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

[MnFish1]

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.

Agree the issue here is not comparing different methods, etc - its that the Redfield ratio has absolutely nothing to do with reality in a home aquarium

 

[MnFish1]

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.

Oh - I would try whatever works for you - I'm just saying don't base it on the Redfield ratio. Again - ratio - which could be a Po4 of 1

 

[twentyleagues]

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.

I believe bacon to be a cure all. If I had to choose the ratio of bacon to coffee there would be no ratio. Thank god that is not a possibility as I do love my coffee.

 

[sixty_reefer]

. I said maybe he should have just done the "experiment" and then using different wording posted the findings.

The experiment only came about as I’ve been asked for proof, what I didn’t realise is how many folks are not aware of how dissolved organic carbon enters every tank.

 

[twentyleagues]

The experiment only came about as I’ve been asked from proof, what I didn’t realise is how many folks are not aware of how dissolved organic carbon enters every tank.

I dont think that at all. I think the majority of posters here on this thread do know. I know the push back you received is based on the redfield ratio portion of the title and your continued "death grip" on that premise. I think you releasing that grip and accepting it is not relevant would make this better.....

 

[HomebroodExotics]

I dont think that at all. I think the majority of posters here on this thread do know. I know the push back you received is based on the redfield ratio portion of the title and your continued "death grip" on that premise. I think you releasing that grip and accepting it is not relevant would make this better.....

Good lord people are really not happy about the redfield ratio. Did Mr redfield slap your mothers or something? It’s so scary that no one bothers to understand what it actually means and how it could apply to aquariums. And no it has nothing to do with the ratio of the nutrients in the water. It’s the ratio of nutrients in the organism itself. Now maybe I’m wrong about that, but I have yet to see anything that says that is incorrect. This is the way I understand it, and it does in fact matter. Just maybe not to you.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I dont think that at all. I think the majority of posters here on this thread do know. I know the push back you received is based on the redfield ratio portion of the title and your continued "death grip" on that premise. I think you releasing that grip and accepting it is not relevant would make this better.....

How many poster do really know that fish food contains carbohydrates that bacteria and Protozoa can use in a system? The same type of carbohydrates that I intend to use on the test.

 

[14 foot reef]

How many poster do really know that fish food contains carbohydrates that bacteria and Protozoa can use in a system? The same type of carbohydrates that I intend to use on the test.

Can you stop posting and just get on with the test then post results.
You are exhausting this forum. GEEEEEZE

 

[twentyleagues]

How many poster do really know that fish food contains carbohydrates that bacteria and Protozoa can use in a system? The same type of carbohydrates that I intend to use on the test.

99.8675309% on the thread. Even Jenny knows it.

Really though? Come on. This is not helping your cause.

 

[GARRIGA]

How many poster do really know that fish food contains carbohydrates that bacteria and Protozoa can use in a system?

Knew it likely had carbohydrates but just now learning that protozoa have a function in lowering nutrients and there's that link. As to that relationship with Redfield for me irrelevant yet interested holistically on how carbs vs carbon could be utilized as an alternative to carbon dosing which has it's issues such as reducing pH and potential bacterial slime from overdosing which I found to be the most effective way to not just reduce nitrates but also reduce PO4 without resorting to additional remedies such as LC or GFO.

Having said that, if protozoa farming has the same concerns then that becomes a moot point unless it really reduces the possibility of Dino or cyano. My only stint with Dino almost had me walking away permanently and going back to setting up Discus which would benefit from my high in-home co2.

Perhaps open another thread on that discussion and don't dare mention Redfield although it does seem to keep the dialogue going

 

[Garf]

Actually, bacon and whales have a very high carbon content, due to the high fat content.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Knew it likely had carbohydrates but just now learning that protozoa have a function in lowering nutrients and there's that link. As to that relationship with Redfield for me irrelevant yet interested holistically on how carbs vs carbon could be utilized as an alternative to carbon dosing which has it's issues such as reducing pH and potential bacterial slime from overdosing which I found to be the most effective way to not just reduce nitrates but also reduce PO4 without resorting to additional remedies such as LC or GFO.

Having said that, if protozoa farming has the same concerns then that becomes a moot point unless it really reduces the possibility of Dino or cyano. My only stint with Dino almost had me walking away permanently and going back to setting up Discus which would benefit from my high in-home co2.

Perhaps open another thread on that discussion and don't dare mention Redfield although it does seem to keep the dialogue going

I may start referring to it as “censored word”

 

[Dan_P]

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

With the main reference ratio being 16:1, this number is widely agreed between aquarists including many experts on this forum for the assimilation rate of N and P for heterotrophic bacteria during carbon dosing and it’s also agreed between several expert aquarist that if a reef tank is limited by P for example that we cannot lower nitrates using organic carbon due to the bacteria becoming limited in one nutrient.

My point being that would we gain more as aquarist by understanding how Redfield nutrient limitations work?

Some examples were Redfield could be used as a example could be in the battle against nuisances algae like GHA as many folks do tend deplete a system from phosphates causing their biological filter to be unable to assimilate nutrients that could compete with the algae for example.

There is many other ways that I can think were we could use Redfield nutrient limitations in order to improve coral growth and reducing nuisances although I would like to hear your thoughts.


If you read all this way please don’t just post saying that you like to keep your No3 and Po4 at the same ratio as Redfield as that’s not how it’s used, that’s just a preference on how someone keeps their residual N and P, sorry had to be said.

Nitrogen and phosphorous limited systems are interesting. I have studied model systems for two years, focusing on growth of mixed algae species cultures (aka, the uglies).. Still feeling like a novice on the subject.

Because of the large number of two factor interactions in such systems, the Redfield ratio seems to be nearly useless in understanding such systems. I am open to enlightenment though.

 

[rtparty]

 

[revhtree]

This thread is under review. Closed until further notice. Thank you.