Sulphur in the reefaquarium

[Belgian Anthias]

On that point, at least, you are incorrect.

Carbon dosing (with ethanol/vodka or acetic acid/vinegar) causes no changes in alkalinity that are any different than uptake and use of the same nitro bygen forms (ammonia, nitrite it nitrate) by photosynthetic corals and other organisms.

Correct.
As alk is depleted when ammonia nitrogen is used as a nitrogen source and vodka dosing does mainly activate rapid heterotrophic growth using ammonia -nitrogen. alk is depleted by vodka dosing. As the nitrification capacity is reduced less alk is consumed by the nitrification process. As photo-autotrops must use nitrate-nitrogen as most ammonia is used up by fast growers alk is increased but at a very slow rate as the growth rate while using nitrate nitrogen is a lot slower. Once the nitrification capacity is removed photo-autotrophic growth may not be able to compenate for the alk consumption.
I do not think it matters much.

No. That concern is not that nitrate may get too low. I assume with any method that you can somehow control it properly. My concern is that causing more nitrate consumption by sulfur will have an even bigger drop in alk than is predicted by the daily accumulation rate of nitrate. For example, lowering nitrate with sulfur will potentially cause less direct consumption of nitrate by photosynthetic organisms. If the daily production is unchanged and the daily incorporation by organisms decreases, that means that more each day is following the sulfur route. Hence my suggestion that the daily accumulation rate is not a perfect measure of how much is consumed by sulfur and thereby, how much the alk is consumed by the sulfur process.

Consuming nitrate by carbon dosing causes no drop in alk, so no such concern exists for it.

It is not the alkalinity wich bothers me in the case of carbon dosing.. Fast growth uses ammonia -nitrogen consuming alk. Once the ammonia is used up fast growers will not be able to compete with other more effective nitrate-nitrogen users. Does carbon dosing actually consumes nitrate? Or is it a nice side effect?

As all processes in a SBNMS take place in a refuge or reactor all processes effecting alk in any way are copensated for before the water enters the main system. This just by providing the substrate needed. How nitrates may get to low? Bad management? Using a SBNMS one can keep the nitrate level at the nitrate level as desired> When using a BADES reactor the SBNMS becomes self regulating at the desired nitrate level. Please inform your selves to avoid useless discussions . All information is available in the Makazi Baharini wiki.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

IMO, and this is just opinion, there are better and easier ways to control nutrients. Growing photosynthetic organisms such as algae and corals, for example.

How do they restore the nutrient balance as they do not only remove nitrogen wich is considdered not needed. How a high bioload may be supported by algae growth? It has been tried. And what about carbon dosing?. How safe is it?
Of coarce one does not need a nitrogen management system for a LNS or VLNS. What we want is a mixed reef supporting the bioload wich makes it possible to show those animals often seen in nature but never in a modern LNS.

 

[Mortie31]

All articles in the Makazi Baharini wikki are based on approved publications and are propperly referenced. All references used can also be consulted .Most articles present in Makazi Baharini are not open to the public as the content is published with respect for all authors and publishers and the publication rights on the used information. We just collect the information and try to bring it in a readable article, information wich may be used for personal use only. We are just using information provided by others which must be credited for there work.

This is hardly an encouraging answer, the references to third party articles doesn’t mean that your interpretation and application of them is correct and that these conclusions have been peer reviewed

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Correct.
As alk is depleted when ammonia nitrogen is used as a nitrogen source and vodka dosing does mainly activate rapid heterotrophic growth using ammonia -nitrogen. alk is depleted by vodka dosing. As the nitrification capacity is reduced less alk is consumed by the nitrification process. As photo-autotrops must use nitrate-nitrogen as most ammonia is used up by fast growers alk is increased but at a very slow rate as the growth rate while using nitrate nitrogen is a lot slower. Once the nitrification capacity is removed photo-autotrophic growth may not be able to compenate for the alk consumption.
I do not think it matters much.


It is not the alkalinity wich bothers me in the case of carbon dosing.. Fast growth uses ammonia -nitrogen consuming alk. Once the ammonia is used up fast growers will not be able to compete with other more effective nitrate-nitrogen users. Does carbon dosing actually consumes nitrate? Or is it a nice side effect?

