Red Sea Comparison of various methods for Nitrate and Phosphate Reduction Chart

[Daniel@R2R]

What you guys don't know is that Randy came to R2R bc he wanted to hang out with me.

 

[CastAway]

.... Thank you Randy for all of your help in this community.

+1!

I tell people to never take the advice from, or make decisions based on the experience of, just one person. I tell them to ask the same questions repeatedly and weigh all the responses against one another, over time. In my opinion this is how hobbyists must learn in the absence of their own experience.

But, Randy is not just a hobbyist. Personally, I weigh any and everything I glean from Randy differently than I do anyone else. Next to Albert Thiel, who was my go-to resource when I first really purposed to learn, I think I may have learned more from Randy recently than anyone else. I'm excited to have access to him and think his presence here is probably the most valuable thing R2R has going on right now.

Not blowing smoke nor kissing butt. Just thankful.

Objectivity and scientific truth can be a hard thing to find in a niche where everyone is out to make a dollar.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Thanks, guys.

Getting back on topic...

I got a response from Red Sea Customer Service. I don't understand an acronym they used so asked for a clarification, but here's the pertinent part of the exchange so far:


My question to them:

"
I have some questions about some of your advertising material related to NO3PO4X.

Specifically, this web site of yours:

http://www.redseafish.com/blog/nitrate-phosphate-reduction-via-carbon-dosing/

As a start, can you explain why you think that "VSV" is a "controlled" nutrient reduction method, but vodka alone is not?

In the NO3PO4X section, you say this control comes about by monitored dosing. Couldn't vodka dosing be monitored just as well?

"The fine control of the nitrate and phosphate levels provided by monitored dosing of NO3PO4-X guarantees the gradual changes and accurate maintenance of the nutrient levels."

Thank you

Randy Holmes-Farley"

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

and the response today from Red Sea:

"
Dear Mr Randy Holmes-Farley.

Thank you for your resent enquiry regarding our No3Po4-X we are sorry for the delay in getting you a more comprehensive reply.

While “VSV” may enable control of appropriate N : P reduction ratios our research clearly shows a significant difference in reduction rates while using VFAs rather than just using ethanol / methanol.

Additionally, providing just the proper carbon source is only part of the equation and therefore even using any form of “VSV” will not guarantee proper reduction. There are important biological cofactors that become limiting factors in biological nutrient reduction with carbon. The absence of such factors can affect the complete reduction processes. The balanced carbon source and the other essential co-factors in correct proportion are the key to controlled reduction.

I hope this answers some of your questions, as I am sure you are aware it is difficult to give in-depth comprehensive answers without divulging sensitive information that could have commercial implications.

Regards
Kevin Davies
Technical Support Manager
Red Sea Group"

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

And my clarification question replied today:

"
Thanks for getting back to me, Kevin.

I’m not understanding your acronym VFA in this context, and how that relates to VSV vs ethanol only.

Thanks

Randy"

 

[Marquiseo]

And my clarification question replied today:

"
Thanks for getting back to me, Kevin.

I’m not understanding your acronym VFA in this context, and how that relates to VSV vs ethanol only.

Thanks

Randy"

I think it is volatile fatty acids. I remember that acronym from one of my bio courses a few years back.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Thanks. Yes, they may mean that and are using it as a term for the vinegar.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Assuming that is what they mean, they seem to be claiming that vodka and vinegar together is "different" in rate than vodka alone, in their experience, and presumably they mean faster, but they didn't say that.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

So I sent another question to the Red Sea rep based on assuming VFA means the vinegar in VSV (vinegar/sugar/vodka):

"
Hi again, Kevin,

Someone suggested to me that you may mean volatile fatty acids, presumably meaning the vinegar in VSV.

So when you are saying:

“While “VSV” may enable control of appropriate N : P reduction ratios our research clearly shows a significant difference in reduction rates while using VFAs rather than just using ethanol / methanol.”

Are you meaning that nutrient reduction is faster with VSV than with ethanol alone, or slower?

In either case, how does that make the rate not “controlled” for ethanol alone, which is what the web site claims?

Thanks

Randy"

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

HA! Maybe I am!!!!

But seriously next time you quote some one maybe make sure you actually use quotes. It looked like you were someone else.

Heh, who did I quote? The Red Sea rep or someone?
I've read quite a bit on it, so wouldn't be surprised if I did. After all, I know what it is to be strict on info, so I try to be concise with others' info.

 

[biom]

lol it's funny they call it acetic acid VFA, but of course this is fully understandable, they are commercial company.
But to be honest dosing pure ethanol didn't work well for me in terms of phosphate reduction and i've used GFO from time to time to lower down phosphates, but with vodka/vinegar mix I don't have such problem, even phosphates are too low now. I could not say how it is with vinegar only because i cut experiment early -my SPS didn't react well to acetate - they start browning because of boosted zooxanthellae growth probably. I don't have scientific explanation of this and i don't think RS have it either, they just using formulae that was proof to be working in practice (you remember their recipe of NOPOX resembles Tom's recipe from another forum).

