Lets talk about Vodka/sugar dosing

[SDguy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12255607#post12255607 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by miwoodar
I'm not so sure that the general RC member has ever read a Moe book (or even ever heard of Moe for that matter). If he/she had, we might have collectively figured out how to put tanks on the moon by now. .

Ack! I'm not that old :eek2:

 

[miwoodar]

The Marine Aquarium Reference is going for $1.75 on Amazon right now. It's unbelievable that such a staple can go for less than a Happy Meal.

 

[Robert Patterso]

Martin Moe's book was the first book I read when I got into this hobby back in 89. Yeah I'm that old.

 

[azgard]

I have a question.

Is it necessary using sugar to have the so called " milk white bacteria bloom " for the nitrate reduction to happen?

Or will a regular small dose eventually bring it down?

 

[sprite]

start small and gradually increase to you notice nitrates beginning to fall and hold steady with that dose

 

[Zedar]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12254779#post12254779 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Big E

From my old Martin Moe book I know the phosphorus cycle & nitrogen cycle are seperate & I know of no interelationship of the two..............at least Martin never mentioned it.

Is it possible that back then, they weren't aware of a strain of bacs that do work in harmony? They discover new ones all the time.

Or maybe, when carbon is introduced a different strain becomes present?

Or I could be way out in left field

 

[Genetics]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12254779#post12254779 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Big E
I know I don't...........it may impact algae(N/P ratio-redfield) but I doubt it has any impact on the denitrifying bacteria. I do wonder how the ratio impacts Sps & believe there are balances for best color & growth, but I seriously doubt you have to have .03 or lower phosphates to create this balance...........if they repeat these misnomers long enough on reef boards everyone starts to believe it.

From my old Martin Moe book I know the phosphorus cycle & nitrogen cycle are seperate & I know of no interelationship of the two..............at least Martin never mentioned it.

Redfield is a great equation to point out. C:N is phytoplankton is roughly 106:16:1. Is this directly applicable to the aquarium and CS dosing. Maybe? I wouldn't doubt its far from this.

Link between phos and nitro cycles? No link from the cycles directly. But since both phosphate and nitrogen are utilized in cells their is always the indiirect link. But if Martin Moe never mentioned it then it must not exist!

 

[mesocosm]

Greetings All !

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12265448#post12265448 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Zedar
Is it possible that back then, they weren't aware of a strain of bacs that do work in harmony? ...

Fair question, but ... not really. What would turn out to be arguably definitive work was published by Sorokin (and others) in the 1960s & 1970s. What was unclear (prior to RNA sequencing) was the richness of the inter-relationships.



Not JMO ... this is the history.
:thumbsup:

 

[mesocosm]

Greetings All !

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12266491#post12266491 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Genetics
Redfield is a great equation to point out. C:N is phytoplankton is roughly 106:16:1. Is this directly applicable to the aquarium and CS dosing. Maybe? I wouldn't doubt its far from this. ...

I used to be in this place as well ... until I started taking a hard look at the field data. The C:N ratios documented as having an impact on bacteria biofilm growth rates range from 6:1 (the lowest that leaps to memory) ... to hundreds to one (IIRC ~ 200:1).

On another tangent, the "aquarium" linkage is critical ... what I'm talking about are in situ ratios from regions ranging from Baltic Sea sediments, to "disturbed" Caribbean reefs, to beneath the ice pack in Antarctica.

Quite a range, on a lot of levels ... with perhaps no applicability to our captive reef ecosystems. :lol:

Is the Redfield Ratio of importance to CS dosing Strategies? Almost certainly ... NO.



But this obscures the point ... what Big E and I are talking about is phosphorous as a limiting factor in the process of denitrification. Not meaning to be either blunt or argumentative ... this simply isn't happening in any direct way whatsoever. Are folks really suggesting that P must be present in the water column (as opposed to participation via ATP) in order for NO3 to be reduced? If that's not what's being suggested, then how can P be a limiting reactant for the process of denitrification?

I bring this up again only because of the perceived implications of hobbyist-level articles, and the emergent discussions correlating diminished P to NO3 accumulation here in RC, and in ZEOville. Folks are actually suggesting the premeditated dosing of P-bearing stuff to compensate. This is not merely conceptually flawed ... but it's also a practical husbandry dead-end. Maybe a nasty dead-end (see documentation of P's relationship with decreased skeletogenesis).

Rather than contemplating increasing the P-compound pool in the system, perhaps folks might be better advised to take a closer look at the way they are introducing N-compounds. Rather than adding something with P, perhaps considering subtracting something with N (... like amino acids ...) would be a more prudent tack. Unless you're trying to address zoxanthellae N limitation via NO3 (... fair enough, you've got to love what Jeff is doing with it ...), I would respectfully suggest that pulling N out (as opposed to putting P in) makes lots more sense.

There are many ways to manipulate C:N ratios. JMO ...

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12254779#post12254779 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Big E
... believe there are balances for best color & growth, but I seriously doubt you have to have .03 or lower phosphates to create this balance...

Indeed ... :thumbsup:

Also worth pointing out is the probability that there is almost certainly NO single ideal ratio that applies to all scleractinian species. Are we having fun, yet?

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12254779#post12254779 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Big E
... if they repeat these misnomers long enough on reef boards everyone starts to believe it. ...

Yep ... :lol:




JMO ... HTH
:thumbsup:

 

[azgard]

mesocosm

I need a definitive answer, is the so called bacteria bloom required?

 

[stony_corals]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12269515#post12269515 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by azgard
mesocosm

I need a definitive answer, is the so called bacteria bloom required?

Not to step on mesocosm's toes.... but no, its not required.

 

[mesocosm]

Greetings All !

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12269515#post12269515 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by azgard
mesocosm

I need a definitive answer, is the so called bacteria bloom required?

No ... stony_corals is indeed correct ... as is typical. :thumbsup:

The only thing that I would add is that the bacterial "white bloom" is a direct indication of excessive carbon dosing. It's also a warning sign that oxygen deletion may be an issue. It is also perhaps worth noting that the original Redfield Ratio (Redfield 1934) also included ... oxygen.



HTH

 

[Big E]

Also worth pointing out is the probability that there is almost certainly NO single ideal ratio that applies to all scleractinian species. Are we having fun, yet?

Lol, this is so true...............it's easier to just get rid of the few corals that don't thrive or color up in my system.

 

[Zedar]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12267837#post12267837 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mesocosm
Greetings All !

But this obscures the point ... what Big E and I are talking about is phosphorous as a limiting factor in the process of denitrification. Not meaning to be either blunt or argumentative ... this simply isn't happening in any direct way whatsoever. Are folks really suggesting that P must be present in the water column (as opposed to participation via ATP) in order for NO3 to be reduced? If that's not what's being suggested, then how can P be a limiting reactant for the process of denitrification?

I bring this up again only because of the perceived implications of hobbyist-level articles, and the emergent discussions correlating diminished P to NO3 accumulation here in RC, and in ZEOville. Folks are actually suggesting the premeditated dosing of P-bearing stuff to compensate. This is not merely conceptually flawed ... but it's also a practical husbandry dead-end. Maybe a nasty dead-end (see documentation of P's relationship with decreased skeletogenesis).

I understand what your saying. Denitrification has nothing to do with p04. The bacteria involved, do not depend on P04.

So the question is.. What biologocal/chemical process "is" taking place in our reef tanks "when dosing carbon" that results in low P04?

Is it what fauna marin states?

"But Zeolites can even do another trick! Inside the Zeolite filter, there is a small but constant abrasion of the material, which contains a lot of aluminium. These tiny particles bind phosphate. By leading the outflow of the Zeolite filter into the protein skimmer the abrasion is skimmed off, thereby removing phosphates from the aquarium."

