Why your aquarium needs nitrates (no3)?

[CHSUB]

Why your aquarium needs nitrates (no3)?

The answer is it doesn’t. Saltwater aquariums need salt at a specific measured level. The same thing can’t be said about nitrates, because the truth is no organism we keep have a use for nitrates. They don’t require it or need it at any level and a level of absolute zero is just fine. There is a component of no3 that is required for our aquarium and that is nitrogen. Nitrogen is fundamental to life on earth, it is required by every living organism in and out of our aquarium. No3 is only one source of nitrogen in our aquarium and not even a preferred source. Nitrogen enters our aquarium from fish respiration, feeding, dust, and numerous other sources. Cyanobacteria can even create usable nitrogen from atmospheric nitrogen for other organisms to use. In ocean reefs no3 levels are so low that detection requires laboratory equipment, measurements are below 0.1 ppm no3.

So why do we have a desired range for no3? The host of the Chemistry Forum, Randy, has a range of 5 to 50 ppm no3 and J. Sprung states that reef aquariums can function perfectly with levels up to and higher than 40 ppm. It is clear that reef aquariums and their inhabitants are fine with measurable, elevated no3 levels. Many hobbyists have elevated no3 without any significant or noticeable negative impacts. Corals might grow a little slower and algae a little faster but that is easily managed by the hobbyist. So again, why a range? The answer is simple insurance but it is not a requirement. Insurance that there is usable nitrogen in the aquarium and not no3 itself. So if you think you need no3, the answer is you don’t, it is insurance only and not a requirement.

Who then needs no3 insurance for their aquarium? I don’t and I would argue that any seasoned hobbyists does not. We simply use are eyes to determine if nitrogen is abundant. Here are just three examples, including mine, of aquariums without no3 insurance.





If, however, you’re new to the hobby or Gen Y that needs constant coddling while trying to navigate all the various recommendations, a little insurance is fine with the understanding that it is not a requirement. My neighbor wears a motorcycle helmet when he goes outside as insurance against meteors striking his head. So if having readable no3 makes you comfortable, like my neighbor with space debris, than by all means dose no3.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Why your aquarium needs nitrates (no3)?

The answer is it doesn’t.

IMO, the answer is, it might.

One can do one of two things to know:

1. Have very low nitrate, and monitor each organism for ability to thrive on other N sources. It certainly can happen.

2. Have at least a few ppm nitrate to ensure that each organism that can use nitrate is able to get the N it needs.

I choose to do the latter, and think that for many folks who are not experts at recognizing when corals are thriving vs when they are not, it is the easiest way to go.

 

[Acrononomus]

I thought a lot of people shoot for 10 ppm nitrate and 0.10 phosphate to keep things balanced ?

 

[rtparty]

I thought a lot of people shoot for 10 ppm nitrate and 0.10 phosphate to keep things balanced ?

There is no "balance" or ratio between the two. Most of us try to keep those levels as a way to make sure organisms in our tanks have enough to "eat"

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I thought a lot of people shoot for 10 ppm nitrate and 0.10 phosphate to keep things balanced ?

I’m not a fan of the term balance, but I recommend 5-50 ppm. Nitrate as a good range for most tanks.

 

[Dan_P]

Why your aquarium needs nitrates (no3)?

The answer is it doesn’t. Saltwater aquariums need salt at a specific measured level. The same thing can’t be said about nitrates, because the truth is no organism we keep have a use for nitrates. They don’t require it or need it at any level and a level of absolute zero is just fine. There is a component of no3 that is required for our aquarium and that is nitrogen. Nitrogen is fundamental to life on earth, it is required by every living organism in and out of our aquarium. No3 is only one source of nitrogen in our aquarium and not even a preferred source. Nitrogen enters our aquarium from fish respiration, feeding, dust, and numerous other sources. Cyanobacteria can even create usable nitrogen from atmospheric nitrogen for other organisms to use. In ocean reefs no3 levels are so low that detection requires laboratory equipment, measurements are below 0.1 ppm no3.

So why do we have a desired range for no3? The host of the Chemistry Forum, Randy, has a range of 5 to 50 ppm no3 and J. Sprung states that reef aquariums can function perfectly with levels up to and higher than 40 ppm. It is clear that reef aquariums and their inhabitants are fine with measurable, elevated no3 levels. Many hobbyists have elevated no3 without any significant or noticeable negative impacts. Corals might grow a little slower and algae a little faster but that is easily managed by the hobbyist. So again, why a range? The answer is simple insurance but it is not a requirement. Insurance that there is usable nitrogen in the aquarium and not no3 itself. So if you think you need no3, the answer is you don’t, it is insurance only and not a requirement.

Who then needs no3 insurance for their aquarium? I don’t and I would argue that any seasoned hobbyists does not. We simply use are eyes to determine if nitrogen is abundant. Here are just three examples, including mine, of aquariums without no3 insurance.