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Heh, who did I quote? The Red Sea rep or someone?
I've read quite a bit on it, so wouldn't be surprised if I did. After all, I know what it is to be strict on info, so I try to be concise with others' info.

It seems you reposted a post from Aviad of Red Sea who in turn seems to be quoting Sharon Ram of Red Sea. Confusing about who was actually saying what.

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

lol it's funny they call it acetic acid VFA, but of course this is fully understandable, they are commercial company.
But to be honest dosing pure ethanol didn't work well for me in terms of phosphate reduction and i've used GFO from time to time to lower down phosphates, but with vodka/vinegar mix I don't have such problem, even phosphates are too low now. I could not say how it is with vinegar only because i cut experiment early -my SPS didn't react well to acetate - they start browning because of boosted zooxanthellae growth probably. I don't have scientific explanation of this and i don't think RS have it either, they just using formulae that was proof to be working in practice (you remember their recipe of NOPOX resembles Tom's recipe from another forum).

The thing I don't understand is how people think methanol and ethanol are the same things. (seems generically grouped to "it's just vodka", which it's not)
I also don't at all agree with "they say it's different because of proprietary ingredients, therefore inherently the company is lying!!". That itself proves just how open-minded some people are. I myself, am an adult, and know not all are lying.
And if you challenge it, they expect to know what that secret ingredient is because they can't figure it out.
It's a common tactic amongst academics.

The only time I've seen my tank at it's best, is small water changes every other day, or with using nopox as compared to other carbon-only dosing ideals. But of course we all know that water changes alone do not keep up with demands entirely, and rodi water is an incredible waste(because of the 2:1 or 3:1 waste water to final output ratios) and it gets expensive depending upon how much salt you're using.

Another thing I guess people really don't understand is the system goes together quite well, nopox used with reef energy is a big necessary thing if the tank naturally produces a higher phosphate laden environment. And it's hilarious after learning all this stuff, to see people and their "observations" on RE. I saw one person swear up and down RE just spiked their phosphates in the tank. But even searching from the limited description on the bottle, you can find there is plenty of phosphate-lacking, nitrate sources in nature, which is based from the basic science we know so far on c-n-p interaction, often confused for the redfield ratio.

There's also more VFA's than just acetic acid, therefore, more interactions that are possible with other elements in the environment. (this area I'm a bit unfamiliar with, but that jumped out at me first, whereas here in the thread we see VFA's being labeled like acetic acid is the only one, which is an assumption)

Even Walter White depended on a big corporation. (the methylene blue)

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

There's also more VFA's than just acetic acid, therefore, more interactions that are possible with other elements in the environment. (this area I'm a bit unfamiliar with, but that jumped out at me first, whereas here in the thread we see VFA's being labeled like acetic acid is the only one, which is an assumption)

Not sure what you are referring to, but the only place the term VFA came up in this discussion is below, which doesn't seem to allow for any other chemicals than vinegar and doesn't involve NOPOX at all.

In response to my question about Vodka/Sugar/Vinegar vs Vodka alone, the Red Sea rep says"

"While “VSV” may enable control of appropriate N : P reduction ratios our research clearly shows a significant difference in reduction rates while using VFAs rather than just using ethanol / methanol."

I don't see any interpretation of that other than that he means vinegar is a VFA (unless you think he means the sugar).

But since he has not answered my question about what he means by VFA, we can await his response.

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

Not sure what you are referring to, but the only place the term VFA came up in this discussion is below, which doesn't seem to allow for any other chemicals than vinegar and doesn't involve NOPOX at all.

In response to my question about Vodka/Sugar/Vinegar vs Vodka alone, the Red Sea rep says"

"While “VSV” may enable control of appropriate N : P reduction ratios our research clearly shows a significant difference in reduction rates while using VFAs rather than just using ethanol / methanol."

I don't see any interpretation of that other than that he means vinegar is a VFA (unless you think he means the sugar).

But since he has not answered my question about what he means by VFA, we can await his response.

I would wager you won't get a response. 1. They probably know who you are and your opinionated stance on the topic (given you won't accept proprietary information as being a valid thing to protect) and 2. All they said was 'significant difference in reduction rates while using VFA's rather than JUST using ethanol/methanol'

This does not mean their solution does not contain other VFA's. (perhaps I'm reading into it too much, but it's a classification of substances and not a definition of one)

Again, I accept I don't know everything, and that there IS a possibility that they have discovered something in the ways of biological interaction which they mean to protect as intellectual property. To assume that cannot possibly be true is a product of intellectual or social-interaction deficits.

