Vodka dosing query

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

How does vinegar promotes ANAMMOX?

I don't have reason to suppose it does. Nor did I think it would when I used vodka or vinegar.

That process is certainly not needed for either ammonia or nitrate to be consumed in processes spurred by organic carbon dosing.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

The presented dosing shedule does not take in account the C:N ratio. I try to find out on what parameters it is based . While nitrate is assimilated the C:N ratio will increase as the dosing thus not follow the total available nitrogen.
Which is the parameter followed or monitored during the dosing shedule to prevent the C:N ratio to becomes to high which may reduces the nitrification capacity drastically?

I don't see how C:N calculations or estimates are useful to determine organic carbon dosing levels. There are too many processes that use them at very different ratios. Trial and error is really the only useful way, IMO.

That said, I don't see how organic carbon dosing reduces nitrification capacity in any problematic way. It might even increase the potential for ammonia uptake,a s you stated in your first post claiming bacteria preferred ammonia (although I don't concur that all bacteria prefer ammonia. Denitrifying bacteria do not "prefer" ammonia to denitrify, obviously.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

I don't see how C:N calculations or estimates are useful to determine organic carbon dosing levels. There are too many processes that use them at very different ratios. Trial and error is really the only useful way, IMO.

That said, I don't see how organic carbon dosing reduces nitrification capacity in any problematic way. It might even increase the potential for ammonia uptake,a s you stated in your first post claiming bacteria preferred ammonia (although I don't concur that all bacteria prefer ammonia. Denitrifying bacteria do not "prefer" ammonia to denitrify, obviously.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

We are taking about carbon dosing. Denitrification does not influence the carrying capacity which is based on the ability to reduce ammonia.
I have at least 10 research papers in my database concerning the effect of carbon dosing on the C:N ratio , ammonia reduction and nitrification. There must be hundreds of thesis’s concerning the issue
Carbon can be dosed correctly in aquaculture systems based on the C:N ratio . The food content is known, the growth rate of the target is known, the bacterial protein content in known. No need for biofilters in these systems as the ammonia reduction is completely heterothropic. The carrying capacity of the system is completely dependable of the carbon doses and consumption of the produced protein. If you are right, these systems do not exist!
For LNS systems the likely hood something really will go wrong is minimal as the needed carrying capacity is very low; In mixed reefs with a lot of fish the shift to heterotropic ammonia reduction may certainly become a problem.
I do not claim anything. It is what it is. Most aerobic bacteria do prefer ammonia as they need tree times the energy to reduce nitrate and there NAS is inhibited by the presence of ammonia to safe energy.
Working on trail and error for managing a life support system? Really!!!!?

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Dosing supplemental organic carbon without influencing the nitrification and denitrification capacity is not possible. Having an idea of the daily nitrate overproduction and the quantity of protein added daily as food may help to determine a dose with minimal influence on the rest of the system. If these parameters are known carbon can be dosed safely and correctly. At least the dose will be based on known parameters and not on trail and error on systems completely different of yours.

Dosing carbon removes nothing from the system, the bio-load is increased which is then partially recycled, creating a carbon dosing nitrogen cycle. For removing nitrogen effectively from the system nitrate production is needed for denitrification ( exempt for ANAMMOX) or the bio-load has to be harvested. Some heterotropic bacteria can use nitrate aerobically but while doing this there growth rate is very low and there contribution to nitrate reduction is very limited.

The role of archaea for the carrying capacity of a marine aquarium system is very important as they are able to function in a low oxygen zone, in the transition zone from oxic to oxygen limited. There contribution to the ammonia reduction was measured to reach almost 50%. Archaea, which are not bacteria, are autothrops , but there growth is limited by carbon dosing.

The assimilative Nas-enzyms of bacteria are induced by nitrate but suppressed by the presence of ammonia.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

I don't have reason to suppose it does. Nor did I think it would when I used vodka or vinegar.

