The Dutch Synthetic Reefing method (DSR) has made its way to the USA!
- Thread starter DSR USA
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)
Four dosing heads are required, but six is also covenient. It gives you the option to dose NO3/PO4 at a later stage.Looking at that data it recommends:
- At a minimum this requires 4 dosing heads if you want to automate it, correct?
- Power filter placed in sump, preferred. Display optional.
- Refugium isn't part of the design so if hobbyist has one - up to them what to do, not do but it won't impact dosing?
- EZ calculator. Enter display volume and it will provide base starting numbers (estimate total - display size - rock + sump + refugium) = number to enter
- EZ Buffer 10.6 ml
- EZ Calcium 2.1 ml
- EZ Trace 1.1 ml
- EZ Carbon 3.8 ml
I am guessing/assuming that testing for Ca and/or Alk would show if one needs to increase or decrease of dosing? Same with phosphate/nitrate? Which of the 4 is the primary nob or dosing agent to use for adjustment or fine tuning? Is that the Carbon source or the buffer?
Would like to understand what is the control mechanism or test result used for adjustment.
PF in display is most effective to start with, it unleashes the full potential.
DSR is a full system which don't require the support of any other nutrient removal system. All other actions just overcomplicate the process. Only in case of structural overfeeding/overstocking some tanks aquire additional support.
Baseline dosing are a way to get started.
The dosing ratio's are a guideline. Eventually you will have to tune in the individual dosings according messurements.
The calculator is a very usefull tool to do so. Also fill in the days between measuring intervals to determine the "additional" daily dosings. Make sure you do both the corrections and the adjustment to daily dosings.
Macro elements and nutrients controll have separate dynamics and should be treated accordingly.
The primary knob for macro elements is Alk.
The calculator is self explanatory. Only the yelllow cells are editable.
PO4 is buffered by the substrate, so it need time to leach out and reach a equilibrium with the water. Dosings are much easier to control. Don't just (over) feed to raise nutrient, this may cause other problems like more detritus buildup and eventually lead to problems like dino/cyano outbreaks. Just feed what you fish require...
I dont over feed I feed heavy and export heavy and run bare bottom reefs.
I now run refugiums on my systems and dose no po4 reducing media. This has worked the best for me on all systems.
This keeps my systems at <3 no3 and .05 for po4.
All I have to do is harvest macro algae from time to time based on levels.
I do run a 3" sand bed on my remote 30g fuge though.
Dose the Fe+ contain Iron and other elements hence the + or just Iron?
Last question…
The Carbon VS = Vinegar and Sugar? What is the actual carbon source. Just trying to get an idea of how aggressive it will be. For example, an organic seaweed polymer is much less aggressive than say Vodka or Vinegar. Not to mention some Carbon sources grow the good guys, but also all the bad guys.
100% agree. Is the EZ Carbon a Vodka and Vinegar source that includes Iron?
What if the nutrients stay too low? Do you never dose it.?
I run a PF myself, but not all the time. I use it as a tool. I see that it’s very effective at removing particles and clearing the water column. It also removes organics that would break down and elevate PO4 which results in lower PO4 and kills skimmer performance. If you’re not careful it can polish the water too clean.
I’m guessing that since you’re skimmerless one of the primary reasons for the PF is to remove organics, detritus, remove bacteria, & help with light penetration.
Since it’s removing both good and bad bacteria from the water column, what do you feel are the most beneficial qualities of a PF?
Yes, I have not see anything that can outcompete it. Socks, filter rollers, floss, etc all work well, but none of them can perform like PF can. The PF pump really speeds up the process and makes the difference.
Thoughts?
I’m guessing that since you’re skimmerless one of the primary reasons for the PF is to remove organics, detritus, remove bacteria, & help with light penetration.
Since it’s removing both good and bad bacteria from the water column, what do you feel are the most beneficial qualities of a PF?
Yes, I have not see anything that can outcompete it. Socks, filter rollers, floss, etc all work well, but none of them can perform like PF can. The PF pump really speeds up the process and makes the difference.
Thoughts?
EZ is vinegar, sugar, and iron.
You wont get the exact amounts as its a propreitary blend.
Its strong and I just follow the directions with good results.
I only dose it at very low amounts to feed the corals and do not use it to lower po4 as I use a fuge now with good results.
Its good stuff just start low and you will see good results.
I used it for over a year in my 120.
Belgian Anthias
Valuable Member
EZ-carbon is designated to remove both PO4 and NO3. ( assimilating, not exporting) Containing a well-balanced mixture of Fe+ and CarbonVS?
