The coral holobiont.

[Belgian Anthias]

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 the effects of nitrogen and phosphorus on calcification and the symbiodinium, many discussions on this and other forums have spread the believe that increased nitrogen and phosphorus availability measured in the water column must be avoided. Increasing nitrogen and phosphorus levels are battled without asking the question why? Most reefers are shooting at the messenger. In most cases the messengers are linked to a visual problem, the first advice given to lower the level of basic nutrients is dosing organic carbon. We collected a lot of approved papers concerning research about the coral holobiont and the effect of nutrient availability in the surrounding waters.
We now do know increased availability of phosphorus does NOT lower the calcification rates, confirmed by not one but many sources from all over the world.
High nitrate -nitrogen consumption does limit calcification rates by +- 8% which is a lot less as expected because most organisms slow down there metabolism x4 even x8 when using nitrate as a nitrogen source.
High nitrogen availability is reported to be responsible for bleaching, but only in combination with periods of increased growth ( warmer water?) interrupted by an insufficient supply of phosphorus and or other essential building materials.
Anyway, the nitrate and phosphate level has never been a live treating parameter in a reef aquarium needing immediate action.
For the health of corals often the addition of supplemental organic carbon is advised in an attempt to control the nutrient availability. But what does dosing of supplemental organic carbon mean for the coral holobiont in a closed system?
It seems that corals are able to control the nutrient supply by controlling the composition of the coral holobiont, by influencing fast growing organismn, consuming more ore less nutrients. They are able to do that by controlling the organic carbon availability within the holobiont by excreting mucus, also rich in anorganic phosphorus. This makes corals less dependent of the nutrient availability in the environment. This way they are able to manage the nutrient supply to what is needed. When the supply of some essentials is limited corals may stop providing organic carbon for fast growing heterotrophs. In nature corals use mainly organic nutrients and building materials provided by the holobiont, carbon is provided by the symbiodinium.
Not looking at all other caveats wich may be or and can be linked to carbon dosing, what may or will be the effect of dosing organic carbon on the nutrient management within the coral holobiont? Will the cure become a lot worse as the desease, ?

 

[Mortie31]

It seems that corals are able to control the nutrient supply by controlling the composition of the coral holobiont, by influencing fast growing organismn, consuming more ore less nutrients. They are able to do that by controlling the organic carbon availability within the holobiont by excreting mucus, also rich in anorganic phosphorus. This makes corals less dependent of the nutrient availability in the environment. This way they are able to manage the nutrient supply to what is needed. When the supply of some essentials is limited corals may stop providing organic carbon for fast growing heterotrophs. In nature corals use mainly organic nutrients and building materials provided by the holobiont, carbon is provided by the symbiodinium.
Not looking at all other caveats wich may be or and can be linked to carbon dosing, what may or will be the effect of dosing organic carbon on the nutrient management within the coral holobiont? Will the cure become a lot worse as the desease, ?

Is this supposition? or can you provide the papers that led you to this conclusion. You seem to be suggesting that carbon dosing damages corals? Is that all corals?

 

[ScottR]

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 the effects of nitrogen and phosphorus on calcification and the symbiodinium, many discussions on this and other forums have spread the believe that increased nitrogen and phosphorus availability measured in the water column must be avoided. Increasing nitrogen and phosphorus levels are battled without asking the question why? Most reefers are shooting at the messenger. In most cases the messengers are linked to a visual problem, the first advice given to lower the level of basic nutrients is dosing organic carbon. We collected a lot of approved papers concerning research about the coral holobiont and the effect of nutrient availability in the surrounding waters.
We now do know increased availability of phosphorus does NOT lower the calcification rates, confirmed by not one but many sources from all over the world.
High nitrate -nitrogen consumption does limit calcification rates by +- 8% which is a lot less as expected because most organisms slow down there metabolism x4 even x8 when using nitrate as a nitrogen source.
High nitrogen availability is reported to be responsible for bleaching, but only in combination with periods of increased growth ( warmer water?) interrupted by an insufficient supply of phosphorus and or other essential building materials.
Anyway, the nitrate and phosphate level has never been a live treating parameter in a reef aquarium needing immediate action.
For the health of corals often the addition of supplemental organic carbon is advised in an attempt to control the nutrient availability. But what does dosing of supplemental organic carbon mean for the coral holobiont in a closed system?
It seems that corals are able to control the nutrient supply by controlling the composition of the coral holobiont, by influencing fast growing organismn, consuming more ore less nutrients. They are able to do that by controlling the organic carbon availability within the holobiont by excreting mucus, also rich in anorganic phosphorus. This makes corals less dependent of the nutrient availability in the environment. This way they are able to manage the nutrient supply to what is needed. When the supply of some essentials is limited corals may stop providing organic carbon for fast growing heterotrophs. In nature corals use mainly organic nutrients and building materials provided by the holobiont, carbon is provided by the symbiodinium.
Not looking at all other caveats wich may be or and can be linked to carbon dosing, what may or will be the effect of dosing organic carbon on the nutrient management within the coral holobiont? Will the cure become a lot worse as the desease, ?

Anytime I read these, I think it’s important to cite sources.

 

[Mortie31]

@Belgian Anthias you seem to be questioning our use of carbon dosing to control nutrients in several threads, as this practice is incredibly widespread if you have unearthed any solid science to prove that it is damaging to our corals or systems please share it with our community, as it is something we need to be made aware of.

 

[Sallstrom]

This was discussed a lot in a thread on macro algae refugiums and the leakage of DOC from algae.
Yes, to much DOC might increase the risk of bacterial diseases in corals if I remember it right. But I don't think we get up to those levels in aquariums when dosing a carbon source carefully. At least not from I've seen on our N-DOC Triton tests we've done the last year(five tanks). We've been below the "reef" set point, even in those tanks we've been dosing ethanol.
But sure, it's not bulletproof. Overdosing might kill the whole tank.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Is this supposition? or can you provide the papers that led you to this conclusion. You seem to be suggesting that carbon dosing damages corals? Is that all corals?

We are collecting approved information in our knowledgebase of which we made use for and can be consulted in articles about the coral holobiont and Symbiodinium published in our wiki Makazi Baharini. ( Dutch, but all references used are in English and can be consulted ) At the moment we are focusing on the carbon cycle within the holobiont and its effects on the nutrient availability for coral and Symbiodinium which is of great importance in a closed system. All info is welcome.
I am suggesting that high organic carbon availability will mess up the nutrient supply of corals. In a normal situation organic carbon is always limited available by which the coral is able to control the carbon supply in and its nutrient supply by the holobiont. By disturbing the carbon cycle in the holobiont the effect of high availability of other nutrients in the water column of a closed system may be a lot worse as is reported. I am suggesting unlimited organic carbon availability will effect coral growth much more as high availability of nitrate and or phosphate in the water column. I am suggesting, in the case of carbon dosing for lowering nitrate and or phosphate levels for the health of corals, the cure is a lot worse as the disease or and may increase the symptoms.
Increasing nutrient levels in a closed system may just be the messengers, not the cause.
The fact a skimmer removes essential building materials constantly but very selective makes it difficult to compare the functioning of the coral holobiont as the situation may be completely different.
As the main factor for managing the nutrient availability in the coral holobiont is the carbon supply on may suggest adding organic carbon to a closed system, taking away the limited availability of carbon, will have a huge effect on what happens in the holobiont, which is essential for the coral.

