our way of observing the that aquarium organisms are getting enough inorganic nitrogen because we see a surplus as nitrate.

This is an oversimplification, as well, IMO. Having nitrate at all is more likely an indication of a lack of available anoxic bacteria.

 

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

In less than 10 years we will celebrate 100-th anniversary of Redfield ratio and yes it is still valid, relevant and fundamental for the understanding of the biogeochemical cycles of the oceans.
Original N: P(16:1) is in molar terms which transformed to NO3: PO4 by weight is (10:1) (rounded).
I dont see any problem if someone want to dose /keep NO3: PO4 in their aquarium water in 10:1 ratio or 100:1 (none of them is better or worse) but keeping absolute numbers in some ranges is by far more important IMO.

"Largely irrelevant to the hobby"

 

[Dan_P]

This is an oversimplification, as well, IMO. Having nitrate at all is more likely an indication of a lack of available anoxic bacteria.

Is that good, bad or neutral if nitrate us exported by other means?

 

[jda]

Is that good, bad or neutral if nitrate us exported by other means?

I don't know if there is a way to know, right? Guess it could be bad if people add stump remover and a bunch of impurities just to keep a number when all that they are likely doing is growing/maintaining anoxic bacteria. Guess it could be good if you want lower no3 and you will be happy with any export. In most cases, probably just neutral as long as people understand that even having a nitrate reading is not a sign of anything beyond that reading and that having no3 in the 5 range does not mean that you have other forms of more available nitrogen if you don't have fish (common in frag tanks) or that if you have no3 in the undetectable range that you don't have massive amounts of available nitrogen in other forms.

In my entry for the "false equivalency of the day" contest: guessing available nitrogen by having a nitrate reading is probably even more tricky that figuring out how fast a car is based on horsepower alone.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I don't know if there is a way to know, right? Guess it could be bad if people add stump remover and a bunch of impurities just to keep a number when all that they are likely doing is growing/maintaining anoxic bacteria. Guess it could be good if you want lower no3 and you will be happy with any export. In most cases, probably just neutral as long as people understand that even having a nitrate reading is not a sign of anything beyond that reading and that having no3 in the 5 range does not mean that you have other forms of more available nitrogen if you don't have fish (common in frag tanks) or that if you have no3 in the undetectable range that you don't have massive amounts of available nitrogen in other forms.

In my entry for the "false equivalency of the day" contest: guessing available nitrogen by having a nitrate reading is probably even more tricky that figuring out how fast a car is based on horsepower alone.

Just like to add that nitrates maintain also aerobic bacteria not just anoxic, aerobic bacteria that uses nitrates as a source of energy is very important in aquaria as they assimilate inorganic nitrogen and release nitrogen into the water column as they decompose. Similar to some algae’s functions they are fairly effective at transforming inorganic nutrient into organic nutrients that can be more easily assimilate by photosynthetic organisms they have the same function in farming and are extensively used to reduce the use of fertilisers needed in crops.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Interesting post!
Im curious, if Nitrate isn’t as much of value, if any, as phosphate, then why do we even test for it? Is it just old-school habit/mentality/myth?

My understanding, is that nitrate was to be kept an eye on for the sake of fish and would easily be kept in check with water changes.

In landscaping/farming, urea is the best way to fertilize for crops to grow.
it wouldn’t be too far fetched to think corals and other organism living in water would use the same methods

I dont agree with the premise of the question, but assuming nitrate is nothing more than an indicator of whether there are other forms of N available in sufficient amounts, that is immensely valuable and not easily attained in other ways.

 

[sixty_reefer]

"Largely irrelevant to the hobby"

Some apply redfield incorrectly in the hobby as redfield is not a nutrient target. Redfield is a tool that allow science to study nutrient limitations and if applied correctly in home aquaria is a fairly effective tool, I see many folks using that knowledge correctly on daily basis it’s more commonly used wile carbon dosing.

if it wasn’t for redfield how would folks know that phosphates could limit the bacteria from using nitrates wile carbon dosing, the 1:16 (1:25 in some situations) ratio of phosphates to nitrates ratio nutrient reduction that is mostly agreed wile carbon dosing it’s not at random.
The bacteria stimulated by carbon dosing reduces nutrient in aquaria in the redfield range.

folks that like to match their residual nutrients to the bacteria assimilation ratio are not wrong as it would be easier to keep an eye on the depletion of the nutrients although is not a necessity.
Trying to match the import to the export like the chap above is doing is more effective wile carbon dosing imo as this will aid nutrient stability

 

[Dan_P]

In my entry for the "false equivalency of the day" contest: guessing available nitrogen by having a nitrate reading is probably even more tricky that figuring out how fast a car is based on horsepower alone.

What about the amount of protein added per day as a first step in understanding nitrogen availability? The amount of nitrate would be the daily left over. It is a big simplification, but a start to understanding more about the consumption rate.

 

[Dan_P]

"Largely irrelevant to the hobby"

I would go one step further and claim totally irrelevant.

 

[biom]

I dont agree with the premise of the question, but assuming nitrate is nothing more than an indicator of whether there are other forms of N available in sufficient amounts, that is immensely valuable and not easily attained in other ways.

with exception when we are dosing nitrate then nitrate is just nitrate.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I would go one step further and claim totally irrelevant.

There is many subjects that folks find irrelevant. Unfortunately your claim is not shared by many therefore irrelevant for the discussion without being elaborated further, some like myself like to understand why nutrients get out of balance.