the Redfield ratio

[reefkprz]

your thoughts on it.
mine are: I think this may be a good hint/guide to maintaining great growth and color in our corals IF we could succesfully mimic the ratios for our specific species. of course we would need to know what the specific ratio is for each of our corals as individuals, the problem would also be to acheive the target ratios once we knew.

 

[florida joe]

Reef my friend can you give a little more in depth explanation on your research into the Redfield ratio? My understanding is that it refers to the molar ratio of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphates in phytoplankton. The common ratio for phytoplankton is 106:16:1. It is when these ratios get out of balance I believe is when we run into trouble with our corals as the accumulation of this phytoplankton becomes refractory and thus not very available as food. This is one of the main reasons I believe for vodka dosing. It’s the introduction of ethanol to stimulate the growth of heterotrophic bacteria in the water that assimilate nitrogen and phosphorus the living bloom of that bacteria thus lowering the levels of dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus in the water all bringing the Redfield ratio back to normal.
Your thoughts

 

[niskyvaulter]

i have no idea what you two are talking about, but it sounds interesting. could you explain it in simpler terms please?

 

[reefkprz]

its not what the animals contain, its the chemistry of the water they grow in, in specific ratios.
joe based on the ratio you gave for plankton 106:16:1, it would grow the best in water at the ratio described, not nescesarily having to be exact but generally the best growth would be achieved at those numbers.
now if we could determine redfield ratios for specific corals, it could enhance our ability to quickly grow, or even just maintain harder to keep or grow corals, if we had the numbers to go with the species. like the proposed redfield ratio for diatoms C:Si:N = 106:15:16:1. now we know if we starve diatoms for Si (silicates) they cannot form so maintaining a lower than 15 ratio on silicates inhibits their growth, zero silicates zero growth. however if we boost silicate levels diatoms galore....
some corals seem to thrive in "dirtier water" than others so a redfeild ratio for say a discosoma may look like this C:N= 106:18:2 while a clean water specimen like an acropora may be closer to C:N 107:12:0.4 (note these numbers are hypothetical in this paragraph)
as a reference for anyone that doesnt know what the redfield ratio is google "redfeild ratio" and check out the wikipedia description, it will give a little info on it to get you on the right track.

 

[reefkprz]

and of course as our knowledge grew our redfeild ratios could become more complex containing more chemical elements, up to the entire periodic table if we ever advanced that far. this would give HUGE advantages to species only propagation/grow out, aka a single tank growing only one species of acropora would flourish while another with the correct redfield ratio for discosomas would be unbeatable.
the challenge comes in How do we determine the redfield ratios for each species as often many species are found side by side in the wild but may do better with differing ratios in captivity

 

[florida joe]

My friend you have in fact proposed what could very well be someone’s life work, and only on a single species of coral. If I understand you right you would use the Redfield ratio or as some might know it the Redfield stoichiometry. As a guide line much as we use our simple water testing.
We of cause would have to have a way to test for carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus and be able to manipulate each and have multiple test tanks with the same coral. And log growth and color for each variance. Quite an undertaking my friend but to a coral farmer it would truly be like putting his coral on steroids.
Have I in some small way understood your concept

 

[reefkprz]

as a matter of fact you got pretty darn close. this is obviously not a notion to be pushed on begginners this is an Idea that as we gain knowledge and success as well as advancing technology, the more precise parameters we can test for the better, eventually there is going to be a "pinpoint" style meter that will test all our parameters in one device.
the knowledge of an precise redfeild ratio for a single individual coral would probably be several peoples life work at this point in our technology as only fully equipped labs have the ability to test for many of the things that could indeed be factors in the ratios. for example as our knowledge grew the acropora in the first "made up ratio" now the faux ratio I described would grow to more elements like Ca (calcium) Sr (strontium) I (iodine) Mo (molybdenum) Ru (rubidium), so in fact a slightly more advanced but still incomplete ratio would look more like (these numbers are totally made up and have no brearing on reality)
C:N:Ca:Sr:I:Mo:Ru = 107:12:0.4:440:25:43:14:3
obviously these get more and more complex as knowledge accurately depicts the near perfect ratios of as many elements as possible, of course only major advances in technology will make control and testing feasable for any but research facilities or the insanely rich.
it seems to me like these ratios are probably overlooked just for the fact that they are so damn hard to test for adn controll. in theory we could go to a section of the ocean where growth seems to be fastest for a species do a series of tests to find what ratios are present for the majority of the year and find during what times growth is best and use those for guidlines to start with, tweaking ratios in controlled settings after we have our base numbers.

