Sulphur in the reefaquarium

[Belgian Anthias]

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.

All information is available in the Makazi Baharini wiki. R2R does not allow me to link to the information and has removed all links to the knowledgebase which I have used in the past as the website is considered to be a commercial website because it contains a donation button and because I participate by adding information to the wiki.
I do not claim a thing! We just provide non commercial information about managing a reef aquarium and why , for free!
We just share aproved information we collected, in the first place for personal use, for the development of a high nutrient mixed reef system. Nitrogen and nutrient management based on controlled high input and high output . We solved our nitrogen problem, now we are occupied solving our other nutrients problem.

How overdosing is prevented? One probably does not know how many of a dose is actually used and removed when the next dose is added. As far as I know doses are still based on trail and error, without being able to recognize the errors.
If doses are based on the nitrate level, a to high C:N ratio is easily obtained. Bacteria use ammonia-nitrogen and not nitrate-nitrogen, the C:N ratio for dosing is based on TAN.
To determine a dose one has to define what is an overdose.
What is considered an overdose? Enough to mess up the complete balance in the aquarium? Enough to create a bacterial bloom? Enough to remove nitrification and denitrification capacity? Enough to inhibit a coral to direct its nutrient supply? Enough to kill coral?
My opinion any dose which removes the natural limited availability of organic carbon may be considered an overdose as most if not all microbial communities and holobionts are based on limited availability of organic carbon for to be able to control their food supply, including corals.
I do not add any supplemental organic carbon as carbohydrates. i have no need for to determine a dose. The only reason I would consider to use supplemental carbon is when confronted with an acute ammonia build up problem but as I use bio-filters I can easily adjust the carrying capacity as needed. If I was obliged to dose, with a gun on my head, I would base the dose on the daily nitrogen overproduction.
When an eco-system has found its balance based on unnatural high organic carbon availability it may not be able to adapt to natural circumstances when needed.
In aquaculture, carbon dosing is used for monocultures very succesfully since the seventies and carbon dosing is well documented. A lot of research has taken place, about everything is known.

 

[Mortie31]

What is considered an overdose? Enough to mess up the complete balance in the aquarium? Enough to create a bacterial bloom? Enough to remove nitrification and denitrification capacity? Enough to inhibit a coral to direct its nutrient supply? Enough to kill coral?
My opinion any dose which removes the natural limited availability of organic carbon may be considered an overdose as most if not all microbial communities and holobionts are based on limited availability of organic carbon for to be able to control their food supply, including corals.

The standard doses for vodka/vinegar/ sugar are not an overdose.. the doses are available in numerous copies of the dosing tables in lots of threads and these levels are used routinely by reefers and have for many years... products like NOPOX by Redsea also have dosing guidelines that are not an overdose... both of these established dosing levels are used by thousands of reefers... how can you maintain your position that carbon kills coral, in the face of this real-time use, not your interpretation of two 10 year old papers

 

[Mortie31]

The standard doses for vodka/vinegar/ sugar are not an overdose.. the doses are available in numerous copies of the dosing tables in lots of threads and these levels are used routinely by reefers and have for years... products like NOPOX by Redsea also have dosing guidelines that are not an overdose... both of these established dosing levels are used by thousands of reefers... how can you maintain your position that carbon kills coral, in the face of this real-time use, not your interpretation of two 10 year old papers

These are 2 such tables

 

[Belgian Anthias]

These are 2 such tables

All this information is available in our wiki Makazi Baharini!. I have all info! all info is available.

How do you know it may not be an overdose? Have you determined what may be considdered an overdose ? And how much it is? Can you tell me on what parameter these doses are based?
The advice is given to continue dosing until no nitrate is detected!!? And then go on half doses. Based on what parameter?
Carbon dosing does mainly assimilate ammonium-nitrogen. Will this scheme prevent a to high C:N ratio? Not at all. It certainly will remove autotrophic carrying capacity. Will it be an overdose? Wait and see! .
Every system is different. Nitrate may build up very slowly in a low nutrient system with a very low ammonia production. An other system my have a high ammonia production and a high consumption but have the same nitrate level build up rate. If the nitrate level has reached a level considered to high one will start dosing. Using such scheme the C:N ratio in both systems of my example will be completely different.

