When and why did dosing nitrates start?

[hart24601]

@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?

On my old tank I had auto feeders going 6-8x a day plus feeding frozen and nori. I think it’s important we keep in mind we can’t paint every system with the experiences of a few people, different systems can be drastically different on live stock and how they process nutrients. That’s why I chimed in with my experience just to have another data point. I was also dosing nitrate when I won the acro growout here on 2r2 in 2014 I think it was and I spot fed all the corals every single night in addition to the food and still had to add nitrate for color or they paled. Now I don’t think most systems should need this, but I also don’t think people should exclude the possibility of needing it.

 

[MnFish1]

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

But you did say something like 'Now were off the topic of science and just using anecdote'.

I'm not reminding you of this to further this he said/she said (or he said/he said) - I wanted to talk about anecdote as compared to science in this topic. Lots of people have posted lots of 'theoretical' science - Its definitely 'science' - but whether it really relates to reef tanks or not I have extreme doubts. In theory - adding up stoichiometric N, P, C etc may seem like its beneficial -but IMHO - there are so many variables in different aquaria that affect coral - amount of light vs alkalinity vs nutrients vs toxins vs the types of bacteria present - which according to my discussions with @AquaBiomics can be considerable - among hundreds of other things, I personally don't see how its possible to purely rely on metabolic pathways - when we don't even know which strains of bacteria are in individual tanks or how they interact with each other let alone which types of zooxanthellae and bacteria may be present in given corals. Sorry this is long - to me the anecdotal experience/evidence seems as valid or more valid than the theoretical 'science'. As a 'scientist' myself - I certainly enjoyed the chemistry review - I just wonder how it applies to 'my tank'.

 

[Lasse]

Yet you won't believe this because you're not seeing denitrification

Yes I believe that you can isolate microorganisms that are able to do denitrification all over the world and everywhere. I also believe that you can show their denitrification capability in vitro. What I do not believe is that their reel effect in thin biofilms and without DOC has any importance in removing nitrate in an aquarium with normal or even low load of food input at all. One swallow does not make a summer so to speak.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[MnFish1]

See Randys post

I did I read it hours ago. I asked you the question before Randy answered. In any case I think I posted also a couple hours ago - apologizing for mentioning things that had already been said - but that at least on my computer the posts were 'not in order'.

 

[MnFish1]

One swallow does not make a summer so to speak.

Sincerely Lasse

I love your sayings

 

[2Sunny]

Wow. I go away to work for a few days and you kids start throwing sand at each other. This is a hobby and posting here is supposed to be fun. ;Facepalm

Now back to our regularly scheduled broadcast

So these are the scientific papers that seem relevant so far:

Significance of Acetate as a Microbial Carbon and Energy Source in the Water Column of Gulf of Mexico: Implications for Marine Carbon Cycling

Putting the N in dinoflagellates

Metagenomic, phylogenetic, and functional characterization of predominant endolithic green sulfur bacteria in the coral Isopora palifera

I am not a scientist, but did not the second paper show multiple studies where in dinoflagellates were NH4 inhibited in certain circumstances and is that not relevant?

Just when I thought I was out, they keep pulling me back in!! Haha!

. . .

Now you see the OPs aquarium, would you suggest he just follow the norms and dose nitrates or just keep his current style of reefing? Id tell him to keep it up and if he sees a problem arise and wants to limit phosphate input, then my suggestion is ammonia. Clearly you can see some people argue this position is wrong. And some dose both. If he doesn't have a problem with phosphate he can certainly feed more as well.

. . .

So not to get too far off topic, but when I'm talking ecology over set numbers it is exploring different and alternative ways, such as this thread I just started on cyano mat formers

Cyano mat formers destruction the new way forward!

Hi all well you might have seen me in other threads arguing for understanding bacteria and better ecological ways forward. Well I'm here to introduce you to some new thoughts on cyano mat formers. I mean we all know it's an imbalance in the aquarium, usually cited as some nutrient issue...

www.reef2reef.com

Subscribed, looking forward to more learning ;Bookworm

I dosed NoPox for awhile. Overtime PO4 began to rise again so I increased the dosage and when I did so I had a bacterial bloom that turned my water milky white. I only got rid of that when I used a UV sterilizer. It took about 3 weeks of intermittent UV usage to clear the water. I do not like using UV and took it off as soon as possible and then bought fresh Live Rock from KP Aquatics to re-establish a healthy bacterial balance in my system. Since that time I use Ferric Oxide in the form of X-Port PO4 as needed. I find it easy to keep PO4 at good levels with occasional use.

