Vodka stopped working

[jackson6745]

35ml is a really high vodka dose for a 100g tank. That’s high for a 300 gallon thank. Are you seeing cyano from that dose? I think you likely need to the increase nutrient export in your system. Skimmer upgrade, algae scrubber, increase water changes, more mechanical filtration etc.

 

[KrisReef]

35ml is a really high vodka dose for a 100g tank. That’s high for a 300 gallon thank. Are you seeing cyano from that dose? I think you likely need to the increase nutrient export in your system. Skimmer upgrade, algae scrubber, increase water changes, more mechanical filtration etc.

I was thinking decreasing nutrient input.
13 grams of mysis is almost a pound each month.

My casual observation is that we generally overfeed, possibly because 13 grams is only one bite for us at a normal meal.

I bet your tank will have DT’s if you cut back on the vodka, but maybe I am projecting?

 

[Dan_P]

An alternative view to the “lag” is the the numbers of bacteria that consume these organics is initially low enough that even rapid doubling is not detectably impacting nitrate or ammonia until the bacteria reach sufficient quantity to move the total N.

That said, there may well be a lag as they change their controls to uptake the organic and the N sources to grow faster.

When we get to the end of the rapid growth phase, I’m not seeing a reason to think there is a carbon limitation (does adding more organic reignite rapid growth?) as opposed some some other limitation.

In any case, in a reef tank dosing new vodka every day, I cannot see how a dose that once drove growth no longer does due to any sort of organic carbon limitation, the limitation must be something else.

Lag fun fact: there is no detectable lag period for vinegar and ammonia as there is with vinegar and nitrate. Could we infer that gene activation might only be necessary for nitrate uptake and reduction?

I agree that it is more difficult to imagine a bacteria population outgrowing its carbon source in the aquarium. But if we consider that bacteria in the aquarium are probably in a stationary state most of the time, it’s easier to imagine carbon dosing is knocking them from their normal growth phase into a higher growth phase. When they outgrow that new carbon source, it’s back to normal (loafing). Predation, death and bacteriophage in the aquarium are ways to reduce a bacteria population, but I don’t know what percent of the population is lost everyday. If it’s not 90%, then it becomes easier to imagine a stalling carbon dose. But…carbon dosing stalling or not working seems to be the exception. The list of experiments continues to grow :-)

 

[RelaxingWithTheReef]

When I started using NoPox for carbon dosing last year, I wanted to reduce an elevated Nitrate level. The RedSea recommended dosage was “3 mL / 100 L(25 gal).”

This initially worked, but after a while the process got “stuck.” Turns out the tank also required the addition of approximately 0.100 ppm phosphate daily using NeoPhos to keep the phosphate over 0.050 ppm, and allow the process to continue. Overall each reduction of 1-2 ppm nitrate required approximately 0.100 ppm of additional phosphate (some of this total was also the baseline requirement of the tank before NoPox).

While others on R2R have posted similar experiences, others have posted no need for phosphate addition. The reason for this is unknown to be.

While the OP is measuring a seemingly reasonable phosphate level, I would try adding additional phosphate to raise the phosphate level 0.020-0.030 ppm. Maybe there is a testing error or something else going on that is resulting in phosphate limitation.

There may also be a trace element limitation as mentioned, so a couple nice water changes may also result in an improvement.

@Dan_P has made an interesting observation that I also observed. When reducing the NoPox to increase nitrate, at times a seemingly small reduction can result in a relatively large 2-3+ ppm increase in nitrate the next day. I did not understand this, but Dan’s thought of bacteria die off and nitrate release back into the water is interesting, and makes sense.

To supplement nitrate reduction, I have also had really good results using Seachem Matrix in the sump. It’s inert and not chemical based so you cannot put too much into the tank. 1-2 L / 100 gal in a very coarse media bag should produce significant nitrate reduction after a few weeks or so. Over time it’s amazing how many pods and sponges etc. populate the Matrix to form a wonderful aerobic and anaerobic biological filter. I can’t prove it, but I think this also significantly improves carbon dosing nitrate reduction.

 

[Dan_P]

When I started using NoPox for carbon dosing last year, I wanted to reduce an elevated Nitrate level. The RedSea recommended dosage was “3 mL / 100 L(25 gal).”

This initially worked, but after a while the process got “stuck.” Turns out the tank also required the addition of approximately 0.100 ppm phosphate daily using NeoPhos to keep the phosphate over 0.050 ppm, and allow the process to continue. Overall each reduction of 1-2 ppm nitrate required approximately 0.100 ppm of additional phosphate (some of this total was also the baseline requirement of the tank before NoPox).

While others on R2R have posted similar experiences, others have posted no need for phosphate addition. The reason for this is unknown to be.

While the OP is measuring a seemingly reasonable phosphate level, I would try adding additional phosphate to raise the phosphate level 0.020-0.030 ppm. Maybe there is a testing error or something else going on that is resulting in phosphate limitation.

There may also be a trace element limitation as mentioned, so a couple nice water changes may also result in an improvement.

@Dan_P has made an interesting observation that I also observed. When reducing the NoPox to increase nitrate, at times a seemingly small reduction can result in a relatively large 2-3+ ppm increase in nitrate the next day. I did not understand this, but Dan’s thought of bacteria die off and nitrate release back into the water is interesting, and makes sense.