As all processes in a SBNMS take place in a refuge or reactor all processes effecting alk in any way are copensated for before the water enters the main system. This just by providing the substrate needed. How nitrates may get to low? Bad management? Using a SBNMS one can keep the nitrate level at the nitrate level as desired> When using a BADES reactor the SBNMS becomes self regulating at the desired nitrate level. Please inform your selves to avoid useless discussions . All information is available in the Makazi Baharini wiki.

We (you and I) have been over this many times and you are incorrect. Why do we have to beat this dead horse over and over and over?

You always show an equation from a paper that starts with ammonium (not ammonia) to show that carbon dosing consumes alkalinity. Of course that requires the ammonium to be converted into ammonia first which depletes alkalinity.

What you always fail to accept is that it is ammonia itself they is added as a waste product to the tank. If you want to talk about ammonium reactions, you must first convert the ammonia to ammonium and that adds alkalinity. Obviously it adds exactly the same amount that is removed when you talk about metabolizing ammonium. So there is no net change in alk.

The exact same “alkalinity loss” would appear if you talked about photosynthetic organisms using ammonium. It is a false claim to say it consumes alkalinity (unless you are adding something like ammonium chloride to the tank).

So again, There is no effect on alkalinity from organic carbon dosing.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

How do they restore the nutrient balance as they do not only remove nitrogen wich is considdered not needed. How a high bioload may be supported by algae growth? It has been tried. And what about carbon dosing?. How safe is it?
Of coarce one does not need a nitrogen management system for a LNS or VLNS. What we want is a mixed reef supporting the bioload wich makes it possible to show those animals often seen in nature but never in a modern LNS.

It has been tried and is highly successful. Are you trying to claim that methods such as growing macroalgae or algae turf scrubbers don’t work?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Correct.
As alk is depleted when ammonia nitrogen is used as a nitrogen source and vodka dosing does mainly activate rapid heterotrophic growth using ammonia -nitrogen. alk is depleted by vodka dosing. As the nitrification capacity is reduced less alk is consumed by the nitrification process. As photo-autotrops must use nitrate-nitrogen as most ammonia is used up by fast growers alk is increased but at a very slow rate as the growth rate while using nitrate nitrogen is a lot slower. Once the nitrification capacity is removed photo-autotrophic growth may not be able to compenate for the alk consumption.
I do not think it matters much.


It is not the alkalinity wich bothers me in the case of carbon dosing.. Fast growth uses ammonia -nitrogen consuming alk. Once the ammonia is used up fast growers will not be able to compete with other more effective nitrate-nitrogen users. Does carbon dosing actually consumes nitrate? Or is it a nice side effect?

Nitrate declines, either by nitrate or ammonia consumption. Both are perfectly fine ways to prevent nitrate from accumulating. The user controls the dose so as to prevent undesired nitrate accumulation while allowing sufficient nutrients for desired photosynthetic organisms such as corals. It works well in practice, regardless of whether you have theoretical concerns.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

We (you and I) have been over this many times and you are incorrect. Why do we have to beat this dead horse over and over and over?

You always show an equation from a paper that starts with ammonium (not ammonia) to show that carbon dosing consumes alkalinity. Of course that requires the ammonium to be converted into ammonia first which depletes alkalinity.

What you always fail to accept is that it is ammonia itself they is added as a waste product to the tank. If you want to talk about ammonium reactions, you must first convert the ammonia to ammonium and that adds alkalinity. Obviously it adds exactly the same amount that is removed when you talk about metabolizing ammonium. So there is no net change in alk.

The exact same “alkalinity loss” would appear if you talked about photosynthetic organisms using ammonium. It is a false claim to say it consumes alkalinity (unless you are adding something like ammonium chloride to the tank).

So again, There is no effect on alkalinity from organic carbon dosing.

In a marine aquarium we start at ammonium. The alkalinity measured is what is present in the water column and that is ammonium. The measurement includes the transition from ammonia to ammonium. When ammonium is consumed the alk reading will go down. If nitrate-nitrogen is used alk reading will go up. If that nitrogen is not cycled as it is mechanically removed notting is corrected. There is no prove carbon dosing actually consumes nitrate! As carbon dosing removes via the skimmer ammonium wich has been transformed to ammonia alk is consumed.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

When a nitrifying biofilm grows in a marine aquarium on a substrate of a mix ofcalcium carbonate and elemental sulphur, will the denitrification capacity of the nitrifying biofilm , wich is normally +- 16% depending of the ammonium reduction rate, increase?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

In a marine aquarium we start at ammonium. The alkalinity measured is what is present in the water column and that is ammonium. The measurement includes the transition from ammonia to ammonium. When ammonium is consumed the alk reading will go down. If nitrate-nitrogen is used alk reading will go up. If that nitrogen is not cycled as it is mechanically removed notting is corrected. There is no prove carbon dosing actually consumes nitrate! As carbon dosing removes via the skimmer ammonium wich has been transformed to ammonia alk is consumed.