Question for the scientists here: Are there implications for long term use of Ferric Oxide?

Randy,
To you I want to express my many, many thanks. I have been reading your articles as long as I have been a reefer and can not begin to tell you how many choices and habits I have because of you, things like using 0 and 35 ppt salinity to calibrate my ATC refractometer, and aerating my new batches of I.O. I certainly am happy you chimed in here and you've got me thinking I should at least try dosing nitrate to see if I can notice any difference. Fortunately I have a newly established 22 gallon nano that will be a perfect test subject. It too is showing zero nitrate but high phosphate.

Anyways, again thanks to all for contributing to a great discussion. Has me thinking for sure.

P.S. Not to be too narcissistic, but just felt a need to establish my own "creds". I'm not a scientist, but did graduate with honors from Dartmouth with a Masters in Engineering.


Cheers,

Joe Peck

 

[flampton]

But you did say something like 'Now were off the topic of science and just using anecdote'.

I'm not reminding you of this to further this he said/she said (or he said/he said) - I wanted to talk about anecdote as compared to science in this topic. Lots of people have posted lots of 'theoretical' science - Its definitely 'science' - but whether it really relates to reef tanks or not I have extreme doubts. In theory - adding up stoichiometric N, P, C etc may seem like its beneficial -but IMHO - there are so many variables in different aquaria that affect coral - amount of light vs alkalinity vs nutrients vs toxins vs the types of bacteria present - which according to my discussions with @AquaBiomics can be considerable - among hundreds of other things, I personally don't see how its possible to purely rely on metabolic pathways - when we don't even know which strains of bacteria are in individual tanks or how they interact with each other let alone which types of zooxanthellae and bacteria may be present in given corals. Sorry this is long - to me the anecdotal experience/evidence seems as valid or more valid than the theoretical 'science'. As a 'scientist' myself - I certainly enjoyed the chemistry review - I just wonder how it applies to 'my tank'.

Well I'm just trying to improve reef keeping. Now you don't have to buy in or believe me because there are plenty of established methods already based just on nutrient levels.

Also if you read this thread some people have shared anecdotal evidence on ammonia as well. It is definitely a fine thing to go by. In fact whatever I suggest or anyone else suggests based on the ocean is always going to be anecdotal once applied to reef tanks.

And finally I'll close with noting that the most random thing we do to our aquariums is add food.

 

[HuduVudu]

P.S. Not to be too narcissistic, but just felt a need to establish my own "creds". I'm not a scientist, but did graduate with honors from Dartmouth with a Masters in Engineering.

ROFL ... this sub arc between Sheldon and Howard in the early episodes of Big Bang Theory were some of my favorite.

 

[flampton]

Yes I believe that you can isolate microorganisms that are able to do denitrification all over the world and everywhere. I also believe that you can show their denitrification capability in vitro. What I do not believe is that their reel effect in thin biofilms and without DOC has any importance in removing nitrate in an aquarium with normal or even low load of food input at all. One swallow does not make a summer so to speak.

Sincerely Lasse

If you can point out in any of my past posts in which I state that denirification is happening in a hobby test detectable way in a bare bottom tank I'll be glad to go back and change it.

It is extremely important to be clear with our language. No anaerobes means zero anaerobes of any type.

Also just to clarify for people that yes biofilm is growing on the bottom of your bare bottom tank. They use many polymers to achieve this. And even if you can't grasp this think about the plaque on your teeth. We have to brush our teeth for a reason.

 

[MnFish1]

Well I'm just trying to improve reef keeping. Now you don't have to buy in or believe me because there are plenty of established methods already based just on nutrient levels.

Also if you read this thread some people have shared anecdotal evidence on ammonia as well. It is definitely a fine thing to go by. In fact whatever I suggest or anyone else suggests based on the ocean is always going to be anecdotal once applied to reef tanks.

And finally I'll close with noting that the most random thing we do to our aquariums is add food.

