Are we supposed to take any carbon out while doing this...?
Nitrate Reduction 101 with sugar!!!
- Thread starter fishykid9212
- Start date
kzooreefer
New member
Chris:
i'm just going by how i've seen other research reported when they talk about ratios dosing and it could go either way, i didn't see them make any clarification on this in the report so i jsut assume it goes teh way i want it to. but the other way makes sense too as you would dose a lot less. i know that with az-no3 they say over dosing is better than underdosing on the label and maybe it is to reach the right C/N ratio. i'm even wondering if they put a seed bacteria in their product so that you have the right species in the tank. i know tetrafin puts seed bacteria in their nitrasorb products for fw.
thriceanangel: did the cloudiness occur right away or after a number of days? if it took a couple of days to get cloudy then it was most likely a bacterial bloom feasting on the sugar. did your skimmer clear it up? when i dose phosbuster it turns teh water cloudy as teh floc forms but i have phsyical filtration to remive it. the skimmer doesn't even do a thing to it.
i'm just going by how i've seen other research reported when they talk about ratios dosing and it could go either way, i didn't see them make any clarification on this in the report so i jsut assume it goes teh way i want it to. but the other way makes sense too as you would dose a lot less. i know that with az-no3 they say over dosing is better than underdosing on the label and maybe it is to reach the right C/N ratio. i'm even wondering if they put a seed bacteria in their product so that you have the right species in the tank. i know tetrafin puts seed bacteria in their nitrasorb products for fw.
thriceanangel: did the cloudiness occur right away or after a number of days? if it took a couple of days to get cloudy then it was most likely a bacterial bloom feasting on the sugar. did your skimmer clear it up? when i dose phosbuster it turns teh water cloudy as teh floc forms but i have phsyical filtration to remive it. the skimmer doesn't even do a thing to it.
kzooreefer
New member
Chris:
I went back and re-read the materials and methods section of the article and the toal carbon for the test is only that which came from the sugar. so the carbon for the ratio they came up with for the report is for the sugar only.
Jim
I went back and re-read the materials and methods section of the article and the toal carbon for the test is only that which came from the sugar. so the carbon for the ratio they came up with for the report is for the sugar only.
Jim
thriceanangel
Active member
I dosed it in the evening, and by the morning it was cloudy. Skimmer did its job though, and by the next evening, it was nearly clear with a 100 ppm drop in NO3. I added a few venturis, and airstones to curb the o2 loss that I have heard about.
RichConley
New member
"You may just not have enough bateria to conert the NO3 but you could still have the correct ratio of C/N to yeld 11. "
Whats the population doubling time of the bacteria? I'm thinking about an hour, so if you're at that ratio, your nitrates will be gone in a couple of hours.
"Example, you could dose lots of sugar and make the ratio above 11 and you would still have NO3. "
No, because the bacteria would increase in population until something was the limiting factor, and thats going to be nitrate in that case. It only takes a couple hours.
Jim,
Thanks for looking at the article again. It is good to know it is the sugar carbon. That makes the calcs easier.
Rich,
If there is not enough suitable environment (no anerobic area) for the bateria than they cannot grow and this would limit the denitrification.
Thanks,
Chris
Thanks for looking at the article again. It is good to know it is the sugar carbon. That makes the calcs easier.
Rich,
If there is not enough suitable environment (no anerobic area) for the bateria than they cannot grow and this would limit the denitrification.
Thanks,
Chris
RichConley
New member
dp
Last edited:
RichConley
New member
Assuming Sucrose
10 PPM NO4 means 10 ppm N. each molecule of sucrose has 12 carbon molecules, so assuming 11:1, you need approximately 9 PPM of sucrose to deal with 10ppm of nitrate.
1 mg/L = 1 ppm
so we need 9 mg/L to deal with 10 ppm of nitrate. Thats roughly 36mg/Gallon.
(.009g/gallon) * (Gallons * PPM Nitrate) * (1 teaspoon/4g) is what I get
With your hypothical 10g, that gives me .225 teaspoons.
my math could be horrifically off though. I'm not even convinced the 11:1 ratio is how it happens. Thats just the ratio at which they grow fastest. That doesnt mean that the reaction happens along those lines. IE it could be 1:1, but the reaction works better with more available carbon
kzooreefer
New member
thanks Rich for doing that my math skills are a little off the last few years, burned out. that calculation is closer to what was originally stated of 1/8 a teaspoon for 25 gallons but still quite a bit more. i think my probelm in my tank is that it is amixed reef with low nitrates. this seems to work best in tanks with high nitrates.
RichConley
New member
Gunter, from my experience with sugar, this has nothing to do with denitrification. THeres no anaerobic area needed. It happens with free floating bacteria in the water column. Thats why your skimmer goes nuts/the tank gets cloudy. Its not denitrifying bacteria.
Its bacteria that use nitrogen/carbon/and phosphate for food sources, and dosing carbon causes a bloom of them. Nitrosomas/nitrobacter are not part of the sugar process. We're talking aerobic, free swimming bacteria here.