I won’t keep arguing with you over ammonium. It makes no chemical sense and leads you to incorrect conclusions.

I will just note for other readers that some of your conclusions do not follow standard chemical principles as it relates to organic carbon dosing and alkalinity.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

When a nitrifying biofilm grows in a marine aquarium on a substrate of a mix ofcalcium carbonate and elemental sulphur, will the denitrification capacity of the nitrifying biofilm , wich is normally +- 16% depending of the ammonium reduction rate, increase?

Are you asking me? I have no idea what you are comparing to what, nor where the 16% came from. Obviously it is likely that adding sulfur adds the the nitrate reduction capacity of the system.

 

[Dan_P]

I won’t keep arguing with you over ammonium. It makes no chemical sense and leads you to incorrect conclusions.

I will just note for other readers that some of your conclusions do not follow standard chemical principles as it relates to organic carbon dosing and alkalinity.

I would add that when I studied carbon dosing (calcium acetate) a sample of aquarium water with elevated nitrates, the level of nitrate dropped over time. This nitrate reduction was phosphate dependent, i.e., when phosphate went to 0 ppm, nitrate reduction leveled out but resumed upon phosphate addition. And alkalinity increased.

This is not iron clad proof that carbon dosing results in the consumption of nitrate by bacteria (presumably bacteria. My experiments were not illuminated), but maybe a good provisional explanation. Yes?

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Are you asking me? I have no idea what you are comparing to what, nor where the 16% came from. Obviously it is likely that adding sulfur adds the the nitrate reduction capacity of the system.

Studies of a nitrifying biofilm show in general +- 16 % of the produced nitrate is removed by denitrification in the biofilm. +- 40% of the bio-film is using an anaerobic pathway.
Part of that denitrification capacity is autotrophic by using HS, producing sulphate and or sulphur depending of NO3:HS ratio. Produced S will be used when HS is not available. Providing sulphur as a substrate for the growing nitrifying biofilm may increase the total denitrification rate. By using a mix of elemental sulphur and fine shell grit as substrate the effect on measured alkalinity in the water column of both nitrification and denitrification will be minimal as most carbon will be retrieved from the substrate. This is the principle behind a Sulphur Based Nitrogen Management System.

I won’t keep arguing with you over ammonium. It makes no chemical sense and leads you to incorrect conclusions.

I will just note for other readers that some of your conclusions do not follow standard chemical principles as it relates to organic carbon dosing and alkalinity.

I will just note for other readers I just follow the chemical standards of Ebling en Co in this. I advice the readers to read https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004484860600216X#bib19 This shows alkalinity is consumed. From the university of Barcelona, teaching about the biofloc system ( carbon based aquaculture system) For each gram NH3 transformed into bacterial biomass 3,57 gr alkalinity is consumed. https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/tfg/2017/180967/TFG_dferronlozano_poster.pdf In fact this is not correct as it must be for each gram NH4. Just to show how standard ifo may not always be correct and one must always cross check information. In practice such monoculture systems are buffered following the Ebling guidelines. This is the standard. Someone is not following standard chemical principles as it relates to carbon dosing and alkalinity!? See also the Belize system.

