Hi Matt,
The basic takeaway for me is that if the ratio isn't in a certain range the chaeto won't thrive.
I'm using simple math to figure the ratio and I shouldn't assume that's how the publishers of the article are measuring it in that same manner..............for my purposes the simple method is all I need.
Basically what I'm suggesting is that in Pife's case he can't get the nitrates down due to the ratio being too large(400).......... chaeto won't grow, so it's not sucking up N03 at it's 100-1 consumption rate like it should.
I'm just assuming every algae, coral, ect. has a ratio they thrive at.
--------------------------------
For Sps, most successful tanks I've tracked the average is 100........some are 50 and some as high as 200 but most fall in or around 100.
With your setup your ratio of 200 may be ok, but your high and outside the bell curves of Po4 and N03. I'm not saying it's bad, but it's the exception rather than the rule of most happy Sps tanks.
A setup that has lower numbers and the same 200 range will probably produce less pest algae.......keep it dormant, and also provide better growth and vitality for the corals long term and able to handle stressers better.
This ratio is more about overall health & growth versus just looking at color.
There's always going to be exceptions of course, but if most people keep in range on all three the Sps should be happier.
Thanks, Ed. Very articulately put. And I totally agree.
It is clear that a certain ratio is important. Even within that article, I think they noticed changes in uptake of one nutrient when the other was over dosed. As if once one gets too high the cheato reacts negatively..
As for Pife, I just want to distinguish between bacterial nutrient reduction and algal nutrient reduction..
I'm wondering if bacteria require the same ratios to be happy as algae do..
Personally, I've never seen a reduction in one nutrient by adding the other unless the nutrient being added was at total zero to begin with.
However, you do hear stories of reefers adding a nutrient that wasn't completely zeroed out and it still manages to reduce the other.
I was saying that he probably wasn't bacterially p limited with readings of .03-.06 p and that adding p probably wouldn't help in his case.
And you suggested that maybe he was in fact p limited and I wasn't sure if you were referring to being limited from a bacterial standpoint or algal... or if the ratios can be applied to both bacteria and algea.
And to further the thought with Pife.. I'm wondering if in the case of nutrients being in the lower end maybe it would be a good idea to add a nutrient to get into a good ratio instead of the usual knee jerk attempt to reduce a nutrient to get into a good ratio..
Certainly, in my case, with nutrients so high, it wouldn't make sense to be adding more nutrients but maybe in Pife's case it would.. just thinking out loud..
With my current nutrient levels, they certainly are outside the bell curve and I don't want to keep them there.. I haven't tested nutrients since last week but the cheato is without doubt expanding at the moment. Whether or not it is haveing a reducing effect, it is growing. Which is a start..
Although many of my corals are growing and seem pretty healthy and colourful. We all know we shoot our tanks with he intention of showing off the good stuff. I am not happy with health, colour, or growth in general in my tank. I have corals with brown patches, corals with no growth and corals with general off colouration. I am certain that the high n and p are to blame. Even if my ratio isn't too bad, I'd like to reduce over all nutrients and then continue to work on p.. either with gfo or lanthanum chloride.
are like 15-20, so it sounds like you're fine.
