Another conversation about how to chemically reduce nitrates.

[Reefing Madness]

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

The only time an O2 depletion would come into account with carbon dosing would be when its at its peak of eliminating the high end nitrates, it would not occur during normal daily maintenance doses.

 

[Reefing Madness]

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.

Killing anything by overdosing a tank is very rare, as with vinegar or even vodka, you would need an aweful lot, and I mean a bunch in order to really throw the tank off.
The high doseage of vodka, as in bringing down nitrates, you will see a cloudy tank, this happens because of the high count of bacteria. Its gonna happen. There is a formula to vodka dosing, and I can get pretty darn close to tellin you chat your daily doseage will be once your nitrates have gone down to where the person wants them to be, no matter what or how much Live Rock you have in the system.
And correct, long term use is due to not wanting to do massive water changes to keep the system stable to begin with. I am one of the guilty parties, I've been dosing vodka for a couple of years, and only do sparse water changes here and there, I think I did 2 last year alone.

 

[beaslbob]

The only time an O2 depletion would come into account with carbon dosing would be when its at its peak of eliminating the high end nitrates, it would not occur during normal daily maintenance doses.

Or you could just use macro and other algaes the recycle wastes into fish food, consume carbon dioxide and return oxygen.

my .02

 

[Reefing Madness]

Or you could just use macro and other algaes the recycle wastes into fish food, consume carbon dioxide and return oxygen.

my .02

Last time I checked, those options didnt' have anything to do with Chemical Reducing Nitrates.
Also, you and I need to finally get to battling this Macro and sump thing, because you never explain that if the thing isn't big enough, the macro isn't going to do squat for your tank.

 

[beaslbob]

Last time I checked, those options didnt' have anything to do with Chemical Reducing Nitrates.
Also, you and I need to finally get to battling this Macro and sump thing, because you never explain that if the thing isn't big enough, the macro isn't going to do squat for your tank.

the macro make the chemicals unnecessary.

and we could just agree to disagree.

my .02

 

[Pete polyp]

Last time I checked, those options didnt' have anything to do with Chemical Reducing Nitrates.
Also, you and I need to finally get to battling this Macro and sump thing, because you never explain that if the thing isn't big enough, the macro isn't going to do squat for your tank.

A small fuge will have an impact even if its small. It may not provide complete nutrient export but it will provide oxygen and allow a place where a pod population can be protected. Pods in my opinion are a vital part of a clean up crew. A small fuge with macro should still consume some nitrate and phosphate as well. To be stand alone it will have to be very large compared to the size of a well stocked display. I believe the best way to have a healthy reef is to incorporate many nutrient export methods so that they work together.

 

[Pete polyp]

the macro make the chemicals unnecessary.

and we could just agree to disagree.

my .02

This is true, however in reality most hobbyists don't have the room for a fuge that can be efficient to remove all nutrients. Most have to rely on mechanical, natural or chemical means to export nutrients. These can all be used together as well with great results.

 

[Reefing Madness]

No, its makes no sense to use a fuge if its not big enough, many, many people wonder why they still have to do large water changes with a fuge....hmmm, because its to small, the nutrient export isnt there, you can't grow enough to make it worth while. It has to be big enough, you have to have enough of an area for the export and growth to take place.
Your right, it will take up a small portion of your exports, but is it worth it.

*bob*
There is no disagree to it, I can poke to many holes in your idea, and take it apart. Your Fuge has got to be big enough to export all those nutrients you have in the tank. Its not possible for it to happen in a much smaller fuge than the DT.

 

[Pete polyp]

No, its makes no sense to use a fuge if its not big enough, many, many people wonder why they still have to do large water changes with a fuge....hmmm, because its to small, the nutrient export isnt there, you can't grow enough to make it worth while. It has to be big enough, you have to have enough of an area for the export and growth to take place.
Your right, it will take up a small portion of your exports, but is it worth it.

*bob*
There is no disagree to it, I can poke to many holes in your idea, and take it apart. Your Fuge has got to be big enough to export all those nutrients you have in the tank. Its not possible for it to happen in a much smaller fuge than the DT.

Why would it not make sense to remove a tiny bit of nutrients any way possible. There are other benefits to having macro algae besides nutrient export. Adding oxygen to the water, limiting ph swing through reverse lighting, putting a dent in nuisance algae etc.

I agree that its impractical for most of us to use a fuge at the only means of nutrient removal. But what else is 100% stand alone? From what I understand nothing! To me its like you're saying "why have live rock if you will still have to have other means of nutrient export?"