I am aware of most caveats of carbon dosing and how it is used, that is why I made an other choice.

 

[Mortie31]

How do you know it may not be an overdose? Have you determined what may be considdered an overdose ? And how much it is?

I and thousands of other reefers have used these doses very successfully for years, and with no apparent ill affects to my corals as you repeatedly say happens... am I dosing at overdose levels? I don’t know but as these levels don’t hurt my Coral’s then I’d say a definitive no. Please explain to me how can thousands of reefers be wrong??? With carbon dosing being so widely used and with no reported issues to corals I find your “evidence or interpretation” of a few papers to be seriously flawed... if your suggesting an alternative to carbon dosing, if I were you I’d work on explaining it’s benefits over carbon dosing rather than trying to rubbish a product that is successful for thousands of us reefers... or maybe it doesn’t have any and your clutching at very old data straws...

 

[Belgian Anthias]

The threat is about the coral holobiont and the way it may be influenced by carbon dosing.
As carbohydrates are often used with the intention to provide better live circumstances for the coral will adding carbohydrates do what it is intended to do? Recent research has confirmed corals administer there nutrient supply by managing the organic carbon supply, by excreting mucus. Will adding carbohydrates in a small ecosystem as an aquarium improve the live of corals or will it do the opposite?

Article I wrote with a lot of valuable info about the coral holobiont: .baharini.eu/baharini/doku.php?id=nl:makazi:theorie:koraal_holoboint

 

[Mortie31]

The threat is about the coral holobiont and the way it may be influenced by carbon dosing.

This thread is about sulphur in the aquarium, where you have repeatedly tried to undermine carbon use in favour of sulphur reactors, and you repeatedly quote the same two papers from 2007 and 2008, your other thread is about the coral holobiant, where you use exactly the same arguments and papers again against carbon. All I’m saying is there is far too much use of carbon for it to be having a deleterious affect on our corals without us knowing it... you are placing too much worth in 2 very old papers... tbh I’m not sure what your trying to achieve as nothing you say bears out in real life experience...

 

[Dan_P]

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

Below is the bit from Ebeling, et al that is at the nub of the discussion. Creating bacterial biomass from organic carbon and ammonium consumes alkalinity. That seems to be a fairly well accepted.

If carbon dosing in an aquarium builds biomass via ammonium, alkalinity should decrease according to Ebeling. If biomass is built via nitrate, which is the case for us, alkalinity should increase which I have observed.

I assume that if somehow all the ammonium in the system was removed by heterotrophic bacteria, we would observe an alkalinity decline. I think that this is an unlikely scenario because as Ebeling notes, there is a large amount of bacterial mass created by this process. The average aquarists hates cloudy water and would never push the bio filter this far. Maybe we can ask @taricha to use his “neglected” aquarium to test this notion


5.3. Heterotrophic bacteria — impact on water quality
Several aspects are important in the overall heterotrophic bacterial reaction. Paramount is the extremely large amount of bacterial biomass produced by this reaction, compared to the autotrophic reaction. Thus some form of solids management to remove excess TSS is required. A second issue is the modest amount of alkalinity consumed as the carbon source (3.57 g/g TAN) and the resulting high levels of carbon dioxide produced (9.65 g/g TAN). For water with low initial alkalinity, this will generally still require the addition of carbonate, usually in the form of sodium bicarbonate to maintain reasonable alkalinity (100 to 150 mg/L as CaCO3), especially for systems with limited water exchange. As a result, zero-exchange production systems that rely on suspended or attached heterotrophic bacteria usually show a modest decrease in alkalinity, large suspended solids production, and high CO2 levels. Finally, there should be no production of nitrite–nitrogen, or nitrate–nitrogen in a pure heterotrophic system.

 

[Dan_P]

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.

Are we in agreement that certain carbohydrates and algae exudates can harm certain coral, but to date we have not come across evidence that temporary acetate or ethanol dosing causes problems?

