Low nutrient, really?

[sixty_reefer]

Discussion:

Can we really compare who has more nutrients in a system by just comparing their residual No3 and Po4?

Example:

System 1.

200 gallons with 6 tangs
Feeding 6 cubes of frozen/day

No3 2 ppm
Po4 0.05 ppm

System 2.

200 gallons with 2 tangs
Feeding 2 cubes of frozen/day

No3 20 ppm
Po4 0.2 ppm

Question:

With the above examples would a system with less fish and less feeding be the high nutrient system or the low nutrient system? It’s definitely running at higher residual although does residual make a big difference in comparison to nutrient consumption and export?

Can we really mimic someone’s else success at keeping a particular coral by just copying their current residual No3 and Po4 without mimicking that person nutrient input and export?

Does not feeding your tank inhabitants to lower residual nutrient a better solution vs improving current biological and mechanical filtration?
Will reducing residual nitrate from 3 ppm to 1ppm make any real difference to the overall system?

 

[Dan_P]

Discussion:

Can we really compare who has more nutrients in a system by just comparing their residual No3 and Po4?

Example:

System 1.

200 gallons with 6 tangs
Feeding 6 cubes of frozen/day

No3 2 ppm
Po4 0.05 ppm

System 2.

200 gallons with 2 tangs
Feeding 2 cubes of frozen/day

No3 20 ppm
Po4 0.2 ppm

Question:

With the above examples would a system with less fish and less feeding be the high nutrient system or the low nutrient system? It’s definitely running at higher residual although does residual make a big difference in comparison to nutrient consumption and export?

Can we really mimic someone’s else success at keeping a particular coral by just copying their current residual No3 and Po4 without mimicking that person nutrient input and export?

Does not feeding your tank inhabitants to lower residual nutrient a better solution vs improving current biological and mechanical filtration?
Will reducing residual nitrate from 3 ppm to 1ppm make any real difference to the overall system?

First, how is high v low nutrient system defined?

 

[Doctorgori]

First, how is high v low nutrient system defined?

BINGO
…I had a tank run at 75 nitrates and continual high phosphates for months…
I got nothing…

 

[crazyfishmom]

It’s all in the export strategy. In my way of thinking, as long as you have detectable nutrients and feed substantial amounts, both tanks have sufficient nutrients. The high versus low is … well so poorly understood that I don’t really bother with the numbers but rather the downstream effects. For example, I know many people prefer phosphate between 0.05-0.1 and anything beyond that is sacrilege while there are successful tanks out there with phophates at 0.7 to higher than 1. In my tanks, I’ve seen the best growth rates and coloration between 0.15-0.3 and when it’s higher than that I see a decline in growth rate, coloration and alkalinity consumption. However each of our tanks balance out and how the organisms within them consume nutrients seems to vary and that’s okay as long as we figure out what works for our individual systems.

 

[sixty_reefer]

First, how is high v low nutrient system defined?

That’s a good question.

 

[jackson6745]

Discussion:

Can we really compare who has more nutrients in a system by just comparing their residual No3 and Po4?

Example:

System 1.

200 gallons with 6 tangs
Feeding 6 cubes of frozen/day

No3 2 ppm
Po4 0.05 ppm

System 2.

200 gallons with 2 tangs
Feeding 2 cubes of frozen/day

No3 20 ppm
Po4 0.2 ppm

Question:

With the above examples would a system with less fish and less feeding be the high nutrient system or the low nutrient system? It’s definitely running at higher residual although does residual make a big difference in comparison to nutrient consumption and export?

Can we really mimic someone’s else success at keeping a particular coral by just copying their current residual No3 and Po4 without mimicking that person nutrient input and export?

Does not feeding your tank inhabitants to lower residual nutrient a better solution vs improving current biological and mechanical filtration?
Will reducing residual nitrate from 3 ppm to 1ppm make any real difference to the overall system?

Residual being the key word, yes we can measure and compare residual nutrients, but the numbers are specific to that particular system for a reason. As your examples show these numbers are obtainable at all levels of stocking and feeding. There are endless variables why that is so from coral consumption, algae/macro consumption, bacterial consumption + bacterial surface area + maturity, bio load, lighting intensity speeding or slowing it all up, and of course input (feeding amount) and output (filtration + water change). In a nutshell, the tank maintaining the desired nutrient level numbers with more feeding typically sustains more life and metabolic processes within the aquarium, IMO better coral health.

 

[UtahReefer]

I think many misunderstand low nutrient systems, partially because some are afraid to try. A "low nutrient system" is actually very high in nutrients. The term low nutrient refers to what is your stability in regards to NO3 and PO4. To keep those in check you have to do it some way. First exiting the waste from the tank via flow is essential. Having a good protein skimmer is essential. Low nutrient systems refers only to your PO4 and NO3 stability levels. These systems are actually very high in nutrients daily because you can feed a ton. Establishing an effective biology via a bacterial driven / carbon dosing system takes time. Once established, they hum... Your biology can process whatever you're putting into the system daily. These are not nutrient poor systems for your animals. I have Anthias in my system and want to keep them fat and healthy. I feed the fish 5 times a day. In addition, aminos are dosed every AM and corals are fed every night 6 days per week. My levels? PO4 ranges from .01 to .03. NO3 ranges from 7ppm to 10ppm. Corals are happy, fish are happy, no unsightly algae anywhere so I'm happy. Heavy in, heavy out...

