Is Carbon, Nitrate, and Phosphate Dosing Bad For the Hobby?

Is carbon dosing bad for the hobby?

  • Yes

    Votes: 22 21.8%
  • No

    Votes: 74 73.3%
  • What's carbon dosing?

    Votes: 5 5.0%

  • Total voters
    101

Mortie31

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Apr 5, 2016
Messages
1,789
Reaction score
3,005
Location
Uttoxeter. England
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I guess having high DOC in an aquarium is possible, but I've performed the Five-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand test a number of times. These were performed in accordance with EPA-approved methods (incubation in darkness for 120 hours at 20C, and used either a polarographic or one of the newer luminescent dissolved oxygen probes. These were 'straight' samples with no dilution - a full 30 milliliters was used.) For the test to be valid, there has to be a drop of at least 2 ppm dissolved oxygen but the most I ever saw was 0.2 ppm. These samples were spiked with a chemical that inhibits nitrification, thus they are reported as Carbonaceous Oxygen Demand. I wasn't dosing any carbon source (methanol, vodka, carbon-based additive, etc.) so it is possible that some aquaria have high levels of organic carbon, I just haven't personally seen one.
It will be interesting to see results on DOC as more people start to use N-DOC testing, unfortunately I have little faith in triton over this as they won’t fully explain there conclusions or share the data they based it on, here’s a link to their “technical” paper, they refuse to answer any questions on there methodology at all, be interested on your thoughts Dana.
 

Dana Riddle

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
3,162
Reaction score
7,606
Location
Dallas, Georgia
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
It will be interesting to see results on DOC as more people start to use N-DOC testing, unfortunately I have little faith in triton over this as they won’t fully explain there conclusions or share the data they based it on, here’s a link to their “technical” paper, they refuse to answer any questions on there methodology at all, be interested on your thoughts Dana.
I'm not familiar with the CHNS analyzer, but do have some experience with a Total Organic Carbon (TOC) analyzer. This device uses combustion to burn the carbon off, analyzes that and subtracts inorganic carbon (CO2, carbonates, etc.) to arrive at TOC. The US EPA allows TOC to be reported in lieu of the time-sensitive BOD5 test if a correlation between the two is established. The BOD test can be performed if you have access to a dissolved oxygen meter and a dark, cool space. I don't think the Winkler DO test will work in seawater.
 

MabuyaQ

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
432
Reaction score
602
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
C, N and P dosing are all tools that are very usefull for a reeftank as you can use them to stimulate bacteriological filtration with these bacteria themselves becoming food for the ecosystem in your aquarium. The only question is in what form do you dose. A question not answered easily because it depends on many factors and this is where most problems arise because many don't know/understand all these factors and or recognize they are dosing C, N and P into their aquariums let alone at what amount and if this is balanced.
So in my opinion there is nothing wrong to use dosing of C and/or N and/or P individually or combined in whatever combination is needed to keep thing balanced. It is no different when using a Ca-reactor and adjusting small deviations with some kind of balingsalt or other product.
 

Mortie31

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Apr 5, 2016
Messages
1,789
Reaction score
3,005
Location
Uttoxeter. England
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
So in my opinion there is nothing wrong to use dosing of C and/or N and/or P individually or combined in whatever combination is needed to keep thing balanced.
Nothing wrong with keeping levels at whatever you personally want, but interested in what you mean by balanced
 
OP
OP
Ike

Ike

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Feb 19, 2007
Messages
1,751
Reaction score
1,014
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Thx for this thread. I was just starting to toy with n and p dosing but did not understand it. Will now proceed or not with more caution.

No problem, the main reason I made this thread is so people such as yourself can have a better idea of what they're getting into, and what to look out for if they proceed with carbon dosing after the warnings. N and P dosing was even more unpredictable and the tank became so dependent on my inputs and me upping the inputs that I felt like I was in Little Shop of Horrors and my tank was Seymour.
 

Mortie31

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Apr 5, 2016
Messages
1,789
Reaction score
3,005
Location
Uttoxeter. England
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Skip ahead to the last two sentences if you have a short attention span.