Detailed info about carbon dosing ( vodka), ammonium reduction and biofloc systems is available in the wiki Makazi Baharini.
Also about the use of Sulphur, BADES and SBNMS for effectively remove nitrogen considered not needed. And a lot of other information one may need to manage a closed life support system such as reef aquaria.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Algae scrubbers and filters are considered safe to use ( depending of the algae used). My favorite! Natural competition for nutrients. ;- What is removed from the system can be determined by the dry weight. The removal rate is manageable within limits. The best inorganic nutrient export method.
All nutrients and building materials are removed from the water column in natural ratio's which does not restore the nitrogen unbalance which situation is reinforced by the skimmer as a skimmer does continuously remove DOC and TOC but very selective and does not remove inorganic nitrogen compounds.
High nitrogen availability combined with insufficient supply of one or more essential building materials during a period of increased growth rates ( increasing temp, carbohydrates?) is found to be responsible for sudden die off of growing bio-mass. ( a problem well known in horticulture) It is considered the main cause of most growth problems and coral bleaching on natural reefs. In a closed reef system, the combination with unnatural high availability of organic carbon is a main issue not solved. The risk can easily be avoided until the issue is sorted out.
For high nutrient systems growth of algae is slow. If the system has a daily nitrogen over production of 1gram nitrate (1ppm in 1000l), +-250 grams of algae must be harvested, every day. 1ppm daily is not that much.
Algae filters do not solve the unbalance in nutrient availability .
As nitrogen, and only nitrogen, considered not needed can easily be removed as desired from the system , nitrogen availability should not be considered a problem. There is no such thing as a bio which produces nitrogen. :" What to do with nitrate produced by a bio-filter" is not an issue, never has been. Why remove safely stored usable nitrogen unless one has a very good reason?! In a closed live support system, I think one better keep the nitrogen availability +- in balance with other nutrients.
In microbial communities the situation will be completely different as measured in the water column, the only thing we can do is try to mange a live support system in a way the possibility for problems is minimized.


As the nitrogen availability can easily be managed as desired and the nitrogen balance restored by effectively removing nitrogen considered not needed, our focus goes now to the possibility of managing the carbon cycle, the availability of DOC and TOC. We are able to add as much as we want but we do not have control over the removal rate of DOC and TOC. New developments in organics absorbing polymers make it possible to determine the max size of the target, removing DOC but leaving bigger compounds. We follow the evolution.
An other way of reef keeping !? Being able to keep beautiful filter-feeders abundant on the natural reef but hardly survive or are not welcome in modern LNS and VLNS and are therefore not shown.
A mixed reef aquarium with a school of Anthias showing natural behavior is what I am looking forward to.

 

[Mortie31]

A mixed reef aquarium with a school of Anthias showing natural behavior is what I am looking forward to.

Have a browse through the tank threads, we have this now... what is the point your trying to make? You need to look around you at the success reef keepers are having currently and not spend so much time promoting your private subscription only article library

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Studies of a nitrifying biofilm show in general +- 16 % of the produced nitrate is removed by denitrification in the biofilm. +- 40% of the bio-film is using an anaerobic pathway.
Part of that denitrification capacity is autotrophic by using HS, producing sulphate and or sulphur depending of NO3:HS ratio. Produced S will be used when HS is not available. Providing sulphur as a substrate for the growing nitrifying biofilm may increase the total denitrification rate. By using a mix of elemental sulphur and fine shell grit as substrate the effect on measured alkalinity in the water column of both nitrification and denitrification will be minimal as most carbon will be retrieved from the substrate. This is the principle behind a Sulphur Based Nitrogen Management System.


I will just note for other readers I just follow the chemical standards of Ebling en Co in this. I advice the readers to read https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004484860600216X#bib19 This shows alkalinity is consumed. From the university of Barcelona, teaching about the biofloc system ( carbon based aquaculture system) For each gram NH3 transformed into bacterial biomass 3,57 gr alkalinity is consumed. https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/tfg/2017/180967/TFG_dferronlozano_poster.pdf In fact this is not correct as it must be for each gram NH4. Just to show how standard ifo may not always be correct and one must always cross check information. In practice such monoculture systems are buffered following the Ebling guidelines. This is the standard. Someone is not following standard chemical principles as it relates to carbon dosing and alkalinity!? See also the Belize system.

Detailed info about carbon dosing ( vodka), ammonium reduction and biofloc systems is available in the wiki Makazi Baharini.
Also about the use of Sulphur, BADES and SBNMS for effectively remove nitrogen considered not needed. And a lot of other information one may need to manage a closed life support system such as reef aquaria.

It’s unfortunate that you keep misunderstanding that article that you post to justify your incorrect claim that carbon dosing depletes alkalinity.

 

[Sallstrom]

In a closed reef system, the combination with unnatural high availability of organic carbon is a main issue not solved. The risk can easily be avoided until the issue is sorted out.

How do you know many tanks suffer from the combination of high nitrogen and high organic carbon? What I've seen not many test DOC in their aquarium. Do you test for dissolved organic carbon?
You might be right, just that my observations doesn't point that way. So I'm curious. Or did I misunderstand your text?

 

[Belgian Anthias]

It’s unfortunate that you keep misunderstanding that article that you post to justify your incorrect claim that carbon dosing depletes alkalinity.

