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

[sixty_reefer]

Did Redfield say anything about the ratio of cereal to milk?

Well, Redfield might have missed that one. Apparently, he was more concerned with the ocean’s nutrient balance than perfecting breakfast science. But if he had, I’m guessing his ratio would be something like 106 spoons of cereal to 16 splashes of milk and 1 lonely piece of fruit… just to stay on brand

 

[Hats_]

I’ll expand on this and we’ll end the conversation here.

As it’s getting tiresome

The answer to this is simple, being in the field you should have access to all the following molar ratios in balanced ecosystems from the data base, if they limited they can adapt and change the molar ratio as you know.

Flavobacteriaceae 16:1 N P
Pelagibacteraceae 16:1 N P
Rhodobacteraceae 16:1 N P
Vibrionaceae 16:1 N P
Alteromonadaceae 16:1 N P

The above is for this bacteria under balanced nutrient conditions.
They also are the top 5 bacteria’s identified in a aquabiomics typically sample just as a coincidence.

That’s me out happy reefing.

nopeing out of your own thread since its getting 'tiresome' to defend your own point? just admitting defeat at that point

 

[ReneReef]

I’ll expand on this and we’ll end the conversation here.

As it’s getting tiresome

The answer to this is simple, being in the field you should have access to all the following molar ratios in balanced ecosystems from the data base, if they limited they can adapt and change the molar ratio as you know.

Flavobacteriaceae 16:1 N P
Pelagibacteraceae 16:1 N P
Rhodobacteraceae 16:1 N P
Vibrionaceae 16:1 N P
Alteromonadaceae 16:1 N P

The above is for this bacteria under balanced nutrient conditions.
They also are the top 5 bacteria’s identified in a aquabiomics typically sample just as a coincidence.

That’s me out happy reefing.

Thanks for not answering a question, again. I asked you to provide supporting evidence... Writing down some xx-aceaes with 16:1 N P after it is not that.

This is indeed getting very tiresome.

"end the conversation here"???
Conversing is a two way street. Speaking/writing and listening (i.e. placing yourself in the other's perspective: really listen). You're not actually listening. So we were never in a conversation to begin with.
The only conversation in this topic was about bacon.

The answer to this is simple, being in the field you should have access to all the following molar ratios in balanced ecosystems from the data base, if they limited they can adapt and change the molar ratio as you know.

What are you on about? "if they limited"?
Being in the field, you should be up to date on current literature and be able to cite a peer reviewed paper to support your reasoning.

About that molar bit. Remember, you were the one using ppm in post #18.

Flavobacteriaceae 16:1 N P
Pelagibacteraceae 16:1 N P
Rhodobacteraceae 16:1 N P
Vibrionaceae 16:1 N P
Alteromonadaceae 16:1 N P

Jello on the floor.

The above is for this bacteria under balanced nutrient conditions.

Is what? Composition? Nutritional demand? Bull excrement?

That’s me out happy reefing.

OK bye, happy ratio keeping.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Thanks for not answering a question, again. I asked you to provide supporting evidence... Writing down some xx-aceaes with 16:1 N P after it is not that.

This is indeed getting very tiresome.

"end the conversation here"???
Conversing is a two way street. Speaking/writing and listening (i.e. placing yourself in the other's perspective: really listen). You're not actually listening. So we were never in a conversation to begin with.
The only conversation in this topic was about bacon.


What are you on about? "if they limited"?
Being in the field, you should be up to date on current literature and be able to cite a peer reviewed paper to support your reasoning.

About that molar bit. Remember, you were the one using ppm in post #18.


Jello on the floor.


Is what? Composition? Nutritional demand? Bull excrement?


OK bye, happy ratio keeping.

Could you elaborate on what exactly do you require proof on? Simple question will do.

 

[sixty_reefer]

nopeing out of your own thread since its getting 'tiresome' to defend your own point? just admitting defeat at that point

Do you see a point in carrying on discussing biogeochemistry topics?

 

[Hats_]

Do you see a point in carrying on discussing biogeochemistry topics?

That's the thing, you aren't discussing. You make wild claims that you can't/won't support scientifically. Then when people ask you to explain yourself or state your sources you act like we are not on your intellectual level and that you are getting tired of us.

This is why I wanted to know your background, since if you are let's say a highschool student with a vested interest I would approach the topic a lot different then lets say someone with 2 PhD's in the subject matter.

 

[ReneReef]

Could you elaborate on what exactly do you require proof on? Simple question will do.

I thought you ended the discussion…
Anyway

I didn’t ask for proof. The proof of what you aim to use some dead man’s ratio for, does not exist. I asked for supportive evidence.

