Co2-bacteria-breathing

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Bacteria may normally metabolize organics to get at least some of their needed N and P, but if they are growing fast on organics without N and P, like sugar, they need to get it from the water.

I think that with respect to N and P, the N drops more, but goes unnoticed because it is so much larger to begin with. A 5 ppm drop in nitrate may not be noticed, while as 0.2 ppm phosphate drop easily could be.

 

[boxfishpooalot]

Thanks. Well Im stopping my dosing becaue my fish get bacterial infections. Although im getting a full cup of dark skimmate daily I can not continue untill the fish fins heal. Looks like mild fin rot. This is not the first time I noticed this when dosing sugar. Thats the thing with sugar, it increases the growth of all kinds of bacteria, imo this is bad.

Fwiw im thinking of taking some tank water in a cup and add 1/4 tsp of sugar to it. Wait untill it blooms and dump that in the water. My thoughts are the bacteria will pull remaining nitrate from the water. What do you think, even though there is no excess carbon source? Probably be a good coral food for you sps guys without the carbon all over the tank.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I probably wouldn't mess with taking water out. Maybe try the vodka method.

 

[boxfishpooalot]

You think vodka has a different effect?

You know what I mean about the cup and sugar? 1cup tank water-1/4tsp sugar-baceria bloom in the cup-dump bacterial growth in the tank for food.

Why do you think thats a bad idea? Just wondering.

 

[danch]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9339332#post9339332 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by kae
Most microalgae primarily use CO2 directly but some can use HCO3- and most macroalgae primarily use HCO3- but can also use CO2 directly, am I right?

You might try asking in the Macroalgae forum. One of those folks might be aware of studies that have been done.

 

[Icefire]

Based on adding sugar = bacterial bloom, does it would speed up the initial cycle?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I do not believe it will speed the initial cycling. That would be a different species of bacteria.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

You think vodka has a different effect?

I don't know if it does, but the folks that originally studied carbon sources claimed that ethanol was best. But I do not know what exactly they compared it to.



You know what I mean about the cup and sugar? 1cup tank water-1/4tsp sugar-baceria bloom in the cup-dump bacterial growth in the tank for food.

Why do you think thats a bad idea? Just wondering.

Bacteria cannot grow much in a cup of water unless there are adequate nutrients, including nitrogen and phosphorus.

 

[boxfishpooalot]

Ok thanks. Well I feel like a pest, but do you have any forumlas that show the phosphate molecule or nitrate molecule being taken up? I know theres probably thousands of them for any given process.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

We can invent one, but the relative amounts of sugar burned just for energy (which uses no other nutrients), and the relative amounts burned just to make new molecules will be an impossible thing to know in general.

Take the formula for the breakdown of phytoplankton from my nitrate article:

(CH2O)106(NH3)16(H3PO4) + 138 O2 ---> 106 CO2 + 122 H2O + 19 H+ + PO4--- + 16 NO3-

Then reverse it, representing growth of phytoplankton:

106 CO2 + 122 H2O + 19 H+ + PO4--- + 16 NO3- ---> (CH2O)106(NH3)16(H3PO4) + 138 O2

Then replace the photosynthesis part with sugar burning. So we add this to both sides:

C12H22O11 + 12 O2 ----> 12 CO2 + 11 H2O

we have to multiply it by 9 to roughly account for all of the CO2:

C108H198O99 (= 9 sucrose) + 108 O2 ---> 108 CO2 + 99 H2O


and that gives us

106 CO2 + 122 H2O + 19 H+ + PO4--- + 16 NO3- + 9 sucrose + 108 O2 ---> (CH2O)106(NH3)16(H3PO4) + 138 O2 + 108 CO2 + 99 H2O

which simplifies to

23 H2O + 19 H+ + PO4--- + 16 NO3- + 9 sucrose ---> (CH2O)106(NH3)16(H3PO4) + 30 O2 + 2 CO2

Anyway, that's a rough guide to the process.

 

[boxfishpooalot]

That is awesome! Of course If I had to do the math Id have a huge headache by now :lol:

disecting this:

(CH2O)106(NH3)16(H3PO4) + 30 O2 + 2 CO2

I get: (CH2O)106(NH3)16(H3PO4)
I see algae protoplasm. Is this a cellulose structure, a type of carbohydrate? Or perhaps a molecule of the cell wall.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

It is intended to represent a generic organic molecule with a composition matching phytoplankton overall. It is basically where the Redfield ratios come from.