Zeovit, potassium, and venturi skimmers

[jedimasterben]

It's well-known that the zeolite stones used in the Zeovit method adsorb potassium from seawater. Korallen-Zucht, of course, makes no mention of that in their official Zeovit guide, and instead claims the following:

We would like to point out that it is our thought that needle wheels may precipitate certain elements and destroy plankton. These elements, e.g. such as potassium, will need to be re-added to the system. Do not use a skimmer that is too oversized or employ wet skimming if you use a needle wheel skimmer. We recommend the use of venturi type skimmers.

http://www.korallen-zucht.de/cms/files/zeoguide_103_english-1.pdf


This is a false statement, correct? Can one particular design of protein skimmer cannot selectively target any element or particulate more than another design? Or is it possible that KZ has a line of magic venturi skimmers?

 

[UK_Pete]

Thats a coincidence. Just been looking at this page

https://translate.google.co.uk/tran...sebralla.de/ma_zeovit.html&edit-text=&act=url

It shows 1.2 grams of potassium per kg zeovit absorbed over 6 weeks, which actually dosent seem that much, but its some. I think that would be about 3 ppm.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

It is certainly a false statement that potassium does anything that would be called "precipitate" because of a needle wheel skimmer.

Potassium is typically higher inside of cells than in seawater, so skimming out whole cells (such as bacteria) can export more potassium than broken cells or simple dissolved or particulate organic matter.

 

[jedimasterben]

It is certainly a false statement that potassium does anything that would be called "precipitate" because of a needle wheel skimmer.

Potassium is typically higher inside of cells than in seawater, so skimming out whole cells (such as bacteria) can export more potassium than broken cells or simple dissolved or particulate organic matter.

But the only difference between two designs of skimmers in removing of cells would be the rate at which they remove them, not that one could selectively grab another?

 

[UK_Pete]

Just thought about the page I linked to - it might be wrong for this topic because they test the zeolite after 5 days and 45 ish days. So I guess any potassium exchange that would happen is likely to be already complete after 5 days. So maybe the zeolite does actually take quite a bit of potassium out.

 

[Diesel]

Yeah, I was surprised to read that too.
I just recommend if you run ZEOlite stones or have a ULN checking on potassium regularly.
At least that's what I do every Friday.
With the Triton test I noticed that they give a little lower #.
I test close to 400 while triton last week had 391, not bad I would say.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

But the only difference between two designs of skimmers in removing of cells would be the rate at which they remove them, not that one could selectively grab another?

I don't really know what might be happening, but I think it relates more to the efficiency of skimming than the exact nature of how the bubbles are created.

 

[robf]

This is a really interesting study on the effects of bacteria and baseline modulation caused by among other things skimmers. It's a very long paper but it does have many fascinating findings. One that has me thinking about "old tank" syndrome in a completely new way. By that I mean i was under the impression OTS was caused by a buildup of dissolved organics in the sandbed and perhaps a buildup of toxic metals was the notion of a mono culture partially created from years of skimming. Perhaps OTS is a myriad of factors however with respect to the skimming thread it make me wonder if the devices can create imballances regardless of the means by which bubbles are produced.

"It appears likely that some types of bacteria are indeed "skimmable", but others are not. Thus, skimming inadvertently provides severe (?) evolutionary pressure to skew the tank's resident water column bacteria population to favor the "non-skimmable" cohort." -Ken Feldmen, Allison A Place, Sanjar Joshi, and Gary White

Feature Article: Bacterial Counts in Reef Aquarium Water: Baseline Values and Modulation by Carbon Dosing, Protein Skimming, and Granular Activated Carbon Filtration ? Advanced Aquarist | Aquarist Magazine and Blog
That said, I won't be ditching my skimmer anytime soon. I think it has a place in our imperfect hobby. It's one of the best tools we have.

 

[schabiazabi]

with respect to the skimming thread it make me wonder if the devices can create imballances regardless of the means by which bubbles are produced.