RichConley
New member
well, if you dose when theres no nitrate, you hit nitrate limitation. The bacteria can't reproduce anymore because theres no more food. This is for correcting the opposite issue where theres nitrate and no carbon.
FWIW, it also seems to strip phosphate pretty effectively. It smells like death, too. Absolutely awful skimmate.
kzooreefer
New member
Okay when I got home last night my tank was cloudy and the skimmer was working overload. By this morning the tank was clear. I went and did my normal Saturday 10% water change and then waited about 2 hours and then tested for nitrates. I got a reading of 0 down from about 5. So it looks like it takes about 24-hours for the bacterial bloom to occur and then after about 36-hours after dosing your nitrates should be significantly reduced.
Again I used a 10% sugar solution I made using a tablespoon of sugar to 1/2 cup of DI water of which I dosed my tank with 50 mL (5 cap fulls from a buffer bottle) of this. The skimmer went crazy for about 3 hours then settlede down. After 24-hours the tank became cloudy due to a bacterial bloom and again the skimmer was going crazy. I let it skim out the bacteria for another 12-hours then did a 10% water change. Nothing at this point seems to be adversely affected by this, corals, fish or inverts and the nitrates were reduced from 5 to 0 ppm.
Again I used a 10% sugar solution I made using a tablespoon of sugar to 1/2 cup of DI water of which I dosed my tank with 50 mL (5 cap fulls from a buffer bottle) of this. The skimmer went crazy for about 3 hours then settlede down. After 24-hours the tank became cloudy due to a bacterial bloom and again the skimmer was going crazy. I let it skim out the bacteria for another 12-hours then did a 10% water change. Nothing at this point seems to be adversely affected by this, corals, fish or inverts and the nitrates were reduced from 5 to 0 ppm.
ssbreef
New member
I don’t know about all the chemistry talked about here, but what I do know is that it’s been two weeks of dosing sugar and the results are simply amazing! NO MORE NITARATES! I had a caulerpa outbreak in my display tank prior to this. The caulerpa has now melted away! I’m assuming it’s due to the low nutrients in my system. I have also never seen my skimmer pull out so much crap!!!
So after reading through this thread with intrest...about six months worth of conversation I have gleaned the following:
1) It works
2) Don't overdo it, or you'll kill everything
3) You're a moron for doing it and should care for your animals correctly by water change, not overfeeding, or get rid of some of your inhabitants.
4) all of the above.
Did I miss anything?
1) It works
2) Don't overdo it, or you'll kill everything
3) You're a moron for doing it and should care for your animals correctly by water change, not overfeeding, or get rid of some of your inhabitants.
4) all of the above.
Did I miss anything?
LOL!!! I too think thats about it in a nutshell....
on a side note... I have been dosing sugar for a little over 2 weeks...my nitrates are down from "off the chart" (long story... all in my longggg reply several pages ago) to around 20....I am still dosing to get them down to zero...then will lower the dose to "maintain" my nitrates ALONG with more prudent husbandry. Everything looks MUCH happie and I have not lost anything.
on a side note... I have been dosing sugar for a little over 2 weeks...my nitrates are down from "off the chart" (long story... all in my longggg reply several pages ago) to around 20....I am still dosing to get them down to zero...then will lower the dose to "maintain" my nitrates ALONG with more prudent husbandry. Everything looks MUCH happie and I have not lost anything.
kzooreefer
New member
Just to even out the debate I've done more reading about the negative side of sugar and here is an excerpt from an article "The Rising tide of Ocean Plagues".
http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?page=news&newsid=11138
Sugar Kills â€"œ New Clues in the Mystery of Coral Diseases
In the struggle to understand and prevent coral diseases, scientists are finding that sugars released in sewage and agricultural run-off play an unexpected role in killing Corals.
In the 1970's there were only a few diseases documented on coral reefs. Today there are over thirty, and the numbers are increasing exponentially. "The scary thing is that even in the Great Barrier Reef, one of the most protected reefs in the world, researchers are seeing more diseases every time they look," says David Kline of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute.
Nailing down the causes of these diseases has been difficult. Kline and his colleagues, Forest Rohwer and Nancy Knowlton, examine a variety of stressors to understand the origin and spread of coral disease.
"It's unexpected. The water quality components governments typically monitor â€"œ nitrogen and phosphorus â€"œ aren't killing the coral directly," says Kline. "It's sugars making bacteria on Corals grow out of control."
Bacterial communities live in healthy Corals and are beneficial when kept in check: they may actually protect Corals from disease and likely collect and concentrate needed nutrients from the water. But, like an infected cut, rapid growth of bacteria is problematic. It can cause disease or make Corals more susceptible to new pathogens.
Sugars that promote this dangerous overgrowth reach the ocean directly from human waste and agricultural run-off, but are also produced by fleshy Algae. This link to Algae reveals an escalating feedback loop. Nitrogen and phosphorus pollution in run-off enhances the growth of Algae that produce simple sugars as they photosynthesize. The sugars, in turn, promote the growth of bacteria, which kills or weakens the coral. This leaves more room for the Algae to take over, smothering Corals and increasing sugar production, starting the cycle over again and rapidly changing reefs to fields of Algae.
