Carbon dosing maintenance suggestions

Aquarist007

New member
How do you feel about these suggestions for maintenance ect when carbon dosing? Do you agree or disagree. Do you want to personally add any to the list

"Probiotics demystified

Excerpt from the September/October 2010 issue of CORAL

THE BANE OF REEFKEEPERS has long been the control of dissolved nutrients that fuel nuisance algae growth and cause stony coral colors to shift to dull shades of brown. Large periodic water changes, using massive amounts of live rock in the display, building deep sand beds, running myriad types of filter systems, and running water through expensive amounts of chemical media have all been recommended as ways to win the battle against dissolved nitrates and phosphates. All of these tools have merit.

Over the last few years, however, many reef aquarists have embraced a more bacteria-centered approach utilizing what are termed "œprobiotic methodologies" to proactively manipulate the microbial communities involved in nutrient processing in their aquariums. Almost all of these methods involve providing a source of organic carbon to "œfeed" beneficial bacteria that thrive on nitrates and phosphates. Some of them call for the periodic inoculation of bacterial strains, and some of the more involved systems also utilize certain minerals, called zeolites, in an up-flow reactor.
In my own experiments with these systems, I have learned that there is much confusion about how these new methods work and a great deal of curiosity among the majority of aquarists who adhere to more traditional methods. Here I will try to present an overview of these systems, the basic biological science supporting their use, the added benefit of bacteria as a food source for some corals, and some of the major husbandry issues that arise.

http://www.coralmagazine-us.com/cont...cs-demystified

"From the above article these are very useful husbandry issues he states

"1. Maintain natural seawater parameters. It is important that abiotic water parameters are as close to natural levels as possible. The suggested levels are:
"¢ Calcium 410"“430 ppm
"¢ Magnesium 1250"“1300 ppm
"¢ Alkalinity 6.5"“7.5 dKH
"¢ Potassium 380"“400 ppm
"¢ Salinity of 34"“36 ppt
(Specific Gravity 1.024"”1.026)

Perhaps the most important of these parameters is alkalinity. Many aquarists dosing organic carbon who have maintained consistent alkalinity levels above 8 dKH have reported varying degrees of tissue necrosis in scleractinian corals, especially corals in the genus Acropora, usually described as "œburnt tips." I have personally seen this effect, but the exact cause of this phenomenon is not known. Some suspect a phosphate deficiency. The prudent aquarist employing a probiotic methodology will pay close attention to alkalinity levels, especially as nutrients fall to nearly undetectable limits. Additionally, be aware that probiotic systems may cause a more rapid depletion of alkalinity levels than you may have seen in normal calcification processes.

2. Discontinue UV sterilization and ozone applications when using these systems. Almost all commercial probiotic systems recommend the discontinuance of UV sterilization and ozone on the basis that these applications will adversely impact the bacterial populations that the probiotic methodology is attempting to increase. With respect to UV sterilization, this reasoning may seem suspect, as the UV applications would not directly impact the biofilms and other benthic bacterial communities on the substrate. Nevertheless, ozone and UV applications are not recommended if employing a probiotic methodology, commercial or DIY.

3. Phosphate absorbers not recommended in some systems. The use of phosphate-binding agents, such as granular ferric oxide (GFO) is not recommended in some commercial systems. As an initial matter, many find it is unnecessary as some systems have the capability to reduce phosphate to very low levels. Additionally, there is concern that rapid depletion of phosphate caused by using GFO in conjunction with some probiotic systems may result in coral tissue necrosis, presumably caused by rapidly shifting the bacterial dynamics in the areas on or adjacent to the coral tissues. Many aquarists, however, do use GFO in conjunction with DIY carbon dosing applications and do not experience these problems. If continuing to use GFO, I suggest reducing the amounts and reactor flow rates, and observing the system inhabitants closely.

4. Use and maintain a good protein skimmer. A productive protein skimmer should be used in all probiotic methodologies. Foam fractionization removes some dead bacteria prior to decomposition, and may be a significant export pathway for the nutrients that have been "œlocked up" by the enhanced bacterial populations resulting from organic carbon dosing, although other important nutrient export pathways are involved, as discussed. Additionally, a protein skimmer adds an additional safeguard in the event of a bacterial bloom caused by an overdose of organic carbon. If your protein skimmer performance is marginal, consider upgrading before beginning a probiotic regimen.

5. Don't overdose organic carbon. Although less common in commercial probiotic systems than in DIY applications, overdosing of organic carbon is certainly possible. Remember, these methodologies have the capability of causing significant shifts in the bacterial dynamics in the aquarium"”in the water column, on the substrate, and on and in the tissues of coral. Excessively rapid nutrient depletion can cause stress in corals. In case of a substantial overdose, a bacterial "œbloom," or "œwhiteout," can occur, usually presenting as a semi-opaque or milky white change to the water. The primary concern in this instance is oxygen depletion in the water column, caused by respiration by the bacteria cells. In most instances, the tank inhabitants will survive. However, a quality protein skimmer is the best defense against catastrophic oxygen depletion. The main caveat here is to go slow. Incremental increases in the dose and careful observation are the best safeguards.

6. Do your water changes. Many aquarists have cut down on the volume of water changed during periodic water changes, as water changes are no longer used as a means of significant nutrient export. Water changes are still recommended, however, in order to address certain mineral depletions, and for other reasons, such as reduction of allelopathic metabolites released by corals and other organisms. Once dissolved nutrients are reduced to target levels, at least a 5-10% weekly water volume change is recommended. It is particularly important to match the abiotic parameters of the change water to the aquarium water, given the potential problems associated with higher alkalinity levels in some instances.

7. Beware potassium depletion. In zeolite-based systems, significant potassium depletion may become an issue. Several explanations for this phenomenon may come into play, including those involving the role that potassium ions play in regulating pH gradients along cell membranes. Regular testing of potassium is therefore indicated when using these systems. Another reported indicator of potassium depletion is faded coloration in certain Acroporids, particularly Montipora capricornis. In the event of depressed potassium ion levels (below 370 ppm), a high quality potassium supplement is recommended.

8. Watch for nitrogen limitation. Almost all of the probiotic systems described are effective at reducing nitrate in the water column. Based on my observations, some are more effective than others at phosphate reduction. To a large extent, this effect is contingent upon the extant bacterial populations in the system and other chemical balances in the system. Nevertheless, the aquarist may encounter a nitrogen limitation issue, which may subsequently inhibit the rate of phosphate reduction. If nitrogen limitation is suspected, I recommend gradually increasing feedings, or institution of an amino acid supplementation program. This process requires a careful observation and a delicate balance, however, as rapid increases in food wastes and other sources of dissolved nutrients can overwhelm the system, especially initially.

9. Maintaining sand beds and algal filters. Most zeolite-based commercial systems suggest a shallow sand bed to increase the available substrate for biofilm development. Some users with deep sand beds have reported difficulty in obtaining consistent dissolved nutrient reduction when transitioning into a probiotic system, for reasons yet to be conclusively determined. Likewise, the aquarist may experience a long-term inability to maintain macroalgae-based filtration methods due to the lack of nutrients available to the algae. If the dosages are carefully balanced, however, it is possible to keep macroalgae alive, and sustaining some growth, although the balancing will have to be relatively precise.
10. Managing smaller systems. I have used various probiotic systems, including ZEOvit, in aquaria as small as 20 gallons. In my experience, a "œbalanced" microbial biology is more difficult to achieve with a probiotic methodology in smaller (less than 50-gallon) systems, presumably due to a more limited amount of substrate available for biofilm development. Nonetheless, the benefits of probiotic methodology can be achieved in smaller systems with patience and careful observation. On a related note, I have found that a mixed-source DIY application (utilizing vodka, glucose and vinegar), along with periodic bacterial inoculations, gave the best, and most stable results in smaller reef aquaria, although the pelletized polymers certainly appear to be amenable to this type of application as well. "
 
I dose vinegar and not any commercial preparation and I can't speak to anything to do with Zeolites. Neither do I add enough to drive nutrients to super low levels. But I'll still comment...:lolspin:

I would agree with the parameters listed.

As far as simple carbon dosing, I think GFO might still be needed due to almost guaranteed nitrogen limitation. I've tested potassium and found it not to be an issue with 10% weekly water changes.

I thought the skimmer removed any free floating bacteria, dead or alive, taking the bound nutrients with them.
 
I don't agree with the alkalinity concerns in general, but only in the case they mention to be especially concerned: low nutrients. IMO, the issue is not carbon dosing, or at least not carbon dosing alone, but rather nutrients being driven very low.

Standard reef tanks (like mine) using organic carbon dosing are no more prone to issues with elevated alkalinity than those without organic carbon dosing, as long as nutrients are not driven to what we'd consider low levels (IMO).
 