I know your motives were to improve reef keeping - I said I enjoyed reading the science.
But you didn't answer my question - how does this improve reef-keeping in an individual tank - as compared to theory?

 

[SMSREEF]

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'?

I am thinking the way we need to look at this is that we have a biome of not only the corals and zooxanthellae using nutrient X, but many, many more organisms that all are fighting for resource X.

Tanks can and do reach a sort of equilibrium, but when that equilibrium is disrupted, certain organisms may do better in the changing environment. Others do worse simply because of their inability to use a lower level of nutrient X. Some that do well may be able to switch their metabolism from nutrient X to Nutrient Y in order to survive, leaving them in a healthier position and larger population when nutrient X returns.

Also just look at life in general, it will often reproduce and grow until out of resources. Other life forms usually keep a population in check rather than them keeping themselves in check.

 

[flampton]

I know your motives were to improve reef keeping - I said I enjoyed reading the science.
But you didn't answer my question - how does this improve reef-keeping in an individual tank - as compared to theory?

Well read Randys post again. It's pretty obvious that knowing how to manipulate nutrient levels independently is advantageous.

 

[MnFish1]

If you can point out in any of my past posts in which I state that denirification is happening in a hobby test detectable way in a bare bottom tank I'll be glad to go back and change it.

It is extremely important to be clear with our language. No anaerobes means zero anaerobes of any type.

Also just to clarify for people that yes biofilm is growing on the bottom of your bare bottom tank. They use many polymers to achieve this. And even if you can't grasp this think about the plaque on your teeth. We have to brush our teeth for a reason.

Now I have a science question.... Do you think aerobic denitrification occurs in our tanks?

 

[Lasse]

No anaerobes means zero anaerobes of any type.

where have I wrote that according to tin biofilms..... If you show me - I correct it. I have said that do not believe in the nitrification/denitrification theory in biofilms.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[MnFish1]

Well read Randys post again. It's pretty obvious that knowing how to manipulate nutrient levels independently is advantageous.

But I wasn't asking for Randy's opinion. I probably wasn't clear - I was asking how all of the 'the science' was more helpful than 'the anecdote' - OR - if the 'Science' even explained the success of the 'anecdote'. It seems like everyone has a different theory on which chemical should be where - from people that add nothing - to people that add microgram levels. I was asking for your opinion as to how stoichiometrically analyzing elements and metabolic pathways (which may be quite different in different bacteria populations) - and there is extreme variation in individual tanks with regards to bacteria population etc etc as I posted before. So - I guess I disagree that its 'pretty obvious' that knowing how to manipulate nutrient levels independently is advantageous - unless you want to convince me. I personally do not do it - and have not had problems... (thats why I asked how the theory applies to individual tanks)

 

[MnFish1]

Also just look at life in general, it will often reproduce and grow until out of resources. Other life forms usually keep a population in check rather than them keeping themselves in check.

Yes - I get your point - but I'm not sure its the 'whole story' especially with regards to bacteria. With a herd of deer - for example - their reproduction time is slow - but grass grows even slower - so I can see a scenario that with no predators deer could run out of grass and die. I view bacteria and algae differently - many reproduce more quickly - and most then can remain dormant until more food arrives. Or maybe I'm wrong...

 

[flampton]

Now I have a science question.... Do you think aerobic denitrification occurs in our tanks?

I'll answer both your questions here...

First is that aerobic denitrification is definitely happening but to be sure not in a way a hobbyist can test for.

Second the science that is out there can explain almost everything that happens anecdotally in your tank when looking at the big picture. This thread is talking about the nitrogen cycle. A well established scientific fact. Add nitrates and things improve, well you know the tank was nitrogen starved.

However as we move forward articles like this suggest to me that ammonia is a better way forward

Unravelling the different causes of nitrate and ammonium effects on coral bleaching - Scientific Reports

Mass coral bleaching represents one of the greatest threats to coral reefs and has mainly been attributed to seawater warming. However, reduced water quality can also interact with warming to increase coral bleaching, but this interaction depends on nutrient ratios and forms. In particular...

www.nature.com

Now this is in relation to thermal tolerance but I will argue that it does give us insight into stress tolerance in relation to nitrogen forms.

 

[SMSREEF]

Now I have a science question.... Do you think aerobic denitrification occurs in our tanks?