Does this mean EZ-carbon has the same cavaets as adding carbohydrates but is better because of some iron is added? The carrying capacity is based on 3 pillars, heterotrophic, autotrophic and photo-autotrophic ammonia reduction; Does this mean adding EZ-carbon is less responsible for removing pillar 2 and 3 and one must not keep on adding EZ carbon to support the carrying capacity needed? Unnatural Logaritmic heterotrophic growth boosted by organic carbon supplements taking up PO4 and NH3 does include natural logarithmic decay, releasing PO4 and ammonia. Each carbon cycle most carbon present in EZ is used, released and exported as CO2 for energy production but is not replaced by pillar 3, normally importing carbon for clearing the water of nutrients as PO4 and nitrate. We do know bacteria normally use ammonia for growth ( growth means more bacteria are produced as bacteria are dying) and nitrate only is used as a nitrogen source for survival, not for bacterial growth. What EZ-carbon is able to do what correct feeding can not? The C/N ratio of feed ( protein content) is responsible for balancing the 3 pilars supporting the carying capacity . My opinion adding organic carbon supplements will be responsible for removing pillars 2 and 3 making the system dependable of Carbon additions to maintain its carrying capacity which is of course very good news for those selling the product.
Does this mean EZ-carbon has the same cavaets as adding carbohydrates but is better because of some iron is added? The carrying capacity is based on 3 pillars, heterotrophic, autotrophic and photo-autotrophic ammonia reduction; Does this mean adding EZ-carbon is less responsible for removing pillar 2 and 3 and one must not keep on adding EZ carbon to support the carrying capacity needed? Unnatural Logaritmic heterotrophic growth boosted by organic carbon supplements taking up PO4 and NH3 does include natural logarithmic decay, releasing PO4 and ammonia. Each carbon cycle most carbon present in EZ is used, released and exported as CO2 for energy production but is not replaced by pillar 3, normally importing carbon for clearing the water of nutrients as PO4 and nitrate. We do know bacteria normally use ammonia for growth ( growth means more bacteria are produced as bacteria are dying) and nitrate only is used as a nitrogen source for survival, not for bacterial growth. What EZ-carbon is able to do what correct feeding can not? The C/N ratio of feed ( protein content) is responsible for balancing the 3 pilars supporting the carying capacity . My opinion adding organic carbon supplements will be responsible for removing pillars 2 and 3 making the system dependable of Carbon additions to maintain its carrying capacity which is of course very good news for those selling the product.
Last edited:
I don’t carbon dose, but was wondering what was in that particular product. I get a lot of questions about everything so I try to stay up on some of these products. Thanks for the info!
I have been using EZ carbon and have it found excellent for N control, not so much for P control in the sense that it removes N much faster than P. So My if my nutrients are "out of control" it usually bottoms out my N before my P. It is also difficult (for me) to fine tune and get consistent results the way I can with my skimmer and GFO.
I use a GFO reactor with it and a refugium, with that I can keep it in balance. I have tried weaning off the refugium, it leads to sky high nutrients, an algal outbreak and then readings of zero. When I use all 3 I can keep my N and P at nice, low, consistent levels.
I like using EZ carbon but haven't found a way to use it alone.
I use a GFO reactor with it and a refugium, with that I can keep it in balance. I have tried weaning off the refugium, it leads to sky high nutrients, an algal outbreak and then readings of zero. When I use all 3 I can keep my N and P at nice, low, consistent levels.
I like using EZ carbon but haven't found a way to use it alone.
If you’re nutrients are elevating sky high without the use of a refugium and GFO, I’d guess you may be overfeeding.
I feed my fish minimally, but I don’t feed my Acropora directly. They get Bacteria + N&P + light. IMO that’s all they need.
Belgian Anthias
Valuable Member
How fine tune nutrient availability using a skimmer and GFO ? How the export rate is managed? Is it about fine tuning what is not used up by growth and is able to accumulate or about fine tune and balancing growth in a way it is able to use up all nutrients, about preventing nutrients may accumulate? Does one need a skimmer or and GFO to do this? Or EZ carbon?
EZ carbon is organic carbon, DOC ( removed by a skimmer?). It stimulates fast heterotrophic growth ( free energy source) assimilating N and P and all other for bacterial growth essential building materials . How the product EZ carbon may be responsible for removing N much faster compared to P?
Fast growing heterotropic bacteria prefer to use ammonia- nitrogen as nitrogen source. I understand it is difficult for you to fine tune the nutrient reserve ( is what may accumulate and is not used up by growth) using a combination of GFO, a refuge and dosing carbon. Dosing carbon and using GFO has a huge influence on growth in a refuge as both are limiting factors for growth of macro algae. GFO , removing phosphate, is also a limiting factor for fast bacterial growth ( dosing EZ carbon). If N is measured based on the nitrate level dosing EZ does remove and limits autotropic carrying capacity ( pillars 2 and 3) including the capacity for producing nitrate, less nitrate will be produced, meaning normal nitrate consumption and natural export of nitrogen gas is responsible for lowering the nitrate level and is not in relation to P. In normal circumstances +- 16% of in biofilms daily produced NO3-N may be exported by natural denitrification, autotrophic and heterotrophic. Making new wounds in an attempt to stem the bleeding?
For removing inorganic nutrients from the water one needs growth. Why growth is not able to clear the water of all nutrients in a well lit aquarium? One may start with what and how much is added. If one needs organic carbon to fine tune the C/N ratio of feed, one may start with the C/N ratio of food added and avoid the use of high protein food. Using a refuge one should be able to balance growth as needed.
Similar threads
