rate of nitrate and phosphate
- Thread starter blackraven
- Start date
You want a 10 to 1 ratio of nitrate to phosphate. Do a search on the "Redfield Ratio". There is an article and a chart. Follow the recommendations given. When you test for both parameters, you may need to adjust either one or both to come within the recommendations on the chart. If you have plants; you need to dose iron.
The formula for the Redfield Ratio is: Nitrates divided by Phosphates X 1.53.
The formula for the Redfield Ratio is: Nitrates divided by Phosphates X 1.53.
rjordan393;116329 said:
My tanks are 3-4:1 NO3 to PO4:
In other words, ratios do not matter the least little bit.
Charles made some poor conclusions that the results do not support and some other errors. I mentioned these to him(maybe 5-7 years ago now), but he never changed the misinformation.
So old myths and bad information on the web? Who knew?
rjordan393;116329 said:
My tanks are 3-4:1 NO3 to PO4:
In other words, ratios do not matter the least little bit.
Charles made some poor conclusions that the results do not support and some other errors. I mentioned these to him(maybe 5-7 years ago now), but he never changed the misinformation.
So old myths and bad information on the web? Who knew?
Pictures speak louder then words. Beautiful tank. My test indicate I have 20 ppm NO3 and 2 ppm PO4. I am going to raise the PO4 to 4 ppm and see if I noticed an improvement.
Last edited by a moderator:
rjordan393;116366 said:
At your levels, and those Charles suggested, it simply took the limiting factor away from folks who had N or P limitation, it has NOTHING to do with Redfiled's ratio.
It had EVERYTHING to do with Liebig's law.
There was correlation that Charles rationalized was due to Redfield, but he did not test outside those ratios at NON limiting levels for the ferts in question.
When you test that, then you see that rations do not matter(well, as long as they are not massive, say 100000:1 or something, but then they are either very limiting or toxic due to high levels/salinity stress etc)
Liebig's law is very straight forward. As long as you are over the non limiting value relation to the other factors, then ratios should be independent on plant and algae growth.
Put another way, Charles made a conclusion, then went to see what facts he find to support it.
So did Paul Sears when they developed PMDD for algae control here:
http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/Fertilizer/sears-conlin.html
So have many about say K+, or Fe, or Ca/Mg ratios being some magical cure all. It's not personal towards you, but having listened to same old myths for decades, then others repeatedly falling for the same old failure of logic, ah.......well.
These are relatively EASY to falsify however.
That pretty much resolves most people's hypothesis and questions, but some are VERY stubborn and do not learn from their mistakes.
I could be wrong, but I've not seen evidence that I am about these issues. Once I do, I will happily recant. This is not the case for those who have their hypotheses falsified and continue to support and leave the myth up on the web.
Paul Sears was quick to admit it, but plants still do grow with strong PO4 limitation, he suggested about 0.2ppm, which is moderate to strong limitation, but nothing like many suggested prior, the less, the better some use to say.
Most Never admit their hypothesis was wrong.
I've falsified some of my own conclusions and admitted they were wrong, a heck of lot of them!!!
That's how I learn.
Old saying: correlation does not imply cause.
At 4-5 ppm, I think you might notice a decrease in perhaps GSA on glass/plants, but not much else.
It's just what I have done, I cannot say the plants need say 5 ppm dosed 2-3x a week really.........
We see other tanks with nice growth with less certainly..........so it's not a requirement, but is it non limiting vs say 1-2 ppm? I'd say so.
Both are non limiting if those ppm's are maintained.
It's just what I have done, I cannot say the plants need say 5 ppm dosed 2-3x a week really.........
We see other tanks with nice growth with less certainly..........so it's not a requirement, but is it non limiting vs say 1-2 ppm? I'd say so.
Both are non limiting if those ppm's are maintained.
Thanks,
I will not be recommending Redfields Ratio. Charles must have went to a lot of work to make up the chart and when hobbiest like myself see it, then we feel it must be accurate.
I will not be recommending Redfields Ratio. Charles must have went to a lot of work to make up the chart and when hobbiest like myself see it, then we feel it must be accurate.
Thanks,
I will not be recommending Redfields Ratio. Charles must have went to a lot of work to make up the chart and when hobbiest like myself see it, we feel it must be accurate.
I will not be recommending Redfields Ratio. Charles must have went to a lot of work to make up the chart and when hobbiest like myself see it, we feel it must be accurate.
rjordan393;116452 said:
Well, it's good and bad, bad in the logic, but the results favor better growth because you remove often times a strong limiting factor.
This can lead to false conclusions and ignores basic plant growth laws.
Paul Sear's write up also looked pretty good too:
http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/Fertilizer/sears-conlin.html
He has a PhD in Organic Chemistry, he's a sharp smart guy.
Me? Some kid with a high school 2.8 GPA, I barely made it out of high school, yes, I educated myself later, but at the time, it was a bit intimidating to say, hey, this cannot be correct.
Education does not matter, the pretty write up etc, what matters is the logic and the evidence to support it.
ADA can say pretty much anything they want(and often does) because they have excellent photography.
We use moonbeams to grow our plants, and you can bet the ADa fan boy crowd would believe them if they said they do, and would try it themselves.
I try and educate people to be a better thinker/hobbyists, then they can figure out much more stuff, beat down myths and solve issues for a new group of hobbyists.
I make mistakes, they make them, we all do. This is not a personal issue, it's the mistake and the learning process that needs addressed.
Falsification is part of the process.
rjordan393;116452 said:
Well, it's good and bad, bad in the logic, but the results favor better growth because you remove often times a strong limiting factor.
This can lead to false conclusions and ignores basic plant growth laws.
Paul Sear's write up also looked pretty good too:
http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/Fertilizer/sears-conlin.html
He has a PhD in Organic Chemistry, he's a sharp smart guy.
Me? Some kid with a high school 2.8 GPA, I barely made it out of high school, yes, I educated myself later, but at the time, it was a bit intimidating to say, hey, this cannot be correct.
Education does not matter, the pretty write up etc, what matters is the logic and the evidence to support it.
ADA can say pretty much anything they want(and often does) because they have excellent photography.
We use moonbeams to grow our plants, and you can bet the ADa fan boy crowd would believe them if they said they do, and would try it themselves.
I try and educate people to be a better thinker/hobbyists, then they can figure out much more stuff, beat down myths and solve issues for a new group of hobbyists.
I make mistakes, they make them, we all do. This is not a personal issue, it's the mistake and the learning process that needs addressed.
Falsification is part of the process.