Ammonia is our Friend: thoughts needed

[twentyleagues]

hmmm… colour… so for example this:

The Blueberry wine acro, is that too dark or too bright?

Or this acro:

I personally like the colour but when I took those pictures I was not sure if it was too dark, or just right. At the time my NO3 was below 1 ppm…

Since those pictures I had major crash and I done few experiments and I am just not able to get same growth or colour:

For example the blueberry acro the purple is now gone….
This hobby can drive one bananas…

Anyway interesting subject and thank you all for sharing.

To me those all look great. Nice rich color. I would not guess that was below 1ppm of nitrate.

 

[Dburr1014]

That looks like the red planets that I see today not the red planets from back in the early 2000. I have mulled this over in my head for over an hour on how to reply without sounding negative or insulting. I am not saying anything bad and this is what I have seen since my return called a red planet. The red plant from back then had a very green base pink/red growth and red polyps. Low nutrients usually turned it pink and very light green to white on the base. I was very high nutrient and then after years I got to what I considered low nutrient n less than 10 and p below .1. Over all lightening of sps and much less inflation of lps some zoa colonies just melted. Allowing nutrients to range between 15-30n and .1-.2 p got things into a good over all area in my system. Maybe had I known about ammonia dosing I could have kept ulns and everything happy?

I'm not sure where you were negative in your post. LOL

Currently it is very pink and pale with a green base. Polyps are always pinkish. In the earlier picture it was more red with the green base. Deep red and a deep green. I really have a hard time keeping up nitrates, it's been like this for a couple years now. I've tried dosing nitrates and then switch to ammonium. Mostly I grew cyano I gave up dosing either.
This particular system I set up in April of this year. My nutrients all went up in the beginning, I attribute that to just basic disturbing of everything.
Since of late nitrates are down to zero phosphates are 0.13 and I'm noticing the past few days little Tufts of algae in some crevices.
This kinda goes against what Hans is saying. Not sure what's going on but I'll keep in tune with this thread.

One more thing, I really wish I was more handy with the camera. LOL

 

[twentyleagues]

I'm not sure where you were negative in your post. LOL

Currently it is very pink and pale with a green base. Polyps are always pinkish. In the earlier picture it was more red with the green base. Deep red and a deep green. I really have a hard time keeping up nitrates, it's been like this for a couple years now. I've tried dosing nitrates and then switch to ammonium. Mostly I grew cyano I gave up dosing either.
This particular system I set up in April of this year. My nutrients all went up in the beginning, I attribute that to just basic disturbing of everything.
Sense of late nitrates are down phosphates are 0.13 and I'm noticing the past few days little Tufts of algae in some crevices.
This kinda goes against what Hans is saying. Not sure what's going on but I'll keep in tune with this thread.

One more thing, I really wish I was more handy with the camera. LOL

Yeah pics are hard. On my phone they look like I see my tank, as soon as I post them...garbage! lol
I am glad you didnt think I was being negative. A lot of what I had typed out sounded negative so I would delete and start over. I hate when people are negative about a tank or coral in someone else's tank, Constructive criticism is ok at least to me. I had so many people bash my sps tank "those corals are browning and look terrible" and so on. In person that was not the case they may have looked that way in pics or may have been dark from high nutrients but they were not brown.

 

[Dburr1014]

Yeah pics are hard. On my phone they look like I see my tank, as soon as I post them...garbage! lol

EXACTLY!

 

[Lasse]

Lasse, I believe you will appreciate this question. If we maintained an ammonia concentration in our aquarium would that also maintain a nitrite concentration as well? We would have to completely remove the nitrifiers and ensure that our ammonia is only getting absorbed by the corals in order to safely maintain our nitrite levels. After all 1ppm of ammonia gets converted into a bunch more nitrite right? And if we don’t have nitrifiers because we’ve worked to eliminate them then are we now in trouble because we have rising ammonia and nitrites and we ran out of money for more corals now?

I´m out of town - I will answer this question when I come home - the answer will be little bit different than Hans Werner´s.

