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

[sixty_reefer]

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

As you, I do also like to try and help a fellow reefer wend I can.
And as you know and just said above most off the help given today is just guess really.


If I told you on a thread that I’m having a problem with GHA and my nitrate is 15 ppm and my phosphate is 0.1 ppm. Could anyone determine my issue?

My aim is to change that only, because if I was now to add to the above “that 2 weeks ago my nitrated were 5 last week they were 10 and today they 15” would this now show a bigger picture to the current problem?
A balance was lost and nitrates are rising faster than usual.

The tank lost stability and now it need correcting, there is many methods available to correct this issue, I’m not looking to reinvent the wheel.

By the way, what I’m using in the experiment is not a magic potion, if you look at the ingredients that I’m planing to use, you would notice that is just the same ingredients as all fish foods available in the hobby today.

 

[Garf]

If I told you on a thread that I’m having a problem with GHA and my nitrate is 15 ppm and my phosphate is 0.1 ppm. Could anyone determine my issue?

Immature rock surface to herbivore ratio.

 

[HomebroodExotics]

Immature rock surface to herbivore ratio.

Also higher input of foods to output of nutrients or nutrient conversion. This is a fun game.

 

[rtparty]

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.

What’s with the combative attitude since joining the conversation?

 

[HomebroodExotics]

What’s with the combative attitude since joining the conversation?

I don’t know. Everyone seems to be taking this personally. OP just got a question about the Redfield ratio and people are very combative. Can you explain why you are so combative?

 

[rtparty]

As you, I do also like to try and help a fellow reefer wend I can.
And as you know and just said above most off the help given today is just guess really.


If I told you on a thread that I’m having a problem with GHA and my nitrate is 15 ppm and my phosphate is 0.1 ppm. Could anyone determine my issue?

Yes. You don’t have enough herbivores. Stopping the rise in nitrates won’t solve the algae issue

 

[HomebroodExotics]

Yes. You don’t have enough herbivores. Stopping the rise in nitrates won’t solve the algae issue

Well it would actually. You just would be left with dead corals and dinoflagellates unless you can avoid that fate. You should be a little more specific I think. Some people do manage to remove algae by stripping the water column of nutrients and feeding back the right amounts.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Yes. You don’t have enough herbivores. Stopping the rise in nitrates won’t solve the algae issue

It won’t, I agree.
Although knowing what possible caused the spike in the nitrate in the first place would be beneficial for a effective plan of action, in order to regain balance. Would you agree?

 

[Garf]

It won’t, I agree.
Although knowing what possible caused the spike in the nitrate in the first place would be beneficial for a effective plan of action, in order to regain balance. Would you agree?

I think Tropic Marin does an algae derived carbon dosing solution already. Apart from that, I expect you already know the solutions to importing more N than you are exporting.

 

[HomebroodExotics]

I think Tropic Marin does an algae derived carbon dosing solution already. Apart from that, I expect you already know the solutions to importing more N than you are exporting.

An algae derived carbon dosing solution? People in this thread said that was dumb. Why would tropic Marin do such a dumb thing?

 

[sixty_reefer]

I think Tropic Marin does an algae derived carbon dosing solution already. Apart from that, I expect you already know the solutions to importing more N than you are exporting.

There is many solutions available for that purpose, although it doesn’t tell you what caused the rise in the first place. That’s one of the purposes of this thread.

 

[Garf]

An algae derived carbon dosing solution? People in this thread said that was dumb. Why would tropic Marin do such a dumb thing?

I don't think carbon dosing has been dissed, nevermind the origin of carbon. The "Redfield" bit has been given a rough reception though, lol.

 

[BeanAnimal]

An algae derived carbon dosing solution? People in this thread said that was dumb.

Hi - nobody came even close to saying that.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Hi - nobody came even close to saying that.

Since the beginning of the thread really, carbohydrate is present in all fish food. This is one of the main sources of dissolved organic carbon in every tank, as the tank mature and more coral is added other sources of carbohydrates may become available.
That’s also one of the reasons I will use a carbohydrate extracted from a micro algae, that is in the blend of most fish food.

 

[HomebroodExotics]

Hi - nobody came even close to saying that.

Nope I’m just imagining things again. I do that a lot apparently. Sometimes it’s like my comments don’t even show up. My mind just isn’t right these days.

 

[MnFish1]

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.

I would ask for proof of 'carbon is limited in our aquaria', No - the Redfield ratio tells nothing as far as my reading research over years - about our aquaria. Why?

1. We do not measure C
2. We do not measure N
3. We do not measure P
4. Maybe this will help:
"
To explain this phenomenon, Redfield initially proposed two mutually non-exclusive mechanisms:

I) The N in plankton tends towards the N composition of seawater. Specifically, phytoplankton species with different N and P requirements compete within the same medium and come to reflect the nutrient composition of the seawater.[1]

II) An equilibrium between seawater and planktonic nutrient pools is maintained through biotic feedback mechanisms.[1][3] Redfield proposed a thermostat like scenario in which the activities of nitrogen fixers and denitrifiers keep the nitrate to phosphate ratio in the seawater near the requirements in the protoplasm.[4] Considering that at the time little was known about the composition of “protoplasm", or the bulk composition of phytoplankton, Redfield did not attempt to explain why its N ratio should be approximately 16:1.

In 1958, almost a quarter century after first discovering the ratios, Redfield leaned toward the latter mechanism in his manuscript, The Biological Control of Chemical Factors in the Environment.[3]Redfield proposed that the ratio of nitrogen to phosphorus in plankton resulted in the global ocean having a remarkably similar ratio of dissolved nitrate to phosphate (16:1). He considered how the cycles of not just N and P but also C and O could interact to result in this match."