In healthy systems, some of this algal growth would be kept in check by fish and other algae-eaters, but overfishing has wiped out many of these populations. "Corals are tough, they've been around for millions of years. But multiple threats such as pollution, overfishing, and global warming may prove to be too much for them," Kline says. "I've seen Staghorn reefs go from brilliant areas that form a nursery for fish, to completely wiped out, in a matter of months."
The good news is that sugar levels can be monitored and significantly reduced. According to recent reports, eighty percent of sewage in the Caribbean is released directly to the water untreated. "I think we can save reefs in the Caribbean and the Pacific," says Kline. "But we need proper water treatment systems throughout the world and large enough networks of marine reserves."
http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?page=news&newsid=11138
Sugar Kills â€"œ New Clues in the Mystery of Coral Diseases
In the struggle to understand and prevent coral diseases, scientists are finding that sugars released in sewage and agricultural run-off play an unexpected role in killing Corals.
In the 1970's there were only a few diseases documented on coral reefs. Today there are over thirty, and the numbers are increasing exponentially. "The scary thing is that even in the Great Barrier Reef, one of the most protected reefs in the world, researchers are seeing more diseases every time they look," says David Kline of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute.
Nailing down the causes of these diseases has been difficult. Kline and his colleagues, Forest Rohwer and Nancy Knowlton, examine a variety of stressors to understand the origin and spread of coral disease.
"It's unexpected. The water quality components governments typically monitor â€"œ nitrogen and phosphorus â€"œ aren't killing the coral directly," says Kline. "It's sugars making bacteria on Corals grow out of control."
Bacterial communities live in healthy Corals and are beneficial when kept in check: they may actually protect Corals from disease and likely collect and concentrate needed nutrients from the water. But, like an infected cut, rapid growth of bacteria is problematic. It can cause disease or make Corals more susceptible to new pathogens.
Sugars that promote this dangerous overgrowth reach the ocean directly from human waste and agricultural run-off, but are also produced by fleshy Algae. This link to Algae reveals an escalating feedback loop. Nitrogen and phosphorus pollution in run-off enhances the growth of Algae that produce simple sugars as they photosynthesize. The sugars, in turn, promote the growth of bacteria, which kills or weakens the coral. This leaves more room for the Algae to take over, smothering Corals and increasing sugar production, starting the cycle over again and rapidly changing reefs to fields of Algae.
In healthy systems, some of this algal growth would be kept in check by fish and other algae-eaters, but overfishing has wiped out many of these populations. "Corals are tough, they've been around for millions of years. But multiple threats such as pollution, overfishing, and global warming may prove to be too much for them," Kline says. "I've seen Staghorn reefs go from brilliant areas that form a nursery for fish, to completely wiped out, in a matter of months."
The good news is that sugar levels can be monitored and significantly reduced. According to recent reports, eighty percent of sewage in the Caribbean is released directly to the water untreated. "I think we can save reefs in the Caribbean and the Pacific," says Kline. "But we need proper water treatment systems throughout the world and large enough networks of marine reserves."
thriceanangel
Active member
But we are eliminating algae blooms caused ny NO3 and PO4 through the use of sugar. More complex sugar at that. This sounds like there is an increase of NO3 and PO4 from sewage and runoff. That is causing an algae bloom which creates, through photosynthesis, sugars that are creating more bacteria that are killing coral... The process isn't the same, the sugars are different, and I have no dounbt that sewage runoff is detrimental to coral reefs in more than one way.
This article sounds like the elevated NO3 and PO4 from runoff is causing the symbiotic algae on corals to grow more rapid (browning typical of high NO3/PO4 systems) and that this increased amount of algae produces more sugars that are increasing the amount of bacteria that, at an increased level, are harmful to corals in that they create disease. -So it sounds to me that the problem is once again eliminated by dosing a carbon source, eliminating the NO3/PO4 so that they symbiotic algae don't grow out of control, and create a detrimental sugar on/in the flesh of the coral.
This article sounds like the elevated NO3 and PO4 from runoff is causing the symbiotic algae on corals to grow more rapid (browning typical of high NO3/PO4 systems) and that this increased amount of algae produces more sugars that are increasing the amount of bacteria that, at an increased level, are harmful to corals in that they create disease. -So it sounds to me that the problem is once again eliminated by dosing a carbon source, eliminating the NO3/PO4 so that they symbiotic algae don't grow out of control, and create a detrimental sugar on/in the flesh of the coral.
boxfishpooalot
Active member
This article sounds like the elevated NO3 and PO4 from runoff is causing the symbiotic algae on corals to grow more rapid
I was thinking this exact thing. I seen that article before too. Its too vague to make any conclusions about it. Who knows what else comes out of sewage pipes, copper?Interesting article none the less.
I was thinking this exact thing. I seen that article before too. Its too vague to make any conclusions about it. Who knows what else comes out of sewage pipes, copper?Interesting article none the less.
Similar threads