 

[ScottR]

We are collecting approved information in our knowledgebase of which we made use for and can be consulted in articles about the coral holobiont and Symbiodinium published in our wiki Makazi Baharini. ( Dutch, but all references used are in English and can be consulted ) At the moment we are focusing on the carbon cycle within the holobiont and its effects on the nutrient availability for coral and Symbiodinium which is of great importance in a closed system. All info is welcome.
I am suggesting that high organic carbon availability will mess up the nutrient supply of corals. In a normal situation organic carbon is always limited available by which the coral is able to control the carbon supply in and its nutrient supply by the holobiont. By disturbing the carbon cycle in the holobiont the effect of high availability of other nutrients in the water column of a closed system may be a lot worse as is reported. I am suggesting unlimited organic carbon availability will effect coral growth much more as high availability of nitrate and or phosphate in the water column. I am suggesting, in the case of carbon dosing for lowering nitrate and or phosphate levels for the health of corals, the cure is a lot worse as the disease or and may increase the symptoms.
Increasing nutrient levels in a closed system may just be the messengers, not the cause.
The fact a skimmer removes essential building materials constantly but very selective makes it difficult to compare the functioning of the coral holobiont as the situation may be completely different.
As the main factor for managing the nutrient availability in the coral holobiont is the carbon supply on may suggest adding organic carbon to a closed system, taking away the limited availability of carbon, will have a huge effect on what happens in the holobiont, which is essential for the coral.

Posting some articles or papers of the research would be useful instead of making a post and asking everyone to google their way through it would be paramount to your argument. I’m not doubting this, nor am I implying that I think you’re on to something. It’s just hard to read a post and take it as factual evidence at face. There is so much science and variables that go into hobby of a “closed system”. For example, does this research apply to all corals: NPS, soft, LPS and SPS?

 

[Sallstrom]

We are collecting approved information in our knowledgebase of which we made use for and can be consulted in articles about the coral holobiont and Symbiodinium published in our wiki Makazi Baharini. ( Dutch, but all references used are in English and can be consulted ) At the moment we are focusing on the carbon cycle within the holobiont and its effects on the nutrient availability for coral and Symbiodinium which is of great importance in a closed system. All info is welcome.
I am suggesting that high organic carbon availability will mess up the nutrient supply of corals. In a normal situation organic carbon is always limited available by which the coral is able to control the carbon supply in and its nutrient supply by the holobiont. By disturbing the carbon cycle in the holobiont the effect of high availability of other nutrients in the water column of a closed system may be a lot worse as is reported. I am suggesting unlimited organic carbon availability will effect coral growth much more as high availability of nitrate and or phosphate in the water column. I am suggesting, in the case of carbon dosing for lowering nitrate and or phosphate levels for the health of corals, the cure is a lot worse as the disease or and may increase the symptoms.
Increasing nutrient levels in a closed system may just be the messengers, not the cause.
The fact a skimmer removes essential building materials constantly but very selective makes it difficult to compare the functioning of the coral holobiont as the situation may be completely different.
As the main factor for managing the nutrient availability in the coral holobiont is the carbon supply on may suggest adding organic carbon to a closed system, taking away the limited availability of carbon, will have a huge effect on what happens in the holobiont, which is essential for the coral.

The first two articles i found on Google both said that there's more DOC on reefs that in the open water column. The DOC comes from bentic primary producers, so the level follows the light intensity.

So the question is: what level do you think is "high organic carbon"?
And how do you meassure it? Perhaps we are low in DOC in our tanks and they do well with some extra input?

 

[Belgian Anthias]

I have been critical for carbon dosing since the beginning, that is why we kept on looking for a better way to export nitrogen.
In 2008 Ken S. Feldman an Kelly M. Maers warned about increased organic carbon availability. This is more as a decade ago! In an article published in the Advanced Aquarist they wrote:"circumstantial evidence encouraged Rohwer et al. to speculate that the introduction of carbohydrates (= a fuel source) will generate an imbalance in the bacterial component of the holobiont, and that this departure from equilibrium leads to coral mortality. The mechanism by which this induced bacterial proliferation causes coral death remains to be elucidated, and this pivotal issue must be addressed before this intriguing hypothesis can gain further traction. Nevertheless, the empirical evidence can be construed to support a robust relationship between elevated DOC levels, correspondingly increased bacterial populations, and coral mortality." They also wrote:" Reef bulletin boards all too frequently contain threads that begin "Help! My tank is crashing; my corals are dying, but all of my measurable water parameters are within expected ranges. What's wrong?" Could it be possible that elevated levels of DOC, for whatever the reason, are contributing to, or even causing, the coral loss? (FeldmanEnMaers2008>Feature Article: Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and the Reef Aquarium: An Initial Survey, Part I”. Page. . https://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/8/aafeature3.)
As all healthy ecosystems are based on the natural limited availability of organic carbon, I was skeptic about carbon dosing since the beginning and have collected and sheared information since then. CMF De Haes based a critical article on it in the Makazi Baharni wiki on the page "VODKA" also available in English.
One must not look far to find papers proving carbon dosing will mess up the ecosystem. Just DuckDuckGo TOC , DOC and corals and one will find plenty. Nothing new here!
Dieter Brockman, one of the driving forces behind the Berlin method, said when asked about carbon dosing in an interview with Roger Vitko in 2004: "The Internet is as much a curse to hobbyists as it is a blessing." It contains many false statements and badly thought out hobbyist "experiments" accepted as fact. (RVitko2009-09)

