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

[hart24601]

This bacon hookup is easily the most valuable part of the thread. Finally something useful!

 

[GARRIGA]

We don’t have to dose to have doc in the water column, there is several sources of DOC in our systems that contribute to more mature systems having a pro dominant heterotrophic biological filter.

Honestly, clueless to exactly what creates DOC to the extent we need to be concerned other than being told my approach to using OH would create DOC and this is detrimental to coral yet also told sponges can consume or remove it. Latter as far as need to know. Now learning about cryptic zones although photosynthetic sponges catching my attention. Might solve two issues in that I need to process waste and new found villain (DOC) as well as remove co2. Potentially, bye bye Fuge/ATS.

 

[GARRIGA]

Certainly without carbon limitations bacteria can consume ammonia, nitrite and nitrate, in aerobic conditions.

Have known about ammonium and nitrites since early 70s. Just learned today that includes nitrates. In aerobic conditions, that is. As if I wasn't confused already

 

[sixty_reefer]

I quit, this paper makes no sense in this context to me

Its pretty obvious really.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Thank you. I was going to say the same thing.

Not that wikipedia can't be wrong but it also says the same thing. Delbeek was just talking about this on the reefbum episode and even provided some background and math.

Wheel goes round and round Hope your day is well.

Redfield ratio - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

He’s talking of the usual idea of using Redfield to set your nitrate and phosphate, what’s the advantage really for it in reef aquaria? It’s a nonsense there isn’t anything out there that supports the idea that we need to have residual nitrate in a ratio in relation to phosphate or that that will bring any benefit to reef aquaria.
What difference does it really makes as long as it’s not limited?
With limited being key.



This kind of discussion is really why it will never be applied correctly imo, folks really need to move from that idea it’s been debunked many times over.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Any context to bacteria in relation to Redfield is wrong. To me, Redfield indicates phytoplanktonic organisms extracting the maximum out of a nutrient poor medium. I delved into this Stoichiometry many years ago, gave up, far too complicated.

You inclined to say that the pelagic heterotrophic bacteria doesn’t have a nutrient assimilation ratio from their environment? Or that they won’t be limited by any of the tree nutrients?
That’s just not true

 

[Hats_]

So what is it that you want to know exactly, formulate it in a single sentence that can not be answered simply with yes or no. all this beating around the bush is giving me a headache

 

[sixty_reefer]

So what is it that you want to know exactly, formulate it in a single sentence that can not be answered simply with yes or no. all this beating around the bush is giving me a headache

applying Redfield nutrients limitations equations to identify C limitation in reef aquaria by using know pelagic heterotrophic bacterial assimilation ratios by interpreting the residual Nitrate and Phosphate availability in Reef aquaria.
With the purpose of balancing the export of pollutants Nitrates and phosphate's

 

[keithw283]

About the only part of the hobby that just about everybody seems to agree with is don’t chase numbers. There is zero need to focus on this.

 

[sixty_reefer]

About the only part of the hobby that just about everybody seems to agree with is don’t chase numbers. There is zero need to focus on this.

The interpretation of Redfield nutrient limitations don’t ask to chase numbers it actually emphasises the importance of stability.

 

[keithw283]

It’s debatable, if we were discussing method to lower phosphate using the bacteria it would become relevant or increasing bacteria to feed coral and filter feeders.

Knowing on average that for every 0.01 ppm of phosphates exported from the system will need on average 0.16 ppm to 0.25 ppm of Nitrates available in the water column.

I’m a system with 0.8 ppm phosphate and 1ppm nitrate we could theoretically calculate how much Nitrate would have need to add to the system to reduce 0.8 ppm phosphate to 0.05 ppm phosphate for example.

The interpretation of Redfield nutrient limitations don’t ask to chase numbers it actually emphasises the importance of stability.

Sounds like chasing numbers to me.

 

[Garf]

You inclined to say that the pelagic heterotrophic bacteria doesn’t have a nutrient assimilation ratio from their environment? Or that they won’t be limited by any of the tree nutrients?
That’s just not true

Bacteria are known to increase their phosphate content when fed copious amounts of carbon, altering the uptake ratio. Something is always limiting to growth, thankfully.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Sounds like chasing numbers to me.