Any peer reviewed marine research to support anything of what you are saying will do.

For instance:
1) that the CNP composition of all heterotrophic bacteria is 106:16:1.
2) That those bacteria consume nutrients in that same ratio

I gave you a reference that says 1 and 2 are not the case. Your only argument against that was that I am “not in the field”.
But that article is from 1994. So maybe all heterotrophic bacteria did some freakishly fast convergent evolution over the past 30 years…. Show us!

 

[sixty_reefer]

That's the thing, you aren't discussing. You make wild claims that you can't/won't support scientifically. Then when people ask you to explain yourself or state your sources you act like we are not on your intellectual level and that you are getting tired of us.

This is why I wanted to know your background, since if you are let's say a highschool student with a vested interest I would approach the topic a lot different then lets say someone with 2 PhD's in the subject matter.

If I remember correctly I’ve only made one claim and one hypothesis.

The claim being
the possible use of the interpretation of nutrient limitations to help balance reef aquaria by determining which nutrient could be limiting pelagic heterotrophic bacteria.

So far this subject hasn’t been discussed.

The hypothesis come from the discussion that was “could pelagic heterotrophic bacteria assimilate nutrient in a similar ratio of their composition” as most share a molar ratio close to Redfield for N and P for the make up of seawater molar ratio.
It’s been pointed out by Randy that to his knowledge there isn’t any data available for this hypothesis, therefor I don’t really understand what I’m I being asked to proof?
I’ve pointed out during the prolonged thread that I was doing some tests of my own for my own knowledge where I intend to use different types of polymers to evaluate outcomes.


Is it the first that requires scientific proof? For the second it will take me some time to come up with any decent data.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I thought you ended the discussion…
Anyway

I didn’t ask for proof. The proof of what you aim to use some dead man’s ratio for, does not exist. I asked for supportive evidence.

Any peer reviewed marine research to support anything of what you are saying will do.

For instance:
1) that the CNP composition of all heterotrophic bacteria is 106:16:1.

I haven’t said that

2) That those bacteria consume nutrients in that same ratio

You could read my previous answer to Hats or go back in the thread and get up to date with the discussion

I gave you a reference that says 1 and 2 are not the case. Your only argument against that was that I am “not in the field”.
But that article is from 1994. So maybe all heterotrophic bacteria did some freakishly fast convergent evolution over the past 30 years…. Show us!

No, I said that you haven’t read the full 18 pages from the PDF file, did you? Because I did

 

[Hats_]

If I remember correctly I’ve only made one claim and one hypothesis.

The claim being
the possible use of the interpretation of nutrient limitations to help balance reef aquaria by determining which nutrient could be limiting pelagic heterotrophic bacteria.

So far this subject hasn’t been discussed.

yes this has been discussed, it was said that the reef aquarium as a whole does not adhere to any ratios since there are many different actors than just 'heterotrophic bacteria' (just heterotrophic bacteria is also not very specific). also, this can not be reliably tested using hobby grade testing equipment.

regarding the claims this is not really the claims that we mean, the claims that all heterotrophic bacteria need the same ratios C : N : P, that the reef bacteria are all heterotrophs, and you stated ratios for a handful of bacteria families. just to name a few. generally in the scientific community if you state a fact, you show a credible source or multiple that state this fact. this makes your points more valid.

The hypothesis come from the discussion that was “could pelagic heterotrophic bacteria assimilate nutrient in a similar ratio of their composition” as most share a molar ratio close to Redfield for N and P for the make up of seawater molar ratio.
It’s been pointed out by Randy that to his knowledge there isn’t any data available for this hypothesis, therefor I don’t really understand what I’m I being asked to proof?
I’ve pointed out during the prolonged thread that I was doing some tests of my own for my own knowledge where I intend to use different types of polymers to evaluate outcomes.


Is it the first that requires scientific proof? For the second it will take me some time to come up with any decent data.

Also with proof I don't think people mean you need to prove your hypothesis, more the facts that you state and how you got to this hypothesis. I don't expect people to sterilize a room and a reef tank just to do an experiment to figure out nutrient concentrations since most of us don't have the money, time or dedication to do such a thing.

this is an example where I would prefer a source for this claim
"as most share a molar ratio close to Redfield for N and P for the make up of seawater molar ratio"

I hope this is helpful

 

[ReneReef]

You could read my previous answer to Hats or go back in the thread and get up to date with the discussion

Ah, is that how it works…
In that case.