But first - I think you ask about nitrate (NO3) in your question - not nitrite (NO2)

It is true that a small amount of nitrite (NO2) always exist in our reef - a normal level is around 0.05 mg/L However it is normally a temporary form that in a normally functioning aquarium quickly turns into nitrates (NO3)

Why NO2 (nitrite) is less toxic in saltwater compared with freshwater is the high concentration of chloride ions that block the uptake of nitrite ions in the gills. Normal chloride concentration in saltwater is around 19 000 g/L. As low concentration as 80 mg/L Chloride ions in freshwater will effectively lower the toxic nature of nitrite even in freshwater. This is according acute toxicity. About chronic toxicity of nitrite in saltwater fish - I am one of the few that believe it is a stress factor and hence lower the immune system.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Hans-Werner]

hmmm… colour… so for example this:

The Blueberry wine acro, is that too dark or too bright?

Or this acro:

I personally like the colour but when I took those pictures I was not sure if it was too dark, or just right. At the time my NO3 was below 1 ppm…

Since those pictures I had major crash and I done few experiments and I am just not able to get same growth or colour:

For example the blueberry acro the purple is now gone….
This hobby can drive one bananas…

Anyway interesting subject and thank you all for sharing.

Thanks for the pics. I would consider this a very deep and dark color. As already mentioned, also lighting plays a major role.

I would consider my preferred look a "natural look". It is a golden brown, neither bleached nor dark. When all other nutrients like phosphate and trace elements are in sufficient supply, stony corals will react very fast to nitrogen supply by ammonium or by feeding, you can virtually monitor the nitrogen supply by feeding.

Sometimes our corals also get a little bit darker than my preferred coloration, although I don't have a high fish load and do "efficient" feeding with high proportions of lipids. But I also run the tanks low in power consumption with just ca. 250 W LED-lighting over a 750 liters or 200 gallons reef tank.

I also consider this kind of maintenance very easy and stable. You don't have to test very much and you don't have to chase numbers. Regular trace elements supply, phosphate at 0.07 ppm to 0.3 ppm, preferably between 0.1 to 0.15 ppm, and just looking whether corals look "normal". With this mode colors are good. In my experience colors worsen when phosphate bottoms out or trace elements are not in balance.

 

[Hans-Werner]

This kinda goes against what Hans is saying. Not sure what's going on but I'll keep in tune with this thread.

I don't know where you went that way. I never said anything about nitrate except you don't need it. To have no nitrate doesn't mean you have no nitrogen.

Always messing up nitrate and nitrogen and nitrate and "nutrient" is really confusing and blurring any picture. There are fundamental differences between nitrate and ammonium and nitrate and phosphate. You can't just sum them up always.

Besides this a little bit of consistency is important. For this it is helpful to know what you are doing. Dosing nitrate and chasing numbers means you are introducing inconsistencies.

 

[FishTruck]

Insomnia attack.

Going back the OP by Randy.

Randy, I think you are saying that you want to model a tank started without bacteria. Example.... JUST corals from day 1. The idea is to give the corals maximum access to the ammonia (without it getting stolen by bacteria). Is this correct?

Thought 1
To model this you would do it in something like a frag tank. Intentionally minimize the surfaces for bacterial attachment. On a commercial scale, I think this is already done.... and large frag systems are still able to consume ammonia, not just from the maintenance fish but also added ammonia. I have read about this, but, I do not recall how much rock is plumbed into these things. If you found one, you could convince them to throw out the live rock... dose up the ammonia as much as possible without it becoming toxic, and see if they can grow coral even faster.

Thought 2
People have been reporting on "insta tank" setups for awhile. Dry rock, glue, frags, bacteria in a bottle. Some succeeded. This could easily be tried without the bacteria in a bottle. The variable is weather or not the lights, temp, flow, etc... etc... are correct and stable enough to support the corals from Day 1. Second... how could one measure the magnitude of bacterial activity in the background? Just because you didn't put it in there, does not mean it is not fully multiplied and at work.

In the end, I think you could prove that insta tanks can do great without bacteria in a bottle. Set up 50 of them with bottled bacteria and 50 without. If any difference is noted... then, try to replicate it at 10 other sites across the country. Simple !

You mentioned starting with LR and coralline... this would be going back to the early 90s with LR from the ocean, loaded with a mature and diverse bacteria population. Is there a way to introduce coralline without a mature and diverse bacteria population?

 

[Hans-Werner]

IMO - the Anammox can also be an explanation for the missing ammonia flux up to the water column

@Lasse , a question to you.

