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

[sixty_reefer]

I've still no idea what you are trying to achieve but why are you using algal derived sugars? Why not plain old terrestrial sugar?

As the algae sugars are in line with the form and diversity found in saltwater environments, they should promote bacterial and Protozoa populations similar to natural reef environments in theory.
They also contain a mix of simple and complex carbohydrates. My only problem is that the current method I intend to use won’t extract all the complex forms efficiently.

 

[Garf]

As the algae sugars are in line with the form and diversity found in saltwater environments, they should promote bacterial and Protozoa populations similar to natural reef environments in theory.
They also contain a mix of simple and complex carbohydrates. My only problem is that the current method I intend to use won’t extract all the complex forms efficiently.

It is certainly true that different sugars (or at least, sources of sugars [green algae, coral, coraline algae]) have differing effects, according to the scientific community.

 

[sixty_reefer]

It is certainly true that different sugars (or at least, sources of sugars [green algae, coral, coraline algae]) have differing effects, according to the scientific community.

There are some methods that encourage their decomposition in aquarium for those same benefits (i suspect), from past work with phytoplankton, I’ve come to believe that this could be the overall benefit of adding phytoplankton to a reef tank and that the decomposition from that algae could be more beneficial than just a feed for zooplankton.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Like this thread, your “experiment” and explanation of said experiment appear to be wandering and somewhat evolving with each response but none of it makes any sense.

You won’t get anything meaningful from these overly complicated tests—beyond confirming that organisms use nutrients. But that is something we already understand.

There’s not much you can measure accurately in this experiment. You can’t reliably track DOC or N or differentiate between what's used by bacteria versus Protozoa even if there are no coral or fish. But even if you could, we don’t have Protozoa displays, we have reef tanks and adding the coral and fish change the whole playing field and consumer landscape.

I am going to cut to the chase here. You do not appear to have a grasp of this subject matter. That is typically fine, we are all here to learn from each other.

The problem most of us have is that you found yourself in way over your head on page one and have now spent 18 pages faking it instead of admitting it. The papers and AI can’t help if you don’t know what to ask or look for because you don’t understand the questions to begin with. The result is a wandering set of exchanges (18 pages) as you try to dig yourself out of one hole after the next.

Maybe the silver lining is that you are learning something as you go, even if you are pretending to be the one teaching us.

 

[BeanAnimal]

It is slightly relevant. Let’s say you want to promote the growth of bacteria and phytoplankton in your aquarium. It’s important to know that these things need organic carbon for growth. Also organic carbon is usually limited in our aquariums. So dosing organic carbon is typically helpful.

Nobody here is arguing against carbon dosing or its general effects. It may help to start at page one and skim through to understand how we got here.

Why do I need to read multiple posts of you not helping here in order to follow this conversation?

There have been 18 pages of dialog here, the vast majority of it cordial even if in disagreement. Please don’t be combative. Help is a matter of perspective and most of us are trying to help the OP understand. There is a feature that allows you to block my posts. It may be of help to you if my posts or personality bother you.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Like this thread, your “experiment” and explanation of said experiment appear to be wandering and somewhat evolving with each response but none of it makes any sense.

You won’t get anything meaningful from these overly complicated tests—beyond confirming that organisms use nutrients. But that is something we already understand.

There’s not much you can measure accurately in this experiment. You can’t reliably track DOC or N or differentiate between what's used by bacteria versus Protozoa even if there are no coral or fish. But even if you could, we don’t have Protozoa displays, we have reef tanks and adding the coral and fish change the whole playing field and consumer landscape.

I am going to cut to the chase here. You do not appear to have a grasp of this subject matter. That is typically fine, we are all here to learn from each other.

The problem most of us have is that you found yourself in way over your head on page one and have now spent 18 pages faking it instead of admitting it. The papers and AI can’t help if you don’t know what to ask or look for because you don’t understand the questions to begin with. The result is a wandering set of exchanges (18 pages) as you try to dig yourself out of one hole after the next.

Maybe the silver lining is that you are learning something as you go, even if you are pretending to be the one teaching us.

It was just on the previous page

Im using a carbohydrate made by myself, I should have a vague idea of the carbohydrate content of that same solution being used in ppm in relation to Nitrate and phosphate.

Initially the test will be fully dark, to evaluate the organisms demand in seawater and to remove photosynthetic interference.
I’m not using any aragonite based products in this system to remove the phosphate absorption capability of aragonite that could interfere with the results.
It’s also my intention to spread the dose of DOC over a period of 24 hours to mimic the slow release instead of doing it all in one shot.