If, however, you’re new to the hobby or Gen Y that needs constant coddling while trying to navigate all the various recommendations, a little insurance is fine with the understanding that it is not a requirement. My neighbor wears a motorcycle helmet when he goes outside as insurance against meteors striking his head. So if having readable no3 makes you comfortable, like my neighbor with space debris, than by all means dose no3.

Very provocative :-)

What and how much of it are you adding to your system every day?

 

[Dan_P]

Why your aquarium needs nitrates (no3)?

The answer is it doesn’t. Saltwater aquariums need salt at a specific measured level. The same thing can’t be said about nitrates, because the truth is no organism we keep have a use for nitrates. They don’t require it or need it at any level and a level of absolute zero is just fine. There is a component of no3 that is required for our aquarium and that is nitrogen. Nitrogen is fundamental to life on earth, it is required by every living organism in and out of our aquarium. No3 is only one source of nitrogen in our aquarium and not even a preferred source. Nitrogen enters our aquarium from fish respiration, feeding, dust, and numerous other sources. Cyanobacteria can even create usable nitrogen from atmospheric nitrogen for other organisms to use. In ocean reefs no3 levels are so low that detection requires laboratory equipment, measurements are below 0.1 ppm no3.

So why do we have a desired range for no3? The host of the Chemistry Forum, Randy, has a range of 5 to 50 ppm no3 and J. Sprung states that reef aquariums can function perfectly with levels up to and higher than 40 ppm. It is clear that reef aquariums and their inhabitants are fine with measurable, elevated no3 levels. Many hobbyists have elevated no3 without any significant or noticeable negative impacts. Corals might grow a little slower and algae a little faster but that is easily managed by the hobbyist. So again, why a range? The answer is simple insurance but it is not a requirement. Insurance that there is usable nitrogen in the aquarium and not no3 itself. So if you think you need no3, the answer is you don’t, it is insurance only and not a requirement.

Who then needs no3 insurance for their aquarium? I don’t and I would argue that any seasoned hobbyists does not. We simply use are eyes to determine if nitrogen is abundant. Here are just three examples, including mine, of aquariums without no3 insurance.





If, however, you’re new to the hobby or Gen Y that needs constant coddling while trying to navigate all the various recommendations, a little insurance is fine with the understanding that it is not a requirement. My neighbor wears a motorcycle helmet when he goes outside as insurance against meteors striking his head. So if having readable no3 makes you comfortable, like my neighbor with space debris, than by all means dose no3.

What is the nitrate level in your aquarium?

 

[CHSUB]

Very provocative :-)

What and how much of it are you adding to your system every day?

I feed 10 ml of RS ab+, 1/16 teaspoon of reef Roids, and one pellet of mashed LPS food to corals directly daily. Fish and a sun coral share 1 cube of frozen daily. I believe my corals receive a large amount of particulate food, similar to ocean reefs. Directly feeding corals, imo, bridges the gap between keeping low nutrients and not starving corals. It is very doable as evidence of my grow sun coral that only survives on captured food.

I don’t believe this is “provocative”, imo it’s the easiest way.

 

[CHSUB]

What is the nitrate level in your aquarium?

No3 @ 0.3 ICP and 0.26 Hanna LR…they have been lower, but tread is higher.
My aquarium is not the exception, it should be the rule….very clean, low inorganic nutrients, and well fed.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I think the answer is “it depends”

Some aquariums may need the insurance, some may not.

The question then becomes, what are we insuring against? A lack of nitrogen, poor nutrient recycling, an immature aquarium or simply our inability to tell the difference?

 

[CHSUB]

Some aquariums may need the insurance, some may not.

No, some hobbyists may need insurance. The aquarium or inhabitants only need adequate and proper nutrition.

 

[sixty_reefer]

No, some hobbyists may need insurance. The aquarium or inhabitants only need adequate and proper nutrition.

I think both can be true, the aquarium only needs adequate nutrition but whether the aquarist needs insurance probably depends on the age of the aquarium, how it was started, the organisms living within it and as you’ve said the organic and inorganic nutrients available to them.

If some of these pieces are missing then maybe the insurance has a role to play, in my opinion.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

No, some hobbyists may need insurance. The aquarium or inhabitants only need adequate and proper nutrition.

A catch 22. Cannot disagree with that, but nitrate is one way to do it.

 

[sixty_reefer]

@CHSUB

Perhaps the discussion isn’t whether nitrate insurance is needed but under what circumstances it becomes useful and at what point does the insurance stops being necessary?

Do we all need that insurance and if so why?

I don’t think I would need it but at the same time I would never advise a beginner not to have insurance.

 

[CHSUB]

@CHSUB

Perhaps the discussion isn’t whether nitrate insurance is needed but under what circumstances it becomes useful and at what point does the insurance stops being necessary?

Do we all need that insurance and if so why?

I don’t think I would need it but at the same time I would never advise a beginner not to have insurance.

Insurance is probably fine, since it “costs” very little…what I mean is there are plenty of examples that elevated nitrates are not detrimental, so the cost is minimal. However, I’m extremely skeptical when no3 is used as a deterrent to nuisance algae. I believe all nuisance algae have abilities to survive in low no3 aquariums. While dinoflagellates have a unique ability to survive in extremely low no3 environments, I believe it is almost impossible for this level to be achieved in typical aquariums, specifically low enough for dinoflagellates to outcompete green hair algae, for example.

 

[Michael Hughes]

This concept intrigues me. Would you still recommend this in a fishless system?

 

[CHSUB]

This concept intrigues me. Would you still recommend this in a fishless system?

Imo, fish are an integral component of any reef aquarium. There food, waste, and respiration are vital for successful reef aquariums. I don’t have any experience with fishless systems, so my gut feeling is coral feeding would need to be extremely high. However, I still believe no3 could be kept low but maybe not as low? Without fish, many nitrogen sources would be eliminated or lower I think?

Unfortunately and terribly, just lost a fish last night to jumping and I have some concerns now about nutrients in general? Searching for a suitable new fish to add..

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/lemon-peel-angel-added-to-sixline-wrasse.1160881/

 

[sixty_reefer]

Insurance is probably fine, since it “costs” very little…what I mean is there are plenty of examples that elevated nitrates are not detrimental, so the cost is minimal. However, I’m extremely skeptical when no3 is used as a deterrent to nuisance algae. I believe all nuisance algae have abilities to survive in low no3 aquariums. While dinoflagellates have a unique ability to survive in extremely low no3 environments, I believe it is almost impossible for this level to be achieved in typical aquariums, specifically low enough for dinoflagellates to outcompete green hair algae, for example.

If we’re talking specifically about dinoflagellate insurance, nitrate is only one type of insurance. It can also serve a different purpose in some aquariums by helping ensure corals don’t become nitrogen limited.

With regard to dinoflagellates, I think it depends on the situation, if ammonia is available in the system, it may be just as effective as nitrate, the difference may come down more to the aquarist’s experience and ability to recognise what nitrogen sources are actually available rather than simply what the nitrate test kit reads.

I also think we may be looking at insurance differently. Nitrate and ammonia are not the only forms of insurance available, identifying potential predators and maintaining populations of those organisms in the aquarium could also be considered a form of insurance against problematic dinoflagellate growth.

Another idea I’m starting to move toward is that we often blame the dinoflagellates themselves too quickly, in many cases, the real issue may not be the dinoflagellates alone but the mats that form around them and the ecological conditions that allow those mats to persist.

I’ll introduce an open question for aquarists here and perhaps for the first time on a forum, at least that I’m aware of.

Why do dinoflagellates form mats or biofilms when dinoflagellates themselves are not generally considered mat forming or biofilm forming organisms?

Could it be that we are focusing on the wrong organism?

When we see a “dinoflagellate mat” are we actually looking at a microbial community composed of dinoflagellates, bacteria, extracellular polymers, detritus and other microorganisms rather than a structure created solely by dinoflagellates?

If that’s the case, perhaps the question shouldn’t always be how to eliminate the dinoflagellates but what conditions allow the mat itself to form and persist.

In other words, are dinoflagellates the cause of the mat or are they simply one member of a microbial community that has found a favourable niche?

And if the problem is ultimately the mat or biofilm rather than the dinoflagellates themselves, should we be focusing on organisms that prey on dinoflagellates, organisms that consume and disrupt biofilms or both?

If we start asking that question the discussion may move beyond nitrate, phosphate and dinoflagellates alone and toward understanding the ecology of the entire microbial community.

 

[CHSUB]

If that’s the case, perhaps the question shouldn’t always be how to eliminate the dinoflagellates but what conditions allow the mat itself to form and persist

This is excellent, imo, and similar to my own idea of nuisance algae including dinos. I have never seen a problem with dinos as a single nuisance; not that it doesn’t happen but I would guess it is rare. I see a mixture of nuisances and dinoflagellate are the only focus. That is when the scientific research is quoted about dinoflagellate abilities. The focus, regardless of hobby test parameters, should be taken at a macro perspective; which is generally a lack of proper maintenance.

 

[Michael Hughes]

Unfortunately and terribly, just lost a fish last night to jumping and I have some concerns now about nutrients in general? Searching for a suitable new fish to add..

Sorry to hear about your clown! Personally I am in the "always a lid" camp, but I hope you find a good fit for your tank.

Imo, fish are an integral component of any reef aquarium. There food, waste, and respiration are vital for successful reef aquariums. I don’t have any experience with fishless systems, so my gut feeling is coral feeding would need to be extremely high. However, I still believe no3 could be kept low but maybe not as low? Without fish, many nitrogen sources would be eliminated or lower I think?

I agree. The system in question is a fishless frag tank (doubling as an invert QT) which I'm starting to notice bottoming out in nitrates lately. I target feed the LPS quite a bit but may have to start dosing AB+, nitrate, or ammonium if I start seeing issues with the SPS. So far they look good.

This brings up an interesting corollary (or is it coral-ary?) question: Do corals get stressed if moved from a high nutrient system to a low nutrient system and vice versa?