You and many others always mention the anammox process. In my opinion it is "applied" much too often. I think the anammox process has a certain importance but in my eyes it is much overestimated by its proponents. If I recall it right, at closer investigation it was found to be not as widespread in nature as it was thought it could be.

Here my question: Do you know at which concentrations the anammox process takes place? I mean, every process has a minimum concentration below which it doesn't take place or below which it gets insignificant. What are these concentrations for the anammox process, specifically for ammonium?

 

[HomebroodExotics]

I´m out of town - I will answer this question when I come home - the answer will be little bit different than Hans Werner´s.

But first - I think you ask about nitrate (NO3) in your question - not nitrite (NO2)

It is true that a small amount of nitrite (NO2) always exist in our reef - a normal level is around 0.05 mg/L However it is normally a temporary form that in a normally functioning aquarium quickly turns into nitrates (NO3)

Why NO2 (nitrite) is less toxic in saltwater compared with freshwater is the high concentration of chloride ions that block the uptake of nitrite ions in the gills. Normal chloride concentration in saltwater is around 19 000 g/L. As low concentration as 80 mg/L Chloride ions in freshwater will effectively lower the toxic nature of nitrite even in freshwater. This is according acute toxicity. About chronic toxicity of nitrite in saltwater fish - I am one of the few that believe it is a stress factor and hence lower the immune system.

Sincerely Lasse

I did type nitrate at first but I edited it I do in fact mean nitrites. I know that you are fairly passionate about keeping nitrites down and I think I’m starting to understand why. Anyway thanks for the response!

 

[Dburr1014]

I don't know where you went that way. I never said anything about nitrate except you don't need it. To have no nitrate doesn't mean you have no nitrogen.

Always messing up nitrate and nitrogen and nitrate and "nutrient" is really confusing and blurring any picture. There are fundamental differences between nitrate and ammonium and nitrate and phosphate. You can't just sum them up always.

Besides this a little bit of consistency is important. For this it is helpful to know what you are doing. Dosing nitrate and chasing numbers means you are introducing inconsistencies.

Maybe I miss understood the other post.

I doubt that "systems low on nutrients" grow algae. Allone if I am reading such a general statement I know "everything". For me it is simple and I have no contradictory experience: Phosphate doesn't grow algae, N and iron grow algae. If phosphate is low, algae do grow. If N ist low, algae don't grow. In my experience this is reproducible. It is a matter of concentrations ratios and balance.

The most simple recommendation from my side is: Keep phosphate around 0.1 ppm and ignore N.

My phosphate/nitrate according to Hanna is 0.13 and 0 respectively.
So it's not zero nitrate that does not grow algae, it's zero N. I could have zero nitrates and lots of N.

Is this correct?

 

[Hans-Werner]

Maybe I miss understood the other post.



My phosphate/nitrate according to Hanna is 0.13 and 0 respectively.
So it's not zero nitrate that does not grow algae, it's zero N. I could have zero nitrates and lots of N.

Is this correct?

No, not really zero. The key to understanding is limitation. Corals need some nitrogen, preferably as ammonium. But corals are very good at aquiring enough ammonium and can outcompete green algae in this regard.

Stony corals need more phosphate because they are calcifiers and most phosphate ends up in their skeletons.

Green algae need more nitrogen and iron because they are green. They need iron and nitrogen for chlorophyll biosynthesis. Zooxanthellae are brown which means they have other photosynthetic pigments, orange carotenoids besides some chlorophyll. Carotenoids need neither iron nor nitrogen for their biosynthesis.

It is all about competition for limiting nutrients and limiting the one group of organisms without limiting the other.

When adding nitrate from time to time, you fill up all the nitrogen and nitrate stores of algae and they can grow for a while while emptying these stores. This is just one reason why you also need some continuity and consistency.

 

[Pod_01]

But I also run the tanks low in power consumption with just ca. 250 W LED-lighting over a 750 liters or 200 gallons reef tank.

Thank you for the reply.

That is interesting. I have 2x the power on 250 litre tank.
Maybe too much vitamin D for the corals?

Now I am not going to sleep for a week thinking about this…

 

[Hans-Werner]

Thank you for the reply.

That is interesting. I have 2x the power on 250 litre tank.
Maybe too much vitamin D for the corals?