If I'm reading that correctly, there is a bacteria thats being skimmed from the water, exporting P04 in the process.
If this is the case, then do these skimed bacteria require both p04 and nitrate in the proper ratio? Are we getting to the nuts and bolts now? Or am i talking out my A@#?

 

[mesocosm]

Greetings All !

... Denitrification has nothing to do with p04. ...

Thank you, this is my point. Denitrification is about the reduction of NO3 ... NOT the uptake of available P.

...The bacteria involved, do not depend on P04.

The bacteria do indeed require P bearing compounds for optimal growth.

So the question is.. What biologocal/chemical process "is" taking place in our reef tanks "when dosing carbon" that results in low P04?

(1) Biological sequestration involving bacterial growth.
(2) Biological sequestration involving the consumption of bacteria.
(3) Export from system via foam fractionation.

Note the phrase "biological sequestration" ... the P remains in the system. It's just "hidden" from our test kits because its been incorporated into something else that a titration test does not measure.

... do these skimed bacteria require both p04 and nitrate in the proper ratio? ...

Not directly ... bacteria require phosphorous and nitrogen in "proper" ratios for optimum growth (along with other elements & compounds). While my distinction between PO4 & NO3 vs. P & N may appear ticky-tack, it is at the core of what I'm talking about when I suggest that there are many ways to manipulate C:N ratios.

This leads to an irritating requirement ... if we're going to get at real, optimal dosing recommendations, we're going to have to get at an approximation of total P and total N in the system's water column. Only at this point will we be able to dose a CS in a way that allows us to escape from the anecdotal, observational maze where we are currently trapped.

As has already been pointed out by others, such a calculation is not as straightforward as we would like. Even so, I don't see the calculation of such an approximation as impossible ... just tedious. For example, we may have to move away from the easy and comfortable NH4, NO2, and NO3 readings, and move towards the unfamiliar math of NH4-H, NO2-N, NO3-N, and PO4-P numbers. For example, consider NO2 vs. NO2-N ... the molecular weight of NO2 is 14+32=46. Nitrogen is 14/46 or 30% of the weight of the nitrite molecule. Thus a test kit reading of 1 ppm of NO2 is the same thing as 0.3 ppm of NO2-N.

I'm not saying it's worth the effort ... yet. I'm just saying, you know?

Is it what fauna marin states?

With apologies for mixing zeolite system discussion into a vodka/sugar thread ...

ROTFL ! ... :lol:

While I appreciate the effort, capital, and time that both Korallen-Zucht and Fauna Marin have invested in their "guides" and "manuals" ... truly ... I don't view either document as being much more than promotional, marketing materials.

JMO ... your mileage will vary.



JMO ... HTH
:thumbsup:

 

[Zedar]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12282456#post12282456 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mesocosm
Greetings All !

The bacteria do indeed require P bearing compounds for optimal growth.

So when you say optimal growth. Are you saying they can do it "denitrify" without p04 but it wont be optimal?

 

[Zedar]

LoL I mention "zeolites" because i dont view them as anything more then a deep sand bed . A home for aerobic and heterotrophic bacteria.

You may recall I'm the guy that uses seachem matrix in a "Zeo like" reactor. I achieved the same result as Zeo. I'm only speaking about the lowering of P04 and N03 to zeo levels.

 

[mesocosm]

Greetings All !

"But Zeolites can even do another trick! Inside the Zeolite filter, there is a small but constant abrasion of the material, which contains a lot of aluminium. These tiny particles bind phosphate. By leading the outflow of the Zeolite filter into the protein skimmer the abrasion is skimmed off, thereby removing phosphates from the aquarium."

With further apologies for mixing zeolite system discussion into a vodka/sugar thread ...

Isn't it great that manufacturers choose to tell us that their products are doing "tricks" ... instead to documenting how their products actually function?