Fairy dust 16:1 N P
Crocodile tears 16:1 N P
Ectoplasm 16:1 N P
The strings from string theory 16:1 N P

I wrote it, so it’s factual information no one can question.

 

[sixty_reefer]

yes this has been discussed, it was said that the reef aquarium as a whole does not adhere to any ratios since there are many different actors than just 'heterotrophic bacteria' (just heterotrophic bacteria is also not very specific). also, this can not be reliably tested using hobby grade testing equipment.

I see the confusion, in the opening statement I’ve used Randy’s paper determination for phosphate and Nitrate assimilation by pelagic heterotrophic bacteria while using vinegar as a example.
Showing that carbon can control all nutrients in a system if readily available, maybe it’s unfortunate that he’s determination was 16:1 and added confusion to most readers.

Nutrient limitation can be easily interpreted without the need of a particular ratio.

regarding the claims this is not really the claims that we mean, the claims that all heterotrophic bacteria need the same ratios C : N : P, that the reef bacteria are all heterotrophs, and you stated ratios for a handful of bacteria families. just to name a few. generally in the scientific community if you state a fact, you show a credible source or multiple that state this fact. this makes your points more valid.

I only shared the N and P value for those bacteria’s the C between them varies greatly, the information was collected from several papers that I read over the years and found interesting that the N P ratio between most pelagic bacteria present in the reef aquaria water column and in seawater, tends to have a similar ratio of N P to the make up of seawater, making me wonder if that was one of the reasons that the molar ratio for seawater was so similar as most organisms living in it were sharing similar N P content.

Also with proof I don't think people mean you need to prove your hypothesis, more the facts that you state and how you got to this hypothesis. I don't expect people to sterilize a room and a reef tank just to do an experiment to figure out nutrient concentrations since most of us don't have the money, time or dedication to do such a thing.

this is an example where I would prefer a source for this claim
"as most share a molar ratio close to Redfield for N and P for the make up of seawater molar ratio"

I hope this is helpful

I read many papers on weekly basis on the subject, it would take me days to find particular ones that demonstrate some of the above points.

 

[Hats_]

I see the confusion, in the opening statement I’ve used Randy’s paper determination for phosphate and Nitrate assimilation by pelagic heterotrophic bacteria while using vinegar as a example.
Showing that carbon can control all nutrients in a system if readily available, maybe it’s unfortunate that he’s determination was 16:1 and added confusion to most readers.

Nutrient limitation can be easily interpreted without the need of a particular ratio.

If you want people to discuss with you you're going to have to do better than that, show your work! so show your sources! Be transparent and open to critique, don't blow people off for being skeptical or doubtful.

I only shared the N and P value for those bacteria’s the C between them varies greatly, the information was collected from several papers that I read over the years and found interesting that the N P ratio between most pelagic bacteria present in the reef aquaria water column and in seawater, tends to have a similar ratio of N P to the make up of seawater, making me wonder if that was one of the reasons that the molar ratio for seawater was so similar as most organisms living in it were sharing similar N P content.

see what we mean with contradicting yourself? first you say they all have the same ratio N P and don't show where you got those numbers. And now you state that they are similar ratios and still you don't show your sources...

I read many papers on weekly basis on the subject, it would take me days to find particular ones that demonstrate some of the above points.

Imagine I would say this to an employer or project leader. You want to have a serious discussion, put in the time and effort...

 

[BeanAnimal]

Do you see a point in carrying on discussing biogeochemistry topics?

Presenting overly scientific terminology (biogeochemistry) and needlessly complex language feels (at best) labored and is not helping your position, even if any of it did make sense.

You could read my previous answer to Hats or go back in the thread and get up to date with the discussion

No, I said that you haven’t read the full 18 pages from the PDF file, did you? Because I did

You have done everything but actually respond to the points or questions that have been presented. THIRTEEN pages worth of back peddling, patronizing and sidestepping responses. It feels like an intervention with a flat earther, not a reef science conversation.

 

[rishma]

@sixty_reefer,
I am interested in achieving stability of my nitrate and phosphate using carbon dosing in my tank. My interest has been even higher since I started keeping a small 100L reef because this stability has been even more elusive than past larger tanks. I’ve actually had a lot of success in recent months which has reinvigorated my interest in the hobby. This is why I came to this thread, though I long ago decided the Redfield ratio was not useful to me in reef keeping. I know there are things to learn. I tried to engage with some direct questions, but I didn’t receive direct answers. In fact, I felt like your answers were deliberately oblique. That was aggravating but I’m not one to get irritated about this stuff.