Recent research from different sources have confirmed that elevated organic carbon availability may be the main cause of coral bleaching and coral dead, just because it makes it impossible for the coral to manage its nutrient supply.
Logic as the fast growing part of the population of the holobiont will no longer depend on the food supply by coral and symbiodinium. The carbon cycle and nutrient supply within the holobiont will be completely messed up, the mini ecosystem destroyed.
In the late sixties we started to use a skimmer to be able to limit the availability of organic carbon, this way being able to maintain a healthy ecosystem based on competition within the closed environment of an aquarium.

All information is available in the Makazi Baharini wiki including all approved papers used as references.

 

[ScottR]

I have been critical for carbon dosing since the beginning, that is why we kept on looking for a better way to export nitrogen.
In 2008 Ken S. Feldman an Kelly M. Maers warned about increased organic carbon availability. This is more as a decade ago! In an article published in the Advanced Aquarist they wrote:"circumstantial evidence encouraged Rohwer et al. to speculate that the introduction of carbohydrates (= a fuel source) will generate an imbalance in the bacterial component of the holobiont, and that this departure from equilibrium leads to coral mortality. The mechanism by which this induced bacterial proliferation causes coral death remains to be elucidated, and this pivotal issue must be addressed before this intriguing hypothesis can gain further traction. Nevertheless, the empirical evidence can be construed to support a robust relationship between elevated DOC levels, correspondingly increased bacterial populations, and coral mortality." They also wrote:" Reef bulletin boards all too frequently contain threads that begin "Help! My tank is crashing; my corals are dying, but all of my measurable water parameters are within expected ranges. What's wrong?" Could it be possible that elevated levels of DOC, for whatever the reason, are contributing to, or even causing, the coral loss? (FeldmanEnMaers2008>Feature Article: Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and the Reef Aquarium: An Initial Survey, Part I”. Page. . https://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/8/aafeature3.)
As all healthy ecosystems are based on the natural limited availability of organic carbon, I was skeptic about carbon dosing since the beginning and have collected and sheared information since then. CMF De Haes based a critical article on it in the Makazi Baharni wiki on the page "VODKA" also available in English.
One must not look far to find papers proving carbon dosing will mess up the ecosystem. Just DuckDuckGo TOC , DOC and corals and one will find plenty. Nothing new here!
Dieter Brockman, one of the driving forces behind the Berlin method, said when asked about carbon dosing in an interview with Roger Vitko in 2004: "The Internet is as much a curse to hobbyists as it is a blessing." It contains many false statements and badly thought out hobbyist "experiments" accepted as fact. (RVitko2009-09)

Recent research from different sources have confirmed that elevated organic carbon availability may be the main cause of coral bleaching and coral dead, just because it makes it impossible for the coral to manage its nutrient supply.
Logic as the fast growing part of the population of the holobiont will no longer depend on the food supply by coral and symbiodinium. The carbon cycle and nutrient supply within the holobiont will be completely messed up, the mini ecosystem destroyed.
In the late sixties we started to use a skimmer to be able to limit the availability of organic carbon, this way being able to maintain a healthy ecosystem based on competition within the closed environment of an aquarium.

