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

[sixty_reefer]

I think there is a small sprinkle of intellectual talking going on when this topic comes up. One of the more recent reefbum talks this subject came up and it was shot down quickly. Even though it was explained why it isn't applicable the other party kept saying but, but, but...

Redfield is poorly defended as the way that is interpreted by most is wrong, there is no scientific basis to indicate that you must keep a ratio of 16:1 in your residual Nitrate and phosphate. Therefore is a lost battle.

On the other hand no one can really argue against Redfield nutrient limitations as they are backed by scientific facts.

 

[Hats_]

Redfield is poorly defended as the way that is interpreted by most is wrong, there is no scientific basis to indicate that you must keep a ratio of 16:1 in your residual Nitrate and phosphate. Therefore is a lost battle.

On the other hand no one can really argue against Redfield nutrient limitations as they are backed by scientific facts.

You are constantly contradicting yourself and moving the goalpost here, 'ratio' is literally in the title of your thread. You mention in your initial post that it is widely agreed upon among aquarists.

What are you trying to achieve here?

Maybe reflect a little and reformulate your main research question and hypothesis.

 

[GARRIGA]

This is a interesting reading on the subject if you have a few minutes spare.

Loading…

www.in-pipe.com

Wasn’t aware there were heterotrophic that could perform denitrification under aerobic conditions. Is that what’s happening when dosing carbon and if it is then are we to assume these bacteria exists in our aquariums and the lack of carbon why they are relatively ineffective under non dosing conditions?

Way father into the weeds then I prefer to go. I was content just knowing dosing worked without any clue exactly the mechanism as to why it worked

 

[sixty_reefer]

You are constantly contradicting yourself and moving the goalpost here, 'ratio' is literally in the title of your thread. You mention in your initial post that it is widely agreed upon among aquarists.

What are you trying to achieve here?

Maybe reflect a little and reformulate your main research question and hypothesis.

I’ve been trying to be careful with what I write to not confuse anyone.

There is a difference between the assimilation ratio of bacteria vs your residual.

The ratio is on the assimilation of nutrients by the bacteria, your residual can be how you feel comfortable running your system.


You could have 100 nitrates and 0.05 phosphates and still have a balanced system. All I’m saying is that the pelagic heterotrophic bacteria will decrease/assimilate those nutrients at 16:1 or near ratio.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Wasn’t aware there were heterotrophic that could perform denitrification under aerobic conditions. Is that what’s happening when dosing carbon and if it is then are we to assume these bacteria exists in our aquariums and the lack of carbon why they are relatively ineffective under non dosing conditions?

Way father into the weeds then I prefer to go. I was content just knowing dosing worked without any clue exactly the mechanism as to why it worked

We don’t have to dose to have doc in the water column, there is several sources of DOC in our systems that contribute to more mature systems having a pro dominant heterotrophic biological filter.

 

[areefer01]

On the other hand no one can really argue against Redfield nutrient limitations as they are backed by scientific facts.

Maybe because it is being used incorrectly? Isn't it based on oceanic phytoplankton? Not corals. Also I think you need to do some math, conversion, before you try to do a ratio. This isn't my lane so will defer to chemists.

These discussions never end well.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Maybe because it is being used incorrectly? Isn't it based on oceanic phytoplankton? Not corals. Also I think you need to do some math, conversion, before you try to do a ratio. This isn't my lane so will defer to chemists.

These discussions never end well.

Reefkeeping Magazine - Vinegar Dosing Methodology for the Marine Aquarium

Reefkeeping ...an online magazine for the marine aquarist.

reefkeeping.com

No. Not sure why folks keep going back to phytoplankton as the discussion is heterotrophic bacteria.

You could read the part that says reduce phosphates. The math has been done by Randy itself I believe, Not sure if I can challenge his maths skills.

Edit: there is other companies that also refer to 16:1 nutrient assimilation not just the article above.