That process is certainly not needed for either ammonia or nitrate to be consumed in processes spurred by organic carbon dosing.

ANAMMOX uses nitrite to reduce ammonia directly to nitrogen gas and a bit nitrate. They are autothrops. For aquaria ANAMMOX is the ideal process as nitrogen is effectively removed without producing a lot of nitrate. Carbon dosing may wipe them out in the competition for ammonia because of there very low growth rate. I have no references (yet) to support that claim.

In the article used as info for vinegar dosing it is assumed that vinegar dosing does support ANAMMOX. No references are added to support that claim.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Important for correct carbon dosing is that organic carbon stays the limiting factor for heterothropic growth. Using the scheme will create an unknown C:N ratio by which phosphate may become the limiting factor certainly in a system with a very low phosphate content ( maybe using phosphate binders). The scheme does not take in account the phosphate availability of a specific aquarium. This is because errors are not linked to the real problem in the trail and error scheme. Till now I can not find a valid reference for the scheme .
Due to the limited growth caused by phosphate limitation and not carbon limitation, carbon may build up but as dosing is continued following the scheme. A high C:N ratio may be the result. The moment enough phosphate becomes available explosive growth of heterothrops will prevent normal functioning of the other ammonia reducers, depleting oxygen, minerals and building materials, creating a shock effect.
No problem as growth will stabilise and a lot of the minerals and building materials will become available for reuse.
The explosive growth will start with some delay as the bacteria are in a lag phase . As these bacteria have been suffering from phosphate shortness for a period of time most of these bacteria will store a lot of phosphate , enough for several cell divisions, before starting there log phase. A lot of bacteria, PAO ( Phosphate accumulating organisms ) can store a lot of phosphate. ( cyano's store phosphate for +- 4 cell divisions, enough for an increase of biomass x 32) When these PAO are consumed a lot of this phosphate is released back into the system because it is not needed by the consuming organism and secreted. A part is removed by the skimmer ( a skimmer is very selective in removing live bacteria, I do not know yet if PAO are skimmed off ore not. ) A lot of PAO are sessile.
After the log phase and the stationary phase the dying phase is started. After explosive growth, explosive die off is following. Bacteria of the same generation will die about the same time. Releasing everything back into the system.
For save and correct carbon dosing the dose must correspond with the available phosphate!!!!

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I don't agree with many of the things you are asserting.

Most importantly, trying to base carbon dosing on the nitrogen content of foods is just not going to be useful or desirable.

"Carbon can be dosed correctly in aquaculture systems based on the C:N ratio . The food content is known, the growth rate of the target is known, the bacterial protein content in known."

OK, so you tell me. Suppose the foods I am adding to my 100 gallon reef aquarium each day contain 1 gram of total nitrogen.

How much vinegar (acetic acid) dosing each day is optimal?

 

[Belgian Anthias]

I don't agree with many of the things you are asserting.

Most importantly, trying to base carbon dosing on the nitrogen content of foods is just not going to be useful or desirable.

"Carbon can be dosed correctly in aquaculture systems based on the C:N ratio . The food content is known, the growth rate of the target is known, the bacterial protein content in known."

OK, so you tell me. Suppose the foods I am adding to my 100 gallon reef aquarium each day contain 1 gram of total nitrogen.

How much vinegar (acetic acid) dosing each day is optimal?