I mean this in the most friendly way I can, but I’d like to emphasize @BeanAnimal comments around using needlessly scientific or complex terminology. You’ll have to take my word for it, but let’s just say I am comfortable dealing with technical complexity. That said, the way you have presented your thoughts often included a bunch of technical words strung together that didn’t seem necessary to me. I probably missed your point because your communication was not simple, clear,
or direct.

You might be thinking to yourself that you don’t want to dumb it down. Well, there is a quote I like that captures it…If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. That’s attributed to Albert Einstein, who was also a pretty smart guy . I try to keep this in mind.

I don’t think this thread is salvageable, but since you are running an experiment I am hoping you come back with the data and share. If you can do that with transparency and openness, it could be a really interesting discussion. Cheers

 

[ReneReef]

@sixty_reefer,
I am interested in achieving stability of my nitrate and phosphate using carbon dosing in my tank. My interest has been even higher since I started keeping a small 100L reef because this stability has been even more elusive than past larger tanks. I’ve actually had a lot of success in recent months which has reinvigorated my interest in the hobby. This is why I came to this thread, though I long ago decided the Redfield ratio was not useful to me in reef keeping. I know there are things to learn. I tried to engage with some direct questions, but I didn’t receive direct answers. In fact, I felt like your answers were deliberately oblique. That was aggravating but I’m not one to get irritated about this stuff.

I mean this in the most friendly way I can, but I’d like to emphasize @BeanAnimal comments around using needlessly scientific or complex terminology. You’ll have to take my word for it, but let’s just say I am comfortable dealing with technical complexity. That said, the way you have presented your thoughts often included a bunch of technical words strung together that didn’t seem necessary to me. I probably missed your point because your communication was not simple, clear,
or direct.

You might be thinking to yourself that you don’t want to dumb it down. Well, there is a quote I like that captures it…If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. That’s attributed to Albert Einstein, who was also a pretty smart guy . I try to keep this in mind.

I don’t think this thread is salvageable, but since you are running an experiment I am hoping you come back with the data and share. If you can do that with transparency and openness, it could be a really interesting discussion. Cheers

The thing is, the bits of what you may describe as needlessly scientific or complex are actually just as much jibberish as the rest.

Terms to summarise this thread: inconsistent, incoherent, unsubstantiated, lack of relevance and an over used argument from authority that without substantiation is a fallacy.

 

[sixty_reefer]

If you want people to discuss with you you're going to have to do better than that, show your work! so show your sources! Be transparent and open to critique, don't blow people off for being skeptical or doubtful.

I’d like to start by apologising, I know the theory is right and it works as it was the result of many personal experiences although I’m apologising as I’ve missed identified the heterotrophic organism that becomes limited. This organism is the responsible for the control of nuisance and balance in reef aquaria and their population is directly impacted with the availability of organic carbon, nitrogen and phosphate. It’s more in particular affected by the limitation in phosphate vs the other two nutrients.
In other words yes I’ve made a school boy error and missed identified the organism that I was referring to.

 

[Hats_]

I’d like to start by apologising, I know the theory is right and it works as it was the result of many personal experiences although I’m apologising as I’ve missed identified the heterotrophic organism that becomes limited. This organism is the responsible for the control of nuisance and balance in reef aquaria and their population is directly impacted with the availability of organic carbon, nitrogen and phosphate. It’s more in particular affected by the limitation in phosphate vs the other two nutrients.
In other words yes I’ve made a school boy error and missed identified the organism that I was referring to.

heterotrophic organism that becomes limited?? what are you even saying? an organism that 'eats' nutrients does not mean it controls nuisance and balance.

i have no idea why you like the word 'limited' so much but in this context it means nothing.

I know the theory is right and it works as it was the result of many personal experiences

what theory? whose personal experiences, yours? and how does it work according to you?

 

[BeanAnimal]

I’d like to start by apologising, I know the theory is right and it works as it was the result of many personal experiences although I’m apologising as I’ve missed identified the heterotrophic organism that becomes limited. This organism is the responsible for the control of nuisance and balance in reef aquaria and their population is directly impacted with the availability of organic carbon, nitrogen and phosphate. It’s more in particular affected by the limitation in phosphate vs the other two nutrients.
In other words yes I’ve made a school boy error and missed identified the organism that I was referring to.

 

[sixty_reefer]

heterotrophic organism that becomes limited?? what are you even saying? an organism that 'eats' nutrients does not mean it controls nuisance and balance.

Heterotrophic Protozoa does. Their population is dependent on the availability of Nitrate, Phosphate and DOC in the form of a carbohydrate. Not acetic acid or etanol