I've seen a huge number of things come and go in this hobby and fall in and out of favor. Most of them are relatively harmless and just leave the aquarist out some money, nearly every single element that people dose outside the big three could full under these. Potassium, strontium, molybdenum, "trace elements", amino acids. All superfluous and relatively harmless to dose.

In the early days of carbon dosing some people started doing so without even realizing it by dosing vitamin C, and prior to that there were some people playing around with vodka and a little later VSV. It could yield some great results in tanks that had elevated nutrient levels, at least in the short term. In the long term it often led to people with "burnt tips" pale corals and corals suffering from phosphorous and nitrogen being too low. Then people started dosing amino acids and seeing some corals color up, likely because they were acting as a nitrogen source for a nitrogen starved coral, and likely not because the amino acids themselves are needed by the corals, or even utilized.

I was largely away from the hobby for some years due to a disastrous move and some lack of motivation to revamp my now mediocre reef. Now that I'm more active on the forums again it's really sad to see how many new aquarists are suggesting carbon dosing for people that have detectable levels, nitrates to maintain a certain level, or PO4 to maintain a certain level. All of these mess with the balance of natural bacterial populations and can be very harmful to corals if you don't understand the possible damage you can do by manipulating bacterial populations to unnaturally low levels and making certain corals deprived of a necessary nutrient. Now that supplement companies have made overpriced sugar a popular dosing additive it's far more widespread and potentially harmful than ever.

For anyone new that might read this, give your tank a good 6 months to stabilize, if your nitrates are elevated (25ish + ppm) and rising then get a bigger protein skimmer, consider handling food input differently and make sure all mechanical filtration is changed frequently. If they're low or non detectable and everything looks fine, maybe feed a little more or otherwise stay the course. If Acropora are looking pale, throwing out a lot of mesenterial filaments at feeding time, or have "burnt tips" then you should up your fish load and/or add an extra feeding in during the day, preferably something high protein like a good flake or pellet food, cutting down on skimming is another option to consider. Dosing nitrate if nitrate is too low will likely lead to driving phosphates too low and doing damage to corals, dosing phoshates when they're too low likely will lead to nitrogen being used up too quickly and not as readily available as needed for healthy coral growth.

Yes, some people have been able to find a balance with their manipulating of bacterial populations, but there are very few that are able to do so long term without having a lot of luck on their side. No one understands fully what's happening, but my speculation is that it's related to the redfield ratio and which is the ratio. The Redfield ratio is a relatively constant ratio of 1 that the biomass in the worlds oceans usedcarbon, nitrogen and phosphorous at a relatively constant ratio of 106:16:1. More recent studios have suggested a slightly different ratio of C:N:p 163:22:1. The exact number doesn't matter for our needs, but what matters is that all are available in adequate supply in our aquariums, drive one of them too low and damage can be done, and that seems especially true with Acropora species.

I've always liked to experiment and am an early adopter or at least like trying new things and ways to do anything reef aquarium related. I went on a few wild rides with my tanks, first with vodka and carbon dosing, second with chasing a nitrate number, and finally chasing a phosphate number. Once I had been carbon dosing for some months it was clear that it was very difficult to control the bacterial populations, and that corals were losing out on nutrients. Cutting back the carbon dose wasn't helping, stopping the dose wasn't helping either, or at least not fast enough. I'm now not dosing My PO4 was usually between .05 and .12 using GFO intermittently , I couldn't find a trace of any nitrogen source, so I deduce that I need nitrogen and probably wrongly land on nitrate. Corals don't look bad at this point, they just look a little paler than I like (think SunnyX T5 tank). A few days later I start dosing and boosting nitrate to 5 ppm and find a weekly dose that drops close to non detectable before my next dose. My corals are starting to look pretty good again, especially my Montipora that got pale. For those still reading, this is a great canary coral, if your red/orange Montiporas looking pale, one of your nutrients is getting too low.

Some weeks pass and corals start to pale up again. I start testing nitrate more regularly and realize it's bottoming out in 3-4 days. I up the dose... I keep upping the dose and I find a rhythm, all is good! Corals look better, all algae is subsiding, I'm happy. I'm feeding tons of flake food, I have the fattest happiest convict tang ever seen. Little do I know, my phosphate has been creeping down this whole time. I tested one day with my Hanna PO4 Checker and get a reading of .04, I'm a little shocked, but corals look great.

