Guess the Phosphate level

Thales said:
I was dosing vinegar for a long time before and during the awc. Didn't seem to impact my levels at all. I think carbon dosing can work great for nitrates if you dose enough - I did it in a ceph system - but never have seen it impact phosphates. I stopped for the same reason as GFO, I just got tired of doing it. :D
Click to expand...

Tanks are different ; been dosing carbon for about 7 years( vodka and vinegar. It does reduce phosphate very well eliminating the need for gfo in my heavily fed aquariums while maintaining PO4 in the 0.01 to 0.04 ppm range per hannah 713 and nitrate around 0.2ppm per Salifert. When I rarely miss a dose it shows.

Sponge growth is also proliferous and I suspect the food chain is enhanced in other ways from teh extra bacteria.

IME , vodka and vinegar dosing and the acetobacter and heterotrophic bacteria it supports hit PO4 harder early on while nitrate reduction for nitrate in the tank at start up takes more time probably due to a preference of the heterotrophic bacteria for ammonia as a nitrogen source vs nitrate.
 
Last edited:
Interesting. I would love to see numbers that support the idea that carbon dosing impacts PO4 early in the cycles as opposed to later in the cycle. I would also like to see the numbers of PO4 going down in established systems due to carbon dosing - I hear that it does it all the time, but I can't remember actually seeing evidence to support that claim. Thanks!
 
I don't have peer reviewed data only 7 years of personal logs and observations . I can'; recall the initial PO4 level but could dust of some of the logs and find it. It was pretty high and algae was a persistent issue. Other folks have anecdotally reported similar responses in a number of threads including this one which may be of some interest if you are considering organic carbon dosing :

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2134105&highlight=organic+carbon+dosing



Some use gfo along side carbon dosing early in the process if fixated on extremely low PO4 and NO3 numbers which can lead to limiting deificiencies IMO. I don't think it's necessary and haven't used any in years. I dose 40 ml of 80 proof vodka and 80 ml of 5% acetic acid daily to the 650 gallon system which is packed with corals , a large fish population and is heavily fed.

I surmise the heterotrophic bacteria and the acetobacters produce a relatively large biomass consuming significant amounts of orthophosphate relative to NO3 since they take ammonia preferentially for nitrogen in a one step process thus limiting typical ammonia oxidation and nitrification but not using much pre existing nitrate which can take a long time to fall.

The vodka is dosed in two bolus doses 30ml in the am and another 10ml at night ; when I miss a night dose the PO4 on the next am reading will be higher than usual; i.e. around .06ppm vs the usual .02ppm .
The .02ppm to .04 range as read from my tests seems about right for coral vibrancy and limited nuisace alge in my tanks. It may not be the best way to go for all and there are folks who have sucesss with corals who prefer other methods but organic carbon dosing has helped me keep a wide variety of corals in the sps dominant system for a long time and to manage PO4 levels. right off the bat.
 
I have experience with carbon dosing. I did it at home for a couple years and do it at work regularly. Anecdotally, I find there are at least the same number of people that report no or little PO4 change as there are that do, which is why I am interested in more than anecdote.
What are you testing with to trust numbers as low as .02?
As I said earlier, my I stopped at home because there was no difference in PO4 levels and I have no algae problems (except a few patches of bryopsis up high were it is hard to eat) and my system is heavily fed and is packed with corals and is sps dominant and the corals are vibrant. Part of the whole purpose of this thread was to question the general desire to dose something to lower PO4, because it may not be needed. With my PO4 level and my coral growth and color, I am not sure what benefits I get from trying to lower the level.
Interesting stuff, thanks!
AAA_9189-950x354.jpg
 
I've kept up with your thread periodically , ; albeit silently for the most part ,because ,though skeptical ,I think it deserves space and the pause it gives those set on reducing PO4 sometimes to misguided " ultra low levels " is important as are the insights we might gain from a system where PO4 varies on the high side form general practice. It's interesting and thanks for investing the time and effort to write it. I really don't wan't to turn it into a carbon dosing thread ;there are plenty of those but just felt compelled to offer a bit of counterpoint when the subject was introduced.
One point where we may differ is in whether PO4 management not elimination deserves serious attention . It seems to be so , at least in my tanks and those of others who report on it ; it is a vital element in life functions of the organisms kept in reef aquariums as you know. I think the target amount for a given system is unclear given the external variables in any given system( like coral cover, alk, nutrient balance limitations ,ATP levels,alk et alia). 0.02 to 0.04ppm as measured seems to be the right window size for for my aquarium over the years.

What are you testing with to trust numbers as low as .02?

As noted earlier I use a hanah 713 colorimeter and have for about 10 years; at one time I tested daily for several years; now it's every 10 days or so. I know it may not be a true 0.02 which is why I made a point of listing it ; 0.02ppm might arguably be as high as 0.06 given the accuracy range but I've used it at least a thousand times over the years and the results are very consistent .When I test newly mixed salt water it always gives a zero rating; when I test the aquarium it consistently gives the range previously noted.

With my PO4 level and my coral growth and color, I am not sure what benefits I get from trying to lower the level.


I'm not sure it would or wouldn't be be useful in your set up. You are in the best position to judge that.



To be clear , I use it primarily for nitrogen and phosphorus control and enjoy the secondary benefits I observe in the food web like increased sponge growth. It does control both NO3 and PO4 which are interdependent to an extent in terms of balance and limitation along with carbon.

There are a quite a few papers one can find on heterotrophic bacteria and phosphate uptake via google search ,for those interested in more arcane stuff , which suggest that they take up a significant part of the available PO4 even in oligotophic waters . They do in my tanks as well with vokda and vinegar dosing.

Regarding nitrogen , FWIW I found this paper which is one of a few cited in my earlier post very helpful particularly the stoichiometry for autorophic and heterotrophic uptake reactions:

http://cals.arizona.edu/azaqua/ista... - Understanding Trophic Systems Ebeling.pdf
 
Last edited:
I don't know if management for nitrate or phosphate is needed at all - there are lots of high profile tanks that have surprisingly high levels.

I am less interested in academic reports and more interested in practical aquarium evidence over 'common wisdom'. From what I can tell, there are equal reports of carbon dosing lowering phosphate and carbon dosing having negligible effects on phosphate levels. There are a ton of simple experiments that could help give the issue some clarity, and I hope people find the time to do them. I forget if I posted this link or not, but here it is anyway because, well, we took the time to write it up:
http://packedhead.net/2014/skeptical-reefkeeping-ix-test-kits-chasing-numbers-and-phosphate/
:D

"To be clear , I use it primarily for nitrogen and phosphorus control and enjoy the secondary benefits I observe in the food web like increased sponge growth."
To me this is the really interesting part. What do you mean by increased? I see rapid sponge growth in tanks with and without carbon dosing.

Thanks for the discussion.
 
From what I can tell, there are equal reports of carbon dosing lowering phosphate and carbon dosing having negligible effects on phosphate levels.


I haven't counted them but have read hundreds of anecdotoal accounts on carbon dosing ; my perception on it is more toward PO4 reduction responses obviously.

Thanks for the link.

I've read it before. I understand the variations in PO4 in natural seawater at depth and various locations ; .15ppm wouldn't concern me much in the short term but I do get more nuisance algae in my tank when it goes over .06 or so. I've seen papers suggesting average PO4 levels on some reefs near that level and observed some tanks running around .1ppm with nice richly colored sps. I've also observed some nice zero PO4 tanks with pastel but pretty corals which rely heavily on a myriad of supplements.

I've noted the shortcomings of hobby grade testing here and elsewhere but after a thousand tests for PO4 I'm confident in the variations I've observed if not in the absolute number.
I do agree pursuing a difference between .05ppm PO4 and .06ppm PO4 ,per the example in the article, is a false trail to follow but IMO ignoring PO4 levels and other numbers per the catchall phrase of not" chasing numbers" is incautious . . Folks can get carried away trying to hit a particular number and do all sorts of things like dosing buffers to raise pH for example which I agree is a poor practice. However , I think maintaining key elements and nutrients in a reasonable state of constancy is worthwhile . It really doesn't take a ton of tedious dosing and correction as the article seems to suggest to maintain constancy in the major nutrients and other elements and even pH.
Mine is a simple routine of bolus dosing soluble organics daily, 1% daily water changes and 24/7 kalk dosing via timed peristaltic with a monthly look at magnesium and calcium which hold steady rarely requiring small doses. Every few months I'll peek at K , it never changes though .

To me this is the really interesting part. What do you mean by increased? I see rapid sponge growth in tanks with and without carbon dosing.

I mean lots of sponge growt in all the tanks on the system( yellow, orange ,black white and more some encrusting some free form ) which wasn't there in any significantly noticeable volume in the years before dosing. . I don't know if it's the acetate or perhaps the bacteria or bacterial products that are fueling it. I don't think it's coincidental. It's pretty and may help remove some inorganic nutrients and seems harmless .

Thanks for the discussion.

You are welcome:wave:
 
Last edited:
Thank you Rich! I'm re-starting after a 13 year break. Great read. Joe

Thales said:
I don't know if management for nitrate or phosphate is needed at all - there are lots of high profile tanks that have surprisingly high levels.

I am less interested in academic reports and more interested in practical aquarium evidence over 'common wisdom'. From what I can tell, there are equal reports of carbon dosing lowering phosphate and carbon dosing having negligible effects on phosphate levels. There are a ton of simple experiments that could help give the issue some clarity, and I hope people find the time to do them. I forget if I posted this link or not, but here it is anyway because, well, we took the time to write it up:
http://packedhead.net/2014/skeptical-reefkeeping-ix-test-kits-chasing-numbers-and-phosphate/
:D

"To be clear , I use it primarily for nitrogen and phosphorus control and enjoy the secondary benefits I observe in the food web like increased sponge growth."
To me this is the really interesting part. What do you mean by increased? I see rapid sponge growth in tanks with and without carbon dosing.

Thanks for the discussion.
Click to expand...
 
tmz said:
From what I can tell, there are equal reports of carbon dosing lowering phosphate and carbon dosing having negligible effects on phosphate levels.


I haven't counted them but have read hundreds of anecdotoal accounts on carbon dosing ; my perception on it is more toward PO4 reduction responses obviously.
Click to expand...

Thanks Tom! I am responding to this because it is a hobby for me. :D This would be a really interesting thing to get numbers on. Most of the time, it turns out that anecdote like this is often 50/50 which makes it difficult to believe. There are lots of reports of it working, but there are also lots of reports of it not. We see the same for ATS, Microbubbles, bio pellets and more. That kind of distribution makes it seem like the effect may be from something else. Maybe it is time to do an actual survey. Hmmm.....

Thanks for the discussion!
 
01-17-2017 Ammonia (NH3-4) Good 0 0.000 - 0.050 mg/L
01-17-2017 Nitrite (NO2) Good 0.012 0.000 - 0.100 mg/L
01-17-2017 Phosphate (PO4) High 1.46 0.000 - 0.250 mg/L
01-17-2017 Nitrate (NO3) High 32 0.000 - 25.000 mg/L
01-17-2017 Silica (Sio2-3) High 0.6 0.000 - 0.500 mg/L
01-17-2017 Potassium (K) Good 396 350.000 - 450.000 mg/L
01-17-2017 Ionic Calcium (Ca) Good 166 100.000 - 400.000 mg/L
01-17-2017 Boron (B) NA NA 3.000 - 6.000 mg/L
01-17-2017 Molybdenum (Mo) Good 0.3 0.000 - 0.300 mg/L
01-17-2017 Strontium (Sr) Good 7 5.000 - 12.000 mg/L
01-17-2017 Magnesium (Mg) Good 1300 1100.000 - 1400.000 mg/L
01-17-2017 Iodine (I) Good 0.05 0.030 - 0.090 mg/L
01-17-2017 Copper (Cu) Good 0.03 0.000 - 0.100 mg/L
01-17-2017 Alkalinity (meq/L) Good 2.7 2.500 - 5.000 meq/L
01-17-2017 Total Calcium (Ca) Good 430 350.000 - 450.000 mg/L
01-17-2017 Iron (Fe) NA NA 0.000 - 0.010 mg/L
 
tmz said:
From what I can tell, there are equal reports of carbon dosing lowering phosphate and carbon dosing having negligible effects on phosphate levels.


I haven't counted them but have read hundreds of anecdotoal accounts on carbon dosing ; my perception on it is more toward PO4 reduction responses obviously.

Thanks for the link.

I've read it before. I understand the variations in PO4 in natural seawater at depth and various locations ; .15ppm wouldn't concern me much in the short term but I do get more nuisance algae in my tank when it goes over .06 or so. I've seen papers suggesting average PO4 levels on some reefs near that level and observed some tanks running around .1ppm with nice richly colored sps. I've also observed some nice zero PO4 tanks with pastel but pretty corals which rely heavily on a myriad of supplements.

I've noted the shortcomings of hobby grade testing here and elsewhere but after a thousand tests for PO4 I'm confident in the variations I've observed if not in the absolute number.
I do agree pursuing a difference between .05ppm PO4 and .06ppm PO4 ,per the example in the article, is a false trail to follow but IMO ignoring PO4 levels and other numbers per the catchall phrase of not" chasing numbers" is incautious . . Folks can get carried away trying to hit a particular number and do all sorts of things like dosing buffers to raise pH for example which I agree is a poor practice. However , I think maintaining key elements and nutrients in a reasonable state of constancy is worthwhile . It really doesn't take a ton of tedious dosing and correction as the article seems to suggest to maintain constancy in the major nutrients and other elements and even pH.
Mine is a simple routine of bolus dosing soluble organics daily, 1% daily water changes and 24/7 kalk dosing via timed peristaltic with a monthly look at magnesium and calcium which hold steady rarely requiring small doses. Every few months I'll peek at K , it never changes though .

To me this is the really interesting part. What do you mean by increased? I see rapid sponge growth in tanks with and without carbon dosing.

I mean lots of sponge growt in all the tanks on the system( yellow, orange ,black white and more some encrusting some free form ) which wasn't there in any significantly noticeable volume in the years before dosing. . I don't know if it's the acetate or perhaps the bacteria or bacterial products that are fueling it. I don't think it's coincidental. It's pretty and may help remove some inorganic nutrients and seems harmless .

Thanks for the discussion.

You are welcome:wave:
Click to expand...



@TMZ, you may not recall but we have both discussed carbon dosing at length years ago. I am a huge supporter and I have seen the results you talk about. Increased sponge growth especially. I know add vinegar to my top off Kalk and that is my sole carbon source. If balances well for me. When I removed my fish recently in a newish system for treatment and the system is now fallow I have to add nitrates. When I did this I noticed my phosphates dropped like a rock. I have since removed GFO all together. I also have two MarienPure blocks in my sump. I try to maintain a trace amount of PO4 and about 5ppm NO3. Any lower and my corals suffer and get pale, higher and algae growth takes off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Some iphone shots with a look down (pretty much all grown from frags in the last twoish years):

for%20matt-55-2-L.jpg

for%20matt-55-3-L.jpg

for%20matt-55-L.jpg

for%20matt-53-2-L.jpg


I really have to pull out the big camera and shoot the tank for real soon.
 
Thales said:
Some iphone shots with a look down (pretty much all grown from frags in the last twoish years):

for%20matt-55-2-L.jpg

for%20matt-55-3-L.jpg

for%20matt-55-L.jpg

for%20matt-53-2-L.jpg


I really have to pull out the big camera and shoot the tank for real soon.
Click to expand...
I missed these.. frickin' fantastic!
That's some super healthy acro bush!
Very nice, Rich. Very nice indeed!
 
Thales said:
01-17-2017 Ammonia (NH3-4) Good 0 0.000 - 0.050 mg/L
01-17-2017 Nitrite (NO2) Good 0.012 0.000 - 0.100 mg/L
01-17-2017 Phosphate (PO4) High 1.46 0.000 - 0.250 mg/L
01-17-2017 Nitrate (NO3) High 32 0.000 - 25.000 mg/L
01-17-2017 Silica (Sio2-3) High 0.6 0.000 - 0.500 mg/L
01-17-2017 Potassium (K) Good 396 350.000 - 450.000 mg/L
01-17-2017 Ionic Calcium (Ca) Good 166 100.000 - 400.000 mg/L
01-17-2017 Boron (B) NA NA 3.000 - 6.000 mg/L
01-17-2017 Molybdenum (Mo) Good 0.3 0.000 - 0.300 mg/L
01-17-2017 Strontium (Sr) Good 7 5.000 - 12.000 mg/L
01-17-2017 Magnesium (Mg) Good 1300 1100.000 - 1400.000 mg/L
01-17-2017 Iodine (I) Good 0.05 0.030 - 0.090 mg/L
01-17-2017 Copper (Cu) Good 0.03 0.000 - 0.100 mg/L
01-17-2017 Alkalinity (meq/L) Good 2.7 2.500 - 5.000 meq/L
01-17-2017 Total Calcium (Ca) Good 430 350.000 - 450.000 mg/L
01-17-2017 Iron (Fe) NA NA 0.000 - 0.010 mg/L
Click to expand...

Thales,
are these results from the water in your reef tank or is it something else?
you have very beautiful acros, I am curious to know if you can achieve the color you have with the high PO4 you posted here?
 
sensei said:
Thales,
are these results from the water in your reef tank or is it something else?
you have very beautiful acros, I am curious to know if you can achieve the color you have with the high PO4 you posted here?
Click to expand...

Sensei,
This thread is actually a fantastic and interesting read with lots of great information. Even though it is now 30 pages long, it is well worth going back and looking at the beginning of it.
I have learned a lot from this thread and I am sure you could as well. I have no idea of your level of experience with reef keeping but I think that anyone could benefit from looking at the perspective put forth in this thread.
It is very interesting. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Phosphate flow out of live rock
Replies
0
Views
114
SantaMonica
S
griss
Anyone Dosing Phosphate?
Replies
3
Views
51
griss
griss
U
Problems testing Phosphate
Replies
6
Views
578
Timfish
Timfish
Jyetman
Help leveling New 32 Gallon Tank
Replies
2
Views
157
griss
griss
DjPhato
90gal reef cycling
Replies
8
Views
590
griss
griss
Back
Top