All information is available in the Makazi Baharini wiki including all approved papers used as references.

From experience - and lots of others that have carbon dosed - I call shenanigans. Why did my nitrates drop, my reef grow and my tank balance itself out? I feel like you are on an all-out war against carbon dosing.

Red Sea’s nopox program has proven successful for many reefers and is part of their program. Again, not sure what bridges you’re out to burn.

 

[Mortie31]

I have been critical for carbon dosing since the beginning, that is why we kept on looking for a better way to export nitrogen.
In 2008 Ken S. Feldman an Kelly M. Maers warned about increased organic carbon availability. This is more as a decade ago! In an article published in the Advanced Aquarist they wrote:"circumstantial evidence encouraged Rohwer et al. to speculate that the introduction of carbohydrates (= a fuel source) will generate an imbalance in the bacterial component of the holobiont, and that this departure from equilibrium leads to coral mortality. The mechanism by which this induced bacterial proliferation causes coral death remains to be elucidated, and this pivotal issue must be addressed before this intriguing hypothesis can gain further traction. Nevertheless, the empirical evidence can be construed to support a robust relationship between elevated DOC levels, correspondingly increased bacterial populations, and coral mortality." They also wrote:" Reef bulletin boards all too frequently contain threads that begin "Help! My tank is crashing; my corals are dying, but all of my measurable water parameters are within expected ranges. What's wrong?" Could it be possible that elevated levels of DOC, for whatever the reason, are contributing to, or even causing, the coral loss? (FeldmanEnMaers2008>Feature Article: Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and the Reef Aquarium: An Initial Survey, Part I”. Page. . https://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/8/aafeature3.)
As all healthy ecosystems are based on the natural limited availability of organic carbon, I was skeptic about carbon dosing since the beginning and have collected and sheared information since then. CMF De Haes based a critical article on it in the Makazi Baharni wiki on the page "VODKA" also available in English.
One must not look far to find papers proving carbon dosing will mess up the ecosystem. Just DuckDuckGo TOC , DOC and corals and one will find plenty. Nothing new here!
Dieter Brockman, one of the driving forces behind the Berlin method, said when asked about carbon dosing in an interview with Roger Vitko in 2004: "The Internet is as much a curse to hobbyists as it is a blessing." It contains many false statements and badly thought out hobbyist "experiments" accepted as fact. (RVitko2009-09)

Recent research from different sources have confirmed that elevated organic carbon availability may be the main cause of coral bleaching and coral dead, just because it makes it impossible for the coral to manage its nutrient supply.
Logic as the fast growing part of the population of the holobiont will no longer depend on the food supply by coral and symbiodinium. The carbon cycle and nutrient supply within the holobiont will be completely messed up, the mini ecosystem destroyed.
In the late sixties we started to use a skimmer to be able to limit the availability of organic carbon, this way being able to maintain a healthy ecosystem based on competition within the closed environment of an aquarium.

All information is available in the Makazi Baharini wiki including all approved papers used as references.

Given the huge numbers of reefers using carbon dosing, if your hypothesis was true, we would be seeing far more coral deaths, instead of the odd reported case, that could be due to any number of reasons. Why don’t you run a few polls on here to ascertain just how many do use carbon dosing for a start, and then look at coral deaths as well, as I do not see any correlation in coral deaths and carbon dosing. Maybe it’s why all of the articles you are producing are from 10+ years ago as everyone has realised that as carbon dosing use has proliferated, the deaths are not as predicted years ago by Feldman et al...

