Could we utilise the Redfield ratio a little better in aquaria?

[GARRIGA]

Heterotrophic bacteria has a preference for nitrate they to my knowledge are the most effective organisms at transforming inorganic nutrients into organic nutrients therefore a good organism to remove pollutants like nitrates and phosphate from aquaria.

I believe I mentioned in the beginning of the thread that it was a nitrate to phosphate ratio if I didn’t I do apologise.
In some testing before with phytoplankton as an organic carbon source I did got a ratio of 24:1 nitrate to phosphate although the nutrients in the phytoplankton culture could have messed slightly with the ratio of assimilation.

Heterotrophic bacteria don’t prefer nitrates. Just utilized absent DO although I’ll honestly say I’m clueless to why dosing carbon has that bacteria utilizing nitrates in a DO enriched environment

 

[sixty_reefer]

What’s the uncertainty in this context?

There are theories about how nutrients too low can limit growth or organisms that compete with dinos for space. It’s not been proven but it fits many experiences.

as you said. we don’t really know what causes it for sure, I have gave this advice myself as a preventive method to something we observe happening regularly to other folks. Although I don’t know the answer for the question myself.
What I’ve observed in the past in my own tank was that a limitation of essencial nutrient for pelagic heterotrophic bacteria lead to nuisances like dinoflagellates, i’ve had it with a Nitrates limitation and with DOC limitation (high nitrates and Phosphate) I’ve also seen many folks having this blooms with a Phosphate limitation.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Heterotrophic bacteria don’t prefer nitrates. Just utilized absent DO although I’ll honestly say I’m clueless to why dosing carbon has that bacteria utilizing nitrates in a DO enriched environment

The main goal behind most aquarist decide in implementing a carbon dosing method is with the aim to lower Nitrates.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

as you said. we don’t really know what causes it for sure, I have gave this advice myself as a preventive method to something we observe happening regularly to other folks. Although I don’t know the answer for the question myself.
What I’ve observed in the past in my own tank was that a limitation of essencial nutrient for pelagic heterotrophic bacteria lead to nuisances like dinoflagellates, i’ve had it with a Nitrates limitation and with DOC limitation (high nitrates and Phosphate) I’ve also seen many folks having this blooms with a Phosphate limitation.

What is the issue in relation to the Redfield ratio? That’s what I don’t see.

 

[Justfebreezeit]

Several experts will tell you that they will prefer more basic forms of nitrogen over Nitrate, there’s a good link to a thread on the first page we’re a fairly knowledgeable chap from tropic marine elaborates on it.

Edit:
To correct my earlier question, to date I haven’t seen an answer to why not bottom out Nitrate. Just a advice although no back up information or explanation

I think we have settled on it being a good insurance policy. Having detectable nitrates all but guarantees organisms have nitrogen available if other forms arent present or inadequate for whatever reason.

 

[sixty_reefer]

What is the issue in relation to the Redfield ratio? That’s what I don’t see.

There is no issues from me, it’s just unfortunate that the study of nutrient limitations has Redfield in its name. As I believe much more could be achieved by having more elaborated discussion on the subject.
Looking to find what bacteria could become limited allowing nuisance to develop in its space could be just one of its many uses.

 

[GARRIGA]

The main goal behind most aquarist decide in implementing a carbon dosing method is with the aim to lower Nitrates.

Yes but normally the mechanism by which heterotrophic bacteria reduce nitrates being lack of access to DO therefore turn to bound oxygen such as found in sulfur, nitrates and nitrites.

With carbon dosing I've not found a valid explanation as to why that suddenly works in aerobic environments including those not having a habitat suitable for denitrification. Could be tanks are carbon limited. Yet dosing carbon doesn't suddenly deprive the tank of oxygen making it go anoxic.

Regardless, key being bacteria don't consume nitrates but access the bound oxygen they'd normally get from DO in an aerobic environment. At least that's how I've always understood it.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I think we have settled on it being a good insurance policy. Having detectable nitrates all but guarantees organisms have nitrogen available if other forms arent present or inadequate for whatever reason.

