Here we experimentally show that routinely measured components of water quality (nitrate, phosphate, ammonia) do not cause substantial coral mortality. In contrast, dissolved organic carbon (DOC), which is rarely measured on reefs, does.
But the whole article is available, so as usual – click through and read it!
Procedia Food Science, Volume 6, 2016, Pages 37-39
P. Bossier, P. De Schrijver, T. Defoirdt, H.A.D. Ruwandeepika, F. Natrah, J. Ekasari, H. Toi, D. Nhan, N. Tinh, G. Pande, I. Karunasagar, G. Van Stappen
The expansion of the aquaculture production is restricted due to the pressure it causes on the environment by the discharge of waste products in the water bodies and by its dependence on fish oil and fishmeal. Aquaculture using bio-floc technology (BFT) offers a solution to both problems.
All biofloc size classes were consumed and utilized by the shrimp, tilapia and mussel. The highest retention of nitrogen in the animal body, however, was consistently originating from the bioflocs larger than 100μm
Survival in the [immunity] challenge tests with shrimp from the biofloc [fed] groups, was also significantly higher compared to the positive control.
Rather than trying to control microbial community composition, microbial activity can be steered. The disruption of quorum sensing, bacterial cell-to-cell communication, has been suggested as an alternative strategy to control infections in aquaculture 5.
Recent studies also indicate that opportunistic aquatic pathogens[…]are also able to sense host clues such as stress hormones.
It has become a phenomenon of increasing frequency in the reefing hobby today to have “too clean” of a tank. Zero nitrates, and sometimes even zero phosphates are found behind more and more tank issues. Either can be quite problematic for the tank.
With the ever popular “ULNS” systems and all methods of carbon dosing exponentially increasing in usage, nutrient starvation in our glass boxes is almost as common as the opposite. Pale colors in corals are one of the more common side effects. But there can be many side effects to a tank’s microbial food web ,aka microbial loop. (Also see other entries in the Nutrients section of the blog. –Ed)
Thankfully, there are many ways to increase and maintain nutrients.
Limiting nutrient export (e.g. water changes, reduced skimmer usage, shorter refugium lighting hours, etc) and increasing the rate of nutrients introduced into the system with extra feedings might be the two easiest ways.
However, in some cases, “nutrient dosing” is definitely something of interest – particularly nitrate dosing.
There has been a lot of discussion about the different reagents that could be used – a great one being potassium nitrate (KNO3). Also known as salt peter.
I was intrigued by the idea of being able to add exactly what the system needs.
The instructions on the thread are fairly easy and straightforward:
Add 2 tablespoons of the Sump Remover (granules) in a plastic cup of RODI water.
Use that to dose approximately one milliliter per ten gallons of aquarium water.
Then test and adjust accordingly.
Although this is a very simple approach, I had an uneasy feeling which kept me from slapping a quick dilution together and dumping it in. I wanted to have some additional confidence that it would succeed and perform as expected. Knowing that I can easily calculate the exact dilution to raise nitrate exactly, I started digging a little further.
My first data was the SDS (Safety Data Sheet) of the Spectracide product. It states unequivocally that the composition is 100% potassium nitrate. This is a bold statement to make as many SDS like to leave room for impurities – anything up to 99% potassium nitrate would have left the door open for some impurity. 100% purity gives a good comfort in using the product and expecting it to be and perform as predicted.
Ideally, for my purposes, a calculator is created to assist with the dosing.
The calculator I created (depicted to the left) consists of three main parts.
The first part helps with the creation of a stock solution that has a known nitrate content.
The second part helps with determining how much of that stock should be added in a known volume (your tank’s volume) to increase nitrate by how much.
The third section is where specific doses are calculated to address specific deficiencies.
The calculator is assembled as a Google docs sheet here.
Look closer at the KNO3 molecule in the Molecular Properties section of the calculator.
In order to know how much nitrate we will be adding, we need to know what is the ratio of nitrate is to other atoms in the KNO3 molecule by mass.
That section concludes that the ratio is about .61. Or in other words, about 61% of the weight of the KNO3 molecule is nitrate.
Solution Properties, the second section of the table, shows that if we create a stock solution of 10 grams of KNO3 in 500 milliliters of RODI water we are going to have a solution that has approximately 12,265 ppm of nitrate.
The third block, Dosing Calculations, shows that if we take 1 milliliter of the stock solution and we dose it into a 30 gallon system, we are going to increase nitrate by 0.1 ppm.
Indeed, following this, I created the depicted solution and dosed 5 milliliters in my 30 gallon tank and after an hour, when I tested, I had 0.5 ppm of nitrate.
It’s worth noting that to help keep the integrity of the calculations, the sheet is shared as “view only”.
You can still make a copy of it on your drive or if you don’t have a Google account you can also download the file to your computer.
In that calculator, there are a couple more things worth mentioning.
First, the other different forms of nitrate available also have calculators built into the Full tab of the spreadsheet – namely sodium nitrate and calcium nitrate each have their own calculator table.
It is fairly straight forward to make a similar table for any salt like those just by looking at the molecule and determining the nitrate ratio. For instance, the calcium nitrate molecule has two nitrates for one calcium. That has to be taken into account when calculating as this relationship makes it “nitrate heavy”. This methodology can be used for other compounds as well. Another good example checmical is potassium chloride for dosing potassium in the tank, but without affecting nitrates. The idea is the same within the calculator.
Secondly, there is also a tab called Simple which allows for a quick and dirty calculation resembling the ones everyone is used to from the venerable Reef Chemisty Calculator, and others.