Absolutely correct. Imbalances are created with skimmer, algae scrubber, and etc. No one knows how these imbalances affect marine life and if they affect it at all. Btw, looks like you read the article carefully.

I believe anyone interested in a reef tank should read all Pennsylvania State University papers on reefing. Anything else in this hobby is 90% art and 10% science. If you read all those papers, and analyze the tests they have done, you will see that their findings are almost entirely contradicting what is believed in the hobby. I am researching on how the ocean works exactly (btw, no one fully understands), and trying to see what can be copied over to the reef tank.

My reef tank will be very simple without a skimmer/zeo elixir/biopellets. At this point I came up with a deep ocean/water buffer/toilet device, and a super simple way of DOC extraction system that does not create imbalances, but works more effectively (have to test it) than skimmer.

Right now, I'm looking for a very good TOC Analyzer in order to verify my ideas.

 

[Ike]

Yeah, I was surprised to read that too.
I just recommend if you run ZEOlite stones or have a ULN checking on potassium regularly.

Why? I'm getting really sick of the potassium fad and am waiting for something new to be bothered by... Anyone want to get the molybdenum thing rolling again? I haven't seen a single shred of evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, that maintaining and dosing to potassium levels around natural levels is important or beneficial. If anything, I've seen a lot of Triton test results and "evidence" to suggest that potassium should probably not be something we're concerned about in an overwhelming majority of reefs. That includes fancy those tanks with fancy little stones...

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I believe anyone interested in a reef tank should read all Pennsylvania State University papers on reefing. Anything else in this hobby is 90% art and 10% science. If you read all those papers, and analyze the tests they have done, you will see that their findings are almost entirely contradicting what is believed in the hobby. I am researching on how the ocean works exactly (btw, no one fully understands), and trying to see what can be copied over to the reef tank.
..

Well, I'll try to not take that personally since I've written dozens of articles that are 0% art.

I also do not agree with all of their conclusions, but I do agree that many of their papers are interesting.

 

[jedimasterben]

Why? I'm getting really sick of the potassium fad and am waiting for something new to be bothered by... Anyone want to get the molybdenum thing rolling again? I haven't seen a single shred of evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, that maintaining and dosing to potassium levels around natural levels is important or beneficial. If anything, I've seen a lot of Triton test results and "evidence" to suggest that potassium should probably not be something we're concerned about in an overwhelming majority of reefs. That includes fancy those tanks with fancy little stones...

The issue is that with Zeovit, the zeolith stones actively adsorb potassium instead of just ammonia, so Zeovit tanks can get potassium stripped out over time.

 

[wangspeed]

The issue is that with Zeovit, the zeolith stones actively adsorb potassium instead of just ammonia, so Zeovit tanks can get potassium stripped out over time.

+1. I was running a Zeovit reactor and since I stopped a few months ago, I no longer need to dose K. If you don't think you need K, you don't have enough SPS, especially montipora. They will go grey and dull very quickly.

 

[schabiazabi]

Well, I'll try to not take that personally since I've written dozens of articles that are 0% art.

That was not directed at anyone and I had no ill intent. Actually, your articles were the first I came across that made any sense to me. Thanks to you I became even more interested in the subject.

I also question few things they concluded, that's why I'll test it myself, and maybe get some answers for myself at least.

 

[robf]

At this point I came up with a deep ocean/water buffer/toilet device, and a super simple way of

DOC extraction system that does not create imbalances, but works more effectively (have to test it) than skimmer.

Sounds interesting. The more I learn the more I realize I don't know. Are we are nuts trying to play god in a glass box? .

 

[robf]

Perhaps zeolites of some sort (not necessarily zeovit), along with carbon, bacteria additions or culturing can be used in conjunction to limited skimming or using a much smaller skimmer to produce an environment that is superior to one that deploys heavy skimming and carbon? If skimming limits bacteria or if it causes a bias toward one particular type of bacteria perhaps we want to look at some sort of bacteria refugium for cultivating strains lost to skimming. The goal seems to be to remove DOC's and elevate bacteria.

 

[schabiazabi]

The goal seems to be to remove DOC's and elevate bacteria.

In the article that you linked to they have some interesting data inside the "Bacterial counts from authentic marine water, various control samples, and several reef tanks" table. The tanks with low TOC have also low bacteria counts. More, those tanks had way less bacteria than the ocean, and the corals are doing great. Maybe high bacteria count does not help at all. That's why I call all this art, as nothing is conclusive.

Btw, Zeovit system used in the test had lower bacteria counts as well, which is sort of the opposite of what they advertise. The only tanks that had bacteria count mimicking the oceans, where the once with no water changes, no skimmer, no GAC.

What I don't like about those tests in the article is the tanks they used. I'm planning on testing the same water from one major tank in separate tanks using different methodology in each. That way I can tell for sure if it is the skimmer, or GAC, or something else doing the job. Comparing apples to apples, and not what they did.

Few tough questions just on the bacteria alone:
1. If the ocean has very little DOC, why does it have so much bacteria?
2. What is bacteria feeding off in the ocean that is missing in the tank?
3. Why does bacteria count change so much from location to location if DOC Is about the same?
4. How come "untouched" reefs in Northern Line Islands have mega low bacteria counts (50 per ml)? (this one alone contradicts everything I read on bacteria in reef tanks).

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

In the article that you linked to they have some interesting data inside the "Bacterial counts from authentic marine water, various control samples, and several reef tanks" table. The tanks with low TOC have also low bacteria counts. More, those tanks had way less bacteria than the ocean, and the corals are doing great. Maybe high bacteria count does not help at all. That's why I call all this art, as nothing is conclusive.

One concern I have is with studies that compare one thing they measure (e.g., tank bacteria) to something else that someone else measured (e.g., ocean bacteria). I often lack sufficient confidence that the method is so easily translated from one machine to another that the actual tests performed allow a quantitative comparison.

 

[UK_Pete]

Few tough questions just on the bacteria alone:

I've been reading on this topic for a bit so might have a few bits of info that partially answer these.

1) Reefs have plenty of DOC http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/7690/MMP_AIMS_August_2008.pdf

2) Bacteria and phytoplankton (algae) exist act in competitive partnership. Algae create DOC and need nutrients, bacteria consume the DOC and free up some nutrients for the algae, although in times of nutrient stress, this balance can become stressed and phyto loose out on nutrients I believe. DOC is not usually limiting on reefs (above link).

3) I believe this is because something limits them. N, P, iron etc.

4) Very low nutes perhaps? Otherwise not sure. But everything I have read suggests that its usually N or P that limits bacteria in nutrient poor oceans. Occasionally iron IIRC too.

Zeovit releases mulm, or bacterial flocs, daily. So although they might have less single bacteria floating in the water (perhaps because the zeovit reactor traps the bacteria and allows them to clump in flocs), the particulate matter might be higher than water samples would suggest.

The evidence I have seen suggests that corals can utilise either bacteria or inorganic nutrients as sources of N and P. Whether one is more ideal than the other seems uncertain. But looking at real reef water (above link), organic forms of nutrients seem to make up the majority of the available N and P.

 

[schabiazabi]

Randy, you could very well be right on that one, but I need some kind of science data to start.


Pete,
I do know these answers, those are what is commonly believed, and not really verified, and when anyone tried to verify the results were the opposite more often than none.

I don't want to beat the dead horse, but let me show you: you say something (N, P, iron, etc) limits bacteria growth. Ocean water on the reef (exclude Florida) is about the same when it comes to N, P, iron, DOC, etc. In worse case scenario the DOC doubles, but bacteria count on Norther Line Islands drops x16. So if coral/bacteria theory was correct, wouldn't corals suffer x16, or get significantly bad? How come they are thriving?

To summarize, one can take data from one source and contradict other sources/theories in this hobby.
I'm not saying anyone is wrong, I'm just saying the more I read the less I know and, the more my head hurts from these differences.