JMO ... :lol:


My opinion ... opinion ... is that there is at least trace phosphate binding with Al2O3 going on with the Al released from these alumino-silicate media. To what extent? ... I have no clue. I find it curious ... but hardly compelling ... that undesired effects from too rapid reactor flow is strikingly similar to effects from misapplied PhosGuard. Indeed, I also take note of the 2002 analysis that found zero phosphate binding with ZEOvit media. Contradictory, seemingly mutually exclusive assertions from manufacturers of similar marine ornamental products ... gee ...

... what else is new? :lol:

As far as the "abrasion thing" goes ... well ... I've never bought into the concept. Is the abrasion cited real? Sure, but consider the mass of the "tiny particles" produced by twice daily "grinding" within the reactor over a 4-6 week period, compared to the total mass of the media in use. We're talking about a very small percentage. I find it difficult to accept that such a small percentage of material could be responsible for such significant export. Similarly, consider the percentage of "new" surface area resulting from such abrasion. Again, we're talking about a very small percentage of surface area in comparison to the total surface area. I find it difficult to accept that such a relatively small percentage exerts a significant influence on ammonia adsorption.

JMO, and I stand ready to be corrected in the face of hard data ...



So what's actually happening?

My opinion ... opinion ... with regards to the nutrient reduction by the Korallen-Zucht & Fauna Marin proprietary systems is that what we're seeing is the effect(s) of an increased mass transfer rate resultng from the flow within the reactor (... along the impact of a rather innovative & insightful mix of carbon sources, vitamins, and electron donors). I've always viewed the emphasis on the reactor's media, and unsupported assertions of the media's "selective preference" for NH4 ionic exchange with more than a little bemusement.

Please excuse the redundancy (because I've been posting this for years), but it's not about the media ... it's all about the biofilm.

JMO ...





On another tangent ... Zedar ... while remembering that I mean no offense, and also that I find your husbandry perspective, enthusiasm, experience, and willingness to give of your time & energy to other reefkeepers to be impressive (to say the least) ... the notion that ...

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12178669#post12178669 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Zedar
... Coral reefs are poor in dissolved inorganic nutrients ... . These systems allow you to mimic that ecosystem. ...

... is, forgive me ... tragically flawed. The notion that vodka/sugar dosing, DIY bacterioplankton strategies, or any of the proprietary systems are capable of even remotely mimicking a coral reef ecosystem is utterly indefensible.

I risk appearing arrogant and offensive (... again, apologies if either is perceived ...) because it seems to me that it's important to point out .. especially to the folks who are just beginning their investigation into these emergent tactics ... that what vodka/sugar dosing, DIY bacterioplankton strategies, and the proprietary systems are really all about is the creation of a dynamic chemical & biological equilibrium ... that is capable of being directly manipulated by the hobbyist. This dynamic equilibrium that I'm ranting about is fundamentally different from the dynamic generated in classic Berlin-style systems ... which explains why the results from amino acid dosing & isolated proprietary product dosing into Berlin-style systems have been so typically inconsistent, and unimpressive. That replicable "precision in control" of this dynamic remains elusive and undefined is why this type of discussion is so interesting and useful.

There are many "methods", "configurations", and "systems" to achieve desired asethetic, coral growth, coral coloration, and sustainability effects in marine aquaria. But none of them ... none of them ... mimic natural coral reef ecosystems.



JMO ... HTH
:thumbsup:

 

[Zedar]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12283185#post12283185 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mesocosm
Greetings All !

that what vodka/sugar dosing, DIY bacterioplankton strategies, and the proprietary systems are really all about is the creation of a dynamic chemical & biological equilibrium ... that is capable of being directly manipulated by the hobbyist. This dynamic equilibrium that I'm ranting about is fundamentally different from the dynamic generated in classic Berlin-style systems ... which explains why the results from amino acid dosing & isolated proprietary product dosing into Berlin-style systems have been so typically inconsistent, and unimpressive. That replicable "precision in control" of this dynamic remains elusive and undefined is why this type of discussion is so interesting and useful.

JMO ... HTH
:thumbsup:

Are you saying that these systems allow us to more tightly control the import and export of nutrients?
To achieve a balance?