 

[Reefing Madness]

To me, why would you run it, if you still have to make the needed water changes anyways? I know it will help some, but if its not big enough, then why do it, when there are plenty of other things that can be done to eliminate the Nitrates all together. Just thinkin out loud here.

 

[mcarroll]

Last time I checked, those options didnt' have anything to do with Chemical Reducing Nitrates.
Also, you and I need to finally get to battling this Macro and sump thing, because you never explain that if the thing isn't big enough, the macro isn't going to do squat for your tank.

I don't need macro algae, but I would think that if the growth rate is fast enough and the harvest rate can match that, then space isn't going to be a limiting factor.

I know some people do grow huge masses of chaeto, for example, but that may be circumstantial....growth rates may not be high enough or they may not be doing it right, or they may just like having a lot on hand to trade/sell, etc.

An algae scrubber is probably a better use of space if your sump is very small but you still just can't cut back your bio-load to fix the issue. (Sounds like tank is too small and sump is too small if this is your scenario....cutting bio-load or upgrading would be a good idea.)

-Matt

 

[Pete polyp]

To me, why would you run it, if you still have to make the needed water changes anyways? I know it will help some, but if its not big enough, then why do it, when there are plenty of other things that can be done to eliminate the Nitrates all together. Just thinkin out loud here.

I'm enjoying the discussion, do feel free to think out loud

With both my systems water change has not been any form of nutrient export. One has no sump, or skimmer, the other does have both and also has a ball of chaeto. I knew when I designed this tank that the fuge would not play a significant role in nutrient export, but would also aid in export to some degree. There are many fringe benefits to having a fuge with some macro in it, as I have previously listed several. To me there has to be several different things working together to have a thriving reef. If there was any stand alone method that was practical at the current time then we would be seeing tanks with nothing but corals and fish in it. When building a system things need to be thought out with nutrient removal in mind. Are you going to use dsb? Skimmer? Fuge? Carbon source? What you intend to stock should also be a factor too. Are you going to have 1" of fish per 50 gallons? Is it going to be sps dominant? Etc. The answer to those questions for me lead me to have a multifaceted approach at nutrient export. I chose to have that skimmer, to use a carbon source, to have a fuge.

 

[Daniel@R2R]

I'm enjoying the discussion, do feel free to think out loud

With both my systems water change has not been any form of nutrient export. One has no sump, or skimmer, the other does have both and also has a ball of chaeto. I knew when I designed this tank that the fuge would not play a significant role in nutrient export, but would also aid in export to some degree. There are many fringe benefits to having a fuge with some macro in it, as I have previously listed several. To me there has to be several different things working together to have a thriving reef. If there was any stand alone method that was practical at the current time then we would be seeing tanks with nothing but corals and fish in it. When building a system things need to be thought out with nutrient removal in mind. Are you going to use dsb? Skimmer? Fuge? Carbon source? What you intend to stock should also be a factor too. Are you going to have 1" of fish per 50 gallons? Is it going to be sps dominant? Etc. The answer to those questions for me lead me to have a multifaceted approach at nutrient export. I chose to have that skimmer, to use a carbon source, to have a fuge.

+1 I also prefer a multifaceted approach. I find there are secondary benefits to multiple nutrient export methods, and I like having those benefits as well. For example, I like that carbon dosing also seems good for corals by providing extra micro food for them. I like that macro adds oxygen and also a breeding ground for pods to multiply. I like that the skimmer oxygenates the water as well...I also tend to think that a system with multiple methods is more efficient than one that has all of its proverbial eggs in one basket.

 

[Reefing Madness]

Absolutely correct, without all the varaibles in place, its impossible to say which should be used and which shouldn't. I agree 100% with that.
Bob would have you partition off a 10g tank, then add macro to that. Now you've got a 6g tank, - rock and sand, now you've got a 3-4g tank for fish, that you now can't put in that said tank.

 

[mcarroll]

Absolutely correct, without all the varaibles in place, its impossible to say which should be used and which shouldn't. I agree 100% with that.
Bob would have you partition off a 10g tank, then add macro to that. Now you've got a 6g tank, - rock and sand, now you've got a 3-4g tank for fish, that you now can't put in that said tank.

I think a moderate stocking strategy eliminates a large number of the variables you're talking about, making what's not needed much more clear. The ambiguity about filtration methods isn't mandatory...just goes with certain methods of reef keeping. Pushing the stocking level drives up complexity, cost, etc. All increasing the overall risk factor for the tank's inhabitants as well as their dependence on more intensive husbandry or more and more automation.

If you have a 10 gallon tank and don't want to do any water changes, why be in denial of the size of the tank and go through any of that?

Why not stock accordingly for 10 gallons (less live rock and sand volume), perhaps adding a (e.g.) small Tunze skimmer or Reefpack and keep it just that simple? There would be tons of livestock options if you were open-minded, and not that many limits on coral if you want to add dosing for stonies to your responsibilities. Keep out the stonies and it's not hard to have a near zero-maintenance reef. Just automate the top-off function and maybe the dosing for stony corals if you opt for them. You could even integrate macro algae within the main display if you felt the need - there are good options. Mostly there would just be less fish than "normal", but still plenty of everything. Display space is maximized as well.

-Matt

 

[beaslbob]

Absolutely correct, without all the varaibles in place, its impossible to say which should be used and which shouldn't. I agree 100% with that.
Bob would have you partition off a 10g tank, then add macro to that. Now you've got a 6g tank, - rock and sand, now you've got a 3-4g tank for fish, that you now can't put in that said tank.

1) IMHO it's better to have a 6 gallon tank balanced out with algae the a 10g with chemicals. Besides the live rock has algae on it anways.

2) so just get a 20g partition it and have more space anway.


my .02

 

[hart24601]

This thread is an interesting conversation about different philosophies and terminology in reefkeeping. But coming back to carbon dosing I have tried to provide links and plenty of evidence for many of the points below:

1. Reef tanks have been kept for years without it, and it's not required to keep a healthy and happy tank. This is a large statement and can apply to fuges, stocking densities and so on.
2. Some view carbon dosing as a band-aid, others as just feeding the microfauna that is not present in our systems when compared to a reef. Chemically it is much simpler than the fish food most people add.
3. Carbon dosing is effective at reducing nitrates. See the above point, some view the nitrates as an indicator of poor husbandry, others see the low nitrates after dosing and the carbon is just another husbandry technique.
4. Carbon dosing's exact mechanism isn't that well known. It obviously increases microscopic life, but does not seem to increase water column levels of bacteria. The theory is that nitrates and phosphates or utilized and skimmed out, but I have not seen skimate analysis.
5. Carbon dosing appears to be quite safe. Scouring many forums there are only rare reports of serious problems.
6. Issues can include stripping the water of all nutrients, increased cyano, and burnt SPS tips with alk that is too high. Cloudy water also can occur, but does not seem to be harmful.
7. Liquid carbon dosing can be used to feed, or help feed, filter feeding organisms, such as feather dusters and clams, along with coral.
8. It can be very cheap to dose.
9. It is a chemical, but so is the salt mix we use. Chemically it is much simpler than the fish food most people add. If you really want to be a stickler about being natural there are marine yeasts that produce ethanol. Bioethanol production by mangrove-derived marine yeast, Sacchromyces cerevisiae. In fact, it appears they are very good.


Interestingly I found this converstation about the "slime" some get when dosing too much. Post 82, apparently this surgeon took some samples to the pathology lab and there were few bacteria present in the samples. What's Your Problem With Bio-Pellets? - Page 4 - Reef Central Online Community. I wouldn't be surprised if they were extracellular polysaccharides, but hopefully more research gets done with carbon dosing. I would like to see analysis of skimmer contents pre and post dosing along with microbial population changes. Of course that would be bacterial only around 16s DNA, but with a bit of research perhaps some of the bacteria consumers could be included eventually. The Dr was using eco-BAK, so perhaps that lends credit to the manufacturer claims that their product is different from other pellets. Of course I dose to feed the microfauna, so I want the carbon in the display!

 

[mcarroll]

Great summary and links! (Yes, I even read the thread from "over there". :car

It seems the biggest difference between me and the guys with the electron microscopes is that where I had suspicions, they know with certainty that we have absolutely no idea what's going on. :thumb:

I mean the "bacterial mats" aren't bacterial and the pellets seem to have no bacteria. From prior sources we know there's no increase in bacteria in the water column.

Are bacteria even involved with the operation of bio-pellets/carbon dosing? I would still guess "yes" but it seems based on the available research even that's an open question at this point. LOL

But at least they work. (For most people. (Most of the time.))

-Matt

P.S. All assuming we trust this guy on RC's research...seems sound from what little I know though.

 

[Mason Dixon]

I don't see how it gets much better than carbon dosing. The consumption of N & P happens in every nook and cranny in the DT before it is taken up by algae.... every other method relies on the water to pass through something in the sump of which only a fraction gets denitrated.

 

[Daniel@R2R]

BUMP! This thread has all kinds of info in it! Any new conversation/contribution?