Warner Marine Now Has A Pellet Product

[Stuart60611]

Originally Posted by reefrad

If plant aquariasts use nitrate for their PLANTS than wouldn't we be encouraging algae growth?? I never understood which micronutrient is more algae-stimulating, phosphate or nitrate.

Yes, only to the extent that the system's bacterial mass is unable to uptake all of the nitrate first. Bacteria in suffcient numbers often are able to eat nitrate faster and before the micro algae can. Nitrate only fuels nuisance micro algae when the bacterial mass is insufficient to uptake the nitrate before the algae can. In my experience, phosphate by far is a bigger source of fuel for nusiance micro algae than nitrate. Moreover, as is clear from this discussion, phosphate is also much more difficult to export from the system than nitrate, particularly because of the redfield ratio concept.

In terms of dosing nitrate to feed macro algae as opposed to nusiance micro algae, many species of macro algae, like bacteria, are able to uptake nitrate faster and more effectively than nuisance micro algae. This really is no different than maintaining a lit refugium with macro algae. The idea is that the macro algae out competes the nusiance micro algae for the nitrate. Likewise, those with planted macro algae tanks add nitrate to their system to feed the macro algae under the guise that the macro algae will be able to out compete the nuisance micro algae for the nitrate added. By adding nitrate in this fashion, one can also have the macro algae uptake more phosphate pursuant to the redfield ratio concept.

[reefrad]

Originally Posted by Stuart60611

Yes, only to the extent that the system's bacterial mass is unable to uptake all of the nitrate first. Bacteria in suffcient numbers often are able to eat nitrate faster and before the micro algae can. Nitrate only fuels nuisance micro algae when the bacterial mass is insufficient to uptake the nitrate before the algae can. In my experience, phosphate by far is a bigger source of fuel for nusiance micro algae than nitrate. Moreover, as is clear from this discussion, phosphate is also much more difficult to export from the system than nitrate, particularly because of the redfield ratio concept.

In terms of dosing nitrate to feed macro algae as opposed to nusiance micro algae, many species of macro algae, like bacteria, are able to uptake nitrate faster and more effectively than nuisance micro algae. This really is no different than maintaining a lit refugium with macro algae. The idea is that the macro algae out competes the nusiance micro algae for the nitrate. Likewise, those with planted macro algae tanks add nitrate to their system to feed the macro algae under the guise that the macro algae will be able to out compete the nuisance micro algae for the nitrate added. By adding nitrate in this fashion, one can also have the macro algae uptake more phosphate pursuant to the redfield ratio concept.

while i agree with most of what you are saying i think there is one major flaw in it. bacteria are not macroalgae. in fact microalgae and macroalgae are much more closely related (photsynthesis) than bacteria are to either one. so back to my original point, if adding nitrates encourages macroalgae growth (planted aquariums) than i would assume that in our aquariums the nitrate would encourage microalgae rather than bacteria.

[platax88]

Originally Posted by reefrad

while i agree with most of what you are saying i think there is one major flaw in it. bacteria are not macroalgae. in fact microalgae and macroalgae are much more closely related (photsynthesis) than bacteria are to either one. so back to my original point, if adding nitrates encourages macroalgae growth (planted aquariums) than i would assume that in our aquariums the nitrate would encourage microalgae rather than bacteria.

From what i gather you are correct, macro/micro algae will feed on EXCESS nitrate that bacteria does not consume. I think for our purposes we would be adding very small amounts on N03 to get the ratio back in balance, which would be consumed faster by bacteria.

[TheFishMan65]

From what I have read bacteria wins the battle for nitrate, then macro algae, and finally micro alge. I think that is what Patax88 is saying. So my $0.02 is +1

[platax88]

Originally Posted by TheFishMan65

From what I have read bacteria wins the battle for nitrate, then macro algae, and finally micro alge. I think that is what Patax88 is saying. So my $0.02 is +1

Yup ... it's actually what Stuart60611 has been saying

How do you know so much about this stuff Stuart? Do anything related for a living?

[Stuart60611]

Originally Posted by platax88

Yup ... it's actually what Stuart60611 has been saying

How do you know so much about this stuff Stuart? Do anything related for a living?

You are correct. What I am saying is that when it comes to which organisms dominate the others in their battle to consume nitrate, it is generally true that the order of superiority is: (1) bacteria, (2) macro algae, and (3) microalgae. As such, the idea with the pellets is that you add nitrate to increase the bacterial mass which outcompetes microalgae for the added nitrate and also allows for greater uptake of phosphate as a consequence of the bacteria uptaking residual phosphate along with the additional nitrate. In systems with little nitrate, the bacterial mass' ablility to uptake residual phosphate is cut-off without the addition of nitrate pursuant to the redfield ratio or some variation thereof. Without adding nitrate, the only other way to export residual phosphate in a low nitrate system is GFO, other chemicals (i.e., lanthanum), or water changes.