 

[Belgian Anthias]

The hypothesis corals manage there nutrient availability by managing the compositien of its holobiont is made by meany meany years ago and is confirmed since by meany sources.
During the 1990s, marine microbial diversity turned out to be more obvious than previous studies showed, more than 95% of marine microbes could not be grown (Fuhrman and Campbell 1998) because most of the marine microbes have a complex nutritional and / or or need a physical environment; Until now (2016) it could not be simulated in culture conditions. (KValliappanEnCo2016)
In addition, microorganisms often survive mutually dependent on certain metabolic units. These associations cannot be provided under laboratory conditions. Also, microorganisms often survive in very clear associations with their hosts and the lack of important host aspects hinders the culture. Rohwer etal. (2001) used culture-independent techniques to detect the microbial populations associated with the Caribbean coral Montastraea franksi. Each coral species has specific and unique microbial communities that differ from the water column (Frias-Lopez et al., 2002; Rohwer et al., 2002) (KValliappanEnCo2016)
Now a complete picture of the association of coral holobiont has been elucidated by next-generation sequencing (NGS), which shows the diversified holobionts in the coral structure and the environment.(KValliappanEnCo2016)

Feldman and Maers were right when they suggested to wait for the results of further research before continuing to administer hydrocarbons. In 2008 it was assumed what many sources have confirmed during recent years.
As one was wrong for many years about the effect of increased availability of phosphate on calcification of coral (confirmed by many sources since 2014) one still continues to battle phosphate with carbohydrates which has been proven to be a lot worse for the coral as an elevated phosphate level ever has been or will be . It has been proven in 2007 carbohydrates may kill corals. Recent studies of the coral holobiont has shown why!
Other caveats which are directly linked to carbon dosing and a high C:N ratio are:
Decreased denitrification rates.
Increased DNRA rates.
Partial or complete removal of the autotrophic carying capacity ( nitrification) in closed systems or and bio-filters.
Messing up the nutrient balance, carbon and nitrogen cycles, in all ecosystems, big and small.

Carbon dosing is advised all over the world as innocent and safe to use! Well, it must be clear it is not! Certainly not in small ecosystems as an aquarium, the coral holobiont and all other organisms using and needing holobionts.
Carbon dosing is successfully used in aquaculture systems since the seventies. In such facilities, in most cases mono-cultures, the produced bio-load is harvested and a new culture is set up.

Current Carbon dosing is still based on trail and error, without being able to recognize the errors, Even the fact that in most cases carbon is dosed for the wrong reason is still not accepted.

From experience - and lots of others that have carbon dosed - I call shenanigans. Why did my nitrates drop, my reef grow and my tank balance itself out? I feel like you are on an all-out war against carbon dosing.

Red Sea’s nopox program has proven successful for many reefers and is part of their program. Again, not sure what bridges you’re out to burn.

Till now I could not find any proof carbon dosing directly lowers the nitrate level. Fast growing bacteria prefere ammonia-nitrogen as a nitrogen source. It does directly remove nitrification capacity and as Photo-autotrophs keep on using nitrate -nitrogen the nitrate level goes down. No nitrate-nitrogen is removed..
All info is available.

Dosing organic carbon is a choice to make and to make that choice one is best good informed about all aspects. This way one can keep it safe and know what to expect.
A system may flourish wile carbon dosing, depending on what parameters the dose is based and the dosing rate. But why dosing supplemental organic carbon knowing nature limits organic carbon availability for a good reason.?

The day something goes wrong one almost always will blame messengers as nitrate and phosphorus and often get advice to add more carbon to lower the availability of both messengers . One should know better.

There is nothing wrong by dosing carbon for a good reason, knowing how and why it may go wrong.
And thas is what we try to do, find out why and how.

 

[andrewkw]

I'm not really a traditional carbon doser in that I have a soft coral dominated system. I do have a couple of SPS, lots of LPS including NPS. I have however been carbon dosing for at least 5 years, probably longer. Initially I did have higher nitrate / phosphate issues, but those problems went away years ago. I've continued to carbon dose and my system runs mostly algae free and smooth. I feed a fair bit which includes target feeding almost every coral once a week, despite a modest fish population.

My skimmer pulls virtually the same amount week to week (performance significantly improved after start of carbon dosing), filter socks also clog like clockwork too. I don't have a science background, or any numbers to back up the fact carbon dosing is helping my tank other then it did solve high nitrate all those years ago, but I do have a stable tank with many fish and corals I've had for years, with the foundation of my reef being live rock purchased in 2006.