 

[Belgian Anthias]

I and thousands of other reefers have used these doses very successfully for years, and with no apparent ill affects to my corals as you repeatedly say happens... am I dosing at overdose levels? I don’t know but as these levels don’t hurt my Coral’s then I’d say a definitive no. Please explain to me how can thousands of reefers be wrong??? With carbon dosing being so widely used and with no reported issues to corals I find your “evidence or interpretation” of a few papers to be seriously flawed... if your suggesting an alternative to carbon dosing, if I were you I’d work on explaining it’s benefits over carbon dosing rather than trying to rubbish a product that is successful for thousands of us reefers... or maybe it doesn’t have any and your clutching at very old data straws...

I am sorry you are not happy with the provided info
Nobody said all those reefers are wrong,
Choices are made having all information.

It is not my fault there is no information i could find and use to prove carbo-hydrates are safe to use. I do have a lot of approved papers saying high DOC availability is a threat for corals and other holobionts

 

[Belgian Anthias]

For those who want to play it safe and wait until all caveats of carbon dosing are properly investigated and resolved
A better alternative for carbon dosing is an algae scrubber. It also removes nutrients in the natural ratio but it adds control ability. The removal rate can be managed within limits. What is removed can be determined by the dry weight. it does not mess up the nitrogen and carbon cycles and provides honest competition. If everybody would use algae scrubbers to export nutrients we would not have this discussion.
We can cultivate biofloc's in a refuge , raise shrimp and eat them. Much better! "Good " nutrient export.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

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 ?

What is sad is that I proved your assertions incorrect using your own equations yeas ago, and you keep on with them.

Here's one of the times i showed this claim was bunk.

Nitrate and the BIO filter!

What to do with the nitrate produced by biofilters? Or live rock, sandy bottom, and in or on any other place where a biofilm can or may grow? The question has banned the biofilter and replaced it by a lot of discussable methods and palliative measures. An aquarium grows, creatures grow and...

www.reef2reef.com

I'll copy some tidbits here:

That is not correct and your own equation proves it.

The process involving sulfur and ammonia to N2 involves loss of alkalinity. A big loss!

Yes, you can compensate for the alk part of it by adding alkalinity back. You do that in your equation by dissolving some calcium carbonate:

CaCO3 + H2O ---> Ca++ + 2HCO3-

or

44 CaCO3 + 44 H2O -- > 44 Ca++ + 88HCO3-

If we remove that part of the process from your equation (subtract from both sides), we get:

55S + 50NO 3- + 18H2O + 4NH4+ + 64HCO3- → 4 C5H7O2N + 25N 2 + 55SO4 2- + + 26H2O

Hence it is causing a big loss of alkalinity (16 equivalents of alkalinity for each ammonium consumed).

The problem with your approach, using dissolution of calcium carbonate as your equation shows to offset the alkalinty loss, is that the calcium will be constantly rising.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Sorry, No. That is incorrect.

I agree with the equations in your reference, and they are the same ones that I often use my articles. But you have misunderstood the processes involved. There is no net consumption of alkalinity.

Ebling et Al 2006:

https://cals.arizona.edu/azaqua/ista/ISTA7/RecircWorkshop/Workshop PP & Misc Papers Adobe 2006/7 Biofiltration/Microbial Floc Systems/2006 Aquaculture Stoichiometry of photo-auto-hetero - Ebeling.pdf

Equation 16 shows:


NH4+ + 1:18 C6H12O6 + HCO3- = 2:06 O2 --> C5H7O2N + 6:06 H2O + 3:07 CO2

" This equation predicts that for every g of ammonia– nitrogen converted to microbial biomass, 4.71 g of dissolved oxygen and 3.57 g of alkalinity (0.86 g inorganic carbon) and 15.17 g carbohydrates (6.07 g organic carbon) are consumed. Also 8.07 g of microbial biomass (4.29 g organic carbon) and 9.65 g of CO2 (2.63 g inorganic carbon) are produced"

This seems, at a first glance, to be consuming one unit of alkalinity (HCO3-) for each ammonia consumed), but that does not hold up to a deeper understanding of the processes involved.