I gave an example of how carbon is dosed on known parameters in an aquaculture system to prove that autothropic ammonium reduction shifts to heterothropic ammonia reduction by carbon dosing of which you assumed it was not an issue. In an aquaculture system the growth rate of the target specimen and the total nitrogen consumption is known. The protein content of the food is known and protein production due to carbon dosing is known. Carbon is dosed in function to the food added, the nitrogen consumption of the target specimen and the known ammonia production of the target specimen to maintain a high C:N ratio which makes the ammonia reduction ( and the carrying capacity, which is compared to a reef aquarium extremely high) completely heterotrhopic. This is the only way to make the ammonia reduction follow the growth rate in the system as autothropic nitrification by biofilters is to slow for reaching this growth rate and one has not to bother about the nitrate production.
In an aquarium we have to make a choice, keeping the installed mix of ammonia reducers or shift the ammonia reduction to heterothropic reduction. As in an aquarium we have no target specimen of which the daily growth rate and nitrogen consumption is known we can not target a specific C:N ratio. If the choice is made for heterothropic ammonia reduction than the dose is not a problem as long it is enough and is not interrupted. Follow the scheme I would say. This includes that the limiting factor will become the other building materials, in the first place phosphate. If the choice for heterotrophic ammonia reduction is made one can best use bio pellets. ( only for making live easy)
If carbon is dosed correctly on known parameters the bacteria will assimilate ammonia and not nitrate which reduces the nitrification rate producing less nitrate but the denitrification capacity is maintained as long as a nitrate level is maintained. This way the nitrate ( nitrogen) will be removed effectively from the system by denitrification instead of become part of the bio-load. By removing only what is to much a low C:N ratio is maintained. How this is done will answer your question.

The first parameter is the food protein content of which we can estimate ( calculate) the average produced ammonia and ureum secretion after consumption. The second parameter is the daily nitrate overproduction which is easily determined. With the available parameters one can calculate the used amount of nitrogen by the system and to produce this nitrate overproduction. Now we calculate the carbon dose needed to remove the daily overproduction of ammonia. As only ammonia is assimilated the installed denitrification capacity which was insufficient before will now be able to reduce the nitrate stored in the system sending the nitrogen to the atmosphere. The critics will say that nitrogen will be taken up from the atmosphere an cyano's will store nitrogen and release it but cyno's only use free nitrogen when ammonia or nitrate is not available and as long sufficient denitrification is maintained the system will not take up nitrogen from the atmosphere. Anyway, this way I am shore not creating a high C/N ratio which will mess up the complete system balance . As we have some idea about the total nirtrogen input overdosing can be prevented.
For dosing carbon safely one does not need two parameters. Only one, the daily nitrate overproduction. The corresponding ammonia quantity is calculated and a daily carbon dose sufficient to assimilate the amount of ammonia which correspond to the daily nitrate overproduction can be determined. The stored nitrate will be reduced by denitrification. This way overdosing is not possible and nitrogen is removed effectively from the system.

The parameter can also be TAN when TAN is detected in the system, this way correcting an insufficient carrying capacity.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I gave an example of how carbon is dosed on known parameters in an aquaculture system to prove that autothropic ammonium reduction shifts to heterothropic ammonia reduction by carbon dosing of which you assumed it was not an issue.

Why would I care about that happening?

Lots of biological processes happen.

 

[wowkingjames]

Thank you all for the info.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

I forgot an important parameter for safe carbon dosing. The phosphate content. A calculated dose based on known parameters must always be compared with the available phosphate. If not enough phosphate the dose must be limited to avoid carbon build up. In normal circumstances it should be no problem but as some reefers want a natural phosphate level, those may forget safe carbon dosing.

As far as I know (yet) the scheme used is based on a scheme once published in Germany , which has had its own live on the internet, adapted and adjusted based on experience of users . A lot of references used in articles just point to an other other article which uses references that point to an article that uses references pointing to an article or forum with references pointing the the first mentioned article. The time this was made on trail and error it was not known how bacteria use there different pathways, it is still not full understood as more and more functions are detected, and the author had no clue about the processes involved. He only looked at the nitrate level and during dosing different doses he did not know if the nitrate was removed by denitrification or by assimilation. A lot of research was done about carbon dosing for aquaculture systems ( biofloq systems) sins the '70's and managing the shift to heterothropic ammonia reduction by the C:N ratio was already well understood. But as the internet did not existed this information was not available for the normal aquarium keeper. The information is available for everybody now. Just have to search for it ( and pay for it) as a lot of research papers are not available for free for the normal non scientific circle.

