Phosphate or nitrogen

[mojoreef]

I was just wondering what you folks feel is the one to most scariest to you, and which one do you feel is the most limiting to life.

I will do it in a poll but feel free to post your thoughts.
MIke

 

[ReefLady]

Ahh, deep question. Through a slight haze of ignorance, my own experience has shown me that where there is a REAL algae problem, there is phosphate.

Seems you can have low levels of nitrates without problems, not true with phosphates IME.

 

[jks1]

agreed on the algae/phosphate thing. i havent had more than .5 nitrates in quite a while, but from my FO days it is ingrained to keep an eye on them. Knock on wood, i havent had any algae problems in the last few months after the initial outbreaks when i set up my tank. (man i probably shouldnt have said that)

 

[Spooda420]

Nitrogen is one of the building blocks to life

 

[mojoreef]

Spooda love your avatar .

 

[Spooda420]

Thanks! ....must admit its stolen.

 

[Cosmic]

Nitrogen is by far the limiting factor to life, but in my reef-tank, I have more than enough methods for excess nitrogen removal, whereas it's Phosphates that are my enemy!

 

[eweldon]

Loaded question: Depending upon the form the Nitrogen or Phosphorus presents itself either element could be a biocide or a nutrient. Phosphorus is the most difficult to export and is difficult to eliminate on the import side of the reef equation.

Happy Holidays!

E

 

[Pro_builder]

I'm not worrried about the Nitrogen exporting in my tank. That is what I have the DSB and LR for. As for the Phosphates, well you are always adding them, (Fish Food) if they start to get out of control there are very few ways to get them down succefully, that I know of.
Just my 2 cents.

 

[Craig Manoukian]

So will caulerpa uptake/export both nitrates and phosphates?

:smirk:

 

[mojoreef]

yep, but not very effectively.

MIke

 

[Craig Manoukian]

Which are removed most effectively, nitrates or phosphates? Thanks Mike!

:smirk:

 

[mojoreef]

Criag Algae will absorb either, it would just depend on which one was more available at any given time. As per effectiveness they are both the same. The only reason I say no effective is that the cellstructure of algae are weak, so at the same time they absorb to disabsorb. Thier is still a net gain however.

MIke

 

[Craig Manoukian]

Thanks bud, just gettin' my refugium up and running this weekend. Two kinds of Macro Algae; Chaetomorpha, and Feather Caulerpa!

:smirk:

 

[dgasmd]

Originally posted by mojoreef
Criag Algae will absorb either, it would just depend on which one was more available at any given time. As per effectiveness they are both the same. The only reason I say no effective is that the cellstructure of algae are weak, so at the same time they absorb to disabsorb. Thier is still a net gain however.

MIke

Mike:
Actually, like any other cell, algae "use" nitogen and phophates for 2 different processes. Nitrogen is more for building structures like proteins and the amino acids that compose DNA and RNA. That is the building block for all cells. Phophates get used more on the energy consumption aspect of cell living. It is used to form GTP and ATP, both of which are the "money" used for energy use. They fuel processes like building RNA and DNA as well as controlling some of the energy dependent channels in cell walls.
All that is to say that algae will use both, but unlike animal cells, they also derive a lot of their energy from photosynthesis. That is what makes them less efficient at consuming and exporting the above mentioned evils (nitrogen and phophates).
I personally had concluded that the best way for me to export these 2 is by water changes and by using chemicals designed to bind them. Phosban is good for that, but according to some other sources, rowaphos is at least 30% better at it. Which is more cost effective is another story. Here is my case for example.

Rowaphos
Gallons to treat: 600g
Media voume needed: 1.5L
Cost to treat: $106

Phosban
Gallos to treat: 600g
Media volume needed: 600 grams
Cost to treat: $42

Sorry for going off in a tangent.

Alberto

 

[ScottT1980]

Just to keep you honest Alberto

amino acids that compose DNA and RNA.

Did you mean nucleic acids? Interestingly, phosphate esters are also in the structure of DNA, but that is getting a bit too intensive for the sake of this discussion. No trying to be a smart a**, just wanted to clarify (honestly, I don't remember if there are any amino acids in the structure of RNA or DNA).

Am I missing something else here... Are high levels of phosphates toxic to our fish or inverts? If the primary concern is their ability to promote massive amounts of algae growth, then I am not "in the dark" and I would say that nitrogen is still my primary concern but if in fact I have missed something, then I might change my mind.

Also, I know Nikki mentioned it in another thread but does anyone know anything about xenia's absorption of PO4 and perhaps the use of xenia vs. macro?

Take er easy
Scott T.

 

[Cosmic]

Am I missing something else here... Are high levels of phosphates toxic to our fish or inverts? If the primary concern is their ability to promote massive amounts of algae growth, then I am not "in the dark" and I would say that nitrogen is still my primary concern but if in fact I have missed something, then I might change my mind.

Based on this comment, you are overlooking the fact that high levels of PO4 will inhibit calcification in corals and other Ca-consuming organisms (Coralline for example).
So indirectly, yes, PO4 can be detrimental to corals, but not necessarily fish or many inverts.

-HTH-
Cos

 

[Boomer]

Nice piece Alberto

As one can see they are both limiting factors. Advanced seaweed biology books usually have a whole chapter on each. As far as concentration Carbon by far out weighs Phosphorus. The ratio of C in seaweeds, to that in water is 1.0 x 10-4 and P is 2.4 x 10-5. They are both part of Liebig's Law of Minimum, as are other nutrients. That avg ratio of C in seaweeds is almost 100 : 1 (97.86 : 1)or 274, 000 ug / g-l C and 2,800 ug /g-l P

 

[mojoreef]

Wow this has turned into a neat conversation, which is really neat concidering I completely blew the question I was try to ask, lol

MIke

 

[ScottT1980]

Based on this comment, you are overlooking the fact that high levels of PO4 will inhibit calcification in corals and other Ca-consuming organisms (Coralline for example).

Yes, we also have to consider (thanks Cosmic for reminding me)that but I guess my ultimate concern regards toxicity and nitrogenous wastes are toxic and can immediatly impact our system's inhabitants whereas PO4 can only hinder their growth.

Advanced seaweed biology books usually have a whole chapter on each. As far as concentration Carbon by far out weighs Phosphorus. The ratio of C in seaweeds, to that in water is 1.0 x 10-4 and P is 2.4 x 10-5. They are both part of Liebig's Law of Minimum, as are other nutrients. That avg ratio of C in seaweeds is almost 100 : 1 (97.86 : 1)or 274, 000 ug / g-l C and 2,800 ug /g-l P

I could be wrong but I think this ratio holds for most terrestrial plants as well. What is amazing is how very little phosphate can greatly increase growth rates (or at least from what I have read). And then there was the whole fiasco with phosphates and the Great Lakes...

Take er easy
Scott T.