 

[biom]

The thing I don't understand is how people think methanol and ethanol are the same things. (seems generically grouped to "it's just vodka", which it's not)

lol that's funny, i know what is the difference between ethanol and methanol, I'm an adult and I'm drinking alcohol too (don't tell my wife). Btw I know what is isopropanol too lol.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I would wager you won't get a response. 1. They probably know who you are and your opinionated stance on the topic (given you won't accept proprietary information as being a valid thing to protect) and 2. All they said was 'significant difference in reduction rates while using VFA's rather than JUST using ethanol/methanol'

This does not mean their solution does not contain other VFA's. (perhaps I'm reading into it too much, but it's a classification of substances and not a definition of one)

Again, I accept I don't know everything, and that there IS a possibility that they have discovered something in the ways of biological interaction which they mean to protect as intellectual property. To assume that cannot possibly be true is a product of intellectual or social-interaction deficits.

Please don't put words in my mouth to make my position look extreme or illogical.

I didn't ask Red Sea anything about NOPOX, and don't expect any info about it. I asked why they say VSV is fundamentally different than vodka alone, and they provided an answer. I just asked for a clarification of an acronym they used to be sure we understand each other.

My "opinion" on NOPOX effectiveness being similar to other products is based on hearing reports from lots of different people who have used it and also used other products, or who have used just it, or just other products. I don't see a fundamental difference between them being reported. NOPOX certainly could have been better, and the secret ingredients might have made all the difference. But in practice it does not appear to be better, regardless of what the ingredients may be.

I definitely never, ever, said that proprietary information was not a valid thing to protect, and do not believe it to be true. So if you somehow misunderstood me in previous discussions, you can take that thought off the table. Trade secrets can have great value to companies, and can be useful for customers if it means that companies can spend money on formulation research that is not immediately copied if they cannot, or choose not to, patent the product.

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

I'm not saying your position is extreme or illogical, but I am saying you're making very generic judgments based on pretty loose data.(when it comes to nopox, not the whole "what's right" in their table, though that is still subject to interpretation because it's all about perspective imo) For instance, some might say a sump is a requirement, I say it's another collection of points of failure. When the subject being debated lacks data (because we don't have all the research Red Sea does) it's not a truly scientific endeavor in debating it. It then leaves science and moves into the 'opinionated viewpoint' section of debate.

I've seen many records of people dosing as well and just as many arguments as to why one method is better than the other. I myself have tried many methods, nopox won that debate for me in my tank.
In my experiences, the stories about a method are just stories, until you use it in your tank(because of the multitudes of different setups), you cannot have a full understanding, therefore, you cannot make any logical judgments and blanket statements if it's the same as other methodologies or does not work. To attempt to do so is troll territory..
I have seen too many people make blanket statements about things they ASSUME to be correct because in their "expert opinions" they didn't see it any other way. In my experience, there's a lot more info out there than any one single person can know or weigh all variables against. It's like the computer industry, the marine life research industry, even the pharmaceutical industry. It's a product of a collective group of people over MANY years. But the problem? It ALWAYS changes over time, and to assume things don't change is the sign of old age.

Getting a patent requires disclosure of the proprietary information.
The only thing needed to beat that patent is a simple change of the formulation, then its considered an "enhancement".

If getting a patent was the solution, there would be no such thing as the situation we see in courts right now with patent disputes, nor "patent trolls".

The overall point I've seen you make in multiple posts is disbelief that the product works any differently because of "secret ingredients".

All I'm saying is why ever you're discrediting that makes for one long-winded argument nobody can win.

It would be nice if they disclosed their recipe, then it could be copied or marketed in a new product, which I think is the reason most bring up arguments like that. Or those who say it's no different, because of the mentality of "I didn't think of it first, so it can't possibly be any different".

After all, if it's about stories on the internet proving things? Bigfoot is real, communism is the best form of government, global warming is false, and Justin Beiber is one of the greatest musicians of all time.

Please do though let us know if they respond.

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

lol that's funny, i know what is the difference between ethanol and methanol, I'm an adult and I'm drinking alcohol too (don't tell my wife). Btw I know what is isopropanol too lol.

LOL I'm not saying you don't know.. It's just funny the generalities behind some things when people give advice.
There's one guy at the LFS who loves to do that, and it's just hilarious because most of the time I can hop on the net, and find research or documentation to prove otherwise.
That's why I'm really careful and heavily rely on facts. Everyone has opinions, but that doesn't mean we actually paid attention to everything else when those opinions were formed.
We're all human.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

but I am saying you're making very generic judgments based on pretty loose data..

IMO, the experiences of many reefers together is good data. You may disagree and think your personal experience trumps those of others. I don't. I think of your experience as one of many that, averaged together, do not show NOPOX to be clearly better or worse than other organic dosing products.