• Salinity of 34–36 ppt
(Specific Gravity 1.024—1.026)


I'm not sure what temperature standard they are using, but that relationship does not seem correct for any reasonable standard temperature.

The sg of 34 ppt seawater is 1.0256 and 36 ppt seawater is 1.0271 at temperatures close to reef temps.
 
Last edited:
Another thing I'd add is the benefit for increased food for filter feeders and other organisms that consume bacteria or clumps of bacteria.

FWIW, I think it could be a very interesting use of organic carbon dosing in an unskimmed system keeping filters feeders/nonphotosynthetic organisms. One might easily approach or even exceed natural densities of suspended foods this way. :)
 
Another thing I'd add is the benefit for increased food for filter feeders and other organisms that consume bacteria or clumps of bacteria.

FWIW, I think it could be a very interesting use of organic carbon dosing in an unskimmed system keeping filters feeders/nonphotosynthetic organisms. One might easily approach or even exceed natural densities of suspended foods this way. :)
I can tell the difference between a pork chop and a steak even at my Age
But can bacteria. In all the discussions we are having in carbon dosing, water changes and skimming threads there is consensus that carbon dosing increases heterotrophs. However is this the bacteria that other filter feeders consume.
 
Another thing I'd add is the benefit for increased food for filter feeders and other organisms that consume bacteria or clumps of bacteria.

FWIW, I think it could be a very interesting use of organic carbon dosing in an unskimmed system keeping filters feeders/nonphotosynthetic organisms. One might easily approach or even exceed natural densities of suspended foods this way. :)
Subsea might be able to comment on this
 
Subsea might be able to comment on this

I would agree but I don't have the resources to measure the densities. Does food count as carbon dosing?
Patrick

PS. I am not qualified to answer that in detail. Timfish has operated numerous skimmerless systems under maintenance contracts. I will make him aware of the question and see if he has useful input.
 
Last edited:
I can tell the difference between a pork chop and a steak even at my Age
But can bacteria. In all the discussions we are having in carbon dosing, water changes and skimming threads there is consensus that carbon dosing increases heterotrophs. However is this the bacteria that other filter feeders consume.

Scotty,
It depends on the species of the filter feeder. Differrent species ingest specific size bacteria. When selecting phytoplankton cultures, differrent phytoplankton are differrent sizes. This refers to bacteria as well.
PATRICK
 
I'm curious about the dsb part.. Haven't heard that, but it could indeed make sense that the sandbed outcompetes the reactor to a certain extent. After all, bacillus is involved (I'm sure there's others but have yet to hear much else) and they do operate off of other nitrogenous compounds as well.

I've yet to conclude with my own system if GFO is required, I believe in hindsight my estimates of using it to re-balance the phosphate consumption may wander into 'too much' nutrient reduction in a given time frame. Further testing may yield different results with limiting flow.

Alkalinity is a big thing I discovered when forgetting to turn the ATO (with kalk) back on. Over a couple day period it dropped from mid 8 to 6ish. :/ I find the system does well between 7.5 to low 9.

Ah, and as a side note, I have Dragons Breath macro, and it doesn't seem to mind too much. It is indeed a slower grower in the first place, so it may be safe to say it's slower than chaeto by a fair amount, and doesn't succumb to the same depletion factor as the chaeto, thus 'starving'.
 
Lee Chin Eng NaturalmSystem

Lee Chin Eng NaturalmSystem

Another thing I'd add is the benefit for increased food for filter feeders and other organisms that consume bacteria or clumps of bacteria.

FWIW, I think it could be a very interesting use of organic carbon dosing in an unskimmed system keeping filters feeders/nonphotosynthetic organisms. One might easily approach or even exceed natural densities of suspended foods this way. :)

I feel that my system often exceeds natural densities of suspended foods on natural reefs. I house clams and Sea Apples along with NPS and softies. The mud filter / macro filter produce zooplankton and phytoplankton for the display tank. The Sea Apple is continuously capturing food without me feeding the tank for days. Now that I have discontinued UV, I will re establish the use of GAC. Without either of those two, eventually my tank would have a phytoplankton bloom in the display tank.
Patrick
 
Another thing I'd add is the benefit for increased food for filter feeders and other organisms that consume bacteria or clumps of bacteria.

