The myth of N an P trapped on the sand bed

[sixty_reefer]

Seems like this shows “dirty” samples are biased high, which is unsurprising. I don’t think the results from the biased samples are meaningful though.

On my system that has a constant supply of micro algae it could be the difference between having dinos and not having dinos.

Below is my tank water filtered and unfiltered, although the test is not showing total as Randy points out it’s enough to case a significant discrepancy.

 

[HBtank]

On my system that has a constant supply of micro algae it could be the difference between having dinos and not having dinos.

Below is my tank water filtered and unfiltered, although the test is not showing total as Randy points out it’s enough to case a significant discrepancy.

View attachment 2841415

Yep, I am agreeing. I just don’t see any use for the results (i.e. trying to calculate differences). But it certainly shows how and where we collect our samples (and the condition of the sample) is important.

 

[MnFish1]

I see your point, in a normal situation I wouldn’t be putting a piece of macro algae into a test tube
To me, and only me as I have a constant supply of micro algaes to my system this test kit can lead me into zero inorganics without me realising it. I’ve concluded that if I want to know my real inorganic nutrients that I must filter my samples before testing. Or just buy a different brand that doesn’t get affected by micro algae in the water column.

I'm still wondering if you're understanding what I'm saying - macro algae in SALT water takes UP inorganic. So - you're premise is not correct IMHO

 

[sixty_reefer]

I'm still wondering if you're understanding what I'm saying - macro algae in SALT water takes UP inorganic. So - you're premise is not correct IMHO

I think I may understand what you saying although as I mentioned before the test was just to visually or illustrate that the reagent can be affected by organics in the water column. By changing to yellow and blue with the presence of organic matter.

 

[Reefahholic]

Let me make a bag of popcorn, I’ll be back.

 

[MnFish1]

I think I may understand what you saying although as I mentioned before the test was just to visually or illustrate that the reagent can be affected by organics in the water column. By changing to yellow and blue with the presence of organic matter.

There are probably 50 different things that could have affected the reagents in your test - including Nitrate and Phosphate. Thus - I think your premise is probably incorrect - but definitely not 'proven'.

 

[sixty_reefer]

but definitely not 'proven'.

In no this hobby we are nothing really gets proven, we just get a vague ideology of what possible could be happening.

 

[Reefahholic]

It’s hard to prove anything in this hobby. If you can repeat it between multiple testers or research members then that should account for something.

 

[Reefahholic]

One thing is for sure. The reefer that has 80 nitrates and claims he only feeds “1 cube a day”…. there’s a good chance he might not be telling the truth. I’ve seen a few cases of poor export, or 32 fish in a 40 breeder, but mostly people just can’t seem to put the food down. Not many problems with export in 2022-23. Simply wayyyyyy to much food going into the system. “But the fish look hungry.” Oh boy.

 

[MnFish1]

One thing is for sure. The reefer that has 80 nitrates and claims he only feeds “1 cube a day”…. there’s a good chance he might not be telling the truth. I’ve seen a few cases of poor export, or 32 fish in a 40 breeder, but mostly people just can’t seem to put the food down. Not many problems with export in 2022-23. Simply wayyyyyy to much food going into the system. “But the fish look hungry.” Oh boy.

My issue with the topic of N:C ratios. 1. We don't measure N:C and 2. and N of 160:10 is the same as 16:1 or 1.6:.1 (fake numbers of course)

 

[Reefahholic]

My issue with the topic of N:C ratios. 1. We don't measure N:C and 2. and N of 160:10 is the same as 16:1 or 1.6:.1 (fake numbers of course)

I’d love to know the perfect number for Carbon in a reef. Everybody seems to have a different opinion.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I’d love to know the perfect number for Carbon in a reef. Everybody seems to have a different opinion.

I cannot see there being a single perfect number since it obviously depends on what chemicals comprise the carbon.

I would not be convinced the typical organics in a reef tank are the same as the typical organics in the ocean, and I also would not assume they are not greatly different between reef tanks that have different input mechanisms (foods, organic carbon dosing, organism secretions) and different exports (bacteria, GAC, skimming, polymer organic binders such as purigen or a polyfilter, and different mineral binders of organics (GFO, aluminum oxide, etc).

1 ppb of a cyanobacteria toxin is likely very different in a reef tank than 1 ppb of acetate.

 

[J1a]

I cannot see there being a single perfect number since it obviously depends on what chemicals comprise the carbon.

I would not be convinced the typical organics in a reef tank are the same as the typical organics in the ocean, and I also would not assume they are not greatly different between reef tanks that have different input mechanisms (foods, organic carbon dosing, organism secretions) and different exports (bacteria, GAC, skimming, polymer organic binders such as purigen or a polyfilter, and different mineral binders of organics (GFO, aluminum oxide, etc).

1 ppb of a cyanobacteria toxin is likely very different in a reef tank than 1 ppb of acetate.

Exactly! Looking at a "number of carbon" or "organic concentration" is really too simplistic.

 

[MnFish1]

I’d love to know the perfect number for Carbon in a reef. Everybody seems to have a different opinion.

Yes - sorry - "P" changes to that emoji when posted

 

[sixty_reefer]

I’d love to know the perfect number for Carbon in a reef. Everybody seems to have a different opinion.

I believe the type of C will be more important than the amount of C available.

 

[MnFish1]

I believe the type of C will be more important than the amount of C available.

That I believe is your mistake. Everything - put into water- is going to be broken down into its parts. BTW - I'm talking about organic - not inorganic carbon. This is an interesting discussion

 

[sixty_reefer]

That I believe is your mistake. Everything - put into water- is going to be broken down into its parts. BTW - I'm talking about organic - not inorganic carbon. This is an interesting discussion

There is a type of organic C that we don’t often talk about in our hobby, we know the effects of acetic acid and ethanol although the effects of carbohydrates are fairly unknown to us yet, they seem to have a more slow effect on bacteria and almost impossible to overdose.

 

[J1a]

That I believe is your mistake. Everything - put into water- is going to be broken down into its parts. BTW - I'm talking about organic - not inorganic carbon. This is an interesting discussion

While I agree with you that all organics would eventually be broken down one way or the other, I think two parameters deserves consideration

1. What is the impact on the aquarium before they are broken down,
2. Who breaks it down, and consequentially benefits from it, in the system.

This is why I believe the different organics can have significantly diffrent effect in the aquarium.