SPS PE and coloring

[Gravesj1s]

~ Blurry,great that you likely found the issues with the redbugs,I got to admit I learned quite a bit from the pics you guys have been posting lately-thanks.

~I gota ask as I think its thread worthy and relates to part of the general topic.Curiosity is just getting the better of me.

-tmz,
I understand for the most part what your saying.That N is unlikely to become limiting with fed fish-Urea is what you seam to be getting at and it makes complete sense if Im interpreting correctly.So even if nitrate was low theres still a source of N that is most likely enough.

The other you stated its even less likely for Po4 to become limiting ,makes perfect sense.When I look at some of the ratios of different marine sp.C/N/P phosphate is always taken up in very small amout compared to even N.So when I feed my tank although all the food is consumed most of the phoshate is passed as waste.
My understanding of this is like feeding my dog 2 cups of dog food yet he leaves me a nice pyle in my yard.So in a nutshell even though my fish eat the food (like the dog) most of the phosphate is waste.So its pretty clear that its unlikely for either of these to become limiting in a tank with fed fish-

Heres the part I dont get.

Ive seen NSW parameters referenced in not only this forum but the general forum as well.To be specific surface seawater levels as you noted a few scrolls back.Yet in Spottes book and others they state" the levels N & P are so low they are unable to support the reef,according to the models".Also found the same thing mentioned in TMCRA vol. 1
Ive seen it many times stated that "sps can obtain up to 98% of their energy requirements from photosynthesis alone.Like you said there highly autotrophic,I understand ...but when googling sources or studys they seam to vary quite a bit from that.Some sps varied much lower from that.60% in atleast one type I looked up but it varied between sp.
Eric Borneman makes the claim that feeding of sps is largely unstudied also, poses the question why would sps have and show feeding response as well as developed polyps to capture food sources.
I am guessing that the "up to" is being referenced from Vernons book.
I keep thinking about this and cant help think the "up to" is the key word?

Im not usally long winded like this but its been on my mind for a while now.Perhaps ,im just reading into it to much,not sure.
You've certainly been and are a great source of learning that many of us benefit from here,just letting you know its appreaciated however this goes.

Redfield ratio ,yep I got ya.My understanding, it was the average for phytoplankton based at 4 stations carried out in the Alantic.I ll just look it up sometime ,dont want to cause a hijack, .Thanks for clarifying

-Steve

 

[tmz]

I think feeding sps small micron foods is a good thing,perhaps specific amino acids(like aspartic acid) too to help build peptides and proteins and to provide some N. .The foods include not only N and P but organic C and supplement the "up to 98%". Fish waste also includes more than just N in urea. They poop too.Bacteria may also be a source of C, N and P and some C may be absorbed directly from the water . All even if the "up to 98% of their energy needs " or even more is valid and the shortfall involves just organic carbon and not other nutrients it should be easily met in a closed system with fed fish.

On another note, I cant help think that if a tank has such a low reading of nitrate & phosphate that looking at carbon as a limiting source is much more likely than nitrate & phosphate.

An organic carbon shortage would be evident in higher N and P since there would be limited heterotrophic bacteria to consume N and P ; not the other way around. A shortage of N and P would also limit these bacteria leaving the organic C to build up ;not diminish. So an organic carbon shortage would not be evidenced in a shortage of N and P but an excess of N and P. This is why organic carbon dosing is used to reduce NO3 and PO4. It is also important to factor in that photosynthetic organisms add organic carbon since they create it from CO2 water and light and that addition can be substantial in our closed systems ,where dense populations of photosynthetic organisms are present in relatively little water.
Yes the dog food analogy works. Whatever , you put in your tank whether it's eaten or not eaten that is not converted to living tissue mass will show up as waste including C,N,P, minor elements , trace elements ,etc..

 

[Gravesj1s]

Good catch tmz.
Yep, thats exactly how I was looking at it.I assumed carbon would be limiting first because the proportion used was always higher than N/P.I was seeing it the other way around.This made sense to me in why(how I saw it anyway) some folks turned to Organic C to lower N/P;through fueling bacteria.
Had a feeling I was missing something just couldn't figure out what it was.

Most definately interested in what Blurry and oneradtec followup with after the redbugs are dealt with.

 

[pascal32]

Looks like the red bugs are history color is coming back - the pics don't show it well and I'm having problems resizing pictures - for some reason they are loosing sharpness and getting grainy