 

[reefkprz]

and of course you get to the point of diminishing returns, ceartain elements may infact add signifigant differences in growth say, keeping phoshates below a ceartain level, adds 1% net growth per year, maintaining Ca at a set ratio adds 2% net growth per year, and having strontium perfect adds 1% net growth per year, these all cost money to maintain, then you get into the other elements like, Iodine, say controlling that only added .04% per year, you start running into a diminishing return, cost=x gain in growth=y x>y would be less than worth it.

 

[florida joe]

My thinking and I use the term lightly is stabilization. Once you get the “key” how do you lock it in. with the ever-changing water chemistry in our closed system we do not have the luxury of thousand of gallons of water allowing for a more stable ratio? I world think a computer controlled testing and dosing machine would have to be manufactured and have the ability to be programmed with ever changing parameters It would also have to have the ability not only to add but to subtract cretin water chemistry

 

[reefkprz]

of course this is one of the reasons I threw this thread out there was to see if anyone out there had attempted any work or expiriments with the redfeild ratios other than sheer theory and supposition (like I'm doing right now) to find out what they used for measuring and testing and controlling different factors, because if there is a real benifit to gauging the factors I would like to be able to try. even if it took me years to gather the stuff or gather any information, to do so in the long run even a small contribution may pay off for some one elses big break through later on.

 

[florida joe]

Reef I think if I were going to undertake such an endeavor I would start by identifying what coral I would want to work with. Then research what facility was number one in the keeping of that coral. I would beg them for their ratio of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphates. That would be my starting point.And perhaps have them send you a gallon of their water so you could do your own testing. Something else I have been thinking about. Most of the faculties I know of that do this type research actually have pipes out into the ocean and constantly turn over their water. That being said it could very well be that having the ratio static is not the answer. Seasonal changes affecting the water chemistry may play a part in promoting optimal growth on the reefs of the ocean

 

[reefkprz]

yup. good starting point, but I would want as many elements as possible on the list, not just those three. the more precise list to start with the better.

 

[florida joe]

My only reservation is spreading your self to thin by trying to manipulate to many parameters at once then you have the time factors for each change to take effect when I have fallen into that trap I always had to deal with overlapping effects IMO I would start with the three mentioned and tweak those that should keep your plate full for a while LOL. Very very interesting thread my friend I am surprised more people have not joined in the discussion.

 

[reefkprz]

not necissarily manipulating all the elements at first but tracking as many as possible VS the manipulation of three but not knowing/watching the rest.... totally inconclusive evidence would be the result. at least if I could moniter as many as possible it could provide a lead for future generations (or even a guy next week)

 

[florida joe]

Assuming there is a definite number of traceable elements and the home aquarist has the ability to test them

 

[scopus tang]

Just for clarification, I assume that what you are proposing to study the impact of here, is increased Zooxanthellae, under the assumption that increasing zooxanthellae production/growth in photosynthetic corals will increase the growth/production of the coral colony itself?

 

[florida joe]

Randy at first I thought reef was trying to find the best Redfield ratio to stimulate the production of bacterial biomass. Which is said to simulate polyp expansion in soft corals by giving them an abundance of product to feed on. But now I am not sure

 

[reefkprz]

ok let me clarify a little. I want to study what chemicals/elements are in the water with the best growth rate for specific corals. not for just their zooxanthellae, not just for the plankton, or bacteria, but for the entire creature.
the redfeild ratos describe specific amounts of ceartain elements in the case of phyto it was three, in the case of diatoms it was four, the fourth had to be added because without silica diatoms cannot form their external structure.
in the case of individual corals, it would be however many seemed key to the coral, obviously calcium is not as important for softies or, false corals as it is for scleractinian corals. so the lists would be comprised of whatever chemicals/elemenst had the biggest impact on the corals in a positive manner.

 

[candycane]

There are most likely several hundred thousand (if not million) ratios that are probably out there; given that there are several hundred thousand different corals that can be at several hundred thousand different depths where several hundred thousand million different variations of the water chemistry make up is - will most likely change.
NOW! With what I just wrote making no sense, there is most likely a common chemical that still vary those several hundred thousand variations and draw them together so that corals can utilize what they do have more. That chemical probably being sodium bicarbonate. Now if you have ANY idea what I just said, please PM me to tell because I even lost myself like 90 words ago.