- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 1,521
- Reaction score
- 1,511
Eh for a food rather than for water parameters it makes perfect sense. It's wonky wording for " nutritionally balanced", as opposed to a food that would have excess phosphate or nitrate or whatever else that would be left over aver the tank metabolizes the rest.Redfield neutral makes no 'sense'. I mean I see what they are trying to claim - but - Seems like a highly doubtful claim - and considering all of the questions about Redfield - I would say its not a great reason to feed a food. Redfield is a ratio. So - plug in any numbers you want for (C:N - P). Aquarists do not measure these elements on their own - so right there is a significant problem.
For example let's say the supposed 'good ratio' is "106:16:1". So if the nitrate is 160 and the PO4 is 10 - that fits the ratio - but it's not going to fit into a successful reef tank IMHO.
Nitrate 160 PO4 10 isn't great. But that's an easy fix, feed less, feed less, add more corals and everything goes down. If it were nitrate 1 PO4 10 on the other hand, that's an issue, you've got an unbalanced food that gives you the right amount of nitrogen but pollutes your tank with excess phosphorus that can't be taken up, and you can't just feed less or increase the lifestock, you'd need to get a different food that's lower on phosphorus relative to its nitrogen content.
Last edited by a moderator: