This thread was automatically split due to performance issues. You can find the rest of the thread here: http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11276942#post11276942
dosing vodka to bring down N and P
- Thread starter JohnL
- Start date
I dosed vodka in small amount 4ml perday to a 400g system for four months,primarily because I was intrigued with the notion of a bacterial scrubber. I noticed some increased polyp extension and a lack of filamentous algae. I also noticed that xenia colonies topped expanding and started receding.
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
My Ca is just under 400 at the worst. My corals started taking off recently, so my Ca levels dropped. I think my tank just went through that 6-9 month organic cycle, since its 7 months old, but set up with rock and sand from previous tanks. I use a korallin reactor, so its usually 400-450 on the Ca, and my dKH is steady at 8.2-8.5 . I used to feed more, and this is when the ethanol made the largest impact.
I had a rash of bacterial/prota/parasites??? which killed off 7 of my 8 solar fairy wrasses. I also lost a striated tang (where it went, nobody knows). So my load is about 1/2 what it normally is. I do feed pretty nicely though... pellets in the morning (spectrum), and then again at night sometimes. I put nori on the veggi clip daily for the 3 tangs (purple tang, yellow tang, pac blue tang), and then feed rod's reef almost every evening for the fish, snails, corals, etc. And then, after the lights go off, Ill dump some KENT phytoplex, zooplex, mocrovert food, chromaplex, or DT's phyto in the tank (whatever is on hand).
My skimmer hasnt been putting out what it once was, but its still putting out very well. It fills every 2-3 days (2 if wet, 3 if set dark). If I stop ethanol, I do notice it with the skimmate... it just doesnt get as much.
I will be getting my fish load back up to where it once was though... I have a half dozen lineatus wrasses and a magnificent foxface on the way. Oh, and a bunch of metallic maxima clams (12 actually). So my system will be at full capacity again soon.
Regards,
Jon
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
When I added 8 solar wrasses, they came with some internal parasites/infections that I didnt QT long enough to treat for (they seemed very healthy so I only medicated them for a couple days and let them go). The resulting mayhem wasnt cool, lost all but one solar in the end, luckily nothing else. I had to discontinue dosing for a week. My temmincki came down with a popeye/clouded-eye, and ich ran crazy. I stopped dosing for a week, and the cloudy eye fixed itself, and ich went adios. So Im sure there is some sort of bacterial feeding going on with bacteria that can attack our fish as well, if they are stressed or unhealthy. None of the other fish had any problems though.
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
Its fiji and some marshall... yes, its rather porous.
miatawnt2b
New member
Lots of information in this thread. Thanks to all who have experimented thus far. I am still digging through all the information here. I would like to know your opinions of where to start the process. I have a 90 gal with 20 sump loaded with live rock and rubble. I assume that my actual water volume is right around 90 gal. I want to start adding vodka, but am worried about dosing too much at first. Do you think that 1ml per day is a good starting point, or should I go even lower at first?
Thanks,
-J
Thanks,
-J
Leopard Man
New member
Does dosing vodka produce phytoplankton?
acrylic_300
New member
I think it might. Some of the bacteria could be photosynthetic and live in the water column. I'm still kinda confused on what constitutes as phytoplankton myself.
If not...the carbon source kinda works as if you had phytoplankton growing in the tank because phytoplankton release carbohydrates into the Ocean as a byproduct.
A food web begins with these carbs and the phyto that makes them may very well recycle some of them.
If not...the carbon source kinda works as if you had phytoplankton growing in the tank because phytoplankton release carbohydrates into the Ocean as a byproduct.
A food web begins with these carbs and the phyto that makes them may very well recycle some of them.
I think it does the opposite. The bacteria it produces will consume nitrates normally consmed by the algae that make up phytoplankton(green water) as well as filamentous(hair) algaes. This nitrate taken up by the bacteria is in theory then consumed by corals or more easily exported by the skimmer. This is one of the outcomes those who use it seek.
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
Not phytoplankton, but bacteriaplankton, which accounts for the increased polyp extension of many corals when vodka dosing.
Greetings All !
Plankton: Plankton are any drifting organism that inhabits the pelagic zone of oceans, seas, or bodies of fresh water. It is a description of life-style rather than a genetic classification. They are widely considered to be some of the most important organisms on Earth, due to the food supply they provide to most aquatic life.
(For more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plankton)
Perhaps more useful are these ...