My guess is that it does. Otherwise, why in the world would my new tank be blowing through it so fast.
But I have no clue how we would test for the bacteria that may actually do this.

"a novel salt-tolerant aerobic denitrifier, Halomonas alkaliphile HRL-9 was isolated from laboratory seawater RASs of Dalian Ocean University (Dalian, China). Single-factor experiment results showed the highest removal rate of nitrate to appear at a C/N ratio of 10, a temperature of 30 °C, and a shaking speed of 150 rpm. A total of 98.0% of NO3−-N was removed at 24 h, and 77.3% of TN was removed at 48 h. A nitrogen balance analysis of strain HRL-9 revealed that approximately 74.5% of the initial nitrogen was removed as gas products, and 21.7% of NO3−-N was converted to intracellular nitrogen."

The Nitrogen-Removal Efficiency of a Novel High-Efficiency Salt-Tolerant Aerobic Denitrifier, Halomonas Alkaliphile HRL-9, Isolated from a Seawater Biofilter

Aerobic denitrification microbes have great potential to solve the problem of NO[3] [−] -N accumulation in industrialized recirculating aquaculture systems (RASs). A novel salt-tolerant aerobic denitrifier was isolated from a marine recirculating ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[SMSREEF]

Yes - I get your point - but I'm not sure its the 'whole story' especially with regards to bacteria. With a herd of deer - for example - their reproduction time is slow - but grass grows even slower - so I can see a scenario that with no predators deer could run out of grass and die. I view bacteria and algae differently - many reproduce more quickly - and most then can remain dormant until more food arrives. Or maybe I'm wrong...

I was actually thinking about our tanks algae and microbes as examples too.
When I had chrysophyte running rampant in my tank (which I blame on low nutrients), I raised the nutrients, dosed bacteria from bottles, manual removal, etc. But it already had a foothold and could out compete everything else. Maybe I could have let it starve, but my guess is that it was going to be the only thing left in the tank when it finally did starve. Instead, I got live rock and live sand from the keys. Somehow this new group of competitors helped get it under control and die back. I dosed nitrate and phosphate during this time.

Many reefers have a similar experience with dino's, or the ugly stage in a new aquarium where a certain algae/bacteria/protist take their turn overpopulating, until a competitor comes along to keep them in check or they run out of the nutrient/element they need.

And yes, I agree with you, they are likely dormant and if the right conditions occur, where the other bacteria/biofilm/organisms are not happy, they very well could appear again.

This seems different than our corals, I don't think they have much ability to become dormant for very long. But, I have no evidence of this other than my limited experience with coral in my tank. You have some amazing corals, do you think they have much ability to become semi-dormant? If so, what do they still need in regards to nitrate? If the lights are still on can they even shut their metabolism down?

 

[Nano sapiens]

I was actually thinking about our tanks algae and microbes as examples too.
When I had chrysophyte running rampant in my tank (which I blame on low nutrients), I raised the nutrients, dosed bacteria from bottles, manual removal, etc. But it already had a foothold and could out compete everything else. Maybe I could have let it starve, but my guess is that it was going to be the only thing left in the tank when it finally did starve. Instead, I got live rock and live sand from the keys. Somehow this new group of competitors helped get it under control and die back. I dosed nitrate and phosphate during this time.

Many reefers have a similar experience with dino's, or the ugly stage in a new aquarium where a certain algae/bacteria/protist take their turn overpopulating, until a competitor comes along to keep them in check or they run out of the nutrient/element they need.

And yes, I agree with you, they are likely dormant and if the right conditions occur, where the other bacteria/biofilm/organisms are not happy, they very well could appear again.

This seems different than our corals, I don't think they have much ability to become dormant for very long. But, I have no evidence of this other than my limited experience with coral in my tank. You have some amazing corals, do you think they have much ability to become semi-dormant? If so, what do they still need in regards to nitrate? If the lights are still on can they even shut their metabolism down?

Corals have fat reserves (lipids), but like all animals they are limited and must be replaced to meet their metabolic needs or they will starve and eventually die. Zooxanthellate corals have an advantage since they can utilize the photosynthetically produced byproducts from their resident zooxanthellae, but this is not sufficient and they must fulfill their dietary needs by utilizing other nutrient sources from the environment.