Personally, I am attorney and do nothing professionally related. Throughout my life I have always had a proclivity for picking up a hobby and learning as much as I can about it. Over the last few years, aquaria has dominated my interests. In the past and continuing to the present, technology and investng have garned much interest. For me, one of the most enjoyable aspects of life is learning.

[TheFishMan65]

Sorry Stuart,

No wonder lawyers have a bad name

I am attorney and do nothing professionally related

I know you meant, "I am attorney and do nothing professionally related with aquariums", but I cld not resists

[Stuart60611]

Originally Posted by TheFishMan65

Sorry Stuart,

No wonder lawyers have a bad name

I know you meant, "I am attorney and do nothing professionally related with aquariums", but I cld not resists

No, you are right. Many practicing lawyers really do not do anything "professionally related".

[platax88]

Originally Posted by Stuart60611

... For me, one of the most enjoyable aspects of life is learning.

AMEN! For me learning and creativity is my fuel... Kinda like what No3 and Ph4 is to bacteria

[DJREEF]

Cool study about uptake ratios of a little macro near and dear to our hearts. Apparently no Redfield ratio exists for macroalga. Tissue N and PO4 ratios changed in accordance to availabilty of each.

Take special note of the conclusion paragraph.


scientiamarina.revistas.csic.es/index.php/scientiamarina/article/.../595/608



Oh well. never mind. Gawd, I hate PDF files. And it won't let me cut and paste.

DJ

[jsdancer]

So far week 7 and things are a little bit different.
Nitrates are at 0.08 salifert kit
Phosphates are at 0.00 salifert kit as well


All my other parameters are fine too!
This is what has been a little diffferent.
I am noticing that my glass has gone back to being cleaned about twice per week instead of once per week like back in week 2 and 3.
Any one notice the same?

I am really enjoying the extent of the conversation that has taken a turn on here for this forum. This is definitely one of the reasons why I joined the forums. To learn!

I am trying to understand the theory, so bare with me guys. From what it looks like it is better to have a little nitrate and no phosphate rather than no nitrates but some phosphates. Having some nitrates allows the bacteria to go first in line of "eating", followed by the macro then micro algaes, right?
Are the bacteria in the pellets also up taking the phosphates? Is the fact that we are aggressively skimming our water and doing water changes allowing the phosphates to drop?

What about those of us who have some form of sand beds. Are the guys who don't have sand beds having the ratios off balance?

[nygiants72]

Does this product affect copper or other medication?

[Big E]

I wouldn't get hung up on the redfield ratio as much as just finding a balance for your system. Each system is going to be a bit different.

It's no mystery that all the commercial bio products suck N & P out of the water & then sell products in tiny bottles to raise them back up. They just have fancy names & I'm sure one is adding a common nitrate element. If you want to add potassium nitrate for example, just do it slowly similar to how some of these products will direct a certain number of drops.

Again I wouldn't chase numbers as much as let the corals be your feedback & go slow.

[poolkeeper1]

Amen, I can tell more about the conditions in my tank by looking at the Coral's color, polyp ext,growth and amount of algae on the glass over time then what all the test i can do will tell me. I'm not saying don't test but it should not be the only way to see what's going on in your system. All the testing in the hobby that is available to us is not that accurate anyway so you may bu using incorrect info to base your decisions on. According to that ratio my tank should look like crap, But guess what it don't and i have found a balance that works and numbers are not likely to make me change anything I'm doing to satisfy a theory. JMHO
Bill

[Stuart60611]

Originally Posted by jsdancer

I am really enjoying the extent of the conversation that has taken a turn on here for this forum. This is definitely one of the reasons why I joined the forums. To learn!

I am trying to understand the theory, so bare with me guys. From what it looks like it is better to have a little nitrate and no phosphate rather than no nitrates but some phosphates. Having some nitrates allows the bacteria to go first in line of "eating", followed by the macro then micro algaes, right?
Are the bacteria in the pellets also up taking the phosphates? Is the fact that we are aggressively skimming our water and doing water changes allowing the phosphates to drop?

What about those of us who have some form of sand beds. Are the guys who don't have sand beds having the ratios off balance?