 

[Garf]

Wasn’t aware there were heterotrophic that could perform denitrification under aerobic conditions

Certainly without carbon limitations bacteria can consume ammonia, nitrite and nitrate, in aerobic conditions.

 

[Hats_]

No. Not sure why folks keep going back to phytoplankton as the discussion is heterotrophic bacteria.

Maybe because its in the title? Redfields research was based on phytoplankton in the open ocean?

If i understand your idea for this topic correctly there is no reason to even mention Redfield since this does not have any overlap with his ratio whatsoever

You could have named it something along the lines of "how do we better understand and provide for important heterotrophic bacteria responsible for nutrient control in our reef tanks" and there would have been 0 issues

 

[Garf]

Not sure why folks keep going back to phytoplankton as the discussion is heterotrophic bacteria.

Because that is the "Redfield" experiment as as I'm aware. He certainly didn't liquidise whales and test their N and P ratio.

 

[areefer01]

Because that is the "Redfield" experiment as as I'm aware. He certainly didn't liquidise whales and test their N and P ratio.

Thank you. I was going to say the same thing.

Not that wikipedia can't be wrong but it also says the same thing. Delbeek was just talking about this on the reefbum episode and even provided some background and math.

Wheel goes round and round Hope your day is well.

Redfield ratio - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[areefer01]

You could have named it something along the lines of "how do we better understand and provide for important heterotrophic bacteria responsible for nutrient control in our reef tanks" and there would have been 0 issues

Interesting point.

 

[BeanAnimal]

… liquidized whales. I dunno, but liquidized bacon…. Think of the possibilities.

 

[Garf]

… liquidized whales. I dunno, but liquidized bacon…. Think of the possibilities.

What on earth is it with you and bacon? Lol.

 

[Garf]

… liquidized whales. I dunno, but liquidized bacon…. Think of the possibilities.

I would say though, that the N : P ratio of bacon is probably as close to the Redfield ratio as that of bacteria, considering that's not the test subject of Redfield.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Maybe because its in the title? Redfields research was based on phytoplankton in the open ocean?

If i understand your idea for this topic correctly there is no reason to even mention Redfield since this does not have any overlap with his ratio whatsoever

You could have named it something along the lines of "how do we better understand and provide for important heterotrophic bacteria responsible for nutrient control in our reef tanks" and there would have been 0 issues

I don’t feel the title needs changing if it’s applied correctly.

Loading…

www.sciencedirect.com

Quote:

In 1958, Alfred Redfield (1958) found that the planktonic biomass ratio of C, N, and P was similar to C, N, and P in marine water (i.e., 106:16:1), suggesting that organisms interacted closely with the environment. After that, the C:N ratio of 106:16:1 (i.e., Redfield ratio) was widely applied to reveal either N or P limitation for net primary production and C storage in the aquatic environment

 

[areefer01]

What on earth is it with you and bacon? Lol.

He has a pretty solid recipe for applewood bacon I think it was. It is on my to-do list.

 

[Hats_]

I don’t feel the title needs changing if it’s applied correctly.

Loading…

www.sciencedirect.com

Quote:

In 1958, Alfred Redfield (1958) found that the planktonic biomass ratio of C, N, and P was similar to C, N, and P in marine water (i.e., 106:16:1), suggesting that organisms interacted closely with the environment. After that, the C:N ratio of 106:16:1 (i.e., Redfield ratio) was widely applied to reveal either N or P limitation for net primary production and C storage in the aquatic environment

I quit, this paper makes no sense in this context to me

 

[Garf]

I quit, this paper makes no sense in this context to me

Any context to bacteria in relation to Redfield is wrong. To me, Redfield indicates phytoplanktonic organisms extracting the maximum out of a nutrient poor medium. I delved into this Stoichiometry many years ago, gave up, far too complicated.

 

[BeanAnimal]

What on earth is it with you and bacon? Lol.

If you ask to are out of the club. No bacon for you.