When and why did dosing nitrates start?

[Lasse]

Thin and polished biofilm huh? How many people have trouble keeping coralline off of this supposed fast flowing surface

High five - this is a true scientific approach - to compare the attaching capabilities between a calcium producing algae with a soft biofilm of bacteria.

The nitrification layer (consisting of chemoautotrophs that's are slow growers) in a biofilm is only around some µ thick because of the facultative aerobes need of oxygen and their faster growth. This is ecology. Even in a polished biofilm (read thin) the anaerobic layer is much thicker than the layer with nitrification. I do not deny that if the biofilm will host bacteria with dentification capability and that they will do that in vitro - if tested. However - will this have an real function in an ecological system as an aquarium? If the theory of continuous nitrification/denitrification is true in reality - that the denitrification capability in the combined biofilm should be higher than the nitrification rate without doubt

Every one owning an aquarium knows that this is not true - the nitrate levels (even if there is no dosing of it) will rise with time in most aquariums - especially in bare bottoms.

However - says some - the poor denitrification rate is cause by lack of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) that can serve as electron donors in the anaerobic metabolism. We add that. Problem should be solved. But - much people have still a problem with rising or not decreasing nitrate levels. Further on - if enough DOC is added - the fast aerobic growth of facultative heterotrophs will outcompete some of the nitrification organisms for space and oxygen - the result is that at least the second step will stop and nitrite will rise.

Fairy tales and it does not work as you think because you are not an scientist will probably be the reply on this. The only thing I can say - study some literature about nitrification in waste water and fish farming.

I´m not a scientist - that´s right - but I have worked with the task to transfer scientific findings into working systems according to waste water treatment and aquatic life supporting system for whole my life - some things have I learned through this journey.

there is no cause and effect relationship between adding nitrate and diminishing cyanobacteria growth in an aquarium. There is no phenomenon to explain.

I leave this for @Sallstrom to answer. But interesting to read that´s his more than 10 years of documenting and testing this method in many different systems, small as large can only be dismissed in two sentences by someone who according to his own information has never tested it because it just can not work.....

And he has not tested it on a hobby scale - this is a part of his job - and he is very good in that job

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

To my post above - I will ad that there is a system of biofilms there continuous nitrification/denitrification can work in an aquarium. But these organisms are not facultative heterotopic bacteria - instead they are facultative autotrophic sulfur bacteria (need elementary sulfur in the substrate). More known as Belgian Anthias BADES rolls. I have not tested that approach.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[MnFish1]

Keep in mind that I am not a novice. I have maintained a reef for over two decades and have reset my tank multiple times with similar results, BUT to the point of this thread I ALWAYS test zero on nitrates . . . and I use the highest quality tests and multiple variations . . . I have never found nitrates. Obviously, my system has nitrate that occurs. My question is: Does having trace nitrate in your system improve coral health, and if so what proof is there.

Nice tank - and I agree with you.

 

[MnFish1]

No dose ammonia to manage nitrogen levels. Where did you get fishless cycling from my post?

I think he misunderstood your point - BUT - I dont understand the reason to add 'ammonia' - Why not just feed your fish and coral more?

 

[taricha]

The only bright idea I have is to set up many small identical aquaria and induce cyanobacteria in all of them, using 3-5 for controls and 3-5 for nitrate additions and see if the systems with nitrate additions lose their cyanobacteria. The likelihood of success with this approach is low. I need more ideas and I am open to suggestions.

If Lasse's NO3 mechanism involves the interplay of the mat, aragonite, and PO4, then that ought to be testable in a measurable way...

But I do have this question..... with the accuracy of hobby level test kits and the possible diversity of microbial biologics from system to system, do you feel the type of additive used actually matters? I think these conversations are incredibly informative and important to have.

For the average hobbyist, is this a discussion using a microscope when we view it as if looking through a piece of wavy antique glass? Would the average hobbyist notice a difference between dosing Nitrates or Ammonia? Or between Vinegar or Vodka?

I have very thin data on this, but what I've seen makes me lean toward YES, the source may matter a lot.
When dosing different carbon sources into samples of water, I get different observable results - the rates of consumption of carbon, the ratios of biomass to oxygen consumption, and visible appearance of what is grown - all of these are different between different carbon sources.

 

[Brew12]

I have very thin data on this, but what I've seen makes me lean toward YES, the source may matter a lot.
When dosing different carbon sources into samples of water, I get different observable results - the rates of consumption of carbon, the ratios of biomass to oxygen consumption, and visible appearance of what is grown - all of these are different between different carbon sources.

I probably didn't ask my question well enough.... I have also seen where the carbon source matters, no disputing that. Some systems seem to prefer vinegar and others vodka. I'd imagine the same is true of ammonia or sodium nitrate. With the testing the average hobbyist has available to them, how would they have any idea which would be better for their systems?

 

[MnFish1]

Good point on the aquarium carbon economy. We tend to forget that the organic matter goes to generating energy AND building biomass.