Now I am not going to sleep for a week thinking about this…

There are different ways to run a tank. You just have to find the way for your tank, the right balance.

Do you also have LED lighting? With every other lighting you need twice the power.

 

[Lasse]

@Lasse , a question to you.

You and many others always mention the anammox process. In my opinion it is "applied" much too often. I think the anammox process has a certain importance but in my eyes it is much overestimated by its proponents. If I recall it right, at closer investigation it was found to be not as widespread in nature as it was thought it could be.

I have not heard about this - can´t find anything when googling. This review from 2011 indicate the opposite. Would love references to the closer investigation you refer to. I can´t find it by myself

Here my question: Do you know at which concentrations the anammox process takes place? I mean, every process has a minimum concentration below which it doesn't take place or below which it gets insignificant. What are these concentrations for the anammox process, specifically for ammonium?

I have not look it as close as this. The reason why I refer to it in my aquarium is that I have around 0.40 mg/L NH3/NH4 below my sand bed . in the DT around 0.02-0.06 mg/L I regularly detect NO2 below the sand bed - higher compared with the DT I dose 27 ml 8 % ethanol daily below the sand bed. I have steady flow of around 2000 l/day through the sand bed. When my NO2 is very low in below the sand bed - my Hanna high NO3 meter shows lower NO3 than in the DT (no NO2 inference with the method for NO3 analysis) I regulate my NO3 concentration with my dose of DOC. My sand bed is around 25 cm thick. It disappear around 400 mg inorganic NH4-N through the sand bed every day. At least from the middle and further up - its logical that the sand bed is low in oxygen. All demands for anammox is there - does it really happens - I do not know - but it could be an plausible explanation. I doubt a high nitrification rate in the sand bed. Instead I believe that it is some denitrification taking place in the poor water below the sand bed. Its DT water that pumps down below the sand bed. Hence it should be the same NO3 as in the DT - it is not when I can rule out nitrite interference-

The anammox process take place in anaerobic sediment or anaerobic situations in the water column - in those the bacterial mineralization of organic N into inorganic NH3/NH4 - N is high. You can´t take the NH3/NH4 - N in the open aquarium water as an argument against the process - IMO.

I do not know if the anammox process is very active - however my measurements indicate that it could not be excluded as a major explanation

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

I did type nitrate at first but I edited it I do in fact mean nitrites. I know that you are fairly passionate about keeping nitrites down and I think I’m starting to understand why. Anyway thanks for the response!

The reason why I am concerned about stressing effects of constant NO2 concentrations in saltwater is that saltwater fish drinks. It had been shown that the uptake of NO2 in the gastrointestinal tract is rather high, It has also been shown that the accumulated NO2 in the blood in saltwater is very low - lower than in the ambient water - with other words - there is no expected accumulation of NO2 in the body fluids. It has been speculated that the same channels (chloride cells) in the gills of fish that in freshwater fish is responsible for the input of NO2 into the fish blood stream is responsible for the output. If so - it must be an active process - from low to high. This cost energy and could probably end up with stress. I do not know if this is true or not but IMO - it is better to not introduce fish in high nitrite environment than risk that these speculations is false.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

Zooxanthellae are brown which means they have other photosynthetic pigments, orange carotenoids besides some chlorophyll.

That was new from me - I have learned that chlorophyll A and C in zooxanthella is responsible for the photosynthesis and the carotenoids are responsible for protection and harvest and transform wavelengths that chlorophyll can´t harvest by them selves - the need a pre prepared wavelength.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Pod_01]

There are different ways to run a tank. You just have to find the way for your tank, the right balance.

Do you also have LED lighting? With every other lighting you need twice the power.

Yup LED…. So I have too much vitamin D…

Now I definitely will not sleep for a week… I will be dreaming lights and what to do…

Thank you for the feedback, always appreciated.

 

[Lasse]

1) Go back to the graphs about nutrient uptake in Stylophora. Nitrate uptake is saturated somewhere, maybe around 1 ppm. Higher concentrations don't matter. Corals will not take up more than at saturation concentration, no matter whether 10 or 100 ppm.
2) The curve of NH4+ uptake is very steep which means corals in this respect will have a preference for ammonium at low concentrations of available N compounds.
3) The curve of ammonium uptake shows it is not a passive uptake of an uncharged compound diffusing through the cell membanes but an active uptake by ion pumps which shows typical Michaelis-Menten-kinetics. Also subsequent processing is enzymatic.
4) Ammonium really is preferred over nitrate since in most microalgae if ammonium is in sufficient supply they will not express nitrate reductase. No nitrate reductase, no nitrate assimilation (processing). This means, sufficient ammonium supply will really switch off nitrate processing and nitrate uptake.