A couple months pass and corals are starting to look rough, mesenterial filaments to the extreme every time I fed the tank, and it appeared to be a stress reaction, especially when flesh was very thin and coming off the tips of some corals, others very pale and pastel. At this point I'd had enough and decided to stop dosing, but the numbers weren't rising. I decided I was just going to keep adding fish and keeping them fat with lots of flake food until I could keep corals with deep rich colors. Some years later that tank using simple methods won tank of the month in Reefkeeping magazine and looked far more beautiful and grown in than those photos showed before it was torn down due to a move.

I'm not saying no one should carbon dose, or play around with nitrate and phosphate dosing. All I'm saying is that you'd better understand what's happening and not look at it like just any old bottle of mostly water supplement you could dump in your tank and not have it do much. You also had better have a keen eye for a slightly distressed coral, because if you don't, you won't see the potential damage until it's too late. These are thing that you can dose and do serious damage with, and the slow progression of corals getting better for a while after you start dosing makes a lot of aquarists think this stuff is just great. It's bad for the hobby because it fools many people into thinking their tank is improving, when there's a good chance they're heading down a slippery slope that will at least harm and impeded the growth of their prized corals.

This hobby would be in a much better place if people didn't chase numbers using liquids and would simply make adjustments via their fish load, feeding, and protein skimming. It's a delicate balance to find, but it's far more forgiving of the extremes of messing around with manipulating bacterial populations via overpriced sugar and water or some fertilizer and water. Most supplement companies are the modern day equivalent of snake oil salesmen. If they think they can convince you something makes a difference and is good for the aquariums we love, they know we will buy it. They don't care if passing off a bottle of sugar and RO water as some miracle nitrate and phosphate reducer means you'll eventually struggle to find the right balance of nutrients in your tank. They just want their $20 and hope you never attribute their product to the death of your Acropora and just think about how the product/system/method colored up their corals. Any of the companies that are selling this stuff and realize the harm it can cause should be ashamed of themselves. The ones that don't realize how damaging it can be shouldn't be selling it. The ones that barely put anything in their product other than water, you're also bad for the hobby, but at least you're not killing peoples corals with heavy carbon dosing?

I'm not a scientist, and my basis for this is my many years of experience and reading whatever I can about marine biology, corals and aquariums. This is something I believe to be true, so someone with a science background please school me on this if you can. I get the sense that a coral being nitrogen limited is something that it's pretty well adapted to, I believe it's the most common limiting factor if one considers the Redfield ratio. I believe phosphate is the one that would be a rare limiting factor for growth in nature, and that the tiny amount required for growth is often available in a variety of marine environment in abundance. It at least seems to lead to the possibility that corals do not do as well as they could, but can tolerate when low nitrogen is a limiting factor of growth. If you can somehow figure out a way to dose to get your phosphate so low that it's barely detectable (.02-.03ish), you're potentially going to do some damage, perhaps because Acropora are poorly adapted to being P starved. The damage that using granular ferric oxide and aluminum oxide too aggressively seems to support that belief. Lanthanum chloride users, probably don't see it as much since it doesn't seem to be capable of driving levels too low. However, is too rapidly, say a jump from .23 to .10 also damaging and possibly a difficult change to adapt to? Any coral biologists around?

Stop feeling the need to dump liquid in all the time, there are safer and better ways to solve your short term problems and have long term success! For anyone that made it this far, I'm sorry, and I commend you for putting up with my awful writing and punctuation for this long :p

Let me know if you think I'm off my rocker, or if you agree. Do you think carbon, nitrate, and phosphate dosing is bad for the hobby?
Sorry duplicate
 

maksim serebro

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 19, 2015
Messages
318
Reaction score
96
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
No problem, the main reason I made this thread is so people such as yourself can have a better idea of what they're getting into, and what to look out for if they proceed with carbon dosing after the warnings. N and P dosing was even more unpredictable and the tank became so dependent on my inputs and me upping the inputs that I felt like I was in Little Shop of Horrors and my tank was Seymour.

What would you recommend to someone with no detectable phosphates and 80-100 nitrates? 25% water changes aren’t making a dent
 

road_runner

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
2,325
Reaction score
2,293
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
What would you recommend to someone with no detectable phosphates and 80-100 nitrates? 25% water changes aren’t making a dent
Water change
Aggressive husbandry, cleaning substrates, filter socks..ect
Mindfull feeding
Double check your test kits
Good activated carbon in reactor is possible
Wet skimming
Double check your test kits...
 

ZaneTer

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
922
Reaction score
878
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
What would you recommend to someone with no detectable phosphates and 80-100 nitrates? 25% water changes aren’t making a dent
If I may add an answer. I would add some trisodium phosphate @ 0.1ppm per day until it remains detectable. This may take a while but you should see a nice controlled drop in nitrate. Your corals will be thankful too but you will end up with a little more algae on the glass.

FWIW I have played with adding 1ppm PO4 in a day when it was exhausted in my tank and found it undetectable 24hrs later.
 

maksim serebro

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 19, 2015
Messages
318
Reaction score
96
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Definitely a +1 to checking your test kit.

Ordered a new test kit. Although I trust my test kit. I measured it against my QT tank and it measured 20ppm nitrates for QT and around 100 for display. So, I shouldnt get nopox or biopellets? Just large water changes and dose some phosphate?
 

maksim serebro

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 19, 2015
Messages
318
Reaction score
96
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Two months ago I did dose flacanazole to treat bryopsis in the tank. Left medication in the tank for 3 weeks. Bryopsis died. Maybe algae has a hard time growing now and that’s the reason for the spike? Still doesn’t explain the missing phosphate
 

ZaneTer

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
922
Reaction score
878
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Nopox and biopellets are just carbon dosing, done too quickly can be a recipe for disaster.

I’ll bet your nitrates didn’t get this high overnight so just take a nice slow and steady approach to fixing it. Too rapid a change in nitrates can be disastrous.

I really mean take things slow, whatever you think slow is you should half that speed.
 

maksim serebro

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 19, 2015
Messages
318
Reaction score
96
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Nopox and biopellets are just carbon dosing, done too quickly can be a recipe for disaster.

I’ll bet your nitrates didn’t get this high overnight so just take a nice slow and steady approach to fixing it. Too rapid a change in nitrates can be disastrous.

I really mean take things slow, whatever you think slow is you should half that speed.

By nice and slow you mean just good husbandry and water changes. Nothing else right?
 

ZaneTer

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
922
Reaction score
878
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
By nice and slow you mean just good husbandry and water changes. Nothing else right?
No I mean if you go down the route of dosing you should only add tiny amounts. If you go for phosphate dosing I recommend only 0.1ppm per day and it could be 2 weeks before you get detectable PO4 levels. If you go for NO3 I recommend 1ppm per day.

If you don’t have much experience dosing chemicals then I suggest you avoid carbon dosing entirely.

By slow I mean “Rome wasn’t built in a day” and making changes in a reef can take weeks before the finals effects show themselves. Fast changes will only end in disaster.
 

ZaneTer

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
922
Reaction score
878
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
By nice and slow you mean just good husbandry and water changes. Nothing else right?
If you have corals that you are dosing alk for you will need to test a little more regularly. You will probably see a large increase in alkalinity demand as you add the phosphate.
 

road_runner

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
2,325
Reaction score
2,293
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
By nice and slow you mean just good husbandry and water changes. Nothing else right?
And good activated carbon every month or even less
And less feeding
And cleaning filter socks
And vacuuming sand if you can during wc.
And skimming wet
Check your main return flow. If you do not have good flow your skimmer will skim clean water and reduced in efficiency
You want your return to be 5 to 10 times the system volume.
Or at least double the skimmer intake flow rate.
I have got in the past a problem of high nutrients that after painful proccess realized it was my return flow that was reduced alot and reduced the efficiency of my mechanical filtration. Once o changed my pump to a ligit one (red dragon) issue resolved in 3 months
 

Rick.45cal

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
3,693
Reaction score
9,214
Location
Lakeland Florida
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Misusing any product in this hobby will have disasterous consequences.