The thing that you (and perhaps the author) are neglecting is that the nitrogen compound that is the product of metabolism by fish and other organisms is NOT NH4+. It is NH3.

The metabolism reaction is exactly the reverse of equation 3 in your reference. The product of the metabolism of organic matter with nitrogen in it is NH3. Of course, the reaction can be written as if it is NH4+, but when you do that, you necessarily produce alkalinity. That is what the reverse of equation 3 actually shows. Production of NH3 and then combination of that with some of the CO2:

NH3 + H2CO3 ---> NH4+ + HCO3-

And the reverse of equation 3 shows this "production" of HCO3- explicitly. Same for phosphate.

Consequently, the overall round trip from fish food to ammonia to production of biomass by consumption of ammonia to biomass formation with organic carbon has NO NET EFFECT ON ALKALINITY.

The same is true if you convert the ammonia along the way to nitrate. The overall round trip from fish food to ammonia to nitrate to production of biomass by consumption of nitrate to biomass formation with organic carbon has NO NET EFFECT ON ALKALINITY.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

For those who want to play it safe and wait until all caveats of carbon dosing are properly investigated and resolved
A better alternative for carbon dosing is an algae scrubber. It also removes nutrients in the natural ratio but it adds control ability. The removal rate can be managed within limits. What is removed can be determined by the dry weight. it does not mess up the nitrogen and carbon cycles and provides honest competition. If everybody would use algae scrubbers to export nutrients we would not have this discussion.
We can cultivate biofloc's in a refuge , raise shrimp and eat them. Much better! "Good " nutrient export.

The sky is falling.....

oops, sorry, it isn't.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

It is not my fault there is no information i could find and use to prove carbo-hydrates are safe to use. I do have a lot of approved papers saying high DOC availability is a threat for corals and other holobionts

Do you know what a carbohydrate is? Almost no one doses carbohydrates to reefs and I do not recommend it.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Below is the bit from Ebeling, et al that is at the nub of the discussion. Creating bacterial biomass from organic carbon and ammonium consumes alkalinity. That seems to be a fairly well accepted.

Uh, no.

The conversion of the initial ammonia (it is ammonia, not ammonium) waste from organic metabolism into ammonia takes up alkalinity.
The use of that ammonium to remake organic molecules gives back the exact amont of alk.

It is a round trip from organics to ammonia to organics again. There's no way round trip processes can add or remove alkalinity.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Below is the bit from Ebeling, et al that is at the nub of the discussion. Creating bacterial biomass from organic carbon and ammonium consumes alkalinity. That seems to be a fairly well accepted.

If carbon dosing in an aquarium builds biomass via ammonium, alkalinity should decrease according to Ebeling. If biomass is built via nitrate, which is the case for us, alkalinity should increase which I have observed.

Do you have any prove carbon dosing actually removes a lot of nitrate by assimilation. The bacteria will use all amonium-nitrogen fast and then there growth rate slows down very drastic (x4-x8) using nitrate -nitrogen if they can as they have to compete with other organisms better equipped for using nitrate-nitrogen. Photo-autotrophs using nitrate -nitrogen add alkalinity. How do you know you the alkalinity changes you observed is caused by dosing?


Do you have the copy rights to copy


and publish the text of Ebling on a public forum? Why not referring to the original paper with a link as it should have been done?

Why are we discussing carbon dosing in a threat about sulphur in the reef?

 

[Belgian Anthias]

The threat is about the coral holobiont and the way it may be influenced by carbon dosing.
As carbohydrates are often used with the intention to provide better live circumstances for the coral will adding carbohydrates do what it is intended to do? Recent research has confirmed corals administer there nutrient supply by managing the organic carbon supply, by excreting mucus. Will adding carbohydrates in a small ecosystem as an aquarium improve the live of corals or will it do the opposite?

Article I wrote with a lot of valuable info about the coral holobiont: .baharini.eu/baharini/doku.php?id=nl:makazi:theorie:koraal_holoboint

Wrong threat and can not remove it!!!
Why are we discussing dosing carbon in a threat about sulphur?