There is a large difference between interpreting the effects of adding a nutrient and chasing residual ratios (by the way not promoted in here)
One gives you a vast understanding of the biological filter and the other not so sure what the fiction is.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Bacteria are known to increase their phosphate content when fed copious amounts of carbon, altering the uptake ratio. Something is always limiting to growth, thankfully.

The ratio is constant the nutrients have variables. Usually carbon limites the bacteria growth and division in the sea and in our system, that same carbon limitation is what allow reef aquaria to keep stable systems otherwise there wouldn’t be nutrients available at any time.

Edit:
As carbon limited is not the right word, as we have a constant influx of Doc being released into the water column that determines the bacteria population therefore being a nutrient that determines the available residual Nitrate and Phosphate by effect

 

[Eric R.]

I think you are assuming that what you are saying is obvious. It may be obvious to you (which doesn’t mean it’s correct), but you may want to consider that if so many arguably intelligent people here are confused, or saying that you're incorrect, that what you are saying may not be clear, and may be partly wrong as well.

I'm fairly certain that you are using the term redfield ratio to describe something else. I think what you are saying is that you are interested in the application of using nutrient ratios / nutrient stoichiometry to look at what may be limiting the growth of heterotrophic bacteria in reef aquariums.

If so, that discipline is not called redfield stoichiometry or the redfield ratio. It's called ecological stoichiometry. Redfield does specifically refer to the stoichiometric ratio that was initially derived for marine phytoplankton.

You also keep saying that you are not interested in measuring the "residual", what I'm assuming you mean as the actual levels of C, N, or P in the water column. What, if anything, are you actually interested in measuring?

Finally, I think most people in the hobby are interested in growing corals, not heterotrophic bacteria. Some people do dose bacteria to try and control nutrients. Are you suggesting that if you could determine the limiting nutrient in an aquarium for a particular species or group of heterotrophic bacteria, that this would improve the ability to use heterotrophic bacteria to control nutrient levels in an aquarium?

 

[sixty_reefer]

You also keep saying that you are not interested in measuring the "residual", what I'm assuming you mean as the actual levels of C, N, or P in the water column. What, if anything, are you actually interested in measuring?

Finally, I think most people in the hobby are interested in growing corals, not heterotrophic bacteria. Some people do dose bacteria to try and control nutrients. Are you suggesting that if you could determine the limiting nutrient in an aquarium for a particular species or group of heterotrophic bacteria, that this would improve the ability to use heterotrophic bacteria to control nutrient levels in an aquarium?

If the conversion was ever to evolve in this thread this is what I’m implying.

applying nutrients limitations equations to identify C limitation in reef aquaria by using know pelagic heterotrophic bacterial assimilation ratios by interpreting the residual Nitrate and Phosphate availability in Reef aquaria.
With the purpose of balancing the export of pollutants Nitrates and phosphate's

Other aspect that I’d like to understand at some point in future, would be the possible direct impact in the limitation of one of the tree nutrients in the direct development of nuisances such as dinoflagellates for example.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I am not sure how the conversation can evolve, as you appear to somewhat pivot with each response. I could be wrong, but I honestly don't think anybody following along has any idea what the conversation actually is about. It feels somewhat random and wandering.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I am not sure how the conversation can evolve, as you appear to somewhat pivot with each response. I could be wrong, but I honestly don't think anybody following along has any idea what the conversation actually is about. It feels somewhat random and wandering.

criticism is not really following along or discussing the subject.

 

[Hats_]

I am not sure how the conversation can evolve, as you appear to somewhat pivot with each response. I could be wrong, but I honestly don't think anybody following along has any idea what the conversation actually is about. It feels somewhat random and wandering.

exactly this, the thread makes zero sense to me. And I wouldn't say that is a matter of me not understanding the subject...

 

[areefer01]

criticism is not really following along or discussing the subject.

Is a disagreement criticism? I think several here have tried to help steer the conversation to something more meaningful and move you past the redfield ratio.