Phytoplankton: Phytoplankton are the autotrophic component of plankton. When present in high enough numbers, they may appear as a green discoloration of the water due to the presence of chlorophyll within their cells (although the actual color may vary with the species of phytoplankton present due to varying levels of chlorophyll or the presence of accessory pigments such as phycobiliproteins). In terms of numbers, the most important groups of phytoplankton include the diatoms, cyanobacteria and dinoflagellates, although many other groups of algae are represented.
(For more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoplankton)
Zooplankton: Zooplankton are the heterotrophic (or detritivorous) component of the plankton that drift in the water column of oceans, seas, and bodies of fresh water. Zooplankton is a broad categorisation spanning a range of organism sizes that includes both small protozoans and large metazoans. It includes holoplanktonic organisms whose complete life cycle lies within the plankton, and meroplanktonic organisms that spend part of their life cycle in the plankton before graduating to either the nekton or a sessile, benthic existence.
(For more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooplankton)
Bacterioplankton: Bacterioplankton refers to the bacterial component of the plankton that drifts in the water column. Bacterioplankton occupy a range of ecological niches in aquatic systems. Many are saprotrophic, and obtain energy by consuming organic material produced by other organisms. This material may be dissolved in the medium and taken directly from there, or bacteria may live and grow in association with particulate material such as marine snow. Many other bacterioplankton species are autotrophic, and derive energy from either photosynthesis or chemosynthesis. The former are often categorised as picophytoplankton, and include cyanobacterial groups such as Prochlorococcus and Synechococcus. Bacterioplankton also play roles in ecological pathways such as nitrogen fixation, nitrification, denitrification, remineralisation and methanogenesis.
(For more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacterioplankton)
HTH
:thumbsup:
Several groups of bacteria in marine aquaria are photosynthetic, the most familiar one being cyanobacteria (aka blue-green algae). Also, in terms of N and P processing, we're talking about finding bacteria in three different places: (1) attached to an inorganic surface, (2) attached to an organic surface, and, (3) suspended in the water column, aka "free-living" bacteria. I make the "location" distinction because each of these different bacterial communities can demonstrate different metabolic and/or respiratory behavior, and sometimes the differences are significant. I'm excluding the bacteria that live within an organic surface because these populations don't generally exert much influence on N and P processing.
Hehe ... welcome to the club. The nomenclature can get a little mind-numbing. Generally speaking ...
Plankton: Plankton are any drifting organism that inhabits the pelagic zone of oceans, seas, or bodies of fresh water. It is a description of life-style rather than a genetic classification. They are widely considered to be some of the most important organisms on Earth, due to the food supply they provide to most aquatic life.
(For more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plankton)
Perhaps more useful are these ...
Phytoplankton: Phytoplankton are the autotrophic component of plankton. When present in high enough numbers, they may appear as a green discoloration of the water due to the presence of chlorophyll within their cells (although the actual color may vary with the species of phytoplankton present due to varying levels of chlorophyll or the presence of accessory pigments such as phycobiliproteins). In terms of numbers, the most important groups of phytoplankton include the diatoms, cyanobacteria and dinoflagellates, although many other groups of algae are represented.
(For more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoplankton)
Zooplankton: Zooplankton are the heterotrophic (or detritivorous) component of the plankton that drift in the water column of oceans, seas, and bodies of fresh water. Zooplankton is a broad categorisation spanning a range of organism sizes that includes both small protozoans and large metazoans. It includes holoplanktonic organisms whose complete life cycle lies within the plankton, and meroplanktonic organisms that spend part of their life cycle in the plankton before graduating to either the nekton or a sessile, benthic existence.
(For more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooplankton)
Bacterioplankton: Bacterioplankton refers to the bacterial component of the plankton that drifts in the water column. Bacterioplankton occupy a range of ecological niches in aquatic systems. Many are saprotrophic, and obtain energy by consuming organic material produced by other organisms. This material may be dissolved in the medium and taken directly from there, or bacteria may live and grow in association with particulate material such as marine snow. Many other bacterioplankton species are autotrophic, and derive energy from either photosynthesis or chemosynthesis. The former are often categorised as picophytoplankton, and include cyanobacterial groups such as Prochlorococcus and Synechococcus. Bacterioplankton also play roles in ecological pathways such as nitrogen fixation, nitrification, denitrification, remineralisation and methanogenesis.
(For more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacterioplankton)
HTH
:thumbsup:
Greetings All !
ratio simply never optimizes.
