Re: Nitra-Guard Bio-cubes from Orca Labs promises denitrification free of Redfield's
- Thread starter Aquarist007
- Start date
Dapg8gt
New member
This thread has such differing views on the product it's unbelievable(literally).. Most who doubt or haven't experienced and positive results are in the US and have been on RC for a while and some if not all that rave about the product are either from the UK(or outside US) or people that never post here and are only posting regarding these cubes or are plain newer members to RC.. I guess I could be seeing it wrong as maybe the 1 post in 3 year guys are really just trying to convey a awesome product to us.....or not and there's something else going on to defend a company or product for a specific reason or something personal to be gained..
To me I just seems fishy that there is such a total difference in reviews of the product. I for one will not be trying these out and will stick with GFO (as I feel it's prob the same anyway) as its cheaper. I would have loved to see great reviews on the product but it's just not there from any one user (on this thread at least) from the US.. It seems so easy to use in theoy but the proof is not in the believable pudding..I wonder if it's something in the water
..
To me I just seems fishy that there is such a total difference in reviews of the product. I for one will not be trying these out and will stick with GFO (as I feel it's prob the same anyway) as its cheaper. I would have loved to see great reviews on the product but it's just not there from any one user (on this thread at least) from the US.. It seems so easy to use in theoy but the proof is not in the believable pudding..I wonder if it's something in the water
..
To me it's still just another organic carbon source, it may be ok but nothing special; it may not be ok for sme tanks.The yeast, titanium, cyber stuff is nonsense. Nothing representing believeable information has been presented; just testimonials which you'd sometimes get with any organic carbon addition
Aquarist007
New member
I believe the same thing tom. I also believe that with most carbon sources that eventually as they do their job cutting down the nitrates, that the nitrates themselves become the limiting factor for the bacteria and they become less effective. Phosphate levels can remain the same causing the increase in brown algae and bryopsis reported quite often.
In the systems I maintain I always run a reactor with rowphos in conjunction with a carbon source which eliminates the problem of bryposis for me.
To judge the effectiveness of the or ca cubes---or any carbon source---on the way they deal with forms of bryopsis IMO is not a fair judgement of the product.
That said reduction of nitrates would be a more accurate assessment of product effectiveness.
As you have stated that would make all carbon sources pretty well equal in performance. The effectiveness of the product depending on the variable of the way it is set up and used by the aquarist
I don't think all carbon sources are equal.
Those from polymers( crbohydrates ) break down to monomers( sugars) then to ethanol and acetic acid and finally to acetate. The are two steps above ethanol that don't seem to do anything good, ime.
Monomers particualry excessive levels of glucose have been linked to coral mortality in at least one study.
Then there is the way in which they can be dosed. I find soluble organics( vodka and vinegar) much easier to control since the control is quite direct andot dependent on ractor flow, tumble ,clogs, media levels ,etc.D iret dsoing to the substrate or in a bag just makes the polymer style organics (cubes or pellets,rice potatoes et alia) even less predictable, ime.
As for PO4 , I ran it for many years(almost 5) along side organic carbon dosing to get the lower range PO4. Most do. The bacteria do assimilate PO4 and reduce it but the process is skewed toward more N removal due to the extra N used in anaerobic activity and leaves PO4 in many *** in th sub 0.1pppm range for gfo or another adsorbent to clean up.
I stopped using gfo about 6 months ago just to see how much it was doing in a mature organic carbon dosed system .To my surprise PO4 didn't rise above .03ppm. Then a weeks ago it rose to the .07ppm range. this was coincident with the removal of a seahorse nursery form the main systm which was getting a good deal of extra food( baby brine shrimp). A few days ago I reasoned the extra N from th brine shirmp may have played a role . I dosed just 4 grams of sodium nitrate to the 650 gallon system ;this brough NO3 to areading of about 0.5ppm and PO4 fell to .02ppm and has been ther for a 3 days. Not prepared to conclude anything yet but it may be possible to avoid gfo and manage the skew toward N removal with a nitrogen sorrce like potassium nitrate, sodium nitrate or an ammino acid like aspartic acid.
Those from polymers( crbohydrates ) break down to monomers( sugars) then to ethanol and acetic acid and finally to acetate. The are two steps above ethanol that don't seem to do anything good, ime.
Monomers particualry excessive levels of glucose have been linked to coral mortality in at least one study.
Then there is the way in which they can be dosed. I find soluble organics( vodka and vinegar) much easier to control since the control is quite direct andot dependent on ractor flow, tumble ,clogs, media levels ,etc.D iret dsoing to the substrate or in a bag just makes the polymer style organics (cubes or pellets,rice potatoes et alia) even less predictable, ime.
As for PO4 , I ran it for many years(almost 5) along side organic carbon dosing to get the lower range PO4. Most do. The bacteria do assimilate PO4 and reduce it but the process is skewed toward more N removal due to the extra N used in anaerobic activity and leaves PO4 in many *** in th sub 0.1pppm range for gfo or another adsorbent to clean up.
I stopped using gfo about 6 months ago just to see how much it was doing in a mature organic carbon dosed system .To my surprise PO4 didn't rise above .03ppm. Then a weeks ago it rose to the .07ppm range. this was coincident with the removal of a seahorse nursery form the main systm which was getting a good deal of extra food( baby brine shrimp). A few days ago I reasoned the extra N from th brine shirmp may have played a role . I dosed just 4 grams of sodium nitrate to the 650 gallon system ;this brough NO3 to areading of about 0.5ppm and PO4 fell to .02ppm and has been ther for a 3 days. Not prepared to conclude anything yet but it may be possible to avoid gfo and manage the skew toward N removal with a nitrogen sorrce like potassium nitrate, sodium nitrate or an ammino acid like aspartic acid.
Aquarist007
New member
I would use vodka in my system if there was a need also. Due to business effeciency I keep about 300 lbs of live rock for business in the same system as my own tank. That and a macro algae refugium keep my nitrates and phosphates very low
However with tanks I maintain daily vodka dosing is impractable and in a lot of cases out of the question. In these tanks I use the standard pellets along with gfo in two separate reactors.
What test kits do you use Tom?
Aquarist007
New member
mandarinfanatic
New member
i dose nopox and run rowaphos and phosguard
The yeast part of this product is just another organic carbon source and even if it was a living culture (which I doubt) would die when added to your tank. The interesting bit is the mention of Titanium, now if you look at the periodic table it shares the same grouping as Iron and Aluminum and has the same sort of ionic bonding properties as both these metals when it comes to attracting Phosphate ions. So on that assumption I would say it is added to this product to aid in the uptake of Po4 not as the blurb states to create cyber yeast rofl.
I would assume that the manufacturer of this product looked at the problem that some people experience with an imbalance between the uptake of No3 and Po4. Usually people see No3 reduced to 0 and Po4 is not and then struggle to get Po4 down lower unless they dose some form of No3, but this product would solve that problem by binding the Po4.
Just my thoughts.
I would assume that the manufacturer of this product looked at the problem that some people experience with an imbalance between the uptake of No3 and Po4. Usually people see No3 reduced to 0 and Po4 is not and then struggle to get Po4 down lower unless they dose some form of No3, but this product would solve that problem by binding the Po4.
Just my thoughts.
I might consider that function for the titanium if the product manufacturer said that; but they didn't. Maybe they will now tha you've suggested it. I don't know whether titanium would bind much PO4 and /or leach it back if and when binding sites were exhausted if it did.
mandarinfanatic
New member
awe cmon guys havent you always wanted little half titanium yeast bionic bacteria in your filtration system!?
mandarinfanatic
New member
:d:d:d:d:dmandarinfanatic
New member
i would call the first one i find "AMOEBA MAN".
I would love some titanium bionic bacteria in my tank I just worry they mite go all skynet terminator on me :rollface:
Belgian Anthias
New member
Vodka?
Vodka?
As always going back to the basics will win from high tech " how thus this thing work." Refugia are by far the best solution if there is enough place.
I would never use vodka because it will never cure the problem. First of all ALL bacteria are fed and cultivated, also the not desirable ones. Well fed they will bloom, live well and die naturally creating its own bio-load to decompose. When they are not fed in time they will first go on search for food where there are not welcome, some will transform and wait for better times, most of them will die off and create a big problem. Dosing vodka does the job in transforming and removal of nitrates but has a big influence on the nitrification cycle. Why should they work hard to feed themselves if the food is for free, no effort to make for oxidising and depleting systems oxygen reserves, also on places where they should not.
When dosing vodka a power brake for half an hour can kill most of the live stock, turning the over colonised life rock into a graveyard.
The BIO- yeast based cubes which are discussed in this threat will bring no change I think!
Nitrate must be no problem any more in a closed seawater system since 1996 and the publication of:
Congrès E.U.A.C., Munich, Salzbourg & Innsbruck 1996
Mém. Inst. Océano. P. Ricard 1997, pp: 7-13
ELIMINATION DES NITRATES PAR FILTRATION
BIOLOGIQUE AUTOTROPHE SUR SOUFRE EN
AQUARIOLOGIE MARINE
Michel HIGNETTE,* Benoit LAMORT,* Marc LANGOUET,** Sébastien LEROY* et Guy MARTIN***
* Aquarium du MAAO - 293, Av. Daumesnil, 75012 Paris
** Le Grand Aquarium - La Ville Jouan - Av. du Général Patton, 35400 Saint Malo
*** Laboratoire Chimie des Nuisances et Génie de l'Environnement ENSCR - Av. du Général Leclerc, 35700 Rennes.
In this paper is explained how they kept seawater aquaria without water changes and very little light in perfect condition for several years by using cheap elementary sulphur as filter media.
Vodka?
As always going back to the basics will win from high tech " how thus this thing work." Refugia are by far the best solution if there is enough place.
I would never use vodka because it will never cure the problem. First of all ALL bacteria are fed and cultivated, also the not desirable ones. Well fed they will bloom, live well and die naturally creating its own bio-load to decompose. When they are not fed in time they will first go on search for food where there are not welcome, some will transform and wait for better times, most of them will die off and create a big problem. Dosing vodka does the job in transforming and removal of nitrates but has a big influence on the nitrification cycle. Why should they work hard to feed themselves if the food is for free, no effort to make for oxidising and depleting systems oxygen reserves, also on places where they should not.
When dosing vodka a power brake for half an hour can kill most of the live stock, turning the over colonised life rock into a graveyard.
The BIO- yeast based cubes which are discussed in this threat will bring no change I think!
Nitrate must be no problem any more in a closed seawater system since 1996 and the publication of:
Congrès E.U.A.C., Munich, Salzbourg & Innsbruck 1996
Mém. Inst. Océano. P. Ricard 1997, pp: 7-13
ELIMINATION DES NITRATES PAR FILTRATION
BIOLOGIQUE AUTOTROPHE SUR SOUFRE EN
AQUARIOLOGIE MARINE
Michel HIGNETTE,* Benoit LAMORT,* Marc LANGOUET,** Sébastien LEROY* et Guy MARTIN***
* Aquarium du MAAO - 293, Av. Daumesnil, 75012 Paris
** Le Grand Aquarium - La Ville Jouan - Av. du Général Patton, 35400 Saint Malo
*** Laboratoire Chimie des Nuisances et Génie de l'Environnement ENSCR - Av. du Général Leclerc, 35700 Rennes.
In this paper is explained how they kept seawater aquaria without water changes and very little light in perfect condition for several years by using cheap elementary sulphur as filter media.
mandarinfanatic
New member
lmao
Refugia with macro algae or algae turf scrubbers are fine if they are large enough and well lit. They have to be quite large in terms of surface area though to do very much. The algae also produces exudate adding refractory organics to the water which need to be accounted for usually by skimming and/or gac.
Vodka(ethanol) or vinegar
( ehtnoic acid)adds acetate , a naturally occuring substance useful to living things. Balancing off the organic carbon inputs via a soluble organic to balance the N and P in a tank does not create an unnatural condition (whatever that means in the context of a closed system which is inherently unnatural to start) and skimming exports enough bacteria along with the N ,P and C in them to keep a with imports of N and P.
There is no reason to believe a power outage in a balance dosed tank will be more harmful than any other that I can think of.Sulfur bacteria an sulfur additions are certainly mo more "natural" than adding acetate. As for a power outage, I think stagnant water wit sulfur in it would create a dangerous condition in terms of sulfate reduction and hydrogen sufide production . Even without a power outage ,sulfur bacteria will set the stage for sufate reducing bacteria when NO3 is taken to 0.
There is also n evidence to suggest the bacteria performing fucntions in aetogensis from ehanol or aetic acid are harmful to living things and much anecdotal evidence to suggest the opposite. Certain animals ; corals like zoanthidae , sps ,nps varities .clams and many others do show vibrant responses to the extra organics. Fish eat some too.
Sulfur bacteria an sulfur additions are certainly mo more natural than adding acetate. As for a power outage, I think stagnant water with sulfur in it would create a dangerous condition in terms of sufate reduction and hydrogen sulfide production .
Vodka(ethanol) or vinegar
( ehtnoic acid)adds acetate , a naturally occuring substance useful to living things. Balancing off the organic carbon inputs via a soluble organic to balance the N and P in a tank does not create an unnatural condition (whatever that means in the context of a closed system which is inherently unnatural to start) and skimming exports enough bacteria along with the N ,P and C in them to keep a with imports of N and P.
There is no reason to believe a power outage in a balance dosed tank will be more harmful than any other that I can think of.Sulfur bacteria an sulfur additions are certainly mo more "natural" than adding acetate. As for a power outage, I think stagnant water wit sulfur in it would create a dangerous condition in terms of sulfate reduction and hydrogen sufide production . Even without a power outage ,sulfur bacteria will set the stage for sufate reducing bacteria when NO3 is taken to 0.
There is also n evidence to suggest the bacteria performing fucntions in aetogensis from ehanol or aetic acid are harmful to living things and much anecdotal evidence to suggest the opposite. Certain animals ; corals like zoanthidae , sps ,nps varities .clams and many others do show vibrant responses to the extra organics. Fish eat some too.
Sulfur bacteria an sulfur additions are certainly mo more natural than adding acetate. As for a power outage, I think stagnant water with sulfur in it would create a dangerous condition in terms of sufate reduction and hydrogen sulfide production .
Similar threads