The energy generating part only uses the carbon, the nitrogen and phosphorous components are left overs. This can be demonstrated on paper by considering fish food with a Redfield ratio of C:N. When an organism consumes it, a portion of the carbon atoms are converted to CO2 and energy. For discussion purposes, assume half the carbon atoms are converted to CO2. The remaining organic matter now has proportion of N and P higher than the Redfield ratio. If the organism biomass building need of atoms is approximately the Redfield ratio, it has to dump N and P.

I guess I dont believe in using the Redfield ratio in this way - but - for sure - N and P are not 'leftovers' - per se - right? I mean - how would glycolysis work without N and P (and C)

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

@Randy Holmes-Farley

Hi Randy, I apologize, I was a little defensive after the lol of my hypothesis. I just need to be bigger.

I would like to point out that I never advised against utilizing acetate at all. In fact I think it makes a great carbon source and would be excellent choice in a carbon cocktail.

I just propose that possible using more than one carbon source would probably be more beneficial for the ecology of the aquarium. If you just want N and P reduction and don't worry about the intricate stuff that happens on the reef, well I don't blame you. It is because it is extremely difficult to discern and educated guesses have to be made based on the available research. And unfortunately the available research leaves a lot to be desired.

Peace

OK, I as well.

Let's just move forward.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Would a Seneye be suitable for such monitoring?

I would like to leave this thread knowing what parameters I should be looking at in my tank and how to best maintain them.

I had been really hoping the Mindstream would allow continuous monitoring of low levels of ammonia. The Seneye might do that, but enough folks seem to get incorrect ammonia readings from it that I would be skeptical of its low ammonia level accuracy.

 

[MnFish1]

A slight aside - I apologize if some of my posts repeated something someone said earlier - for me reading this - the pages were mixed up - some issue with R2R - at least on my computer. Example - I saw (when I was on page 1) - one of Lasse's comments that showed up again on Page 7 or 8.

 

[taricha]

I noticed my colors fading in my tank and after tests decided to try dosing nitrate and sure enough, color returned. It was dramatic and the only change. I think that was in 2010 and a few others had done it too so it’s been at least 10 years but probably longer.

@hart24601 is another reefer like @2Sunny See post 8 who has amazing tanks packed with beautiful coral that most any hobbyist here would be jealous of, and near "zero" on the testable nutrients.

Hart, my impression was that you already had high rate of food going through your system, many small frequently eating fish etc.
Would be interested in your thoughts / observations. Do you think that your tank already had a high rate of feeding and Nitrogen flux through the system and that NO3 addition still helped? Or do you think that NO3 addition at the time was filling in a gap due to not enough feeding / fish for your coral appetite?

 

[taricha]

There is bacteria species and strains that is known for this - they are sometimes referred to as Luxury consumer of PO4. As an example some non sulphur purple bacteria is known to do that (if I remember right). Look after terms like "bacterial phosphate removal in wastewater plants"

Thanks, I've seen good hobby evidence for luxury uptake of PO4 in dino blooms. Those things apparently can store it really well.
But in bacterial blooms from tank water, the PO4 always seems to follow normal stoichiometry expectations for bacterial biomass. I wonder if we have these Polyphosphate Accumulating Organisms (PAO) in our systems in relevant amounts. Of course, I wouldn't find them in my aerobic tests of tank water - as they apparently need anaerobic NO3-free conditions to do their thing.
Thanks for the tip.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

And 'because he doesn't care enough about this hobby to have one"? WOW. You sure do know a lot about him. Maybe he is at a point in life where having an aquarium would be a disservice to the creatures inside it. I could list a million reasons why he might not have one. Yet, he still has knowledge to share and try and help people with. So why judge him on that?

I don't want to divert the thread so any discussion of my tank should be elsewhere, but since it came up, here's the thread on my tank, which I had up for 20 years:

https://www.reef2reef.com/reports/17856/#report-comment-127722

I begin the sad process of taking it down at about post 68 in that thread.

Here's one of the pictures from it for folks who don't want to chase the link...

 

[MnFish1]

I don't want to divert the thread so any discussion of my tank should be elsewhere, but since it came up, here's the thread on my tank, which I had up for 20 years:

https://www.reef2reef.com/reports/17856/#report-comment-127722

I begin the sad process of taking it down at about post 68 in that thread.

Here's one of the pictures from it for folks who don't want to chase the link...

Nice tank - I have a question - What do you think the advantage of 'dosing' as compared to merely having a higher bioload/feeding in the tank? There are a lot of things concerning nitrate and PO4 dosing that don't make complete sense to me - so I'm curious as to what you think - It seems to me that if nutrient x is being produced at a rate that supports 'xx' amount of coral/bacteria, etc - in a constant fashion (feeding, fish waste, other waste, etc) - why would coral or zooxanthellae etc not just grow to the level where equilibrium is reached (as compared to 'starving to death'?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Nice tank - I have a question - What do you think the advantage of 'dosing' as compared to merely having a higher bioload/feeding in the tank? There are a lot of things concerning nitrate and PO4 dosing that don't make complete sense to me - so I'm curious as to what you think - It seems to me that if nutrient x is being produced at a rate that supports 'xx' amount of coral/bacteria, etc - in a constant fashion (feeding, fish waste, other waste, etc) - why would coral or zooxanthellae etc not just grow to the level where equilibrium is reached (as compared to 'starving to death'?