But you can get at cyanobacteria, microalgae, and zooplankton population enrichment ... which is why the excellent folks at Reed Mariculture and LiquidLifeUSA (two of my favorite phytoplankton suppliers) assert that their products can have a beneficial effect on the food webs operant in marine aquaria.
Although they usually don't emphasize the cyanobacteria & microalgae parts ... :lol:
If, however, we're talking about heterotrophic food webs, then carbohydrate cycling gets a lot more entertaining. Anyone stumbled across literature stuff on the "microbial loop" yet? The free-living bacteria involved are heterotrophic, and they're doing some very interesting things with dead phytoplankton, along with N-compounds, and P-compounds from the water column. If we're talking about generating heterotrophic food web segments, then we can skip the stuff that's dependent on autotrophs, and go straight to the carbon source ...
... which is really what this excellent thread is largely about, yes? :lol:
JMO ... HTH
:thumbsup:
Not meaning to nitpick (... and I'm well aware that most of the folks reading this have little use for, or interest in, the literature distinctions that I usually post ...), but some care with this type of conceptualization may be worthwhile. The notion of phytoplankton as either a "sugar source", or "carbon source", in marine aquaria is potentially problematic. While it is true that live phytoplankton "leak" polysaccarides (sugar/carbon) into the water column, and that the catabolism of dead phytoplankton may produce polysaccarides (depending on how the catalysis is taking place) ... these quanitities are relatively small. For the amount of polysaccarides that is yielded, you're getting much larger amounts of N-compounds and P-compounds. In other words, in terms of bacterioplankton and N/P reduction, you can't get at enhanced Redfield Ratios using phytoplankton as the "carbon source". The C:N
ratio simply never optimizes.But you can get at cyanobacteria, microalgae, and zooplankton population enrichment ... which is why the excellent folks at Reed Mariculture and LiquidLifeUSA (two of my favorite phytoplankton suppliers) assert that their products can have a beneficial effect on the food webs operant in marine aquaria.
Although they usually don't emphasize the cyanobacteria & microalgae parts ... :lol:
Again, not to nitpick (... I find it completely exciting that the hobby has evolved to the point where we can actually have a meaningful discussion about the creation & maintenance of segments of food webs in our captive marine ecosystems ...), but I would respectfully suggest that some care in how we construct these advanced concepts online is probably a good thing. Apologies for any perceived rudeness, but carbohydrates are not the "beginning" of phytoplankton-based (autotrophic) food webs. Light (of the appropriate electromagnetic spectrum) is the "beginning" of autotrophic food webs, along with the presence of photosynthetic pigments. Without either of these we can't productively get to the carbohydrates. Also, phytoplankton are not recycling carbohydrates ... they're synthesizing them.
If, however, we're talking about heterotrophic food webs, then carbohydrate cycling gets a lot more entertaining. Anyone stumbled across literature stuff on the "microbial loop" yet? The free-living bacteria involved are heterotrophic, and they're doing some very interesting things with dead phytoplankton, along with N-compounds, and P-compounds from the water column. If we're talking about generating heterotrophic food web segments, then we can skip the stuff that's dependent on autotrophs, and go straight to the carbon source ...
... which is really what this excellent thread is largely about, yes? :lol:
JMO ... HTH
:thumbsup:
badpacket
Premium Member
I believe I was using up to 3.5 ml vodka in a 29g softie tank for 6 months or longer with no problem. The key is simply going slow, and not increasing vodka more than .25 ml every 2-3 days. Never had a bloom with potential 02 deprivation doing it that way, and softies grew just great and even the poorly performing AquaC HOB skimmer pulled out an impressive amount of gunk.
I did eventually dial back to about 1.5 ml as lowest effective dose.
I think a 400g system could take a lot more than 4 ml daily. I don't think you'd even get close to a bloom with that as initial dose.
I did eventually dial back to about 1.5 ml as lowest effective dose.
I think a 400g system could take a lot more than 4 ml daily. I don't think you'd even get close to a bloom with that as initial dose.
acrylic_300
New member
Part of my confusion is because I've seen photosynthetic bacteria referred to as phytoplankton so many times. It makes it hard to argue that sugar is not taken up by some phytoplankton. Unless I am missing something.
Doe's the carbon source come from the sun?
Leopard Man
New member
Wow, good answers. OK, so basically dosing vodka if done correctly is good for corals? They eat whatever type of plankton is produced?
acrylic_300
New member
liquid sunshine
Similar threads
