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

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

We could narrow it dow a little further to fish food as most of the carbon is used by the fish for energy, the more complex forms of carbon such as fibre will pass through their digestive system without being fully broken down, this imo will contribute for a influx of carbon that can be used by bacteria.

So what exactly is the hypothesis or question?

 

[BeanAnimal]

If there are any specific examples of shifting expectations could you point them out to me? I’d be happy to address them.

We started here....

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

And 9 pages later have ended up here....

We could narrow it dow a little further to fish food as most of the carbon is used by the fish for energy....

So pretty much everything in between?

 

[sixty_reefer]

We started here....


And 9 pages later have ended up here....


So pretty much everything in between?

Don’t see your point, it’s like you are looking to disproof something that you don’t even know what it is. To me it sounds that you are echoing other folks thoughts without adding any of your own ideas. This makes a discussion really useless.
My point with Randy was the use of the determination of the word limited being the right word to describe carbon in all tanks as it’s my understanding that maybe a more suitable word would be carbon balanced. This is more evident if we take the term carbon to it’s literal.

A question to you that likes to be so involved.

Have you seen many systems that are Co2 limited?

 

[elysics]

Don’t see your point, it’s like you are looking to disproof something that you don’t even know what it is. To me it sounds that you are echoing other folks thoughts without adding any of your own ideas. This makes a discussion really useless.
My point with Randy was the use of the determination of the word limited being the right word to describe carbon in all tanks as it’s my understanding that maybe a more suitable word would be carbon balanced. This is more evident if we take the term carbon to it’s literal.

A question to that likes to be so involved.

Have you seen many systems that are Co2 limited?

You could say the limit is balanced but it is still a limit. A system can't be balanced until something is limiting.

Especially when bacteria are involved, if nothing is limiting you pretty much get infinite exponential growth. For things to stay stable, there needs to be a limit.

And to prove that the limit in our tanks is carbon, and not something else, heres a little experiment: take a carbon dosing bottle and dont follow the instructions and use much more. Youll get that infinite exponential growth, also called bacterial bloom, until theres so many bacteria that something else becomes a limit.

 

[sixty_reefer]

@Hats_ you have mentioned that some sort of proof could be beneficial to entertain the idea.

I was going to wait until the data was all available although it feels that some may be necessarily here.

Last Wednesday I’ve started this test tank.

It’s a 50 litres AIO with just bioballs in one chamber to promote nitrification, there isn’t any surface in this system that is anoxic.
This is to mimic modern reefs that lack in those areas.
The only source of nutrients it’s via dosing nitrogen, phosphates and organic carbon.

It’s only early days although I will have a number for balance soon.

So far I can tell you that the system has a high demand in phosphate more than expected. Once all is balanced I can give a ratio.

 

[sixty_reefer]

You could say the limit is balanced but it is still a limit. A system can't be balanced until something is limiting.

Especially when bacteria are involved, if nothing is limiting you pretty much get infinite exponential growth. For things to stay stable, there needs to be a limit.

And to prove that the limit in our tanks is carbon, and not something else, heres a little experiment: take a carbon dosing bottle and dont follow the instructions and use much more. Youll get that infinite exponential growth, also called bacterial bloom, until theres so many bacteria that something else becomes a limit.

On the same sense of the word and for experimental purposes the same would have to be applied to nitrogen (ammonium) and phosphorus. To take it literally we would have to say that nitrogen is “limited”
I would imagine if ammonia was to be unlimited that there would be an algae bloom or a significant uncontrollable rise in Nitrates.
And as mentioned before if carbon was to be limited at the Co2 level we would be unable to grow coral for example.

Therefore I’m under the impression that balanced is the best way to describe all 3 nutrients in this discussion

 

[Hats_]

like i said, i won't be participating in this thread anymore. All you do is talk down to people that you claim 'dont understand' or that 'its too complex for them'. Like I and some other have mentioned before, this thread just seems to be there to boost your ego in some way since you claim to fix a problem that is not even a problem and then change the subject once people point it out

 

[rishma]

@Hats_ you have mentioned that some sort of proof could be beneficial to entertain the idea.

I was going to wait until the data was all available although it feels that some may be necessarily here.

Last Wednesday I’ve started this test tank.

It’s a 50 litres AIO with just bioballs in one chamber to promote nitrification, there isn’t any surface in this system that is anoxic.
This is to mimic modern reefs that lack in those areas.
The only source of nutrients it’s via dosing nitrogen, phosphates and organic carbon.

It’s only early days although I will have a number for balance soon.

So far I can tell you that the system has a high demand in phosphate more than expected. Once all is balanced I can give a ratio.

Is your plan to determine the amount of phosphate, nitrate and carbon to dose where the phosphate and nitrate in the water stabilize at a constant level for some period of time?

Do you think the ratio of each residual nutrient in the water or the ratio of the dosed nutrients will apply to other reef tanks?

 

[sixty_reefer]

like i said, i won't be participating in this thread anymore. All you do is talk down to people that you claim 'dont understand' or that 'its too complex for them'. Like I and some other have mentioned before, this thread just seems to be there to boost your ego in some way since you claim to fix a problem that is not even a problem and then change the subject once people point it out

That’s cool, but please don’t confuse excitement and knowing my part with ego.
As I mentioned before I would support your claims about me personally if one example of me changing the subject can be found. The same goes to me claiming fixing a problem.

I’m also happy to end the discussion here, I was ready a few days ago although questions keep on arising.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Is your plan to determine the amount of phosphate, nitrate and carbon to dose where the phosphate and nitrate in the water stabilize at a constant level for some period of time?

Do you think the ratio of each residual nutrient in the water or the ratio of the dosed nutrients will apply to other reef tanks?

Within a margin of error, I should be able to produce a ratio of balance at several different concentrations of carbon and identify if the ratio of assimilation changes. I’m predicting that the ratio won’t change although I could be wrong.

 

[rishma]

Within a margin of error, I should be able to produce a ratio of balance at several different concentrations of carbon and identify if the ratio of assimilation changes. I’m predicting that the ratio won’t change although I could be wrong.

I don’t know what you mean by “ratio of assimilation”.

several concentrations of carbon? Are you going to measure the concentration of carbon in the water?

Is the ratio you are seeking the ratio between amounts you are dosing? Or the amounts left in the water when the numbers stabilize?

 

[Miami Reef]

So this whole thread is just @sixty_reefer ‘s sudden epiphany that adding organic carbon lowers nutrients?

 

[ReneReef]

So this whole thread is just @sixty_reefer ‘s sudden epiphany that adding organic carbon lowers nutrients?

Such a new revelation, if only we had known that decades before…

 

[GARRIGA]

@Hats_ you have mentioned that some sort of proof could be beneficial to entertain the idea.

I was going to wait until the data was all available although it feels that some may be necessarily here.

Last Wednesday I’ve started this test tank.

It’s a 50 litres AIO with just bioballs in one chamber to promote nitrification, there isn’t any surface in this system that is anoxic.
This is to mimic modern reefs that lack in those areas.
The only source of nutrients it’s via dosing nitrogen, phosphates and organic carbon.

It’s only early days although I will have a number for balance soon.

So far I can tell you that the system has a high demand in phosphate more than expected. Once all is balanced I can give a ratio.

This will be interesting from a biological filter perspective as one can control input and test remnants. Perhaps next round can exclude biological and use a fast growing coral such as GSP or Xenia.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I don’t know what you mean by “ratio of assimilation”.

several concentrations of carbon? Are you going to measure the concentration of carbon in the water?

Is the ratio you are seeking the ratio between amounts you are dosing? Or the amounts left in the water when the numbers stabilize?

Bacterial Assimilation of inorganic nutrients from the water column.

The target is 1.044 ppm of nitrate per 0.1 ppm of phosphate that is the translation of 16:1 mole ratio of Nitrate to Phosphate

 

[Eric R.]

I feel like there’s been a trend here the last few years where certain users have developed a vocabulary not shared by either the broader reefing community or the scientific community that consists of using more complicated terms to describe things than necessary that tends to confuse the situation, and then when other people point out the inconsistencies, these users then claim that it’s just because they aren’t being understood.

Please, we don’t need to invent new terms to describe things that can already be readily explained using existing terms. If you really want to have a discussion, please do your best to describe things in a straightforward manner. Otherwise it’s a reasonable assumption that you don’t actually want to hear what others are saying, and are just looking for confirmation for your ideas or an argument. And for new members to the community that don’t realize what’s going on, that’s likely to only farther confuse them and make them struggle more, waste more money, or kill more animals.

 

[GARRIGA]

The target is 1.044 ppm of nitrate per 0.1 ppm of phosphate that is the translation of 16:1 mole ratio of Nitrate to Phosphate

Isn't the 100:16:1 Carbon Nitrogen Phosphorous and converted to Nitrate Phosphate then 10:1? Speaking specifically as to the original intent of Redfield were one to use hobby level kits.

 

[sixty_reefer]

This will be interesting from a biological filter perspective as one can control input and test remnants. Perhaps next round can exclude biological and use a fast growing coral such as GSP or Xenia.

The tank was set initially to try and reproduce the demand of nutrients for seawater and I thought as been often asked for evidence that it could be used here also.
The idea was to try and observe certain organisms that require those demands for feeding.

 

[Eric R.]

I wasn’t asking a question, I was stating my opinion.

I certainly agree with you. So are most tanks with no kit detectable nutrients going to be carbon limited, as is the ocean.

Sorry for the confusion Randy, I didn’t mean for my comment to be a response to your quote directly. I meant to use your comment as a response to the preceding post from the OP, which I have copied below. I searched the forum for “carbon limited” found your post, and copied it to this thread for the OP.

If you want to take the discussion seriously let’s talk about the ability of determining a C limitation in reef aquaria with the residual Nitrate and Phosphate.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Isn't the 100:16:1 Carbon Nitrogen Phosphorous and converted to Nitrate Phosphate then 10:1? Speaking specifically as to the original intent of Redfield were one to use hobby level kits.

I’ve translated the 16:1 Nitrate to phosphate moles that is 912,653 ppm Nitrate and 87,347 ppm phosphate into a number that can be easily referred, so I set phosphate as 0.1 ppm and the the equivalent at 1.044 ppm nitrate. To be in the same ratio of 16:1 moles