PS - the reason for the smiles is that the R2R interface translates colon P to

 

[HomebroodExotics]

I would ask for proof of 'carbon is limited in our aquaria', No - the Redfield ratio tells nothing as far as my reading research over years - about our aquaria. Why?

1. We do not measure C
2. We do not measure N
3. We do not measure P
4. Maybe this will help:
"
To explain this phenomenon, Redfield initially proposed two mutually non-exclusive mechanisms:

I) The N in plankton tends towards the N composition of seawater. Specifically, phytoplankton species with different N and P requirements compete within the same medium and come to reflect the nutrient composition of the seawater.[1]

II) An equilibrium between seawater and planktonic nutrient pools is maintained through biotic feedback mechanisms.[1][3] Redfield proposed a thermostat like scenario in which the activities of nitrogen fixers and denitrifiers keep the nitrate to phosphate ratio in the seawater near the requirements in the protoplasm.[4] Considering that at the time little was known about the composition of “protoplasm", or the bulk composition of phytoplankton, Redfield did not attempt to explain why its N ratio should be approximately 16:1.

In 1958, almost a quarter century after first discovering the ratios, Redfield leaned toward the latter mechanism in his manuscript, The Biological Control of Chemical Factors in the Environment.[3]Redfield proposed that the ratio of nitrogen to phosphorus in plankton resulted in the global ocean having a remarkably similar ratio of dissolved nitrate to phosphate (16:1). He considered how the cycles of not just N and P but also C and O could interact to result in this match."

PS - the reason for the smiles is that the R2R interface translates colon P to

Thank you for explaining how the legal process works.

Your opinion is noted and apparently doesn’t matter because even a company like tropic Marin believes that organic carbon sources are limited in aquariums. Do you have something to prove that it isn’t limited? We’ve been carbon dosing to lower nutrients for literally decades, now you need some evidence? I’m very confused. There’s lots of evidence out there.

 

[danimal1211]

I would ask for proof of 'carbon is limited in our aquaria', No - the Redfield ratio tells nothing as far as my reading research over years - about our aquaria. Why?

1. We do not measure C
2. We do not measure N
3. We do not measure P
4. Maybe this will help:
"
To explain this phenomenon, Redfield initially proposed two mutually non-exclusive mechanisms:

I) The N in plankton tends towards the N composition of seawater. Specifically, phytoplankton species with different N and P requirements compete within the same medium and come to reflect the nutrient composition of the seawater.[1]

II) An equilibrium between seawater and planktonic nutrient pools is maintained through biotic feedback mechanisms.[1][3] Redfield proposed a thermostat like scenario in which the activities of nitrogen fixers and denitrifiers keep the nitrate to phosphate ratio in the seawater near the requirements in the protoplasm.[4] Considering that at the time little was known about the composition of “protoplasm", or the bulk composition of phytoplankton, Redfield did not attempt to explain why its N ratio should be approximately 16:1.

In 1958, almost a quarter century after first discovering the ratios, Redfield leaned toward the latter mechanism in his manuscript, The Biological Control of Chemical Factors in the Environment.[3]Redfield proposed that the ratio of nitrogen to phosphorus in plankton resulted in the global ocean having a remarkably similar ratio of dissolved nitrate to phosphate (16:1). He considered how the cycles of not just N and P but also C and O could interact to result in this match."

PS - the reason for the smiles is that the R2R interface translates colon P to

While I wouldn’t consider it “proof” If I were to have detectable Nitrate and Phosphate in my aquarium and decide to begin dosing a carbon source, wouldn’t the decrease of Nitrate in said system be pretty clear evidence (coupled with the similar experience of many reefers) that my system was carbon limited?

Now whatever consumes that C,N,&P may take it in at a certain rate or not. I know on days when I’m particularly groggy my Coffee:Bacon skews left.

 

[twentyleagues]

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?

Wow every post feels hostile. You dont think this thread is a can of worms gaining little traction? I never said he should not post. I said maybe he should have just done the "experiment" and then using different wording posted the findings. The problem is the redfield ratio it has very little to do with most of what has transpired. Not carbon dosing or finding alternate forms for carbon dosing. Average reefers are not going to go through the steps he out lined to get that alternate carbon dose, But coo does to him for going the extra mile. I have not said anything bad about the op. I have not attacked you in anyway or been hostile to you or him. But frankly this thread is a S- show. Someone posted something and it was pointed out thats not how it works and then it got stupid, and its still happening 20 pages later. I tried to explain I dont think the post was an attack and I think you took that as an attack also, jumping to extremes. I do not agree with you at all that he should not post here. I also think people should read the posts entirely with a clean head dropping all the attitude before replying. Nothing I have posted in this comment or thread was sarcastic other than the way the thread has gone. I do think there could have been less friction had it been titled differently. Pretty sure the whole redfield ratio part has played out and been pretty well covered it does not pertain to our reef tanks.

 

[MnFish1]

Thank you for explaining how the legal process works.

Your opinion is noted and apparently doesn’t matter because even a company like tropic Marin believes that organic carbon sources are limited in aquariums. Do you have something to prove that it isn’t limited? We’ve been carbon dosing to lower nutrients for literally decades, now you need some evidence? I’m very confused. There’s lots of evidence out there.

the issue here is the Redfield ratio. None of the posts seem to link back to that - I'm sorry - I'm sure there are many people that disagree with Tropic Marin - as well as multiple products advertising their concept.