Nature has its reasons to limit the availability of organic carbon and to turn it into anorganic carbon during mineralisation.
Nitrate is no threat for the system at all and is needed to close the nitrogen cycle in a closed aquarium system.

Correct dosing based on a known parameter can help to maintain a good balance as it is possible to maintain sufficient nitrification and denitrification capacity.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I certainly agree that one good way to determine a dose of an organic is to monitor nitrate and phosphate and target them to appropriate levels (say, 2-5 ppm nitrate and 0.02-0.03 ppm phosphate).

While I did it instead by monitoring the appearance of organisms in the tank, testing N and P levels is likely easier and perhaps more reassuring for newer reefers that aren't sure what to expect from their creatures.

What I found at very high doses of vinegar (2 mL per gallon per day, estimated based on my dosing pump rated delivery) was haziness of the water (presumably from suspended bacteria) and browning up of some organisms (such as an anemone), perhaps from elevated zoox levels.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Why would I care about that happening?

Lots of biological processes happen.

If dosing is stopped , interrupted or reduced drastic ( by half) and a high C:N ratio was maintained during a period of time ( which is possible following the scheme as it does not follow any valuable parameter of the specific system) one may be confronted with a new tank syndrome in a full operational system. Reinstalling the needed nitrification capacity may take weeks.
Being aware of this possibility carbon dosing should be reduced by small steps during a period of at least two weeks. Not by half at once as advised using the scheme.

For loaded mixed reefs this is an issue and certainly for loaded fish only thanks if one would consider to use carbon dosing. I would certainly advice to dose based on known parameters. Or use a good biofilter.


As the denitrifaction capacity may be lost by keeping a high C:N ratio most nitrogen stays stored in the system. Feeding must be adjusted taking in account the protein added by carbon dosing to prevent unwanted bioload build up.
In aquaculture systems using heterotrophic ammonia reduction this bioload increase is the target. When the target is reached, at that moment the consumption does not follow the protein production any more and the batch is harvested.
Maybe some scrimp can be cultivated in a refugium to bring food on the table while dosing carbon?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

If dosing is stopped , interrupted or reduced drastic ( by half) and a high C:N ratio was maintained during a period of time ( which is possible following the scheme as it does not follow any valuable parameter of the specific system) one may be confronted with a new tank syndrome in a full operational system. Reinstalling the needed nitrification capacity may take weeks.
Being aware of this possibility carbon dosing should be reduced by small steps during a period of at least two weeks. Not by half at once as advised using the scheme.

That may be true and may be useful advice, but IMO, I do not think it is at all clear how important nitrification actually is in an established reef tank with lots of photosynthetic organisms that would likely love to take up ammonia, if any extra became available.

Once folks like Seneye and Mindstream start giving continuous ammonia data for reef tanks, we might get some interesting data on how ammonia varies with different husbandry practices. I know I'm interested to see that.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

To assimilate the nitrogen of 1 gram nitrate a dose of 24 ml vodka 40% is needed or 107ml vinegar 8° or 16,9 grams sugar (sucrose) ethanol
dosing on a parameter is not difficult at all.
The nitrate overproduction is measured over a period of minimum one week. Samples of the nitrate content are taken just before lights on with the same test kit. The difference between the second and the first sample devised by the days will give the average daily nitrate build up in ppm ( mg/l) x net aquarium content is total daily nitrate build up in mg. Assimilating the same amount of ammonia-nitrogen will stabilise the nitrate build up. To lower the nitrate level ( by denitrification!) a bit more ammonia-nitrogen has to be assimilated daily.
Of coarse it is not just mathematics as ammonia is also reduced by other users. Adjustments must be made with small increments or decrements of not more than 10% of the original dose weekly. When it is done this way nitrification - and denitrification capacity will be maintained.