When you have nitrate, bacteria are able to outcompete both macroalgae and microalgae for it. Likewise, macroalgae is able to outcompete microalgae for nitrate. You are right that your system needs some nitrate in order for the bacteria to be able to also uptake phosphate. The bacteria eat nitrate, and for about 10 or so units of nitrate that the bacteria eat the bacteria also eat 1 unit of phosphate. This is the redfield ratio concept. Without nitrate, the bacteria cannot consume phosphate on its own. The way we export both the nitrate and phosphate from our systems with the pellets is the bacteria eat nitrate and phosphate and then get skimmed out of the system together with all the nitrate and phosphate they consume. Sandbeds really have no general cause for systems to have nitrate and phosphate imbalances. What typically causes the imbalance is the system gets very low on nitrate so that the bacteria can no longer consume phosphate. The hobbyiest continues to feed the tank (food being the largest source for phosphate), and the tank begins to accumulate phosphate. The bacteria are unable to uptake the phosphate accumulated because the system is void of nitrate.

[Tony Romano]

I agree with poolkeeper, test kits leave much to be desired. I tend to watch what corals are doing and try to keep KH and salinityin line. When I test too much I tend to over fix thigs... I also think 2 things would help too low NO3, MB7 and ZEOfood. Also my experience is PO remover is necessary at times, but I don't run unless I see color on my D&D kit. I gave up on brand "S" years ago due to quality issues, have they improved?

[Stuart60611]

Originally Posted by DJREEF

Cool study about uptake ratios of a little macro near and dear to our hearts. Apparently no Redfield ratio exists for macroalga. Tissue N and PO4 ratios changed in accordance to availabilty of each.

Take special note of the conclusion paragraph.


scientiamarina.revistas.csic.es/index.php/scientiamarina/article/.../595/608



Oh well. never mind. Gawd, I hate PDF files. And it won't let me cut and paste.

DJ

Ya, the redfield ratio applies to bacteria only. There was also a study done in I believe Advanced Aquarist some years back that measured and compared the nitrate phosphate uptake of macroalgaes. The study not suprsingly found certain species of calupura consumed and grew the most. Gracelera and chateo also ranked fairly high on the list.

[Tony Romano]

sounds like NO3 starved tanks need more fish...

I have 8 big fish, so low NO3 is never an issue - I actually had big trouble getting number in line.

Additionally I notice my tanks have a slight up and down with algea on glass, too much and I know to add less food and maybe a drop or two of PO4 remover. I also will stir sand and clean rock, using bags in returns to remove detritus.

This is a good thread - I am learning alot.

[Stuart60611]

I agree generally that test kits are sometimes given too much emphasis in terms of gauging the health of a system. However, they can play an important role in terms of geting the most out of the pellets. If you notice that you are having microalgae problems despite using the pellets appropriately then measuring nitrate and phosphate may become necessary to figure out whether you have an imbalance and particularly if you are nitrate limited and/or have high phosphate. Eyeballing your system really cannot give you this data. If you were going to add nitrate to the system so as to allow the bacteria to uptake residual phosphate I do not see how you could do so and not over or under dose without testing for both nitrate and phosphate regularly. Like most things, testing is not the solution for all aquarium problems, but one of the many tools available to deal with them.

[DJREEF]

Originally Posted by Stuart60611

Ya, the redfield ratio applies to bacteria only. There was also a study done in I believe Advanced Aquarist some years back that measured and compared the nitrate phosphate uptake of macroalgaes. The study not suprsingly found certain species of calupura consumed and grew the most. Gracelera and chateo also ranked fairly high on the list.

Yes. This study concerned Chaetomorpha - specifically a Mediterranean strain that pulled nutrients that were available as opposed using them in any set ratio. My point would've been had I been able to post the link, was using algae exporters and BPs in conjunction could achieve the desired results of PO4 reduction independent of those organisms constricted by the Redfield ratio since Chaetomorpha will by default use PO4 even in the absence of NO3.

DJ

[Stuart60611]

Originally Posted by DJREEF

Yes. This study concerned Chaetomorpha - specifically a Mediterranean strain that pulled nutrients that were available as opposed using them in any set ratio. My point would've been had I been able to post the link, was using algae exporters and BPs in conjunction could achieve the desired results of PO4 reduction independent of those organisms constricted by the Redfield ratio since Chaetomorpha will by default use PO4 even in the absence of NO3.

DJ

An interesting point, however, counter to my experience at least with dosing vodka (never tried with the pellets). When I dosed vodka my nitrate and phosphate got out of balance. I at this time also tried using chaeto in combination with the vodka dosing and found that the chaeto slowly started to wither away. Actually, once I removed what was left of the chateo microalgae started to recede. What I think may have been happening is the chaeto was slowly dying and releasing nutrients back into the system which was fueling the microalgae. The carbon provided by the vodka may have resulted in the bacterial mass of my system pulling out too much nutrients for the chaeto to survive. The bacteria could also be consuming something other than nitrate and phosphate which the chaeto needs?

