Lets talk about Vodka/sugar dosing

[143gadgets]

You make a very interesting point when you talk about the kent products. What were your dosing habits? Did u just follow the instructions on each bottle?

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11378100#post11378100 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by hahnmeister
That is true... ethanol dosing seems to be 1/2 of what needs to happen. That being said, it looks like Ultralith is exactly the same as Zeo, but about 30% less. Maybe some of the 'specialty' products vary between systems, but the core system seems the same. Quality may vary though, who knows. I think I just have to pick one and try it.

The thing that gets me is that Im sure there already exists a US parallel to the Zeo/Ultralith or even Prodobio systems. I was looking at old bottles of KENT products I have on the shelf (when I was a noob, I bought every KENT bottled suppliment around and still have them all sitting around) Take for instance, the Ultralth 'Ultra Organic' suppliment... Iron, Potassium, Iodide, and other things I cant remember (the bottle is downstairs if I really want to check). Well, look at KENT Coral-Vite or Essential Elements... they contain Iron, Mg, Molybdenum, Manganese, Potassium. One of the critical components of Zeo is the 'amino acids' and 'vitamins'... look at KENT Coral Accel, it has crude protein, crude fat, crude fiber, iodine, asorbic acid, and vitamin A. Heck, Coral-Vite has B-1, B-6, B-12, Vitamin A, Asorbic acid as well as what I mentioned before.

Some of the products that prodobio sports are similar to this:
www.microbelift.com ,or one of the many other 'cycle' style bacterial suppliments that companies like Aquarium Pharmaceuticals offers (Stress Zyme: a biological filtration booster).

My tank was running ethanol until the point I think I stripped some elements out 100%. My iodate level is what got me the most... 0? If thats not a false reading on Salifert's behalf. But here is something funny... those corals I was concerned with because they looked faded and that whorling cap that was bleaching in spots... well, I added a bunch of Tech-I that I had laying around to boost Iodine, and then started dumping in those KENT chemicals I had laying around. Coral Accel, Essential Elements, Strontium/Moly, Coral-Vite, etc...

Yesterday I noticed something in the evening... a few of my corals that were doing the 'pastel thing' were dark again!

I think the real value of a 'system' like Zeo or Ultralith is in the fact that they have a researched 'method' and have a system. KENT, or one of the other major US names that makes 'suppliments' just doesnt have a system really... not in the same respect as Zeo. They COULD, and it might HELP THEM GREATLY as well as the consumer so they know what to buy.... but they dont. I cant tell you how many times I have heard some n00b talk about how the LFS guy said that their corals arent coloring in well or dying because their calcium/alkalinity was low, and so they sold them 'Essential Elements' to correct the problem...lol. Im sure KENT or someone like them could come up with what the Zeo-rocks are (heck, we do have mineral/miracle mud... I wonder how similar they are in effect), and make a $50 phosban reactor that has a stirring mechanism on it to stir zeolites... (or just use a phos reactor, and simply pick it up and shake the whole thing once a day rather than use the 'plunger')

Im not saying they are all the same quality, or that one poduct equals another 100%... the amounts might be off in comparison. But I just find it funny that these 'ultra expensive' systems may already have a low-price counterpart. I can tell you one thing... rather than dose some fancy product for potassium, I can just go to the lab supply and pick up pure potassium, potassium iodide, and potassium chloride and have my own fun for cheap.

So for me, I see the value. If I was to suggest to a noob what suppliments to look into, I would rather tell them to try a zeo or ultralith system that is spelled out for them rather than 'try some KENT products and see what works for you' or 'you need a phosban reactor'. To me, it just makes sense to invest the money in something that is a complete system with instructions, support, and guides rather than waste money on chemicals that you may or may not need. If I add up all the KENT bottles I have, Im sure its over $200 in chromaplex, zooplex, phytoplex, microvert food, Tech-I, Tech-M, Strontium, Essential Elements, Coral Accel, Coral-Vite, etc. etc. Or, I could pick up a liter of zeolith stones, and the other 3 'basic 4' for the the same if not less in a package and be on my way... you know?

I was looking at the Prodobio in the new MD catalog last night... dont think Ill bother with that though. Unless its a new tank, the only things I would use are the 5 things included in the 'Biokit Reef' (DIGEST, BIOPTIM, REEF BOOSTER, and STRONTI+ and IODI+). Of those, I bet the Digest is alot like one of the 'biological cleaning' products already out there in a bottle like Stress Zyme, Bioptim is similar to vodka dosing, and booster is just like Coral-Accel, Coral-Vite, or Essential Elements. And Stronti and Iodi? I think I can suppliment those w/o needing a fancy vial to do so... they are just basic elements after all. KENT Strontium&Molybdenum anyone? Tech-I/Super Iodine anyone? Heck, pure potassium iodide would do it just as well.

I like the idea of a reactor that cultivates bacterial plankton and such though... as long as it doesnt turn my corals pastel...lol.

 

[hahnmeister]

Way back when I bought them? I would try one for a while, see what it would do, etc. At that time, they didnt seem to do much... but with this ethanol dosing, heavy skimming, etc; the impact of adding them was more obvious.

 

[glassbox-design]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11378131#post11378131 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MiddletonMark
That's what I've read out of things too.

It's funny, as if you go back enough years ... running very high Alk levels was quite popular. Then came Ca obsession. Now it's `no higher than NSW' obsession.

What I find is odd, that without running major C-dosing, higher-than-NSW levels or variance-over-time-of-levels do not show these problems. IMO, this makes me pin the problems more on the dosing-systems than the levels; esp. when I've run my tank for years at elevated Alk without tip-burn and other recessions.

JMO, though

mark it's a bit over my head, but you should read some of the links meso has posted on the web regarding NSW+params causing necrosis... it seems more viable to me than any other "explanation".

 

[MonkeyKeeper911]

how do i dose the sugar w/ the vodka there wasnt a conversion of that

 

[Fraggle Rock2]

Has anyone ever tried to culture the bacteria outside of the DT and add that instead of directly adding a carbon source?

 

[FunkieReefJunkie]

I would like to understand the difference in effect of sugars in the wild and sugars dosed in closed artificial systems? This study sites a detrimental effect to corals when dosing simple sugars.http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SU/coral_bact_oct06.htm

 

[mesocosm]

Greetings All !

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11430590#post11430590 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Fraggle Rock2
Has anyone ever tried to culture the bacteria outside of the DT and add that instead of directly adding a carbon source?

Great question ... nice. :thumbsup:

At first glance, this does seem tempting, doesn't it? The rub is that this doesn't take us where we want to go (increased assimilation/export of the N & P that's already present). In fact, it takes us in the wrong direction (increased N & P sequestration/accumulation within the system).

One of the fundamental ideas behind "carbon dosing" (i.e., "sugar dosing") is to provide additional "fuel" (sugar can be regarded as stored chemical energy) to allow the existing bacteria guild to metabolize and store more N & P compounds than the guild would be able to without the additional energy source. There is no net increase in the N & P content of the system as a result of dosing a carbon source.

Adding additional biomass (that was cultured outside the system) introduces additional N & P content into the system, without any accompanying increase in metabolic or storage capacity. Adding more bacterial "processing capacity" without also providing the additional energy to make the processing happen isn't helpful. Indeed, if too much inoculant was added, the sudden increase in bacterial biomass in the water column could produce a rapid decrease in available O2.


JMO ... HTH ... Happy Holidays, everyone !
:thumbsup:

 

[SDguy]

I would just add that systems like zeo essentially do grow the bacteria remotely, on a specified substrate (the zeorocks, or whatever they are called), but this is still happening within the system volume itself, thereby utilizing the N and P in the system volume.

 

[SDguy]

Quick update. Just got back from a 12 day vacation. While I was gone, I was seriously considering stopping the vodka dosing, due to the continuing basal recession on a couple colonies. 5mL dosing per day continued while I was gone. I just turned the lights on. Well holy crap, my colors are getting nice. Growth is great. Definitely outweighs some basal recession on a couple colonies, IMO.

 

[FunkieReefJunkie]

I have to admit after dosing carbon in various forms over the past three months my washed out corals are finally coloring up. Nuisance algae is down to a minimum, but I don't want to rid of it entirely because I want to maintain sufficient food for my sea hare. Because I use ozone I have to turn it off until lights are off to let the bacteria proliferate and that's one more thing I have to do. But it's working. So I don't quite get why Dr. Klines studies at Scripps show the opposite results of what we hobbyist are observing in our own tanks. The argument that carbon dosing feeds bad bacteria as well as the good to the detriment of the tank doesn't quite fly for me either. I had a brown jelly episode going on in my tank which persisted despite siphoning away and water changes. At first I wasn't seeing any difference, but eventually the brown jelly bacteria was out competed by good bacteria which I believe were the result of the carbon dosing. Anecdotal yes, but an interesting observation just the same.

 

[Canarygirl]

FWIW, I have had a bloom of nuisance algae after starting Zeovit. In Zeo-land they say that this can be caused by overdosing the carbon food source, in which case the good bacs will consume too much of this food in leieu of the PO4 that they are supposed to be consuming. I don't know how often that happens with vodka dosing but I am having the problem in my tank with Zeo. It could be that I've had less than optimal skimmer performance lately and successful Zeo use is dependent on exporting the PO4-laden bacs.

 

[stony_corals]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11453159#post11453159 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by FunkieReefJunkie
I would like to understand the difference in effect of sugars in the wild and sugars dosed in closed artificial systems? This study sites a detrimental effect to corals when dosing simple sugars.http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SU/coral_bact_oct06.htm

That article was pretty high level... Mesocosm could better comment. I don't think the article said anything new.

 

[stony_corals]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11483147#post11483147 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by FunkieReefJunkie
I have to admit after dosing carbon in various forms over the past three months my washed out corals are finally coloring up. Nuisance algae is down to a minimum, but I don't want to rid of it entirely because I want to maintain sufficient food for my sea hare. Because I use ozone I have to turn it off until lights are off to let the bacteria proliferate and that's one more thing I have to do. But it's working. So I don't quite get why Dr. Klines studies at Scripps show the opposite results of what we hobbyist are observing in our own tanks. The argument that carbon dosing feeds bad bacteria as well as the good to the detriment of the tank doesn't quite fly for me either. I had a brown jelly episode going on in my tank which persisted despite siphoning away and water changes. At first I wasn't seeing any difference, but eventually the brown jelly bacteria was out competed by good bacteria which I believe were the result of the carbon dosing. Anecdotal yes, but an interesting observation just the same.

I'd think that all bacteria species would grow as a result carbon dosing. Some may have different other needs that cause some to grow and other to not grow as fast. This is where I believe the probiotic systems have an advantage over simple carbon dosing - they actively add bacteria to the system in order to maintain some diversity of bacteria species. I don't know enough about brown jelly to comment.

That your colors are coming out after some time, I believe is very good - you didn't go too fast.

 

[stony_corals]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11484474#post11484474 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Canarygirl
FWIW, I have had a bloom of nuisance algae after starting Zeovit. In Zeo-land they say that this can be caused by overdosing the carbon food source, in which case the good bacs will consume too much of this food in leieu of the PO4 that they are supposed to be consuming. I don't know how often that happens with vodka dosing but I am having the problem in my tank with Zeo. It could be that I've had less than optimal skimmer performance lately and successful Zeo use is dependent on exporting the PO4-laden bacs.

I do get some smear algae on the panes... nothing like a start2 od though where there is a cyano-like that traps bubbles on the liverock.....

My guess is that when Zeo was new, too many people went too fast and lowered their nutrients to very low levels quickly and their corals died. I think this is why they are advocating, now, a slower reduction in nutrient levels. This is my opinion only.... You seem to have a good skimmer, the bacteria are more efficient and effective than skimmers are though...

 

[stony_corals]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11378131#post11378131 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MiddletonMark
That's what I've read out of things too.

It's funny, as if you go back enough years ... running very high Alk levels was quite popular. Then came Ca obsession. Now it's `no higher than NSW' obsession.

What I find is odd, that without running major C-dosing, higher-than-NSW levels or variance-over-time-of-levels do not show these problems. IMO, this makes me pin the problems more on the dosing-systems than the levels; esp. when I've run my tank for years at elevated Alk without tip-burn and other recessions.

JMO, though

But does burned tips result from the high relative alkalinity level, or is it due to the higher alkalinity levels causing increased calcification, the tips are the place of fastest growth in sps, and if there isn't sufficient N (due to running vodka or zeo), the tips loose tissue and look burned?!? I don't know, just trying to throw something out there.... Mesocosm seems to think this is caused by photoinhabition as a result of the very clear water....

Thiel was a big proponent of higher alk, like 15 dKH or so, back in the day.

 

[MiddletonMark]

That's an interesting idea, which seems to jive with what I've seen.

It also explains why so many have run elevated Alk levels [esp back 5 years] without issue - which is something that IMO needs an answer which fits both the new observations + old observations.

 

[SDguy]

One of my most dramatic color changes so far....a very finicky wild tricolor....from this in mid october:

To this now:

 

[mesocosm]

Greetings All !

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11484559#post11484559 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by stony_corals
... Mesocosm seems to think this is caused by photoinhabition as a result of the very clear water....

My use of the term "photo-inhibition" over in the chemistry forum was intended as a general description for the purpose of furthering discussion in that particular thread. We have to start the analysis somewhere, yes?


I do not pretend to have a definitive answer ... :lol:


In my read of the threads pertaining to this subject in ZEOville, there appear to be four main tangents:

(1) Damage resulting from a correlation with either excessive intensity, or excessive photoperiod (frequency = ~50%);
(2) Damage resulting from a correlation with what is perceived as respiratory (or metabolic, if you prefer) behavior of the coral host, and/or its associated bacteria (frequency = ~30%);
(3) Damage which currently cannot be directly correlated to either intensity, photoperiod, or respiraton (frequency = ~10%);
(4) Damage that is subsequently identified as resulting from another cause, i.e., transport shock, careless handling, pest infestation, frenzied dwarf angelfish attacks ... et cetera (frequency = ~10%).

It is perhaps worth noting that the damage (when not associated with "another" cause) is typically temporary (~65%), and its progression is usually halted by either raising the lighting, by decreasing the photoperiod, and/or by altering "dosing" (typically lowering).



For the record, I discount the 'clearer water' ... hmmm ... "explanation". I have a hard time reconciling a relatively minor turbidity shift as the fundamental cause of the so-called RTN or STN that's being described.



JMO ... HTH
:thumbsup:

 

[stony_corals]

Happy New Year all!

Sorry Mesocosm, didn't mean to put words in your mouth

The challenging part with the four hypothesis posited, is that the hobby doesn't have a means to, in the very least, come any closer to the "truth". It'd take scientific effort, time and $$$. Even some of the 'big names' that are both in the hobby and work as scientists have equated Zeovit with starving corals...

I've seen the clearer water effect and can say that it's more clear than actively pushing the water column through a lot of carbon.

The other variable in play seems to be the "burned tips" vs. "basal recession".... Though I don't think the later to be related to vodka/carbon dosing/probiotic approaches...

 

[mesocosm]

Greetings All !

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11498058#post11498058 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by stony_corals
... The challenging part with the four hypothesis posited, is that the hobby doesn't have a means to, in the very least, come any closer to the "truth". ...

On a straight-up empirical level? No question ... this is why some of my assertions & speculations get slapped around merrily by folks like Chris Jury when the discussion gets down to the hardcore, nitty-gritty science.

And rightly so ... fruit loops, anyone? :lol:

The thing is, I would suggest that we CAN get at stuff alot more useful than the mere correlations with which we're currently hobbled. MiddletonMark suggested THE entirely correct question. When we figure out what the common variable (or set of variables) which reconciles the "classic" data set with the "bacterioplankton" data set with regards to alkalinity is ... we will have figured out something worth knowing.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11498058#post11498058 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by stony_corals
... Even some of the 'big names' that are both in the hobby and work as scientists have equated Zeovit with starving corals...

When I look at the literature, the linkage between decreased zooxanthellae density, and the terms "starvation" and "bleaching" is pretty hard to miss. Hardly surprising that legitimate scientists & researchers would assert the connection. The ZEOvit system's manufacturer assertions regarding the system's downward manipulation of zooxanthellae density ...absent a coherent, non-promotional explanation of how the system functions ... invites a critical association with the terms "starvation" and "bleaching". It is also perhaps worth noting that both Korallenzucht and Fauna Marin make explicit reference to the risks of lowered nutrient levels when using their products. If they're not talking about something which could be legitimately described as "starvation" ... then what are they talking about?

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11498058#post11498058 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by stony_corals
... I've seen the clearer water effect and can say that it's more clear than actively pushing the water column through a lot of carbon. ...

I've seen the "clearer water" effect in my own ZEOsystem. It's actually kind of impressive: ozone crystal clarity without ozone. You've got to love it. It might also be noted that vodka and/or sugar dosing sometimes ellicts the same observation from users. Even so, I remain skeptical that a turbidity shift is THE causal factor.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11498058#post11498058 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by stony_corals
... Sorry Mesocosm, didn't mean to put words in your mouth ...

No worries, my friend ... :lol: ... Happy New Year back at you ... ... and everyone else ! :thumbsup:



JMO ... HTH
:thumbsup: