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

[VintageReefer]

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

But what is the goal? What are you trying to prove. My tanks successful with no thought to this ratio.

 

[ReneReef]

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

But what is the goal? What are you trying to prove. My tanks successful with no thought to this ratio.

Fully agreeing with VintageReefer here.

And would like to add to that:
Why assume bacterial assimilation of inorganic nutrients from the water column adheres to that ratio to begin with?

Loading…

www.researchgate.net

 

[VintageReefer]

And, why would you even assume bacterial assimilation of inorganic nutrients from the water colomn adheres to that ratio to begin with?

Loading…

www.researchgate.net

Was I quoted by mistake?

 

[ReneReef]

Was I quoted by mistake?

No, I was adding to your questions.
I've edited my post to clarify.

 

[VintageReefer]

No, I was adding to your questions.
I've edited my post to clarify.

I see a lot of talk but I don’t see any actual claims.

My tank is successful and balanced. I don’t need to do water changes nor do I need a skimmer. My corals grow well and my fish are happy. I don’t have algae issues. I’ve never had Dinos. Why would I want to alter things to strive for this ratio. What benefit would I gain? What would happen that’s not currently happening ?

Here’s my proof you don’t need the ratio for a successful reef. Corals of all types, healthy, happy, and growing fine.

I ask again, what would my system start doing, that it isn’t already, if my ratio was what you claim is needed?

In almost 25 years of keeping reefs I’ve never worried about nor tried to have this ratio. Why should I

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

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

I’m not sure I see this as useful as there are many processes that use just one, two, or all three of these nutrients.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I’m not sure I see this as useful as there are many processes that use just one, two, or all three of these nutrients.

There are many variables although seawater nutrients demand influence balance more than those variables in my mind. It is my understanding that even with variables, seawater nutrients demands stay constant. Is looking into it that detrimental in any way?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

There are many variables although seawater nutrients demand influence balance more than those variables in my mind. It is my understanding that even with variables, seawater nutrients demands stay constant. Is looking into it that detrimental in any way?

In a reef tank, demand for nitrate and phosphate can skew all over the map.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Fully agreeing with VintageReefer here.

And would like to add to that:
Why assume bacterial assimilation of inorganic nutrients from the water column adheres to that ratio to begin with?

Loading…

www.researchgate.net

Due to that being were Redfield may be applicable, this is the ratio determined for the make up of seawater

 

[sixty_reefer]

In a reef tank, demand for nitrate and phosphate can skew all over the map.

I agree, due to having a smaller volume of water in comparison to the sea, I would imagine.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I agree, due to having a smaller volume of water in comparison to the sea, I would imagine.

I’ve not actually seen an estimate of the demand ratio in the ocean, and I think most of the N consumption comes from ammonia, not nitrate.

Redfield N : P ratio is just two things, neither of which is demand.

1. N : P ratio in phytoplankton
2. N : P ratio in the water

 

[ReneReef]

Due to that being were Redfield may be applicable

Why do you think Redfield may be applicable there?
Please provide some supporting evidence.

The following paper I linked earlier as supportive evidence for my point of view:

Loading…

www.researchgate.net

The paper shows:
1) the make up of heterotrophic bacteria do NOT adhere to the Redfield ratio
2) heterotrophic bacteria assimilate much more N than bacterial growth would predict
3) there is a large variation in the CNP demand among heterotrophic bacteria
4) main N-sources for heterotrophic bacteria are NOT nitrate, organic nitrogen plays a big role

So, I don't see any reason to think Redfield may be applicable to heterotrophic bacteria.
Let alone translating it to any practical application in the complex environment that is a reef aquarium.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I’ve not actually seen an estimate of the demand ratio in the ocean, and I think most of the N consumption comes from ammonia, not nitrate.

Redfield N : P ratio is just two things, neither of which is demand.

1. N : P ratio in phytoplankton
2. N : P ratio in the water

“nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed” still one of my favourite quotes.

The ratios are also a indication of the nutrient recycling cycle, these nutrients are what sets an environment more in particular the relationship between phytoplankton and heterotrophic bacteria both depend on each other in order to live and they are largely contributors for the nutrient pool in seawater. Being consumer and producers during their life cycle.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Don’t see your point, it’s like you are looking to disproof something that you don’t even know what it is….

Have you seen many systems that are Co2 limited?

You keep making my point over and over.

Each and every time anybody disproves your premise you simply pivot to a new point and brush them off as uninformed.

“nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed” still one of my favourite quotes.

'If you think you know everything, you can't learn anything" still one of my favorite quotes.
--Mark Twain

 

[sixty_reefer]

You keep making my point over and over.

Each and every time anybody disproves your premise you simply pivot to a new point and brush them off as uninformed.



'If you think you know everything, you can't learn anything" still one of my favorite quotes.
--Mark Twain

Mine too, it may come as a surprise to you that Co2 it’s part of C

 

[areefer01]

Mine too, it may come as a surprise to you that Co2 it’s part of C

Here I was thinking that C is the 3rd letter of the alphabet...

 

[Hats_]

Mine too, it may come as a surprise to you that Co2 it’s part of C

Co2 is inorganic so no, your wrong

 

[sixty_reefer]

Co2 is inorganic so no, your wrong

C is a abbreviation for the word Carbon

 

[sixty_reefer]

Here I was thinking that C is the 3rd letter of the alphabet...

Ask Randy if it’s the 3rd letter of the alphabet

 

[BeanAnimal]

C is a abbreviation for the word Carbon

Your arrogance is insufferable.

C is for Cookie... and EVERYONE knows that.

Is that 16 chips to 1 cookie?
16 cookies per 1 cookie sheet?

Ohh help... Redfield is everywhere.