I’ve mentioned before, I know the ppm in the DOC solution and I know the ppm in the nitrogen solution (I also will know the ppm in the phosphate solution) that should be all converted to nitrate by nitrifying bacteria and have a indication of how much nitrate is removed by bacteria or Protozoa.
Weather is just one or a collective work between bacteria and Protozoa I don’t believe it affects final results as both will be present in seawater imo.

The target is not zero, the focus of the experiment is to evaluate the consumption of nutrients in ppm on a balanced environment by saltwater only.
Also referred many times in the hobby as import export.
From that usage in ppm I can then evaluate if certain ratios appear for saltwater nutrient demand in a tank.
From there coral and other photosynthetic organisms could be added and evaluate if the demand changes.

 

[rtparty]

Just to clarify…

Let’s all assume we’re on the same page and agree on the premise of nutrients, their concentrations, how bacteria and Protozoa work, etc etc

Is the whole point of this testing to see if one can eradicate a dino outbreak or a cyano outbreak? Maybe speed up the ugly stage substantially?

Forget the fish, corals, other organisms, yada yada.

The theory is we COULD be dosing something to help promote “good guys” that will fight off “bad guys”?

Just keeping this super simple to hopefully understand the point of the experiment.

 

[BeanAnimal]

It was just on the previous page

Yes, those are the recent posts I am referencing and the context of this entire thread and your response is another deflection. There is a distinct pattern here.

rtparty just threw you a bone and gave you another out. I suggest taking it

I will help:

Just to clarify…

Let’s all assume we’re on the same page and agree on the premise of nutrients, their concentrations, how bacteria and Protozoa work, etc etc

Is the whole point of this testing to see if one can eradicate a dino outbreak or a cyano outbreak? Maybe speed up the ugly stage substantially?

Forget the fish, corals, other organisms, yada yada.

The theory is we COULD be dosing something to help promote “good guys” that will fight off “bad guys”?

Just keeping this super simple to hopefully understand the point of the experiment.

Let's refine that a bit in context to this mess.

Hypothesis:

"It is possible that different organic carbon sources may be consumed at different rates in an aquarium based on the fact that different organisms consume at different rates and efficiencies.

As such it is possible that different carbon sources may promote different effects, negative or positive in context to the system as it relates to reef keeping.

While the consumption rate of different organisms may not be measurable due to the complex interactions and our inability to measure DOC or N, the overall goal is to show that a specific type of carbon source is more beneficial with regard to preventing nuisance algae than others."

The disconnect here is that I think most of us agree that such a hypothesis has merit. If you insist on referencing "Redfield" and quantifying or predicting consumption (and "limits") based on it... then we are back where we started with far too many variables in a complex system in context to what you are proposing to quantify.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Just to clarify…

Let’s all assume we’re on the same page and agree on the premise of nutrients, their concentrations, how bacteria and Protozoa work, etc etc

Is the whole point of this testing to see if one can eradicate a dino outbreak or a cyano outbreak? Maybe speed up the ugly stage substantially?

No, once you have a bloom it can be fairly difficult to eradicate the bloom by just correcting the nutrients in my opinion. I’ve seen it work sometimes although I don’t see that as a guarantee.

Forget the fish, corals, other organisms, yada yada.

The theory is we COULD be dosing something to help promote “good guys” that will fight off “bad guys”?

No, it’s not always about dosing something. Although I will use mainly dosing as a demonstration purposes only.

Just keeping this super simple to hopefully understand the point of the experiment.

The basis of the experiment is to illustrate that it may be possible to identify a Dissolved organic Carbon deficiency by knowing your phosphate and Nitrate.

This doesn’t mean that a system has to be dosed there is several methods used in the hobby to counter react this situation. That doesn’t involve dosing.

Because it hasn’t been done before it will touch several other topics as they all relate to the basis of the experiment.

The way I see it it just to have a more in deep knowledge of how everything is working at that level.

 

[MnFish1]

It is slightly relevant. Let’s say you want to promote the growth of bacteria and phytoplankton in your aquarium. It’s important to know that these things need organic carbon for growth. Also organic carbon is usually limited in our aquariums. So dosing organic carbon is typically helpful.

I’m not sure what YOU aren’t following here?? I don’t agree with everything sixty is saying but he’s got the right idea and the spirit and everyone just seems to be intent on dumping on him instead of being helpful. Why do I need to read multiple posts of you not helping here in order to follow this conversation?

Again - go back to the original quotes from Redfield. Additionally - I think this quote (below) says it all. There are multiple different opinions of how this ratio should and shouldn't be used - so - if advanced marine biological chemists can't agree - I'm not sure how anyone is supposed to agree, let alone use this ratio in a home aquarium. Additionally, a ratio has nothing to do with the absolute amount of the chemical measured - i.e. a X:Y ration of 1:2 can occur if X =10 and Y=20 or if X=1000 and Y=2000.