The Simple View tab answers the question “how many grams of potassium nitrate to add to the tank to increase by how many ppm”. This foregoes the middle step of creating a stock solution and dosing that one which might be useful when dosing with a pump.
All things considered, any method of adding it can work. If you want something simple, then just putting the recipe together from the post on Reef2Reef might be all you need. If you want to achieve more control, the calculator might be more your style.
Article (PDF Available)inAquaculture Research 41(4):451 – 467 · March 2010with359 Reads DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2109.2009.02339.x
Einar Ringø, Lisbeth Løvmo, Mads Kristiansen, Yvonne Bakken, Terry M Mayhew
…before any infection can be established, pathogens must penetrate the primary barrier. In fish, the three major routes of infection are the skin, gills and gastrointestinal (GI) tract. The GI tract is essentially a muscular tube lined by a mucous membrane of columnar epithelial cells that exhibit a regional variation in structure and function. In the last two decades, our understanding of the endocytosis and translocation of bacteria across this mucosa, and the sorts of cell damage caused by pathogenic bacteria, has increased.
When discussing cellular damage in the GI tract of fish caused by pathogenic bacteria, several important questions arise including: (1) Do different pathogenic bacteria use different mechanisms to infect the gut? (2) Does the gradual development of the GI tract from larva to adult affect infection? (3) Are there different infection patterns between different fish species? The present article addresses these and other questions.
Lots of folks have trouble keeping their fish alive due to pathogenic activity….probiotics (especially live food items) can help!
Eric Béraud, François Gevaert, Cécile Rottier, Christine Ferrier-Pagès
Journal of Experimental Biology 2013 216: 2665-2674; doi: 10.1242/jeb.085183
(Bolding is mine, for emphasis.)
In non-stressed healthy corals, it has been shown that nutrient addition (nitrogen alone or in combination with phosphorus) may negatively impact coral metabolic functions, such as calcification. Indeed, symbiont and/or chlorophyll concentrations as well as areal rates of photosynthesis are often increased under eutrophication (Snidvongs and Kinzie, 1994; Marubini and Davies, 1996; Fagoonee et al., 1999). This leads to a limitation in dissolved inorganic carbon for calcification (instead used for symbiont photosynthesis) or to a decrease in the translocation of photosynthetic products to the coral host (Kinsey and Davies, 1979; Stambler et al., 1991; Marubini and Davies, 1996; Ferrier-Pagès et al., 2000; Koop et al., 2001). Coral mortality was also observed in long-term enrichment treatments (Koop et al., 2001). However, in most of the above studies, levels of nitrogen were relatively high (above 5 μmol l−1), especially when nitrate was used as the nitrogen source. Also, the seawater chemistry was not controlled, and a limitation in inorganic carbon might have occurred in the experimental tanks following a limited seawater renewal or mixing.
In a few experiments involving a moderate increase in nitrogen and/or phosphorus levels, an enhancement of coral metabolism was instead observed (Meyer and Schultz, 1985; Tanaka et al., 2007; Godinot et al., 2011). Our results with non-stressed nubbins of T. reniformis (C-26 and N-26 samples) add to the growing body of evidence that a slight increase in nutrient concentration in seawater does not necessarily impact coral health. Indeed, although there was an increase in cellular chlorophyll levels, this increase was counterbalanced by a decrease in symbiont density. Therefore, no main physiological changes in terms of calcification, photosynthesis and respiration were observed in these non-stressed enriched nubbins.
Overall, results obtained in this study have shown that phosphate enrichment mainly affected the coral symbionts, by decreasing their C:P and N:P ratios, while increasing their carbon, nitrogen, and phos- phorus contents, as well as their specific growth rate, maximal photo- synthetic efficiency of the PSII, and rate of photosynthesis normalized to chlorophyll content. Phosphate enrichment also affected the skele- tal compartment, by increasing the skeletal growth and the P/Ca ratio. Conversely, few changes were observed in the animal host tissue.
Among other things, this explains why flow is so important in the mix. It keeps gas exchange at the coral’s surface and CO2-levels within the coral at maximal availability within the coral.
I think 5 µmol l-1 nitrogen is roughly equivalent about .3 ppm nitrate (NO3). Not much by typical tank standards.
The Godinot et al., 2011 citation leads to “Tissue and skeletal changes in the scleractinian coral Stylophora pistillata Esper 1797 under phosphate enrichment” is also interesting.
Here are the authors’ own highlights:
We examined P enrichment’s impact on calcification and tissue composition in corals.
We assessed a possible phosphorus limitation in symbiotic zooxanthellae.
Photosynthetic efficiency, CNP contents, and specific growth of symbionts increased.
Results indicated a phosphorus limitation of zooxanthellae growth in hospite.
Skeletal growth rates and phosphorus incorporation into the skeleton also increased.
In terms of the demand for CO2(aq), an enlarged endosymbiont population increases the likelihood of CO2(aq) becoming a limiting internal substrate during periods of peak photosynthesis [18, 19]. Several environmental factors favour increased zooxanthellae densities (particularly on a per host cell basis), including: (i) elevated nutrient levels (e.g. dissolved inorganic nitrogen, DIN) in the surrounding sea water , elevation of the CO2 partial pressure (pCO2) in the surrounding sea water , and diffusive (i.e. branching) coral colony morphologies . Experimental manipulations confirm the higher expulsion rate of zooxanthellae during periods of high irradiance in branching corals  and in corals exposed to DIN and pCO2 enrichment [24, 25].