[DJREEF]

Originally Posted by Stuart60611

An interesting point, however, counter to my experience at least with dosing vodka (never tried with the pellets). When I dosed vodka my nitrate and phosphate got out of balance. I at this time also tried using chaeto in combination with the vodka dosing and found that the chateo slowly started to wither away. Actually, once I removed what was left of the chateo microalgae started to recede. What I think may have been happening is the chateo was slowly dying and releasing nutrients back into the system which was fueling the microalgae. The carbon provided by the vodka may have resulted in the bacterial mass of my system pulling out too much nutrients for the chaeto to survive.

Odd. I'm finding the opposite with my system. But then I've got some crap making monsters in my setup, so I'm sure there is a supply of nutrient flow in the bulk water that occurs at fairly frequent intervals. Which brings another point. Other studies I've read have suggested that flow rates can also affect nutrient uptake by macroalgae (the higher the better). I'm pumping about 600gph through my refugium, and roughly 8000gph through the DT - this may make a difference as to this type of arrangment as flow rates are conducive to keeping nutrients suspended in the bulk water.

DJ

[Stuart60611]

Originally Posted by DJREEF

Odd. I'm finding the opposite with my system. But then I've got some crap making monsters in my setup, so I'm sure there is a supply of nutrient flow in the bulk water that occurs at fairly frequent intervals. Which brings another point. Other studies I've read have suggested that flow rates can also affect nutrient uptake by macroalgae (the higher the better). I'm pumping about 600gph through my refugium, and roughly 8000gph through the DT - this may make a difference as to this type of arrangment as flow rates are conducive to keeping nutrients suspended in the bulk water.

DJ

Ya, the myriad of variables that go into this equation can make your head spin. Flow rate for sure greatly impact macroalgae nutrient uptake. Seems very logical if you think about it. The more water that passes through the macroalgae the more opportunity the macroalgae has to strip the water of nutrients. Likewise, light plays a very important role in how effective macroalgae uptakes nutrients. I think I had a decent amount of both with my prior chaeto, but either certainly could have been the cause of my problem among other things.

[platax88]

OK, so using my situation as an example, where bacteria has slown and PH4 is not lowering ... maybe even rising due to my low level of N03:

If i run GFO and get the PH4 down, do you think the balance will be restored and at that point the PH4 supplied via food will keep the gears turning?

I have a 180 with very well fed fish and what i condsider a high-mid/heavy load. Now keep in mind that this is a BB system with a large skimmer and massive flow. Here is the stock list:

(2) perculas
(4) Carberri Anthias
(2) Lyretails Anthias
(1) Barletts Anthias
(1) Medium Powder Blue Tang
(1) Blonde naso male (~6.5")
(1) Medium Blue Hippo
(1) Medium-large and fat Foxface
(1) 4" Melanarus wrasse
(1) Chromis

[Stuart60611]

Originally Posted by platax88

OK, so using my situation as an example, where bacteria has slown and PH4 is not lowering ... maybe even rising due to my low level of N03:

If i run GFO and get the PH4 down, do you think the balance will be restored and at that point the PH4 supplied via food will keep the gears turning?

I have a 180 with very well fed fish and what i condsider a high-mid/heavy load. Now keep in mind that this is a BB system with a large skimmer and massive flow. Here is the stock list:

(2) perculas
(4) Carberri Anthias
(2) Lyretails Anthias
(1) Barletts Anthias
(1) Medium Powder Blue Tang
(1) Blonde naso male (~6.5")
(1) Medium Blue Hippo
(1) Medium-large and fat Foxface
(1) 4" Melanarus wrasse
(1) Chromis

IMO, no way to really know without first trying. I would give it a shot combined wth moderating feeding the best you can. Once you get your phosphate low, you can then try taking the GFO off line and see how things go. If phosphate remains in check, you could also then, if you want, increase feeding. If ineffective, then you may have to consider either leaving the GFO on line full time or other husbandry considerations. I think DJReef's suggestion of employing the use of macroalgae to assist in phosphate uptake could be a good one to try. Just note my experience (as well as others) with vodka and be on the look out for the macro showing signs it is dying. If it starts to look like it is withering away, pull it out b/c I think in that situation the macro is doing much more harm than good in terms of nutrient control.

I would add that I think that you have a high and in no way "mid" bioload. With that in mind combined with large amount of food you have to feed that crew (nori for the tangs is also very high in phosphate), I would not be suprised unfortunately if you will not always be struggling to find ways to keep your phosphate in check.