"The Redfield ratio has been revisited time and again in the ensuing years. In fact, Google Scholar returns 17 articles with the phrase “Redfield revisited” in the title; citations to these papers number in the hundreds. These articles confirm the overall consistency of the ratio, but also reveal some surprising deviations. Indeed, the steadiness of the average proportions of nutrients may mask differences in the C:N content of different species. And still other organisms may be able to vary their nutrient content. For instance, algae and cyanobacteria in culture seem to have a surprising flexibility in their N ratios, ranging from 5:1 to 100:1, depending on which nutrient was in short supply3."

 

[BeanAnimal]

No, once you have a bloom it can be fairly difficult to eradicate the bloom by just correcting the nutrients in my opinion. I’ve seen it work sometimes although I don’t see that as a guarantee.

You were given an easy way out of this but chose to double down again and are wandering further into a hole.

You can’t identify DOC levels by only measuring nitrate and phosphate. We have spent 15 pages going in circles around that barn.

No, it’s not always about dosing something. Although I will use mainly dosing as a demonstration purposes only.
The basis of the experiment is to illustrate that it may be possible to identify a Dissolved organic Carbon deficiency by knowing your phosphate and Nitrate.

This doesn’t mean that a system has to be dosed there is several methods used in the hobby to counter react this situation. That doesn’t involve dosing.

Wait, what? Then (even if you could determine DOC deficiency) what’s the goal?

 

[HomebroodExotics]

Again - go back to the original quotes from Redfield. Additionally - I think this quote (below) says it all. There are multiple different opinions of how this ratio should and shouldn't be used - so - if advanced marine biological chemists can't agree - I'm not sure how anyone is supposed to agree, let alone use this ratio in a home aquarium. Additionally, a ratio has nothing to do with the absolute amount of the chemical measured - i.e. a X:Y ration of 1:2 can occur if X =10 and Y=20 or if X=1000 and Y=2000.

"The Redfield ratio has been revisited time and again in the ensuing years. In fact, Google Scholar returns 17 articles with the phrase “Redfield revisited” in the title; citations to these papers number in the hundreds. These articles confirm the overall consistency of the ratio, but also reveal some surprising deviations. Indeed, the steadiness of the average proportions of nutrients may mask differences in the C:N content of different species. And still other organisms may be able to vary their nutrient content. For instance, algae and cyanobacteria in culture seem to have a surprising flexibility in their N ratios, ranging from 5:1 to 100:1, depending on which nutrient was in short supply3."

I don’t get it. Why is this such a hard thing to digest for so many “intelligent” people. I get it the ratio doesn’t mean a lot. For me what it means is that it takes a ton of carbon to create life. We also know that carbon is limited in our aquariums (unless people are disputing this but I thought that was pretty well accepted). Is OP asking for more? Perhaps op wants to find the phytoplankton that contains the most carbon in it so that he would have the best success in his tank? The redfield ratio while not really relevant also tells us that we need to know what ratio of nutrients is in the phytoplankton we use. It may be the same as redfield or it may not. I seen that op said some goofy things in response to phytoplankton and the carbon they contain. People just made fun of him instead of pointing him into the right direction of what phytoplankton may be best for his use case. But yes I’m stupid. Carry on.

 

[rtparty]

No, once you have a bloom it can be fairly difficult to eradicate the bloom by just correcting the nutrients in my opinion. I’ve seen it work sometimes although I don’t see that as a guarantee.


No, it’s not always about dosing something. Although I will use mainly dosing as a demonstration purposes only.

Upping nutrients isn’t a guarantee but when you’ve watched it worked thousands of times, there is something going on there. I’ll let those far smarter than I try to extrapolate what is going on and why.

I don’t aim to help the advanced reefers. They either know more than I do or think they know more than I do.

My aim is to help more people get into the hobby and stay in the hobby. The current trajectory for the hobby is abysmal. Setup dry everything tank, fight uglies for close to a year, throw in the towel, exit hobby. Rinse, repeat.

Whether we like it or not, new hobbyists come onto the forums and read all sorts of nonsense. Then they try that nonsense, it works (but for other reasons they don’t understand) and then they go parrot that nonsense without having the actual facts. Redfield is one of those nonsense ideas. Not because it isn’t real but because it’s severely misunderstood especially by those parroting it. For those that understand it, will never parrot it.