 

[PharmrJohn]

Really, it just about ranges. And depending on  when we have had our tanks, those ranges vary. These days, nutrient levels are kept lower than they were even 10 years ago. And those ranges were lower than 10 years before that. Currently, the range is so low that it's really a knifes edge. In each instance, there have been beautiful, sustainable, successful ecosystems present. So. It really doesn't matter. That being said, there are definitely upper range considerations whereby issues may occur. But those numbers are easily managed with current tech.

 

[Reefering1]

Residual being the key word, yes we can measure and compare residual nutrients, but the numbers are specific to that particular system for a reason. As your examples show these numbers are obtainable at all levels of stocking and feeding. There are endless variables why that is so from coral consumption, algae/macro consumption, bacterial consumption + bacterial surface area + maturity, bio load, lighting intensity speeding or slowing it all up, and of course input (feeding amount) and output (filtration + water change). In a nutshell, the tank maintaining the desired nutrient level numbers with more feeding typically sustains more life and metabolic processes within the aquarium, IMO better coral health.

This

 

[Solo McReefer]

I think a lot of confusion could be removed

If we somehow switched to thinking of pollution as pollution

And nutrients as nutrients

We use the word 'nutrients" to describe both food and pollution(and even toxin). At best, that's a distraction and worst, plain wrong

I would support any reefing thought leader in pushing for the redefining of those words and terms. And the defining the parameters of them

An unpolluted natural reef system has very low nitrate and phosphate in the sea water. An almost unlimited food supply. And an almost perfect and efficient export quality

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Discussion:

Can we really compare who has more nutrients in a system by just comparing their residual No3 and Po4?

Example:

System 1.

200 gallons with 6 tangs
Feeding 6 cubes of frozen/day

No3 2 ppm
Po4 0.05 ppm

System 2.

200 gallons with 2 tangs
Feeding 2 cubes of frozen/day

No3 20 ppm
Po4 0.2 ppm

Question:

With the above examples would a system with less fish and less feeding be the high nutrient system or the low nutrient system? It’s definitely running at higher residual although does residual make a big difference in comparison to nutrient consumption and export?

Can we really mimic someone’s else success at keeping a particular coral by just copying their current residual No3 and Po4 without mimicking that person nutrient input and export?

Does not feeding your tank inhabitants to lower residual nutrient a better solution vs improving current biological and mechanical filtration?
Will reducing residual nitrate from 3 ppm to 1ppm make any real difference to the overall system?

I'm not sure I understand the point of the question, but the literal answer to:

"Can we really compare who has more nutrients in a system by just comparing their residual No3 and Po4?"

is certainly no.

There are sources of N and P in reef tanks that are not nitrate and phosphate, and those other sources may be a much larger fraction of the total N and P consumed, especially N.

 

[Dan_P]

That’s a good question.

Is there a thought or idea that is behind this question you asked?

Is it maybe that nitrate and phosphate levels do not accurately reflect the “condition” of the aquarium?

 

[sixty_reefer]

Is there a thought or idea that is behind this question you asked?

Yes, the thought is that if residual nitrates and phosphates don’t impact the overall health of a system at acceptable ranges, could it be possible to find values of nitrogen excluding No3 and values of phosphorus that could be indicators of it.

Is it maybe that nitrate and phosphate levels do not accurately reflect the “condition” of the aquarium?

Yes, could nitrogen and phosphorus levels be an indication though?

 

[sixty_reefer]

I'm not sure I understand the point of the question, but the literal answer to:

"Can we really compare who has more nutrients in a system by just comparing their residual No3 and Po4?"

is certainly no.

There are sources of N and P in reef tanks that are not nitrate and phosphate, and those other sources may be a much larger fraction of the total N and P consumed, especially N.

I’ve been thinking of late if those other sources could actually be the real way to mimic a successful system and comparing real nutrients between two systems.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I think a lot of confusion could be removed

If we somehow switched to thinking of pollution as pollution

And nutrients as nutrients

We use the word 'nutrients" to describe both food and pollution(and even toxin). At best, that's a distraction and worst, plain wrong

I would support any reefing thought leader in pushing for the redefining of those words and terms. And the defining the parameters of them

An unpolluted natural reef system has very low nitrate and phosphate in the sea water. An almost unlimited food supply. And an almost perfect and efficient export quality

I agree, tent to use the word “nutrient” to describe a substance that is essential to life of any certain organism, salt water included

 

[sixty_reefer]

I

Residual being the key word, yes we can measure and compare residual nutrients, but the numbers are specific to that particular system for a reason. As your examples show these numbers are obtainable at all levels of stocking and feeding. There are endless variables why that is so from coral consumption, algae/macro consumption, bacterial consumption + bacterial surface area + maturity, bio load, lighting intensity speeding or slowing it all up, and of course input (feeding amount) and output (filtration + water change). In a nutshell, the tank maintaining the desired nutrient level numbers with more feeding typically sustains more life and metabolic processes within the aquarium, IMO better coral health.

I agree although I was thinking that it could be possible for a system that has visually higher residual po4 and No3 have lower residual nitrogen and phosphorus in the water column that benefits coral health.

 

[Dan_P]

Yes, could nitrogen and phosphorus levels be an indication though?

Nitrate and phosphate concentrations might be more interesting if they were divided by the weight of food, say mg per liter, added to the aquarium. With numbers normalized in this manner, comparing two systems would make more sense and maybe generate more interesting questions.

I think the hobby has yet to define what a healthy system is to the degree that it can be measured.