Let it be clear that I am not a user of regular carbon dosing and that I have no practical experience in using this method. It is part of an in dept study I made about the different ways to reduce ammonia and nitrate and how to close the nitrogen cycle. By fine tuning carbon dosing based on a parameter closing the nitrogen cycle by denitrification is still possible.

I prefere to use biofilters to support the carrying capacity.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

To assimilate the nitrogen of 1 gram nitrate a dose of 24 ml vodka 40% is needed or 107ml vinegar 8° or 16,9 grams sugar (sucrose)
dosing on a parameter is not difficult at all.
.

Of course it is difficult. It's never going to work out like you claim in a real reef tank.

Your link requires a password but it is highly unlikely to be convincing.

Did you assume denitrification was taking place? How much? It uses more N than C (which is way off of your claimed ratio)

How much aerobic respiration did you assume? It uses organic carbon and no nitrate.

IMO, it makes no sense to claim a certain amount of dosed organic reduces nitrate by a fixed amount, not even as a ballpark estimate.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

That may be true and may be useful advice, but IMO, I do not think it is at all clear how important nitrification actually is in an established reef tank with lots of photosynthetic organisms that would likely love to take up ammonia, if any extra became available.

Once folks like Seneye and Mindstream start giving continuous ammonia data for reef tanks, we might get some interesting data on how ammonia varies with different husbandry practices. I know I'm interested to see that.

In a normal mixed reef tank easily 1.5ppm nitrate may be produced daily. To assimilate this amount of nitrogen by photo-autothrops +- 375 grams of algae must grow daily in a 1000 litres tank . I prefer an algae refugium above carbon dosing to assimilate small amounts of nitrogen as I have control over how much I actually remove. But one must have the space!
There are different ways to manage a tank. As I have not banned the biofilter, managing the carrying capacity is completely different as for most reef keepers. I see nitrate as a good thing.

Interesting and something to follow up? In normal circumstances free ammonia is used very fast and it is produced as long as ammonium is available. Secreted free ammonia is transformed to ammonium the moment it is released. Till know I have no clue for what I can use continues ammonia ( NH3) data as it will be difficult to link the results to certain processes. it may tell us if there is to much free ammonia and give a warning but I am not convinced I need this. I thought the same about a mobile phone;Happy

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Of course it is difficult. It's never going to work out like you claim in a real reef tank.

Your link requires a password but it is highly unlikely to be convincing.

Did you assume denitrification was taking place? How much? It uses more N than C (which is way off of your claimed ratio)

How much aerobic respiration did you assume? It uses organic carbon and no nitrate.

IMO, it makes no sense to claim a certain amount of dosed organic reduces nitrate by a fixed amount, not even as a ballpark estimate.

So, yes! I assume there are biofilms present in the system.

And I have learned of this discussion. As it is the aim to remove the stored nitrate by denitrification and not store it into biomass the nitrate reduction will increase the C:N ratio if the same dose is maintained. Depending of nitrate level and the amount nitrate removed the dose must be adjusted.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

The ability to reduce ammonium is responsible for the carrying capacity of the system. Playing with it has consequences.