While there are many ways to accomplish the same task in this hobby, sometimes the best course of action is to help someone by giving them something to dose (when we understand what is being dosed and why.) We can later explain to that hobbyist what happened and why but the first part is getting them over the hump.

Soooooo….if you truly have a novel idea of some new dosing additive that can help, I don’t care about the other 25 ways to get there. Setup your experiment, test your theory, and present your information for critique.

All the other discussion is just noise

 

[HomebroodExotics]

Upping nutrients isn’t a guarantee but when you’ve watched it worked thousands of times, there is something going on there. I’ll let those far smarter than I try to extrapolate what is going on and why.

I don’t aim to help the advanced reefers. They either know more than I do or think they know more than I do.

My aim is to help more people get into the hobby and stay in the hobby. The current trajectory for the hobby is abysmal. Setup dry everything tank, fight uglies for close to a year, throw in the towel, exit hobby. Rinse, repeat.

Whether we like it or not, new hobbyists come onto the forums and read all sorts of nonsense. Then they try that nonsense, it works (but for other reasons they don’t understand) and then they go parrot that nonsense without having the actual facts. Redfield is one of those nonsense ideas. Not because it isn’t real but because it’s severely misunderstood especially by those parroting it. For those that understand it, will never parrot it.

While there are many ways to accomplish the same task in this hobby, sometimes the best course of action is to help someone by giving them something to dose (when we understand what is being dosed and why.) We can later explain to that hobbyist what happened and why but the first part is getting them over the hump.

Soooooo….if you truly have a novel idea of some new dosing additive that can help, I don’t care about the other 25 ways to get there. Setup your experiment, test your theory, and present your information for critique.

All the other discussion is just noise

I’m very confused why you think what OP said is just noise. What he said is very true in my opinion and seen multiple times over here on the forums. When there’s an algae bloom, lowering nutrients will likely give you more problems by killing your coral and inducing dinoflagelates to take over. Everything is confusing when you don’t understand how things work together.

 

[twentyleagues]

I’m very confused why you think what OP said is just noise. What he said is very true in my opinion and seen multiple times over here on the forums. When there’s an algae bloom, lowering nutrients will likely give you more problems by killing your coral and inducing dinoflagelates to take over. Everything is confusing when you don’t understand how things work together.

I dont think they meant that. More so the fact that it would have just been better to do said experiment and get an outcome before opening this can of worms. That way he could put his findings out for "pier" review. You can not deny there is a lot of meandering along the way regardless of where it originated.

 

[HomebroodExotics]

I dont think they meant that. More so the fact that it would have just been better to do said experiment and get an outcome before opening this can of worms. That way he could put his findings out for "pier" review. You can not deny there is a lot of meandering along the way regardless of where it originated.

Yes, what can of worms is happening here exactly? I think OP may be better off by not posting here as well. Something we agree with at least. There may be better places to discus this. Where would you recommend?

 

[rtparty]

I’m very confused why you think what OP said is just noise. What he said is very true in my opinion and seen multiple times over here on the forums. When there’s an algae bloom, lowering nutrients will likely give you more problems by killing your coral and inducing dinoflagelates to take over. Everything is confusing when you don’t understand how things work together.

What?

Have you read all 18 pages yet?

Where did I talk about lowering nutrients? Where did anyone talk about lowering nutrients to solve issues?

 

[HomebroodExotics]

What?

Have you read all 18 pages yet?

Where did I talk about lowering nutrients? Where did anyone talk about lowering nutrients to solve issues?

It was literally in the comment you had quoted bro…. I’m definitely taking crazy pills now.

Read the quote from the op that you quoted. Literally talking about correcting nutrients. That can be going up or down. And then you said this is all noise at the end. Do I need to take a picture of that too? I will

 

[rtparty]

It was literally in the comment you had quoted bro…. I’m definitely taking crazy pills now.

Read the quote from the op that you quoted. Literally talking about correcting nutrients. That can be going up or down. And then you said this is all noise at the end. Do I need to take a picture of that too? I will

Does correcting nutrients always mean lowering them?

You do know that when the majority of us talk about nutrients and dinos, it’s almost always about upping them.

Not once in my post of the quoted OP post is lowering mentioned

 

[HomebroodExotics]

Does correcting nutrients always mean lowering them?

You do know that when the majority of us talk about nutrients and dinos, it’s almost always about upping them.

Not once in my post of the quoted OP post is lowering mentioned

Ok and then I said something else about the same subject. Was that not allowed? I’ll make it more related to the subject.

If you have Dino’s then raising the nutrients will allow other forms of algae to outcompete the Dino’s. I forget that just using critical thinking to reverse what I said originally wouldn’t be possible. This my fault again. I am dumb.