Heres my take and please feel free to correct me where and if im flawed in my thinking.

With these bacterially driven systems we can manipulate the nutrients to our likening. Replacing p04 No3 which in a more traditional system, Berlin, etc was a food source for the zooxanthalle with AA's food?
Were we can walk the line between being too ogliotrophic.

 

[mesocosm]

Greetings All !

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12283278#post12283278 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Zedar
... if im flawed in my thinking. ...

The more I learn, the less I know. We're all flawed in our thinking.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12283278#post12283278 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Zedar
... walk the line between being too oligotrophic.

Hehe ... I must confess that I'm more than a little amused at the notion of being able to generate truly oligotrophic conditions in a reef aquarium. Dr. Szmant once commented eloquently on this in a coral-list thread ... but I've lost the link to the quote. Researchers talk about nutrients present in a coral reef ecosystem in terms of micro-moles. Look up the difference between 1.0 micro-mole of NH4 vs. 1.0 ppm (mg/L) of NH4 sometime. You may be amused as well, particularly if you remember that the NH4 levels on natural reefs is often in the range of 0.45 micro-moles.

I find the assertions that any of these carbon dosing strategies (proprietary, or not ... reactor present, or not) are "stripping" water column nutrients down to a micro-molar mesurement scale to be unconvincing.

JMO, and I stand ready to be corrected by hard data ...

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12283278#post12283278 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Zedar
Are you saying that these systems allow us to more tightly control the import and export of nutrients? ...

Yes ... but only up to a point. It might also be pointed out that relatively "tight" control of export of nutrients can also be achieved within the classic Berlin-style configurations (BB in particular), and by water change quantity & frequency, feeding, flow configuration(s), and protein skimmer selection.

One of the fundamental differences between Berlin-style configurations, and configurations which utilize carbon-dosing is the system's bacterial guild. And not just in terms of the biofilms inhabiting the surfaces of the system, but also in terms of the amount of free-living bacteria in the water column. This difference between surface biofilm vs. free-living is amplified by systems using a "reactor". If a reactor is present, the increased free-living bacteria population scavenges nutrients from the water column, and facilitates protein skimmer export ... again, a different dynamic compared with Berlin-style systems.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12283278#post12283278 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Zedar
... To achieve a balance? ...

Yes ... this is another fundamental difference, contrasted with Berlin-style systems.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12283278#post12283278 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Zedar
... Replacing p04 No3 which in a more traditional system, Berlin, etc was a food source for the zooxanthalle with AA's food? ...

Not in terms of "replacing" P. Yes ... in terms of presenting an alternative N source.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12283102#post12283102 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Zedar
So when you say optimal growth. Are you saying they can do it "denitrify" without p04 but it wont be optimal?

I'm saying that P is not a limiting factor in denitrification chemical reactions, and that the relationship between maximum NO3 denitrification rate and the gowth state of the bacterial guild carrying out denitrification is not necessarily either direct, or linear.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12283108#post12283108 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Zedar
... You may recall I'm the guy that uses seachem matrix in a "Zeo like" reactor. I achieved the same result as Zeo. ...

I've been watching for this realm of the larger conversation to develop in RC since mid-2005. One of the precurors of this realm happened last year here ...

Inorganic Carbon to Reduce Phosphate & Nitrate?
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1158307&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

In the last few pages you can watch me stumble into the abyss of flawed, unfounded speculation regarding what's going on with DFAA dosing and chromoprotein synthesis ... :eek1: :lol:

My enthusiasm for this stuff can be a disaster ...

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12283108#post12283108 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Zedar
... I'm only speaking about the lowering of P04 and N03 to zeo levels.

Indeed ... you and me both.

Even so, what Big E and I were talking about earlier includes the overlap between C:N ratios that drive bacterial nutrient reduction, and N ratios that optimize scleractinian growth and coloration. These ratios are different ... and inter-connected.



JMO .. HTH
:thumbsup: