Low Nitrate Problem in Fluval Evo 13.5

[Reef.]

. At any rate if your corals aren't happy and growing take out the chemi pure blue it is taking out your nitrates. When I first began I put chemipure in my tank thinking it was good (fluval Evo 13.5) and it just wasn't.

taking out the chemipure blue would only leave floss and some bio balls.
I”m not saying chemipure blue is doing much as I don’t think it’s that effective, others seems to think it’s a miracle worker but a 9 month old tank, 13.5g, fed 3 times a week with roids and pellets 2 times a day and his nutrients are bottoming out, oh and he also has Acropora in this 9 month old nano oh and I nearly forgot he also has 4 fish in this tank too.

Wish the op would reply to this thread but going by their only other post, he asks a question, but never replies again, tho not sure we can offer much help as he seems to be doing great with his floss and bio balls.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I perhaps didn't understand the post - or perhaps the poster wasn't clear. I would not dose nitrate based on a couple measurements below your range of 2. In fact - I'm not sure where your range comes from - but - in general - it depends on the goal, right? Anything above 0 means that there is nitrate continually available for organisms. i.e. - The growth might be slower at 1 than 2 - but not life threatening?

My range is just my opinion, and a result or two below the range is something I’d do something about.

I do not agree that anything above zero means the tank would not benefit from more.

 

[MnFish1]

oh i dont care. i guess it makes sense you dont understand... i probably couldnt explain it without you having to have been with my tank since the start. it is compilcated and i dont have a problem to fix i am happy with everything. unless you really want to know (which i am fine with explaining it to but it is really complicated) but just take by word for it my tank tries to be "clean"

The thing that didn't make sense to me was the sentence 'my tank tries to be "clean". I can assume what you're trying to say is one thing - but I'm not sure - That is what I didn't understand.

 

[Reeflix]

ok yeah sorry for being confusing

 

[Cyanohater]

taking out the chemipure blue would only leave floss and some bio balls.
I”m not saying chemipure blue is doing much as I don’t think it’s that effective, others seems to think it’s a miracle worker but a 9 month old tank, 13.5g, fed 3 times a week with roids and pellets 2 times a day and his nutrients are bottoming out, oh and he also has Acropora in this 9 month old nano oh and I nearly forgot he also has 4 fish in this tank too.

Wish the op would reply to this thread but going by their only other post, he asks a question, but never replies again, tho not sure we can offer much help as he seems to be doing great with his floss and bio balls.

i think I agree, if he has growing acropora and 4 fish in that tank he is doing mighty well.

 

[MnFish1]

My range is just my opinion, and a result or two below the range is something I’d do something about.

I do not agree that anything above zero means the tank would not benefit from more.

Would you mind explaining 'why'? I.e. what the goal is by doing so - if everything is doing well?

 

[nm07]

That doesn't make sense. Photosynthesis does not produce nitrogen or phosphate. The organisms still need it (albeit some cyano can take it from the atmosphere).

That is not what I was saying. My point was both cyanobacteria and dinoflagellates are far more resourceful in acquiring the nurtients they need than the bacteria living in our tanks.

As you mention, cyanobacteria are one of very few groups of organisms that can convert inert atmospheric nitrogen into an organic form (such as nitrate or ammonia), and as such can replicate when levels are at or near zero (when the bacteria will starve).

Similarly, dinoflagellates can utilize the organic forms of nitrogen and phosphorous if the nitrate and phosphate are in very low supply (again when the bacteria will starve).

These are the reasons that both cyanobacteria and dinoflagellate outbreaks can be so difficult to get under control.

I believe this is one of the reasons why @Randy Holmes-Farley is recommending OP tries to keep levels slightly elevated, even if at present there are no issues in the tank. Doing so will reduce the chances of outbreaks happening.

 

[MnFish1]

That is not what I was saying. My point was both cyanobacteria and dinoflagellates are far more resourceful in acquiring the nurtients they need than the bacteria living in our tanks.

As you mention, cyanobacteria are one of very few groups of organisms that can convert inert atmospheric nitrogen into an organic form (such as nitrate or ammonia), and as such can replicate when levels are at or near zero (when the bacteria will starve).

Similarly, dinoflagellates can utilize the organic forms of nitrogen and phosphorous if the nitrate and phosphate are in very low supply (again when the bacteria will starve).

These are the reasons that both cyanobacteria and dinoflagellate outbreaks can be so difficult to get under control.

I believe this is one of the reasons why @Randy Holmes-Farley is recommending OP tries to keep levels slightly elevated, even if at present there are no issues in the tank. Doing so will reduce the chances of outbreaks happening.

As to cyanobacteria - this article suggests that at least part of what you're saying isn't true. Second - the doubling time of cyanobacteria ranges from 7-12 hours - at least certain strains (that I found with a quick search). The doubling time for dinoflagellates is much slower than bacteria. The doubling time of 'the bacteria in our tanks' can range from an hour or so (using pseudomonas as an example) - up to hours for nitrifiers. It seems to me that since Nitrate, for example is quite low in seawater - as long as there is an excess (i.e a measurable amount) - I'm not sure how to interpret it. But it will be interesting to see what Randy says.

Nitrogen Control in Cyanobacteria - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2012.02866.x

 

[MnFish1]

Because it is at or below the low end and he said it is declining. I would preemptively keep it at 2+ ppm nitrate.

I think part of the question - relates to the fact that the OP is not the one posting about his/her tank - its other people.... so it is getting a little confusing. Sorry I didn't see this yesterday.

 

[nm07]

As to cyanobacteria - this article suggests that at least part of what you're saying isn't true. Second - the doubling time of cyanobacteria ranges from 7-12 hours - at least certain strains (that I found with a quick search). The doubling time for dinoflagellates is much slower than bacteria. The doubling time of 'the bacteria in our tanks' can range from an hour or so (using pseudomonas as an example) - up to hours for nitrifiers. It seems to me that since Nitrate, for example is quite low in seawater - as long as there is an excess (i.e a measurable amount) - I'm not sure how to interpret it. But it will be interesting to see what Randy says.

Nitrogen Control in Cyanobacteria - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2012.02866.x

Unless I'm missing something in that paper, it appears to agree with what I was saying:

The term 'Nitrogen fixing', is defined as such:

Nitrogen fixation, any natural or industrial process that causes free nitrogen (N2), which is a relatively inert gas plentiful in air, to combine chemically with other elements to form more-reactive nitrogen compounds such as ammonia, nitrates, or nitrites.

 

[nm07]

As to cyanobacteria - this article suggests that at least part of what you're saying isn't true. Second - the doubling time of cyanobacteria ranges from 7-12 hours - at least certain strains (that I found with a quick search). The doubling time for dinoflagellates is much slower than bacteria. The doubling time of 'the bacteria in our tanks' can range from an hour or so (using pseudomonas as an example) - up to hours for nitrifiers. It seems to me that since Nitrate, for example is quite low in seawater - as long as there is an excess (i.e a measurable amount) - I'm not sure how to interpret it. But it will be interesting to see what Randy says.

Nitrogen Control in Cyanobacteria - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2012.02866.x

And with respect to replication rates, they both may be slower than nitrifying bacteria in pure numbers, however they are far more visible due to the way they create thick and ugly slime coatings over whatever they are growing on. This effect is not seen in nitrifying bacteria.

Further more the point here is that regardless of replication rates, in the absence of the nutrients the nitrifying bacteria needs to grow (nitrate and phosphate), replication rates become irrelevant as they won't be replicating at all (or in very low numbers compared to the cyanobacteria and/or dinoflagellates) .

 

[MnFish1]

And with respect to replication rates, they both may be slower than nitrifying bacteria in pure numbers, however they are far more visible due to the way they create thick and ugly slime coatings over whatever they are growing on. This effect is not seen in nitrifying bacteria.

Further more the point here is that regardless of replication rates, in the absence of the nutrients the nitrifying bacteria needs to grow (nitrate and phosphate), replication rates become irrelevant as they won't be replicating at all (or in very low numbers compared to the cyanobacteria and/or dinoflagellates) .

That is a non-issue. To me.

 

[MnFish1]

And with respect to replication rates, they both may be slower than nitrifying bacteria in pure numbers, however they are far more visible due to the way they create thick and ugly slime coatings over whatever they are growing on. This effect is not seen in nitrifying bacteria.

Further more the point here is that regardless of replication rates, in the absence of the nutrients the nitrifying bacteria needs to grow (nitrate and phosphate), replication rates become irrelevant as they won't be replicating at all (or in very low numbers compared to the cyanobacteria and/or dinoflagellates) .

However - I believe you suggested the opposite - the the replication rate was lower - you I think - were wrong. They may be more visible true. There is nothing you said that suggests varying Nitrogen and phosphorous makes a difference - maybe I'm not understanding your point

 

[MnFish1]

There is a difference between nitrogen fixing from N2 - as compared to nitrates.

 

[nm07]

However - I believe you suggested the opposite - the the replication rate was lower - you I think - were wrong. They may be more visible true. There is nothing you said that suggests varying Nitrogen and phosphorous makes a difference - maybe I'm not understanding your point

I think you are misunderstanding my point, which boils down to this:

• Cynanobacteria and dinoflagellates both have mechanisms that allows them to grow in the absence of aqueous nitrate and phosphate.
• Nitrifying bacteria do not have this ability and cannot grow if nitrate and phosphate levels are undetectable.

As such, aim to keep nitrate and phosphate above 0 (as Randy says) to ensure the aquarium never gets to the point where cyanobacteria and dinoflagellates can exploit their advantage over the nitrifying bacteria, and take hold in these conditions where there can be no competition.

 

[MnFish1]

I think you are misunderstanding my point, which boils down to this:

• Cynanobacteria and dinoflagellates both have mechanisms that allows them to grow in the absence of aqueous nitrate and phosphate.
• Nitrifying bacteria do not have this advantage.

As such, aim to keep nitrate and phosphate above 0 (as Randy says) to ensure the aquarium never gets to the point where cyanobacteria and dynoflagellates can exploit their advantage over the nitrifying bacteria, and take hold in these conditions where there is no competition.

actually - what Randy said is to dose if its less that 2. That was my interpretation. But - If it works for you all good - but I just want to give a quick example.

You have xxx biomass. That uses xxxx Nitrate. If the nitrate is 0 - you will not have growth - nor will you have decline - right.? Even though the measure of nitrate Key Point - At steady state - is 0.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Would you mind explaining 'why'? I.e. what the goal is by doing so - if everything is doing well?

Everything might do better, with less risks of issues from low N.

In any case, if I have a different recommended range than you, that’s fine. But if someone’s levels are sometimes outside of my recommended range, it seems perfectly reasonable that I would recommend them adjusting things so that out of range value doesn’t happen.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

actually - what Randy said is to dose if its less that 2. That was my interpretation. But - If it works for you all good - but I just want to give a quick example.

You have xxx biomass. That uses xxxx Nitrate. If the nitrate is 0 - you will not have growth - nor will you have decline - right.? Even though the measure of nitrate Key Point - At steady state - is 0.

I don’t think we can make such hard conclusions. Nitrate is certainly not the only N source in reef tanks, and 0 nitrate does not necessarily mean 0.00000000, although it might. It might also mean 0.49 ppm if the limit of precision of the test is 1 ppm.

 

[jda]

There are other types of bacteria than just nitrifying. The ones that keep cyano and dinos at bay are likely heterotrophic in the form of surface film and consume other organisms for their building blocks. Real live rocks are covered in these that can reproduce quickly and efficiently which is why they don't have dino problems since they already in place. Dinos can move in quicker than coralline, film bacteria and desirable algae on dead/dry rock. Heterotrophic bacteria thrive when organic carbon is introduced.

I have never seen a compelling argument to add no3 or po4 to the backend in most situations, except to poison dinos, cyano or other types of algae. Add nitrogen and phosphorous some other way, like on the front end, if you can.

I don't care what anybody wants to suggest and I certainly don't care if people don't believe me. Heck, I took tons of garbage on here for years about a bacterial product being an algaecide and it never hurt my feeling any. However, most appear to not know the difference between nitrogen and nitrate or phosphorous and phosphate, and which types of things use which... so these discussions can be good if people pay attention.

 

[MnFish1]

I don’t think we can make such hard conclusions. Nitrate is certainly not the only N source in reef tanks, and 0 nitrate does not necessarily mean 0.00000000, although it might. It might also mean 0.49 ppm if the limit of precision of the test is 1 ppm.

Thanks - I didn't mean to make it sound so definitive. And I totally agree with your point about the level of detection. I'm just not sure I buy the idea that X level of nitrate and Y level of phosphate translates into ABC algae (or lack thereof). From a philosophical perspective - I was curious why a level of 2 as compared to let's say 0.05 (I know we can't measure that) - makes a difference to the tank in your opinion.