It is for Nitrates and Phosphate it’s not possible to determine if C (DOC) is limited with hobby test kits, the only way I’m aware that is possible to have a idea if C is limited is with nutrient limitation

 

[14 foot reef]

Nothing greater than someone debating with @Randy Holmes-Farley.
It should be a TV show, I'd pay !!!!

 

[BeanAnimal]

Redfield has several uses in science one of my favourite implementations of Redfield ratio is to determine nutrient limitations in aquaria.

There is no issues from me, it’s just unfortunate that the study of nutrient limitations has Redfield in its name

 

[rtparty]

I think the title and continued use of “Redfield ratio” makes the actual topic go unnoticed. Just title it “Nutrient Limitation and the Effects: Are Nutrients Our Friend?”

Then piggyback it on Randy’s ammonia article and I think people look at it in a different light with a different mindset

 

[sixty_reefer]

Yes but normally the mechanism by which heterotrophic bacteria reduce nitrates being lack of access to DO therefore turn to bound oxygen such as found in sulfur, nitrates and nitrites.

With carbon dosing I've not found a valid explanation as to why that suddenly works in aerobic environments including those not having a habitat suitable for denitrification. Could be tanks are carbon limited. Yet dosing carbon doesn't suddenly deprive the tank of oxygen making it go anoxic.

Regardless, key being bacteria don't consume nitrates but access the bound oxygen they'd normally get from DO in an aerobic environment. At least that's how I've always understood it.

This is a interesting reading on the subject if you have a few minutes spare.

The Science of Wastewater Nutrient Removal | In-Pipe Technology

When it comes to the science behind wastewater nutrient removal and FOG elimination, In-Pipe Technology is leading the FOG removal industry. Wastewater nutrient removal as a whole all comes down to the science because wastewater nutrient removal means sewer odor control for a lab tested solution.

www.in-pipe.com

 

[Doctorgori]

Any search of my name on this topic tells where I stand: but no one cares…
Anyway,
Just thinking the OP isn’t up to date, I’ll let this thread slide off…

 

[sixty_reefer]

I think the title and continued use of “Redfield ratio” makes the actual topic go unnoticed. Just title it “Nutrient Limitation and the Effects: Are Nutrients Our Friend?”

Then piggyback it on Randy’s ammonia article and I think people look at it in a different light with a different mindset

It wouldn’t make a difference imo, it’s necessary to use the right words even if years of misinterpretation have damaged it’s meaning and usage in reef aquaria.
Hence the odd comment that no one should set their parameters into a ratio, in the end, I do understand were it comes from.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Any search of my name on this topic tells where I stand: but no one cares…
Anyway,
Just thinking the OP isn’t up to date, I’ll let this thread slide off…

Have you got a link? Can’t find it

 

[Miami Reef]

That’s a fair point although nitrates for example are not a limiting nutrient for coral.

So don’t increase nitrate? My point still stands.

 

[sixty_reefer]

So don’t increase nitrate? My point still stands.

I didn’t understood the question.

 

[Miami Reef]

I didn’t understood the question.

I’ll break it down, but please listen closely.

When you say Redfield ratio, you are implying that a coral, bacteria, etc will NOT consume a nutrient when it is out of line from the preferred ratio.

We are telling you that claim is not true. As long as the nutrients are available, the animal can consume it.

If phosphate is too low, corals & bacteria can still consume nitrate/ammonia if it’s available.

If you want them to have phosphate, then have phosphate available.


The idea that corals require a specific ratio to absorb a nutrient is false.

 

[areefer01]

I think the title and continued use of “Redfield ratio” makes the actual topic go unnoticed. Just title it “Nutrient Limitation and the Effects: Are Nutrients Our Friend?”

I think there is a small sprinkle of intellectual talking going on when this topic comes up. One of the more recent reefbum talks this subject came up and it was shot down quickly. Even though it was explained why it isn't applicable the other party kept saying but, but, but...

 

[sixty_reefer]

I’ll break it down, but please listen closely.

When you say Redfield ratio, you are implying that a coral, bacteria, etc will NOT consume a nutrient when it is out of line from the preferred ratio.

Were did I say that? Not once in any part of this thread or any other thread related to this subject I wrote that.