We are talking about dosing nitrate and/or phosphate? Since it came up earlier, I have no issues with dosing ammonia either. Or amino acids as an N source. Many organisms prefer ammonia when they have both ammonia and nitrate available. Would it have exactly the same effect per unit of N dosed? Not sure. I just think nitrate may be a little less forgiving of issues like overdose than ammonia. There are threads here where folks have misread directions and dosed a hundred times the amount they were supposed to. That issue is less of a concern with nitrate than ammonia. Seachem has urea in their N product. I'm not a fan of it for lack of ability to measure it, but it may be fine.

I think control is one advantage of dosing. You can dose and control N and P independently. They are not consumed in unison in reef aquaria for many reasons (denitrification, phosphate binding to mineral surfaces, etc.) so they may be needed in uneven proportions in different aquaria.

Food also spurs lowering of O2 and a potential increase in other breakdown products. Might be an issue, might not.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

- why would coral or zooxanthellae etc not just grow to the level where equilibrium is reached (as compared to 'starving to death'?

On that specific point, corals are not the only user. Other consumption mechanisms (both biological and abiotic) may drop N and P below levels the organisms you are focused on might thrive optimally.

 

[flampton]

I think he misunderstood your point - BUT - I dont understand the reason to add 'ammonia' - Why not just feed your fish and coral more?

See Randys post

 

[Lasse]

Thanks, I've seen good hobby evidence for luxury uptake of PO4 in dino blooms. Those things apparently can store it really well.
But in bacterial blooms from tank water, the PO4 always seems to follow normal stoichiometry expectations for bacterial biomass. I wonder if we have these Polyphosphate Accumulating Organisms (PAO) in our systems in relevant amounts. Of course, I wouldn't find them in my aerobic tests of tank water - as they apparently need anaerobic NO3-free conditions to do their thing.
Thanks for the tip.

Here is another tip if you want to go that path. Bokashi composting is a very popular compost technique in Sweden these days. It use a microorganism blend that also content nonsulfur purple photosynthetic bacteria - it is traded as Effective Microorganisms. The microorganism Rhodopseudomonas palustris is present in this mix. This is one of the known luxury consumers of phosphorus. I have injected EM below my DSB and not crashed the aquaria yet . However - I have no possibility to get light in that environment for the moment - but I´m working on one idea that should combine anaerobe environment with light.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[flampton]

High five - this is a true scientific approach - to compare the attaching capabilities between a calcium producing algae with a soft biofilm of bacteria.

The nitrification layer (consisting of chemoautotrophs that's are slow growers) in a biofilm is only around some µ thick because of the facultative aerobes need of oxygen and their faster growth. This is ecology. Even in a polished biofilm (read thin) the anaerobic layer is much thicker than the layer with nitrification. I do not deny that if the biofilm will host bacteria with dentification capability and that they will do that in vitro - if tested. However - will this have an real function in an ecological system as an aquarium? If the theory of continuous nitrification/denitrification is true in reality - that the denitrification capability in the combined biofilm should be higher than the nitrification rate without doubt

Every one owning an aquarium knows that this is not true - the nitrate levels (even if there is no dosing of it) will rise with time in most aquariums - especially in bare bottoms.

However - says some - the poor denitrification rate is cause by lack of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) that can serve as electron donors in the anaerobic metabolism. We add that. Problem should be solved. But - much people have still a problem with rising or not decreasing nitrate levels. Further on - if enough DOC is added - the fast aerobic growth of facultative heterotrophs will outcompete some of the nitrification organisms for space and oxygen - the result is that at least the second step will stop and nitrite will rise.

Fairy tales and it does not work as you think because you are not an scientist will probably be the reply on this. The only thing I can say - study some literature about nitrification in waste water and fish farming.

I´m not a scientist - that´s right - but I have worked with the task to transfer scientific findings into working systems according to waste water treatment and aquatic life supporting system for whole my life - some things have I learned through this journey.


I leave this for @Sallstrom to answer. But interesting to read that´s his more than 10 years of documenting and testing this method in many different systems, small as large can only be dismissed in two sentences by someone who according to his own information has never tested it because it just can not work.....

And he has not tested it on a hobby scale - this is a part of his job - and he is very good in that job

Sincerely Lasse

First of all I have never responded to anyone that they're not a scientist. And I resent the implication.

So to sum up I show you evidence that anaerobes are everywhere including in coral skeletons as expected. Yet you won't believe this because you're not seeing denitrification. I just don't get it so I have to drop out of this convo.

 

[MnFish1]

On that specific point, corals are not the only user. Other consumption mechanisms (both biological and abiotic) may drop N and P below levels the organisms you are focused on might thrive optimally.

Thanks - I guess I meant - when in a steady state - assuming the same feeding and waste schedule - theoretically speaking - I can see where coral 'growth' might slow - or stop - I just cant see how it would 'starve to death' (again unless as you suggest there was some other extraneous process going on). Likewise - if you're dosing N so corals don't 'starve to death' - as some have suggested here - why will you not get to a new steady state (i.e. do you find you have to keep adding more and more over time?)