 

[Mortie31]

Carbon dosing is advised all over the world as innocent and safe to use! Well, it must be clear it is not! Certainly not in small ecosystems as an aquarium, the coral holobiont and all other organisms using and needing holobionts.

@Belgian Anthias Then why aren’t all of our corals dead, as virtual everyone uses or has used it? As I said in my previuos post if Feldman etc were correct we would have seen huge coral loss as carbon dosing use has increased and increased over the years.... and why have no papers been written since about all of the coral LIS in closed aquariums? The answer is Simple, it doesn’t affect how you say so... please explain how we can all carbon dose and not have corals die?

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Almost all reefers have kept there nitrates and phosphates law in the believe it may kill corals or at least is bad for calcification rates. Nitrate and phosphate has as far as I know never killed a coral directly . Bleaching may be caused by high nitrogen availability in combination with limited availability of phosphorus or other essential elements at high growth rates.
Many recent sources show phosphate availability increase calcification instead of inhibit it.
If problems occur it is always the nitrate and or phosphate level which is blamed or are linked to a problem, without any prove.
On the other hand it has been proven(2007) carbohydrates may kill corals! It has been shown high DOC levels messes up the coral holobiont and may provoke bleaching. As DOC levels are not measured it is more easy to blame the messengers as there are nitrate and phosphate.
If corals are kept a long time at elevated DOC levels they may or may not adapt to the situation, they may not be able to direct there nutrient supply any more which may go good as long there is no problem in the supply.

One does not have to add supplemental carbohydrates to control the nitrate and phosphate levels .
Carbon dosing does not restore the nitrogen balance anyway, as everything is removed in natural ratio's, if it is removed at all.
Nitrogen availability should be in balance with the other nutrients . As most nitrogen is released as inorganic nitrogen
and a skimmer removes some building materials constantly the nitrogen balance can not be restored by carbon dosing or an algae scrubber, which is better and safe to use for nutrient export.

If carbon is dosed based on the daily nitrogen over production, only nitrogen not needed is assimilated.. This would prevent carbon dosing removes most nitrification capacity. As long not everything is cleared out I personally will follow the advice given by Feldman and Maers in 2008 and wait.

To replace carbon dosing I may advice an Algae filter, but also an algae scrubber will not restore the nutrient balance.

 

[Mortie31]

Almost all reefers have kept there nitrates and phosphates law in the believe it may kill corals or at least is bad for calcification rates. Nitrate and phosphate has as far as I know never killed a coral directly . Bleaching may be caused by high nitrogen availability in combination with limited availability of phosphorus or other essential elements at high growth rates.
Many recent sources show phosphate availability increase calcification instead of inhibit it.
If problems occur it is always the nitrate and or phosphate level which is blamed or are linked to a problem, without any prove.
On the other hand it has been proven(2007) carbohydrates may kill corals! It has been shown high DOC levels messes up the coral holobiont and may provoke bleaching. As DOC levels are not measured it is more easy to blame the messengers as there are nitrate and phosphate.
If corals are kept a long time at elevated DOC levels they may or may not adapt to the situation, they may not be able to direct there nutrient supply any more which may go good as long there is no problem in the supply.

One does not have to add supplemental carbohydrates to control the nitrate and phosphate levels .
Carbon dosing does not restore the nitrogen balance anyway, as everything is removed in natural ratio's, if it is removed at all.
Nitrogen availability should be in balance with the other nutrients . As most nitrogen is released as inorganic nitrogen
and a skimmer removes some building materials constantly the nitrogen balance can not be restored by carbon dosing or an algae scrubber, which is better and safe to use for nutrient export.

If carbon is dosed based on the daily nitrogen over production, only nitrogen not needed is assimilated.. This would prevent carbon dosing removes most nitrification capacity. As long not everything is cleared out I personally will follow the advice given by Feldman and Maers in 2008 and wait.

To replace carbon dosing I may advice an Algae filter, but also an algae scrubber will not restore the nutrient balance.

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??

 

[ScottR]

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/seitaikogaku/25/3/25_75/_pdf/-char/ja