A molecular biologist perspective to the carbon dosing

I consider dosing phyto as carbon dosing :)

They have carbon and they consume N and P and are photosynthetic and add to the food chain. I know it's an oblique interpretation, but hey- why not?

Sure why not, every food we add to the water contains carbon (roughly 18% of it ;) ). So every feeding is carbon dosing at some extend.
 
I am not sure if corals or sponges or macros can directly consume bacteria. I dont know maybe they can :). However, stuff that corals eat such as copepods or rotifers do can feed on bacteria. So carbon does indirectly move to the other larger members of our tanks. However, also consider the fact that most of the carbon probably moves outside of the system as carbon dioxide. So only a fraction of the added carbon would end up in something visible to naked eye.



"However, also consider the fact that most of the carbon moves outside of the system as carbon dioxide."

This is the point I was making about how the oceans transfer carbon from the athmosphere and vice Versace. I have actually called it nature's way to carbon dose.
 
@Tripod1404

In your opinion, what do you think carbon dosing would do to a tank that has close to 0 nitrate but some phosphate present?
 
@Tripod1404

In your opinion, what do you think carbon dosing would do to a tank that has close to 0 nitrate but some phosphate present?

If the tank has very low nitrate, population would become limited by nitrogen availability. However, I highly doubt that any tank with fish can become nitrogen limited. You might not measure high concentrations of any of the nitrogenous waste products such as ammonia, nitrite or nitrate because as soon as these compounds are produced they are consumed by bacteria. The nitrogen in these compounds is either incorporated into new bacteria or converted into another form of nitrogenous waste. This is what we call nitrogen cycle.

Under these conditions, if you have a considerably large bacteria population, it might become phosphorus limited. However, the elemental composition I posted show there is a much lower phosphorus demand compared to nitrogen. This is why carbon dosing first reduce nitrate amounts and after some time phosphate levels start to drop. You need a larger bacteria population to consume all that excess phosphate.

So it all comes down to balance. If you very few fish and feed so little, your tank might become nitrogen limited for bacteria (in my opinion this is very unlikely to happen). For some reason if you have higher phosphorus (like from rock leaching or from water), your tank might not become phosphate limited as long as there is far less nitrogen since the demand for nitrogen is higher compared to phosphate.
 
I will say, after a blackout incident, I started with nitrate well over 100, and using vinegar, managed to get it down to about 50, getting mostly black skimmate, over months. I changed to NoPox, which advertises 'a variety of carbon sources and organic-bonded' stuff. It did seriously work: got down to 10 after 1.5 bottles of the stuff (105 gallon tank). Plus a sump ream-out, toward the 20 mark. Then I stopped the NoPox and changed skimmers for a vastly, vastly more efficient one and immediately knocked it all the way down to 'barely present.' Based on my experience, I'd say vinegar helped a bit; NoPox helped a lot; a sump cleaning helped a lot; and the new skimmer really nailed it down---I wish I'd had that good a skimmer back during the blackout.

I think the dosing did help. And one helped faster than plain vinegar. So did a major cleanout and massive water change. And the vastly better skimmer is what I wish I'd had.
 
If the tank has very low nitrate, population would become limited by nitrogen availability. However, I highly doubt that any tank with fish can become nitrogen limited. You might not measure high concentrations of any of the nitrogenous waste products such as ammonia, nitrite or nitrate because as soon as these compounds are produced they are consumed by bacteria. The nitrogen in these compounds is either incorporated into new bacteria or converted into another form of nitrogenous waste. This is what we call nitrogen cycle.

Under these conditions, if you have a considerably large bacteria population, it might become phosphorus limited. However, the elemental composition I posted show there is a much lower phosphorus demand compared to nitrogen. This is why carbon dosing first reduce nitrate amounts and after some time phosphate levels start to drop. You need a larger bacteria population to consume all that excess phosphate.

So it all comes down to balance. If you very few fish and feed so little, your tank might become nitrogen limited for bacteria (in my opinion this is very unlikely to happen). For some reason if you have higher phosphorus (like from rock leaching or from water), your tank might not become phosphate limited as long as there is far less nitrogen since the demand for nitrogen is higher compared to phosphate.

Thank you very much for the detailed explanation. As I understand it, every tank can see benefit from carbon dosing, right?
 
I experimented with carbon dosing a skimmerless mixed reef.

Earlier in this thread it was said that phytoplankton dosing was a type of carbon dosing. With that said, so would feeding the tank.
 
Thank you very much for the detailed explanation. As I understand it, every tank can see benefit from carbon dosing, right?

I guess it should, unless you mess it up with excessive carbon dosing that results in a bacteria bloom that consumes oxygen and kill the fish :)
 
I experimented with carbon dosing a skimmerless mixed reef.

Earlier in this thread it was said that phytoplankton dosing was a type of carbon dosing. With that said, so would feeding the tank.

Subsea, How did carbon dosing work without skimmer? Were you able considerably reduce nitrate or phosphate levels?
 
Subsea, How did carbon dosing work without skimmer? Were you able considerably reduce nitrate or phosphate levels?

I did not use carbon dosing to reduce nutrients. I used vinegar as a clean source of carbon, to grow bacteria to feed corals and filter feeders. For me it is all about nutrient recycling and for certain, it is a "Question of Balance".

I run high nutrient macro lagoons with mushrooms, softies, NPS and filter feeders. However, If I wanted low nutrients then I would harvest macro as a nutrient export tool.
 
I did not use carbon dosing to reduce nutrients. I used vinegar as a clean source of carbon, to grow bacteria to feed corals and filter feeders. For me it is all about nutrient recycling and for certain, it is a "Question of Balance".

I run high nutrient macro lagoons with mushrooms, softies, NPS and filter feeders. However, If I wanted low nutrients then I would harvest macro as a nutrient export tool.

I see, that makes sense!
 
Well to be fair, anyone dosing Tito's should be slapped. Hobby is expensive enough as it is haha. So seems like a logical thing to do with the aforementioned products.
 
The reason for this is the need for anaerobic conditions. For an environment to be anaerobic there need to be little oxygen diffusion to that area. In our aquariums this only happens in deep sand beds and deep crevices of live rock or other special media.

Something I posted on a thread a while back that expands greatly on the sites suitable for aerobic/anoxic/anaerobic bacteria...

Sprung and Delbeek's 'The Reef Aquarium' series (Vol 3) has some well written and informative information regarding denitrification that I found enlightening. Pages. 260 - 261 go into some detail on the subject:

"It has been shown that nitrification and denitrification occur in aerobic layers where they are termed coupled since the processes occur simultaneously, mediated by bacteria in close proximity. Here anoxic microsites provide habitat for anaereobic bacteria, while being surrounded by aerobic pore waters (Jenkins and Kemp, 1984). This is in contrast with the mental concept that the processes occurs in separate aerobic and anaerobic zones."

When a substrate is kept free of excess detritus, the nitrogen cycle can be completed very efficiently.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top