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Uh, no.

The conversion of the initial ammonia (it is ammonia, not ammonium) waste from organic metabolism into ammonia takes up alkalinity.
The use of that ammonium to remake organic molecules gives back the exact amont of alk.

It is a round trip from organics to ammonia to organics again. There's no way round trip processes can add or remove alkalinity.

Is carbon dosing intended to create a nitrogen roud trip?

Do you know what a carbohydrate is? Almost no one doses carbohydrates to reefs and I do not recommend it.

Sorry for that, we may keep it at vodka. It is the same in Dutch as in English.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

This thread is about sulphur in the aquarium, where you have repeatedly tried to undermine carbon use in favour of sulphur reactors, and you repeatedly quote the same two papers from 2007 and 2008, your other thread is about the coral holobiant, where you use exactly the same arguments and papers again against carbon. All I’m saying is there is far too much use of carbon for it to be having a deleterious affect on our corals without us knowing it... you are placing too much worth in 2 very old papers... tbh I’m not sure what your trying to achieve as nothing you say bears out in real life experience...

I certainly do not.

Sorry, No. That is incorrect.

I agree with the equations in your reference, and they are the same ones that I often use my articles. But you have misunderstood the processes involved. There is no net consumption of alkalinity.

Ebling et Al 2006:

https://cals.arizona.edu/azaqua/ista/ISTA7/RecircWorkshop/Workshop PP & Misc Papers Adobe 2006/7 Biofiltration/Microbial Floc Systems/2006 Aquaculture Stoichiometry of photo-auto-hetero - Ebeling.pdf

Equation 16 shows:


NH4+ + 1:18 C6H12O6 + HCO3- = 2:06 O2 --> C5H7O2N + 6:06 H2O + 3:07 CO2

" This equation predicts that for every g of ammonia– nitrogen converted to microbial biomass, 4.71 g of dissolved oxygen and 3.57 g of alkalinity (0.86 g inorganic carbon) and 15.17 g carbohydrates (6.07 g organic carbon) are consumed. Also 8.07 g of microbial biomass (4.29 g organic carbon) and 9.65 g of CO2 (2.63 g inorganic carbon) are produced"

This seems, at a first glance, to be consuming one unit of alkalinity (HCO3-) for each ammonia consumed), but that does not hold up to a deeper understanding of the processes involved.

The thing that you (and perhaps the author) are neglecting is that the nitrogen compound that is the product of metabolism by fish and other organisms is NOT NH4+. It is NH3.

The metabolism reaction is exactly the reverse of equation 3 in your reference. The product of the metabolism of organic matter with nitrogen in it is NH3. Of course, the reaction can be written as if it is NH4+, but when you do that, you necessarily produce alkalinity. That is what the reverse of equation 3 actually shows. Production of NH3 and then combination of that with some of the CO2:

NH3 + H2CO3 ---> NH4+ + HCO3-

And the reverse of equation 3 shows this "production" of HCO3- explicitly. Same for phosphate.

Consequently, the overall round trip from fish food to ammonia to production of biomass by consumption of ammonia to biomass formation with organic carbon has NO NET EFFECT ON ALKALINITY.

The same is true if you convert the ammonia along the way to nitrate. The overall round trip from fish food to ammonia to nitrate to production of biomass by consumption of nitrate to biomass formation with organic carbon has NO NET EFFECT ON ALKALINITY.

What would be your advice to the manager of a carbon based ZMAS to optimize his production which is related to a stable alk level?

Most ammonia will be transformed to ammonium in a reef aquarium. When ammonia is used ammonium is transformed back to ammonia, depleting alk. When we measure alkalinity we measure including ammonium, a little bit ammonia. Of coarse the all round trip does not consume alk theoretically, but almost all reef aquaria are equipmed with a skimmer removing some of the bio-load produced by the dosing. I thought that was the idea after carbon dosing? Removing the produced protein including the assimilated ammonium-nitrogen NO4 to NO3, assimilated and then removed. In carbon based ZMAS all produced protein ends up in the target species and is harvested, which means finally there is no round trip.