Ammonium is reduced by photoautotrops, autotrops and heterotrops. All prefer ammonia for cellsynthese. Due to the limited availability of organic carbon not all ammonium is used up by the heterotrops leaving enough to close the nitrogen cycle. Due to the constant battle for usable carbon aerobic heterotrops became r-strategists and developed a very high growth rate, 5 x faster as the autotrops. ( creating +- 40X more bio-load to reduce the same amount of ammonium ) This way the aerobe heterotrops win the battle for available ammonium and oxygen in the water column. When the ammonium is used up they can use nitrate while waiting for more ammonium. When using nitrate there growth rate will slow down as they must spent most there energy to use nitrate as a nitrogen source for cellsynthese.
The photo-autotrops, which are the basic food source for most living creatures, need also that ammonia. But during the high growth of the heterotrops the photoautotrops have already switched over to nitrate as nitrogen source if available as they are not able to win the battle for ammonium.
This nitrate is produced by the autotrops which take up ammonium for cellsynthesis and growth while using it producing nitrite and finally nitrate. This nitrate is the emergency nitrogen source for the photoautotrops and the heterotrops and for heterotrop and autotrop denitrifiers ( which do not support the carrying capacity) which are responsible for closing the nitrogen cycle as the produced nitrogen gas can escape to the atmosphere where it came from. Te importance of the presence of an adequate amount of nitrate is clear.
As most nitrifiers are sessile and part of a biofilm they can not take part in the battle for building materials which is mainly taken place in the water column They are dependable of what comes to them. The amount of ammonia and oxygen used by the heterotrops will certainly not become available for nitrification and influence the denitrification rate. During periods of high availability of organic carbon nitrification is slowed down. Denitrification is maintained due to stored nitrate. In a nitrifying bio-film the denitrifiction rate will also be reduced as less oxygen is reduced by the nitrifiers minimising the Oxygen minimum - and anoxic zones within the biofilm. ( in bio-reactors this is different due to the total BOD demand and the limited availability)
There is a huge difference between what is going one and the circumstances in a biofilm and what is going one and the circumstances in the water column where everything is measured.
Processes take place in a micro world. Processes may take fractions of seconds, what is possible here may not be possible there. If biofilters are used the effect of carbon dosing will have a lot more immediate impact on the systems nitrogen cycle.

All the above is regulated by the C:N ratio and the availability of the needed building material.
If supplemental organic carbon is dosed I would think the C/N ratio it is important!?

What happens exactly when supplemental organic carbon is provided is impossible to determine but one can try to focus on the main thing. Reducing the nitrate level in the system. ( reducing the nitrate level is not the same as removing nitrate.)



When carbon is supplemented , the first thing that the waiting aerobic heterotropic bacteria will do is storing usable carbon for later use in the form of PHA ( of which biopellets are made), they stay in a lag phase which may take some time , from less than an hour to days. Once stored enough PHA they start the log phase using up the ammonium in there neighbourhood. If there is enough carbon available to use up the available ammonia they will do so leaving nothing for the others. That is why nature limited the organic carbon availability.
After the log phase there comes a die off phase in the same rate as used in the log phase. What is not consumed will be recycled and mineralised the consumed portion will mostly be released as ammonia and urea, When not now, probably tomorrow.

Dosing carbon without taking in account the C:N ratio may mess up the complete system and it will shift the carrying capacity to heterotropic growth for shure. Using the scheme increases the C:N ratio as nirtrogen is removed by autotrops and carbon added. As the nitrate level says nothing about the daily ammonia production ( it may have build up over a very long period or over a short period) all ammonia may be removed by the aerobic heterotrops leaving nothing for the nitrifiers.

No nitrate production due to heterotropic growth is no denitrification, is no algae growth, no phytho plankton. Cyano's which have less competitors for anorganic carbon will flourish taking up free nitrogen ( increasing TAN)

As determining the C:N ratio in an aquarium is not for tomorrow it seems best to dose on a known parameter.

That parameter can be something that is not used. Daily doses based on the daily nitrogen overprodution?. When the overproduction is removed by ammonia assimilation the stored nitrate may be reduced by the available nitrate reducers which now are mainly the photoautotrops and denitrifiers. This will avoid most ammonia is used up by the heterotrops.
For lowering the nitrate level only a bit more as the daily overproduction of nitrogen must be removed daily.
A low C:N ratio is maintained. at all times
The influence on the C/N ratio will depend on the ratio between the sum of the photoautotropic nitrate assimilation ( including cyano's) and the autotropic nitrate removal by denitrifcation relative to the total heterotropic nitrate removal by denitrification. Normally the ratio will increase. If a lot of nitrate must be removed or assimilated this procedure may take time. Algae ( and cyano's) must be harvested otherwise the nitrate removal rate will be limited to the denitrification capacity still available as the carbon dose will not remove nitrate.

Some interaction would be appreciated