Carbon dosing or algae reactor

[griff500]

I've put this in this section as the question relates more to the tank chemistry than equipment choices.

Both are methods of nitrate and phosphate control. Both have their advantages. I'm interested in whether you would choose one over the other, and your reasons for doing so, or perhaps both?

I'm dosing vinegar at the moment and starting to wonder if there is too much carbon and that is feeding cyano (I seem to recall reading about an alleged link somewhere, whereby an imbalance can create the environment for cyano and too much carbon can do this).

I'm leaning toward a minimal dose of vinegar and using my algae reactor to do the majority of the work.

What are your thoughts and your reasons for those thoughts?

 

[chipmunkofdoom2]

Organic carbon dosing can encourage cyano growth, specifically ethanol (vodka), but so can many other things. Generally speaking, cyanobacteria means excess phosphates. Organic carbon dosing, when done properly, removes a lot of nitrates and a little bit of phosphates. So your problem could be that you have very little nitrates and a good bit of phosphates. Macro algae might remove a bit more phopshate than organic carbon dosing, but still, macroalgae uses much more nitrates than phosphates.

I personally prefer macro algae. It's self-limiting and usually won't drive nutrients too low. If you have excess phosphates, which I suspect you might, then you just need to dose some nitrates. The algae will use the additional nitrates and reduce the phosphates in the process. Personally, I've never had much luck growing macro algae, so I've taken the organic carbon dosing route. But if I could, I would go macro algae.

 

[pluikens]

I have a refugium growing chaeto on an opposite light schedule to my display. Nitrates stay below 1 ppm doing a 10% biweekly water change. I dose other trace elements and my ICP test has come back good so I'm actually going to change water every month now, still 10%. My new system is 250 total gallons so far with a 40-gallon refugium. I will always recommend a refugium if you have the room.

 

[mta_morrow]

I've put this in this section as the question relates more to the tank chemistry than equipment choices.

Both are methods of nitrate and phosphate control. Both have their advantages. I'm interested in whether you would choose one over the other, and your reasons for doing so, or perhaps both?

I'm dosing vinegar at the moment and starting to wonder if there is too much carbon and that is feeding cyano (I seem to recall reading about an alleged link somewhere, whereby an imbalance can create the environment for cyano and too much carbon can do this).

I'm leaning toward a minimal dose of vinegar and using my algae reactor to do the majority of the work.

What are your thoughts and your reasons for those thoughts?

can you tell us your tank and sump size, latest test results, and perhaps your stock list and feeding regimen?

I also just asked a very similar question yesterday.
if you don't mind, here is the link:
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/should-i-reduce-my-nitrates-and-phosphates.405114/

I'm interested in the responses you get so I am following along.

And by no means am I trying to hijack your thread, and I will happily remove the link if you wish

 

[griff500]

can you tell us your tank and sump size, latest test results, and perhaps your stock list and feeding regimen?

All is going fine and corals are growing, albeit colour isn't great. I've just got a bit of an imbalance due to a Hanna checker giving a high phosphate reading that turned out to be completely incorrect and based on that test kit I ended up stripping the tank of phosphate while still dosing vinegar. Cyano appeared in these circumstances and so I'm thinking too much carbon could be the cause rather than too much phosphate as I have no measurable phosphate - I'm actually dosing phosphate and still reading zero using a Red Sea Pro test kit that has been checked for accuracy. I expect the rock still needs to soak a bit more up to get a balance. I've already had discussions on here about test kits, reference solutions, etc, so we don't need to go back over that. ATI tests are coming back ok in all other areas.

I appreciate the effort to go into detail about the entire tank but the only issue is the lack of phosphate and that is being dealt with. Once I have balance I am confident that the cyano will disappear again. The point of my post was to see what people think about combining these methods of removing nutrients as I have a feeling that reducing carbon could help matters but still need a nutrient export method in place but I also like having some carbon going into the system.

So, I'm really looking for thoughts on combining these methods of nutrient management - ensuring some carbon going into the system but with algae for the majority of nutrient export. I have a feeling it could be a reasonable way forward and help get rid of the cyano but I'm also interested in thoughts favouring one method over the other.

I hope that's a bit clearer.

 

[griff500]

Organic carbon dosing can encourage cyano growth, specifically ethanol (vodka), but so can many other things. Generally speaking, cyanobacteria means excess phosphates. Organic carbon dosing, when done properly, removes a lot of nitrates and a little bit of phosphates. So your problem could be that you have very little nitrates and a good bit of phosphates. Macro algae might remove a bit more phopshate than organic carbon dosing, but still, macroalgae uses much more nitrates than phosphates.

I personally prefer macro algae. It's self-limiting and usually won't drive nutrients too low. If you have excess phosphates, which I suspect you might, then you just need to dose some nitrates. The algae will use the additional nitrates and reduce the phosphates in the process. Personally, I've never had much luck growing macro algae, so I've taken the organic carbon dosing route. But if I could, I would go macro algae.

Actually zero measurable phosphate and now having to dose it, so I'm inclined to think it's too much carbon (or just the general imbalance).

I like the idea of using algae but I'm thinking that keeping carbon going into the system can be useful.

 

[griff500]

I also just asked a very similar question yesterday.
if you don't mind, here is the link:
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/should-i-reduce-my-nitrates-and-phosphates.405114/

I'm interested in the responses you get so I am following along.

And by no means am I trying to hijack your thread, and I will happily remove the link if you wish

No problem.

Looking at your thread I'm not sure why you would want to do anything if all is going well? I don't think your numbers look bad for the type of stock you have.

 

[mta_morrow]

All is going fine and corals are growing, albeit colour isn't great. I've just got a bit of an imbalance due to a Hanna checker giving a high phosphate reading that turned out to be completely incorrect and based on that test kit I ended up stripping the tank of phosphate while still dosing vinegar. Cyano appeared in these circumstances and so I'm thinking too much carbon could be the cause rather than too much phosphate as I have no measurable phosphate - I'm actually dosing phosphate and still reading zero using a Red Sea Pro test kit that has been checked for accuracy. I expect the rock still needs to soak a bit more up to get a balance. I've already had discussions on here about test kits, reference solutions, etc, so we don't need to go back over that. ATI tests are coming back ok in all other areas.

I appreciate the effort to go into detail about the entire tank but the only issue is the lack of phosphate and that is being dealt with. Once I have balance I am confident that the cyano will disappear again. The point of my post was to see what people think about combining these methods of removing nutrients as I have a feeling that reducing carbon could help matters but still need a nutrient export method in place but I also like having some carbon going into the system.

So, I'm really looking for thoughts on combining these methods of nutrient management - ensuring some carbon going into the system but with algae for the majority of nutrient export. I have a feeling it could be a reasonable way forward and help get rid of the cyano but I'm also interested in thoughts favouring one method over the other.

I hope that's a bit clearer.

gotcha…...afraid I cant offer any advice or experiences as I have never been in that position before. Still gonna follow along to see what others recommend!

 

[CDavmd]

I used to dose vodka when it first was first brought up years ago. It works very well. Too well actually and you need to keep a close eye because as was stated cyano can take off.

I switched to Nopox a few years back. Also works well but if you over do it you will see bacterial slime blooms over your rock and everywhere else. The issue is it can drive your phosphates too low. Corals will suffer and worse the dreaded Dino’s will appear (ask me how I know).

I’ve moved to growing chaeto as part of the trident method. It won’t bottom things out and is much more natural.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I chose to use both at the same time as they can partially make up for each other’s shortcomings.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I’ve moved to growing chaeto as part of the trident method. It won’t bottom things out and is much more natural.

It isn’t more natural (both macroalgae growth and organic carbon metabolism are entirely natural), but I don’t dispute it has some advantages over carbon dosing.

But in terms of natural, the uptake and metabolism is a massive process in the ocean, and acetate may be the highest concentration organic in sediments, driving a lot of growth or organisms.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

It isn’t more natural (both macroalgae growth and organic carbon metabolism are entirely natural), but I don’t dispute it has some advantages over carbon dosing.

But in terms of natural, the uptake and metabolism of organic compounds is a massive process in the ocean, and acetate may be the highest concentration organic in sediments, driving a lot of growth or organisms.

 

[CDavmd]

Yes of course, they are both fundamentally natural biochemical processes. What I meant was that we are artificially dosing the carbon to augment the bacterial populations rather than allowing their populations to grow based on the available baseline carbon sources in the aquarium.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Yes of course, they are both fundamentally natural biochemical processes. What I meant was that we are artificially dosing the carbon to augment the bacterial populations rather than allowing their populations to grow based on the available baseline carbon sources in the aquarium.

True. We are boosting the process.[emoji3]

Sort of like we boost photosynthesis using a reactor or refugium filled with macroalgae on a reverse light cycle using additional artificial light. [emoji23]