The graph is from this article - High phosphate uptake requirements of the scleractinian coral Stylophora pistillata. and its about 1 species of hard corals.

IMO the graphs does not show any precedence for either of the N species because it done with one N species at a time. Not with both together. The graph show only the rate of uptake in single species experiment

However - the authors state the following in the article

On the contrary, it is well-known, for example, that nitrate uptake is generally inhibited in the presence of ammonium (Badgley et al., 2006; Domotor and D’Elia, 1984; Groveret al., 2003), either through a repression of the nitrate reductase (Bergesand Harrison, 1995; Guerrero et al., 1981; Syrett, 1981; Vergara etal., 1998) or a competition of ammonium and nitrate uptake mechanisms for energy resources, leading to the preferential uptake of ammonium (Terry, 1982a; Terry, 1982b)

The authors use the word preferential that´s IMO is more describing and scientific than the that corals have preference for something. This is also exactly my believe - if NH3/NH4 is available - even in low concentrations - it will use that - if not available - they use NO3. IMO NH3/NH4 have precedence over NO3 is the right term to use. It means that NH3/NH4 is the primary N source - if present - otherwise they use NO3 - but it is not a conscious choice. Compare the discussion about using the term preference according sexual orientation.

However the article is not about this - the authors had 4 goals with the article.
1) If an active sodium-dependent phosphate cotransporter was involved
2) to test whether phosphate uptake decreases with particulate feeding, as previously observed for this nutrient in sea anemones
3) to test whether ammonium or nitrate enrichment could enhance the uptake of phosphate.
4) to test if PO4 enrichment could enhance the uptake of ammonium and nitrate

1 - conclusion

We thus conclude that the total inhibition of phosphate uptake in 0Na ASW is a strong evidence for the involvement of a sodium/phosphate symporter at the host membrane of the symbiotic coral S. pistillata

2 - conclusion

phosphate uptake decreased with proximity of feeding in time(Fisher’s PLSD, F8.232, P0.006): corals that were fed 1 and3days before the uptake experiment took up phosphate 42 and 19% slower, respectively, than corals that were unfed for 21days

This is interesting and IMO questioning the usefulness of external feeding

3 - conclusion

The maximal uptake rate of phosphate was not significantly affected by any of the ammonium or nitrate enrichments tested(P0.47 for ammonium, P0.23 for nitrate;

4 - conclusion

The uptake rate of ammonium was significantly increased in the presence of 0.5 and 3.0 µmol l–1 phosphate (r20.76, F57.04,P<0.0001; Fisher’s PLSD, both P<0.05; Fig.5A). Linear regression followed by Fisher’s PLSD revealed that, overall, nitrate uptake rate was not impacted by phosphate availability (P0.93; Fig.5B),although an unpaired t-test revealed that nitrate uptake was significantly enhanced by a low phosphate enrichment (0.5 µ mol l–1;unpaired t-test, t–2.45, P0.049).

This 4:th conclusion is interesting - in both 0.5 an 3 µmol/L PO4 - uptake of NH3/NH4 was significantly increased but only the lowest tested PO4 concentration - NO3 uptake show the same.

This article is much more than the earlier shown graphs and its well worth to read and to think about

2) You don't have to remove the nitrifiers. At typical reef aquarium levels you don't have much bacterial nitrifiers, ammonium oxidation is mainly done by archaea. The next step, the nitrite oxidation, is done by bacteria and is frequentely slowly and likely takes place at higher concentrations due to high chloride concentration in saltwater.

Still - you can measure a rising NO3 concentration with time if you do not do anything. Especially in only fish tanks but even in reef tanks

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

The authors use the word preferential that´s IMO is more describing and scientific than the that corals have preference for something. This is also exactly my believe - if NH3/NH4 is available - even in low concentrations - it will use that - if not available - they use NO3. I

I understand you have an issue with the word preference, but this is exactly what I mean when using it.