Reader are able to make there own conclusions. I just provide the information. The claim carbon dosing consumes alkalinity is made by others who may know , I am not in that position, and is proven in practice. Do you claim the Barcelona University ( and others) provide misleading information to the students?
I just know it is incorrect to say that carbon dosing does not effect alkalinity in the water column of a closed reef system with a skimmer.
In a reef aquarium it does not matter much as alkalinity is consumed any way and must be corrected.
Managing carbon based ZMAS ( Zero emission Marine Aquaculture Systems), production is maximized by maintaining a stable alkalinity at a high C:N ratio. No nitrification (lowering alk) takes place in such systems. The effect of alkalinity on growth rates in ZMAS has been subject of a lot of research. What would you advice to keep the alkalinity stable at the desired level ?

 

[Belgian Anthias]

How do you know many tanks suffer from the combination of high nitrogen and high organic carbon? What I've seen not many test DOC in their aquarium. Do you test for dissolved organic carbon?
You might be right, just that my observations doesn't point that way. So I'm curious. Or did I misunderstand your text?

We do not have to test a thing to know that changing the natural balance by increasing the C:N ratio by adding carbohydrates may have huge consequences for all live in the small eco-system of an aquarium, depending of the dose and the way it is administered. It has been proven in lab tests (2007) carbohydrates may kill corals. It was suggested high availability of DOC is a main cause of bleaching as it removes the ability of the coral to direct its nutrient supply. Feldman and Maers adviced in 2008 to wait with propagating carbon dosing until more is known about the effects on the coral holobiont. Recent research of many sources has shown they saw it right.

The coral holobiont.

The coral holobiont is a mix off all possible organisms living on and in the coral. Recent research of many sources show how the coral holobiont does function. How the nutrient availability is managed within the holobiont, depending of the environment. Many articles are written in the past about...

www.reef2reef.com

 

[Sallstrom]

We do not have to test a thing to know that changing the natural balance by increasing the C:N ratio by adding carbohydrates may have huge consequences for all live in the small eco-system of an aquarium, depending of the dose and the way it is administered. It has been proven in lab tests (2007) carbohydrates may kill corals. It was suggested high availability of DOC is a main cause of bleaching as it removes the ability of the coral to direct its nutrient supply. Feldman and Maers adviced in 2008 to wait with propagating carbon dosing until more is known about the effects on the coral holobiont. Recent research of many sources has shown they saw it right.

The coral holobiont.

The coral holobiont is a mix off all possible organisms living on and in the coral. Recent research of many sources show how the coral holobiont does function. How the nutrient availability is managed within the holobiont, depending of the environment. Many articles are written in the past about...

www.reef2reef.com

No, we do have to test DOC if we want to know the numbers. And to be able to compare with scientific papers. Adding a carbon source doesn't mean you get too high levels in the tank, if the level was low to begin with.

Just saying too much may kill corals isn't really saying anything. Too much of anything will kill the corals.

What is the natural balance in a reef tank for C:N? Is it the same in every tank? How do you meassure that ratio?

I don't want to be a bad person, but if you claim things you need to explain them a bit more IMO. Specially when claiming a method that's been around for at least 15 years is so bad it can kill corals, even if many people, me included, have used the method for more then 10 years.
If you mean overdosing a carbon source, I'll agree directly. That might kill corals.

 

[Mortie31]

We do not have to test a thing to know that changing the natural balance by increasing the C:N ratio by adding carbohydrates may have huge consequences for all live in the small eco-system of an aquarium, depending of the dose and the way it is administered. It has been proven in lab tests (2007) carbohydrates may kill corals. It was suggested high availability of DOC is a main cause of bleaching as it removes the ability of the coral to direct its nutrient supply. Feldman and Maers adviced in 2008 to wait with propagating carbon dosing until more is known about the effects on the coral holobiont. Recent research of many sources has shown they saw it right.

The coral holobiont.

The coral holobiont is a mix off all possible organisms living on and in the coral. Recent research of many sources show how the coral holobiont does function. How the nutrient availability is managed within the holobiont, depending of the environment. Many articles are written in the past about...

www.reef2reef.com

Why don’t you answer my question instead of constantly making the statement about feldman 2008?? Now please answer this... if carbon dosing kills coral as you and Feldman say, why in the 11 years since his paper and a large increase in carbon dosing amongst reefers why aren’t we seeing widespread coral deaths??
His study doesn’t appear to stand upto common practice and experience, or was he talking about gross carbon overdose and your not explaining it correctly??