Another conversation about how to chemically reduce nitrates.

[Pete polyp]

most have the wrong idea on a skimmer though, most just get one rated at their size tank, which is a no no. If one had the biggest skimmer one could keep in their tank, sump, this may be a mute subject.

Great point. For some reason there are (mostly inexperienced) people that seem to believe the skimmer is a magical device that makes nitrate disappear.

Depending on the intentions of the setup one skimmer may be the best choice over another and vice versa. Choosing a skimmer really needs some forethought into the bigger picture of the grand scheme. Just because skimmer A worked well for Joe in his 75 doesn't mean Jim will have the same results. The difference in nutrient removal methods being utilized needs to be taken into consideration when choosing.

 

[mcarroll]

Hey now.... Many top notch systems with world renowned aquarists have suffered crashes. Just because a crash happens doesn't mean the system was a "house of cards"

I've had a crash or two - see my threads - so I'm not casting aspersions. Accidents happen.

However, I can say I've never lost a critter in a crash, nor had a drop of water on the floor because of one. I attribute both of these facts to conservative (not "house of cards") planning, including system design and stocking. I'm positive that a "standard build" with generic sump and average stocking list would have been a wipeout. The only "price" is that I have fewer big animals (still a ton of corals tho) than most.

Small price to pay IMO.

To get back to the thread topic (but still to your point), I still havent heard anyone else talk about the limits/costs of carbon dosing. Here's another one:

With more animals/gallon, your tank's net oxygen consumptiom is higher. Maybe quite a bit higher - nobody is even looking. This makes your critters even more dependent on all flow devices and the skimmer working at all times than a normal tank is. This means any one failure - from fish death to equipment failure - carries more weight toward a crash than in a normal tank.

-Matt

 

[hart24601]

I've had a crash or two - see my threads - so I'm not casting aspersions. Accidents happen.

However, I can say I've never lost a critter in a crash, nor had a drop of water on the floor because of one. I attribute both of these facts to conservative (not "house of cards") planning, including system design and stocking. I'm positive that a "standard build" with generic sump and average stocking list would have been a wipeout. The only "price" is that I have fewer big animals (still a ton of corals tho) than most.

Small price to pay IMO.

To get back to the thread topic (but still to your point), I still havent heard anyone else talk about the limits/costs of carbon dosing. Here's another one:

With more animals/gallon, your tank's net oxygen consumptiom is higher. Maybe quite a bit higher - nobody is even looking. This makes your critters even more dependent on all flow devices and the skimmer working at all times than a normal tank is. This means any one failure - from fish death to equipment failure - carries more weight toward a crash than in a normal tank.

-Matt

Searching forums quite extensively I have not seen many costs or risks to carbon dosing. There is always the potential of bad things happening if equipment fails, but it seems that carbon dosing is really quite well tolerated. There are plenty of reports of people overdosing and getting cloudy water, but this seems to rarely result in harm. There are of course stories of bad things happening, but you hear that from activated carbon, gfo, changing light bulbs and even water changes too.

 

[beaslbob]

FWIW I used no chemicals, do no water changes, with tap water,and had unmeasureable ammonia, nitrates, and phosphates for 9 years with a heavy bioload and easy corals.

IME $5 (to free) macro algaes will balance out and stabilize the system better then anything else.


my .02

 

[hart24601]

FWIW I used no chemicals, do no water changes, with tap water,and had unmeasureable ammonia, nitrates, and phosphates for 9 years with a heavy bioload and easy corals.

IME $5 (to free) macro algaes will balance out and stabilize the system better then anything else.


my .02

A great post and something to keep in mind that there are many ways to have success and enjoy our tanks.

 

[b_rad_G]

Why do you think it is not valid? Simply because you've never seen anyone keep a tang into old age?

Trust me when I say it's the keeper's fault and not the tang's when they suffer early death.

The aquarium should be a place free of predators so they can easily glide through old age. Instead they are taken out usually by stress-induced disease or a house-of-cards tank that had an accident and crashed.

There's nothing keeping any of us from making the GOOD outcome the normal case in every single tank for every single fish except the right willpower and knowledge.

-Matt

How can you take an animal that moves miles per day and put it in a 6 ft box and think it is happy? Even prisoners have time for pt.....

 

[mcarroll]

How can you take an animal that moves miles per day and put it in a 6 ft box and think it is happy? Even prisoners have time for pt.....

That's a good point, but does not describe the lifestyle of all tangs. Bristletooths in particular are a better fit in a large tank than many other tangs.

You're right though - tangs in general are not one of the better tank fish. That's a whole other thread though, and my Tang Police badge is all tarnished from lack of use.

In spite of some amazing coloration, true reef fish don't display that well because they are generally pretty close to the rock and possibly cryptic in habit. As a result a lot of folks look to different groups of fish like angels, butterflyfish and tangs for their "show" fish. Very few make out well in tank life, but again there are some notable exceptions if you're running a big tank.

My choice was no "show" fish...you have to really look at my tank to see the fish. Once you're that close with that kind of focus you see so much more than the fish - the tank looks like a whole universe, including fish. It's not for everyone I guess, but I like it.

-Matt

 

[mcarroll]

Searching forums quite extensively I have not seen many costs or risks to carbon dosing. There is always the potential of bad things happening if equipment fails, but it seems that carbon dosing is really quite well tolerated. There are plenty of reports of people overdosing and getting cloudy water, but this seems to rarely result in harm. There are of course stories of bad things happening, but you hear that from activated carbon, gfo, changing light bulbs and even water changes too.

"Nothing to see here" is the usual refrain from research I've done as well. I don't buy it. Corals in the ocean apparently don't like being carbon dosed, so why expect tank corals to?

It didn't take much creative juice to see the oxygen demand issue. Though it has nothing to do with the carbon dosing or its side-effects, higher stocking levels are simply a factor that comes along with carbon dosing in 99% of scenarios. It's real and just one potential issue that will count toward a crash when "something happens" but not day to day.

-Matt

 

[Pete polyp]

What about the use of sulfur?

 

[b_rad_G]

My point is we can not recreate the environment of the ocean. We can't even come close really and it is not the point of reef keeping. We use many methods that the ocean can't to try and achieve a balanced ecosystem. If the particular user wants to use carbon as a tool to reduce nutrients that is fine. Some people prefer water changes. Personally I feel water changes can cause more swings in parameters and when dealing with more sensitive species such as acro this can cause problems.

Carbon dosing was not intended for a long term solution. It is now being used for long term nutrient control by many hobbies with great success. The long term use is not studied well because we are really just seeing it happen.

The amount of carbon does generally declines as length of time increases. It seems that users start with higher nitrates and need a stronger dose to reduce these to an acceptable level. Once this level is achieved a maintenance dose is figured by reducing the amount of carbon used until an acceptable amount of nitrate is seen.

There is no formula for any form of carbon dosing. No tank is identical so the user must figure by trial and error what is the correct dose.

Downsides of carbon dosing are mainly over stripping the water of nutrients (extremely pale corals). I have seen this in many zeo tanks. Zero seems to be one of the strongest forms of carbon dosing. Another downside can be if the initial dose is increased to rapidly a bacteria bloom can result. I suspect this will only be a problem in very high nitrate conditions. Cloudy water and decreased oxygen can result.

Also some users have seen increase or development of cyno with an elevated dose. Generally the amount of carbon is decreased and the cyno subsides.

To my knowledge correct carbon dosing has not caused any catastrophic tank loss. As stated previously some users purposely dose both carbon and nitrate. Take it for what its worth but it seems to me the only logical explanation is to use the bacteria as a food source and to keep nitrate levels above 0. An added benefit could be increased phosphate reduction if the tank had become nitrate limited.

 

[b_rad_G]

With the use of foam type skimmers over flows sumps and in most cases extreme water movement and surface agitation I don't see dissolved oxygen as being a problem. I have never seen a report of a tank in normal operation suffer from this condition. Now if a power outage was to occur with a heavily stocked tank with higher temps this could be a problem. Even with a small bio load the user will suffer loss unless some type of circulation is restored during an extended power loss.

 

[b_rad_G]

"Nothing to see here" is the usual refrain from research I've done as well. I don't buy it. Corals in the ocean apparently don't like being carbon dosed, so why expect tank corals to?



-Matt

Please feel free to elaborate on this. Any links would be good because I have never heard of any carbon dosing with wild corals.

 

[b_rad_G]

What about the use of sulfur?

I don't know much about sulfur denitrification but it seems to be used in very extreme cases on very large systems. Generally I have read about it being used on fish only tanks.

 

[hart24601]

"Nothing to see here" is the usual refrain from research I've done as well. I don't buy it. Corals in the ocean apparently don't like being carbon dosed, so why expect tank corals to?

It didn't take much creative juice to see the oxygen demand issue. Though it has nothing to do with the carbon dosing or its side-effects, higher stocking levels are simply a factor that comes along with carbon dosing in 99% of scenarios. It's real and just one potential issue that will count toward a crash when "something happens" but not day to day.

-Matt

Oh goodness, I didn't expect you to buy it. Your mind is well made up, I doubt there is anything I could say or link to change your opinion. My comments are for others who might be reading. "Corals in the ocean apparently don't like being carbon dosed, so why expect tank corals to?" I don't think this statement is very accurate. I carbon dose to increase bacteria and bacteria consumers which the corals can consume. I will say again that while I started dosing carbon for nutrients I continue to dose NOT for nutrient but to increase the microfauna like zooplankton which our system don't contain anywhere near the numbers as the reef. Here is an artlice that talks about carbon and microfauna a little bit:

Filter and suspension feeders

If you don't like the link here is the excerpt:

"To mimic the plankton-rich waters of the oceans, including coral reefs, (semi-)constant feeding is required. This can be accomplished by utilising feeding timers, able to dispense dry feeds in preprogrammed intervals. A feeding regime may consist of dosing a variety of plankton cultures or dry feeds every 30-60 minutes. These feeds should have a wide range of size classes, especially in the nano- and micro ranges (2 - 20 and 20 - 200 μm in size, respectively). Picoplankton, which is classified between 0.2 and 2 μm, may be dosed in the form of bacterial cultures such as Prochlorococcus and Synechococcus sp. These bacteria are not generally available however, with is why continuous feedings, dosing of carbon sources (such as ethanol) and plankton-saving filtration should allow for a buildup of countless species of bacteria. These may be released into the water column by manually stirring aquarium substrates, or by using biodegradable pellets (figure 4) which are placed inside canister filters. These pellets serve as a feeding ground for bacteria, which convert inorganic wastes such as nitrate and phosphate into biomass. This maintains high water quality, and bacteria which are released by mechanical friction also serve as a food source for many invertebrates. This system basically functions as a nitrate-reducing biofilter, with the addition of greatly stimulating bacterial growth due to the biodegradable substrate being used."

But once again I am not at all trying to change your mind or the philosophy on how you keep your tanks. I am not telling anyone that there is any single correct way to be successful and enjoy this hobby.

 

[mcarroll]

Please feel free to elaborate on this. Any links would be good because I have never heard of any carbon dosing with wild corals.

They call it Ocean Acidification instead of carbon dosing, but it all amounts to an increase in carbon. The parallels are loose as you may expect - it's only slightly better understood than our carbon dosing - but they are there. Cant link at the moment but Wikipedia has a decent entry on it if it seems worth the read.

-Matt

 

[hart24601]

They call it Ocean Acidification instead of carbon dosing, but it all amounts to an increase in carbon. The parallels are loose as you may expect - it's only slightly better understood than our carbon dosing - but they are there. Cant link at the moment but Wikipedia has a decent entry on it if it seems worth the read.

-Matt

This is very very different from what carbon dosing is in aquariums. Ocean acidification is from CO2 - a inorganic compound. We dose organic carbon. It is drastically different in metabolic and chemical pathways.

 

[mcarroll]

With the use of foam type skimmers over flows sumps and in most cases extreme water movement and surface agitation I don't see dissolved oxygen as being a problem. I have never seen a report of a tank in normal operation suffer from this condition. Now if a power outage was to occur with a heavily stocked tank with higher temps this could be a problem. Even with a small bio load the user will suffer loss unless some type of circulation is restored during an extended power loss.

As a rule of thumb, bigger fish die first in an outage and heavily stocked tanks crash sooner and harder. On the flip side, smaller fish are more likely to survive an outage or crash and more lightly stocked tanks are less likely to crash. This is all related largely to the state of O2 depletion, which almost always becomes a factor before nutrient accumulation during an outage. (We were talking about a power outage/equipment failure scenario possibly tipping the balance toward a crash, right?)

-Matt

 

[mcarroll]

This is very very different from what carbon dosing is in aquariums. Ocean acidification is from CO2 - a inorganic compound. We dose organic carbon. It is drastically different in metabolic and chemical pathways.

They all end up in the carbon cycle regardless of the method of introduction, just like in our tanks....and I think this (a jacked up carbon cycle) is where the problems are in both cases....tho there's still a lot to learn.

Maybe I'm wrong and it's all good! LOL.

-Matt

 

[mcarroll]

[...]I will say again that while I started dosing carbon for nutrients I continue to dose NOT for nutrient but to increase the microfauna like zooplankton which our system don't contain anywhere near the numbers as the reef. Here is an artlice that talks about carbon and microfauna a little bit:

Filter and suspension feeders

[...]

Excellent info! Check out the idea in post #134. Parallel thoughts!

-Matt

 

[Reefing Madness]

I don't know much about sulfur denitrification but it seems to be used in very extreme cases on very large systems. Generally I have read about it being used on fish only tanks.

They are just a bit tougher and a bit more cost involved in running these. And they act quickly when they are running.