To supplement nitrate reduction, I have also had really good results using Seachem Matrix in the sump. It’s inert and not chemical based so you cannot put too much into the tank. 1-2 L / 100 gal in a very coarse media bag should produce significant nitrate reduction after a few weeks or so. Over time it’s amazing how many pods and sponges etc. populate the Matrix to form a wonderful aerobic and anaerobic biological filter. I can’t prove it, but I think this also significantly improves carbon dosing nitrate reduction.

I also have measured 0.1 ppm PO4 consumed for every 1 ppm of nitrate consumed. This ratio is consistently observed until the nitrate consumption stalls. Then phosphate consumption stalls and sometimes is produced.

 

[Reefering1]

I also have measured 0.1 ppm PO4 consumed for every 1 ppm of nitrate consumed. This ratio is consistently observed until the nitrate consumption stalls. Then phosphate consumption stalls and sometimes is produced.

If phosphate increased after the stall, doesn't this mean the bacteria died? Perhaps a population boom/ bust?

 

[KrisReef]

Too many moving parts.

:beaming-face-with-smiling-eyes:

 

[Dan_P]

If phosphate increased after the stall, doesn't this mean the bacteria died? Perhaps a population boom/ bust?

I am using that as a working hypothesis

 

[Reefering1]

I am using that as a working hypothesis

Do you think the same would happen if the carbon was added slower

 

[RelaxingWithTheReef]

I am using that as a working hypothesis

What are your thought regarding the possibility that at some point or at some concentration the carbon source becomes toxic and poisons the bacteria population? Or the population becomes self limiting, and enters an equilibrium of replication vs die-off that releases back into the water column?

 

[Dan_P]

Do you think the same would happen if the carbon was added slower

I thought about bolus versus multiple small doses but no experiments yet. Here is what I think might happen.

In the study of aquarium water dosed with vinegar once per day, the nitrate consumption per dose declines after the second dose, until hitting a low consumption rate by the 4th or 5th dose. Since nitrate consumption for a daily dose can be completed within four hours, it is possible that this low point could be obtained, dosing every four hours, by the end of the day. This is what I haven’t actually shown yet. By analogy, breaking the dose into smaller doses means the bacteria max out quickly at this smaller dose size. This scenario seems counterintuitive and needs to be tested.

 

[Dan_P]

What are your thought regarding the possibility that at some point or at some concentration the carbon source becomes toxic and poisons the bacteria population? Or the population becomes self limiting, and enters an equilibrium of replication vs die-off that releases back into the water column?

I don’t think the carbon source ever directly poisons the bacteria, unless it were to accumulate to high concentration. The coral and fish might be stressed before the bacteria. The large population of bacteria formed by dosing that are fed inadequately will enter a stationary phase, maybe followed by a death phase. At which point, nutrients are released back into the water. Among the long list of things to do, is to see what an underfed large population of bacteria does over time.

 

[Reefering1]

I thought about bolus versus multiple small doses but no experiments yet. Here is what I think might happen.

In the study of aquarium water dosed with vinegar once per day, the nitrate consumption per dose declines after the second dose, until hitting a low consumption rate by the 4th or 5th dose. Since nitrate consumption for a daily dose can be completed within four hours, it is possible that this low point could be obtained, dosing every four hours, by the end of the day. This is what I haven’t actually shown yet. By analogy, breaking the dose into smaller doses means the bacteria max out quickly at this smaller dose size. This scenario seems counterintuitive and needs to be tested.

Inyeresting. Would the bacteria max out quicker or would you be throttling the population growth...(?)

 

[Dan_P]

Inyeresting. Would the bacteria max out quicker or would you be throttling the population growth...(?)

I don’t know. This needs testing.

 

[scotty333]

What size is the tank again?

380 boss

 

[scotty333]

What size is the t

35ml is a really high vodka dose for a 100g tank. That’s high for a 300 gallon thank. Are you seeing cyano from that dose? I think you likely need to the increase nutrient export in your system. Skimmer upgrade, algae scrubber, increase water changes, more mechanical filtration etc.

No cyano, no problems
Skimmer is rated 700-900ltr , I don’t have room for any more equipment and water changes will 0 my po4
Filter wool out every 3 days , not sure I can do anymore

 

[scotty333]

I’m on 38ml since yesterday
19.8!

 

[scotty333]

Didn’t know I could do this option on the app but you can add a dose that it should be which I did 35ml and it’s 15ml

I know your thinking why didn’t I do this before but I did however measure the actual dose of 3.5ml and it was correct

 

[AlexandraDreadlocksPanda]

Wouldn't the simplest thing be to dose phosphate in conjunction with the vodka?

Absolutely this! I have found that as P04 levels drop below 0.06ppm the reduction in N03 will slow down. I have slowly reduced my NoPox dosing down to a level where my P04 stabilises at around 0.04 - 0.06, and I’m dosing a bit of Ammonia Bicarbonate and N03 is at about 2.6ppm… I’d always rather keep the bacteria working with carbon dosing by adding in organics if necessary, I feel that they can only ever be a positive addition to the tank.

 

[scotty333]

9 hours later so yes I’m a complete nitwit !