FWIW, I think it could be a very interesting use of organic carbon dosing in an unskimmed system keeping filters feeders/nonphotosynthetic organisms. One might easily approach or even exceed natural densities of suspended foods this way. :)

Randy,
My 75 G Jaubert Plenum on top with a 30G mud/algae refugium with bioballs in the first chamber fits that discription. It has been set up for 12 years with no scheduled water changes and no skimming. Do to my second outbreak of ich in 44 years of reefkeeping, this past. Christmas, I installed a UV sterilizer which I discontinued using this week. The vidio was made this April. A young photography major from Texas State assisted with it. I especially liked his choice of music which was differrent.
At the time of the vidio, I had not feed the tank for a week. Between the mud filter, macro refugium and Jaubert Plenum there is much in tank food production. Notice the Sea Apple capturing prey.
Patrick

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDt8QTAp0Cs
 
Last edited:
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/9/aafeature2/

This link shows TOC in skimmed and unskimmed reef aquariums. Feldman has several articles in this series.
Happy trails,
Patrick

Tks for the reference...re skimming from this article

"In addition, the surprisingly minimal impact of protein skimming on TOC levels was revealed. On this point, it is apparent that if TOC levels can be monitored to assay the effects of one skimmer (the H&S A200 in this case), then they can be monitored to measure the impact of different types of skimmers operating on an experimental tank."
 
I feel that my system often exceeds natural densities of suspended foods on natural reefs. I house clams and Sea Apples along with NPS and softies. The mud filter / macro filter produce zooplankton and phytoplankton for the display tank. The Sea Apple is continuously capturing food without me feeding the tank for days. Now that I have discontinued UV, I will re establish the use of GAC. Without either of those two, eventually my tank would have a phytoplankton bloom in the display tank.
Patrick

Curious why you feel you will have a phyto outbreak if you don't run carbon. I would think your filter feeders and micro organisms would consume it.
And if you are concerned about a bloom not run a skimmer for possible o2 depletion
 
Curious why you feel you will have a phyto outbreak if you don't run carbon. I would think your filter feeders and micro organisms would consume it.
And if you are concerned about a bloom not run a skimmer for possible o2 depletion

Not concerned with oxygen depletion using wet/dry with bioballs in first chamber of mud algae refugium. The activated carbon is for removing noxious chemicals that I can not measure. It also removes significiant TOC.
Patrick

Our earlier research on the topic of carbon nutrient levels in marine aquaria (Feldman, 2008; Feldman, 2009; Feldman, 2010) has provided experimental documentation for four conclusions that impact on TOC management in our reef tanks:

Reef aquaria utilizing active filtration (GAC, skimming) maintain equilibrium TOC levels within the range found on healthy tropical reefs.
Protein skimming (i.e., bubbles) is not very effective at removing TOC from aquarium water, depleting typical reef tank water of only ~ 20 - 35% of the post-feeding TOC present.
GAC filtration is quite effective at stripping reef tank water of its TOC load, removing 60 - 85% of the TOC present.
And, quite intriguingly, the natural biological filtration, which starts with bacteria and other microbes, is remarkable in its capacity to remediate reef tank water of TOC, easily removing 50% or more of the post-feeding TOC increase in tank water.

Yes you are right about the biological filter removing TOC. The above is from an earlier Feldman article.
Patrick
 
Last edited:
Not concerned with oxygen depletion using wet/dry with bioballs in first chamber of mud algae refugium. The activated carbon is for removing noxious chemicals that I can not measure. It also removes significiant TOC.
Patrick

Our earlier research on the topic of carbon nutrient levels in marine aquaria (Feldman, 2008; Feldman, 2009; Feldman, 2010) has provided experimental documentation for four conclusions that impact on TOC management in our reef tanks:

Reef aquaria utilizing active filtration (GAC, skimming) maintain equilibrium TOC levels within the range found on healthy tropical reefs.
Protein skimming (i.e., bubbles) is not very effective at removing TOC from aquarium water, depleting typical reef tank water of only ~ 20 - 35% of the post-feeding TOC present.
GAC filtration is quite effective at stripping reef tank water of its TOC load, removing 60 - 85% of the TOC present.
And, quite intriguingly, the natural biological filtration, which starts with bacteria and other microbes, is remarkable in its capacity to remediate reef tank water of TOC, easily removing 50% or more of the post-feeding TOC increase in tank water.

Yes you are right about the biological filter removing TOC. The above is from an earlier Feldman article.
Patrick

Thanks again
How does one measure TOC
 
With 50,000 dollar analyzer, even then you don't really know which types of organics in terms of bioavialiablity you are measuring.
 
Back
Top