Maybe I take for granted a concept as an old school reefer that others aren’t privy to and that’s aquarium additive companies want to sell you aquarium additives so their recomended doses are inflated. Sure “some” things are “harmless” but nearly anything added in a high enough dosage to a reef aquarium will cause disasterous consequences. Also on the flip side of the coin it’s pretty impossible for a company to accurately predict what your bioload of you system is and what makes up that bioload. So providing a perfectly accurate dosage for anything is really an impossibility, it’s hard to blame a company for that.

I personally think carbon dosing is one of the biggest revolutions in reef keeping, but as with every powerful tool, it’s easily overused or used improperly, and that has consequences. But being overused and used improperly aren’t the methodologies fault, that lies solely on the operator of the system.

There seems to be this persistent and fundamental belief in this hobby that we need to micromange a reef aquarium’s parameters when often that micromanagement is the root cause of the problems in the system. Instead of teaching people how to tell via coral growth and health we speak in numbers, values of parameters. Parameters are important, but the folks that reef exclusively by numbers are almost always the ones struggling.

Part of the fundamental misunderstanding (in my opinion) in this hobby is the misunderstanding of what an “equilibrium” is in respects to a closed ecosystem. Any punctuated and infrequent dosing of anything is a change in equilibrium. Corals are able to live in many different parameters, yes there are parameters where they may grow faster, or be more brightly colored. But they all do better when things aren’t changing, especially constant big changes. You cannot make big changes in any system and not reap some sort of side effect. Almost everyone who has any sort of success in this hobby long term understands how to create a long term equilibrium in their tank.

I don’t think it’s fair to generalize carbon dosing as being “bad for the hobby”. Reef2Reef is equally full of people killing their corals because they don’t understand GFO, or don’t think they should feed because their phosphates will increase, or don’t understand that blindly adding additives to a complex ecosystem has consequences.

Just because your experience of punctuated dosing of nitrates and phospates was bad, creating a yo-yo effect of nutrients does not mean the concept is flawed, it merely means that your implementation of the methodology was flawed. Once again we are back to creating an equilibrium and punctuated dosing of anything doesn’t lead to creating an equilibrium.

Implementation of methodologies is important, if not paramount in some instances. New aquarist especially tend to think they need to do things like run GFO, carbon dose and run a refugium chock full of chaeto all at the same time (more is ALWAYS better right?) and then wonder why their corals starve. But carbon dosing is the culprit, when nearly all of the methodologies that employ those individual tactics warn not to use any other methods in that list, but when their corals starve it’s carbon dosing to blame. The reality is that the aquarist is to blame for not paying attention or not taking the time to learn what’s going on in their tank, or worse listening to their ego that thinks the rules don’t apply to them.

Is carbon dosing/ nitrate, phosphate dosing the end all be all answer to reef keeping? No of course it isn’t? Is it a tool that if used carefully and dilligently can and does produce results? Absolutely. Is it something for everyone to do? Definitely not! Is it the boogeyman that this thread seems bent on displaying it as, I definitely don’t think so.

Reef keeping is a highly specialized skill that’s very challenging, if it wasn’t most of us wouldn’t be interested in it. There’s no easy solution to keeping complex organisms in a closed environment. But removing the end user from the blame game is what’s truly detrimental to the hobby. In the end, it’s our responsibility how/why we make decisions and the whirlwind we reap because of those decisions is purely of our own making.

Just my $.02!
 

maksim serebro

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 19, 2015
Messages
318
Reaction score
96
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Thank you all for your advices! I will implement your suggestions and hopefully will see results at some point!
 

Keeping it clean: Have you used a filter roller?

  • I currently use a filter roller.

    Votes: 74 34.9%
  • I don’t currently use a filter roller, but I have in the past.

    Votes: 7 3.3%
  • I have never used a filter roller, but I plan to in the future.

    Votes: 57 26.9%
  • I have never used a filter roller and have no plans to in the future.

    Votes: 66 31.1%
  • Other.

    Votes: 8 3.8%

New Posts

Back
Top