Re: Nitra-Guard Bio-cubes from Orca Labs promises denitrification free of Redfield's

[carlosdeandrade]

I must also say i am one of those suckers that buys and tries all the new supplements. Ok let me rephrase that" i used to be one of those suckers" i am now fighting the temptation each time i see a new product
I will now watch and wait to see others experiences and let them pay for the testing and reviews!

sent from my galaxy s3

I think you have lost the point of this thread. It's not about bringing the product into disrepute, which you seem to do often, but rather a discussion on how the product works. It is unfortunate the product never worked for you, it's working for me, so just between the two of us, it's a 50% chance so far, not bad stats in my book.

 

[bertoni]

When the water is changed! Not when the fresh water is mixed with tank-water and removed.

The post I quoted seemed to be about simple water changes. I don't see anything about mixing and removing.

 

[bertoni]

This system is not very effective because freshly added water is mixed with the tank-water and is continuously removed. To bring down the nitrate with 10% approximately 20% of the tank in volume has to be changed.

There's no way to compute that result because there's no specification of how much mixing occurs before removal happens.

 

[tmz]

If there is titanium in it , I'd guess it may give whatever polymer is in use a matrix/skelton to cling to, like a plastic coated piece of metal ,perhaps. What you've got if that's the case is polymer dosing same as pellets with a little titanium hanging around. Maybe , I'm giving too much credit here since that might be interesting with or without yeast. So the manufacturer should tell us what the titanium is for,rather than letting eeveryone guess. Glad they didn't use zinc, copper nickel lead et al. .

If it's viable at all . I doubt the yeast will compete well with naturally occurring heterotrophic bacteria in a reef tank. Why would it? Another unanswered question. No clear detail abut how yeast functions in this process is provided . Maybe it doesn't.

Dosing any carbon source will reduce nitrate and phosphate via assimilation and in most cases also via NO3 reduction to N and then N2 fo respiration . Heck even rice did that in one thread couple of years ago and looked potentially interesting for a little while . Virtually any carbohydrate will be swarmed by bacteria . if you feed them they will come. What happens over the long haul in terms of organic buildups and coral health is the issue. I have no doubt that byproducts of polymer reduction will enter the water column with this product as they do with the pellets . If the maker is a scientist, s/he should be able to explain how it works without the science fiction and peculiar claims.

Free of Redfield? What does that buzz phrase mean? The Redfield ratio has nothing to do with denitrification. It's simply an en masse measure of the proportion of C:N in marine life. Do these titanium cyborg yeasty creatures change all life? Perhaps this should be banned as a biological weapon.

What we have at this point from the manufacturer is a bunch of sci fi channel nonsense; now followed by followed by unclear testimonial amounting too . It works; hurry and buy it with a little condescending if you don't you're afraid to try new stuff.

In the meantime none of the questions posed have been answered but rather very politely avoided and deflected.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

PR Escobal

PR Escobal

There's no way to compute that result because there's no specification of how much mixing occurs before removal happens.

The same problem occurs when calculating the effectiveness of other means of filtration. Reading AQUATIC SYSTEMS ENGINEERING: devices and how they function by P.R.Escobal can help to make an estimate.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Simple water change.

Simple water change.

The post I quoted seemed to be about simple water changes. I don't see anything about mixing and removing.

A simple water change is first removing the old water and replacing it by fresh water. Adding fresh water and removing the mixed water the same time makes it very difficult to estimate the result of the water change. I use a special recipient which is part of the system and can be by-passed to change water. This way the effectiveness is 100%.

 

[bertoni]

The same problem occurs when calculating the effectiveness of other means of filtration. Reading AQUATIC SYSTEMS ENGINEERING: devices and how they function by P.R.Escobal can help to make an estimate.

That doesn't make any sense to me. Without knowing the amount of mixing, there's no way to make an estimate. All types of filtration are not the same, and aren't subject to the same estimating technique. As a simple example, if I did a very small change by pulling water out of the display and dumping new water into the sump, the mixing would be zero and the effect of the "continuous" water change would be the same as a regular water change. If instead, I did the change by injecting a small amount of water into the system and pulled it right back out again, the effect of the water change could be arbitrarily close to zero.

 

[bertoni]

A simple water change is first removing the old water and replacing it by fresh water. Adding fresh water and removing the mixed water the same time makes it very difficult to estimate the result of the water change. I use a special recipient which is part of the system and can be by-passed to change water. This way the effectiveness is 100%.

This has nothing to do with what I posted.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Estimating

Estimating

That doesn't make any sense to me. Without knowing the amount of mixing, there's no way to make an estimate. All types of filtration are not the same, and aren't subject to the same estimating technique. As a simple example, if I did a very small change by pulling water out of the display and dumping new water into the sump, the mixing would be zero and the effect of the "continuous" water change would be the same as a regular water change. If instead, I did the change by injecting a small amount of water into the system and pulled it right back out again, the effect of the water change could be arbitrarily close to zero.

Right!
A lot of people use a top off system and are adding new water and removing tank water the same time making the result unpredictable.

For example: a filter device is placed in the sump. This means that the incoming water of the device is continuously mixed with the effluent of the device. How long will it take to pass all the system water true the device? P.R.Escobal explains and gives the solution.

 

[bertoni]

That's a different problem. The solution would not apply to continuous water change systems.

 

[tmz]

This system is not very effective because freshly added water is mixed with the tank-water and is continuously removed. To bring down the nitrate with 10% approximately 20% of the tank in volume has to be changed.

It is very effective for adding elements. 30 1% changes equal one 26% change per Randy's extensive calculations.

You can't significantly reduce nitrate significantly with water changes unless they are large and frequent. The nitrogen input to the system should be lowered or the export capability increased to manage NO3 levels.

Further regarding adding elements,it should be noted that many are depleted quickly or changed by interction with organics and other elements in the aquarium likely depleting their usefulness over time.Small regular incremental additions are much better ,imo. Then too large changes even well preparedones can also shock any system .

I agree with Jonathan's math .

 

[mofro]

Isn't the above quote contrary to the manufacturers claim of this product not affecting the red field ratio?

Nope, There are two products the nitra guard Biocubes and the Nitrag Guard Titanium Cubes. The titanium cubes (afaik not yet avail in the states) does defy the redfield ratio where it allows the biofilm to consume N, even in the absence of P. The regular cubes has shown to need micro levels of P to ensure N assimilation. Personally, I feel that the titanium cubes were not at all nessascary, as we continually add PO4 to our systems and a reduction in GFH use will ensure that they work optimally. In saying that, it does seem that the titanium version is a LOT more effecient at removal of N than the regular cubes.
I am wondering if there is any pellet on the market that can make that claim.

As far as vodka dosing. Does that skew the red field ratio?

Awesome question. Or even better, how much further does it skew things than adding water salt and livestock to a glass box?
At least with carbon dosing, we are able to reach "pseudo ogliotrophic" (thanks Gary White for that one) conditions a lot ....... hmmm easier? I suspect that with solid carbon dosing, at least some dangers associated with liquid dosing is minimised due to it happening in a contained space?

 

[mofro]

I actually have to agree with quite a few things you say TMZ, as from a none scientist yet very sceptical reefer's point of view, a lot of the marketing of the titanium product does seem like mumbo jumbo.

In conversations with the developer, I have pleaded with him to join the forums and get a bit more in depth with us who actually give a damn on how things do what they do, but he remains reluctant..... Really hope it does not become another Thomas Pohl scenario....

Anyways, here is an excerpt from an email he replied to when questioned about the product:

Other companies are trying to use bacteria to do the work for them. What makes these cubes so unique? I am using yeast cells to do the work and not bacteria. Yeast is so much easier to work with and they are so easily manipulated. This is how I am able to break / bend the laws of nature like Redfield's Ratio. What I have done there is I used a nano particulated substrate that is titanium based. The yeast are able to take the titanium into the cells and they basically become "Cyborg" yeast. Half living biological organism and half synthetic nano particulated inert metal. Put the 2 together and you have an organism that behaves like a synthetic chemical, but, reproduces like a living biological organism. It also has a very basic "Artificial Intelligence" built into it because all organisms are programmed to survive. If there is enough nutrients to support the colony, they will grow the colony to that size, if the nutrient levels drop, the colony will die off to a size that can be maintained. This "Artificial Intelligence" control system is what makes the cubes last so long. Unlike pellets that get eroded through micro-abrasion in the reactors, cubes only erode through yeast cell consumption. This means that the product will grow or shrink according to your needs and they do this automatically without you needing to do anything and without any waste. Very basically put, within 11 days the cubes become self aware and start learning what your needs and habits are. After 11 days they assimilate the colony to what you need them to be. Unlike other products where we have to adjust ourselves and our systems to what that product requires in order for it to work, this is a product that will become what you and your system needs it to become. To do this with bacteria is almost impossible and you have to be really smart...and I have never been that smart to begin with! This is also the reason that the cubes need so much oxygen (apart from the gentle scrubbing action it provides) because yeast cells need oxygen, they do not operate very well under anaerobic conditions. This is why I stress the oxygen part so much and also where people make the mistake of using reactors to operate this product in. As long as you can feed oxygen into that reactor you will be fine, but, all reactors that are produced do not have this option. This was when the bomb method was born.

And from an email his response re questions on titanium:
Just had a very propt response from Orca:

Dear Mr Williams,
Thank you for your inquiry into our products. Firstly, titanium is very inert, it is in fact why I chose to use that as the main ingredient. If Titanium were so bad for your system, you don't think the chillers cooling coils would have killed every person in the world's tank off by now? Nano-particulated Titanium Dioxide in the anatase form can release ozone when exposed to UV light, however, this is not the form that the titanium is in that we use. For this to occur, the titanium would require to be in a state that we would not be able to handle the product and therefore the manufacture of the product would never have even been possible. It's very hard to give all the details away as I have everyone looking into the product and my competition would LOVE to have the technology that I am using here. With that said, the best answer that I can give is this. The form of Titanium we use is the same as that used to manufacture the cooling coils in a chiller unit.

Thank you and best regards

Mark Nel
OAL Head Office

I think this is about the best response one could expect from a company, trying to keep its secrets. I haven't decided if it is reassuring or not, but titanium is used hugely in medicine because it is considered pretty inert.

 

[tmz]

The titanium cubes (afaik not yet avail in the states) does defy the redfield ratio where it allows the biofilm to consume N, even in the absence of P

How can it do that, bacteria use phosphorous for phospho lipids. Yeast use it too . See diagram post 72.Titanium Ti has none.

 

[bertoni]

The comments about "breaking the laws of nature like Redfield's ratio" and "cyborg yeast" are garbage. Bacteria can and do provide denitratification independently of the Redfield ratio, which doesn't apply to them in the first place. Any anaerobic denitrator approach works this way. Phrases like "cyborg yeast" simply are too silly to refute. I doubt that he's even shown that the pellets actually grow yeast instead of bacteria consistently. Has anyone verified that the titanium effect actually exists.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

N removal?

N removal?

When using bacterial de-nitrification O is consumed and N is removed from the system. When using these Yeast cubes N is consumed? So it stays in the system? I still don't get it. I am not a chemist and I just try to understand how Nitrate can be removed by yeast.
yeast + sugar = alcohol = vodka + bacteria = N removal.
If it works it is probably just another carbon source for bacteria.

 

[Aquarist007]

There is no doubt that these cubes are affective as any other carbon source on the market.
However in perspective
There does not appear to be a product on the market that doesn't skew the refield ratio and therefore needs to be run in tandem with gfo media of some kind.

The manufacturers claims that this product does remains to be unsubstatiated in that the basis is that it is the titanium in the product that keeps the red field ratio

Many reliable sources have stated that without the titanium then this product simple acts as another form of carbon source for both anerobic and aerobic bacter. Using the bomb method therfore only takes advantage of cellular digestion by aerobic bacteria(or yeast) and not both cellular metabolism and digestion by both aerobic and anerobic bacteria.


It puzzles me greatly

-that this element(titianium) has been left out of the product for the north American markets making testing very difficult, causing skeptism and confusion on how it really works.

-Further the manufacturer has refused several invitations to join this forum and be involved in the explanations or questions that have arisen.

(with no offense to Mo from south africa who has been doing a great job adding info)

 

[tmz]

There is no doubt that these cubes are affective as any other carbon source on the market

How do you know how effective they are, at what ? I don't. Is it a polymer, monomer, soluble organic ,a mix or old french fries?

There does not appear to be a product on the market that doesn't skew the refield ratio and therefore needs to be run in tandem with gfo media of some kind.

Gibberish. Any carbon source will be used by indegenous heterotrophic facultative bacteria. The higher the flow ;the more oxygen flows, the less anerobic activity using NO3 for energy over andabove assimilation. So ,even if there are viable yeast (no one has plausibly made that case) why wouldn't bacteria feast too or out compete the yeast?
FWIW, I haven't used or needed gfo for several months in my system dosed with vodka and vinegar( PO4,.03ppm and NO3 ,0.2ppm) I had been using it very sparingly for several years along with the dosing but a small uptick in vodka dose made that unnecessary. The bacteria have a substantial reducing effect on PO4 via assimilation.


Many reliable sources have stated that without the titanium then this product simple acts as another form of carbon source for both anerobic and aerobic bacter.

What reliable sources ? How would titanium advantage aerobic activity ? More oxygen would ,ie, higher flow.

Using the bomb method therfore only takes advantage of cellular digestion by aerobic bacteria(or yeast) and not both cellular metabolism and digestion by both aerobic and anerobic bacteria.

Makes no sense to me .Any carbon source in high flow will be used by the bacteria, they are facultative( they lfunction as aerobes and anaerobes) . The amount of mulm and anerobic zones they create will vary depending on the amount of surface area available and the flow of oxygen whether yeast which do consume phopshate too are present or not .

 

[Aquarist007]

Thanks tom.
Btw I was only posting from mainly this thread and a few others and trying to infer from those. I appreciate your time and effort replying

 

[Aquarist007]

Gibberish. Any carbon source will be used by indegenous heterotrophic facultative bacteria. The higher the flow ;the more oxygen flows, the less anerobic activity using NO3 for energy over andabove assimilation. So ,even if there are viable yeast (no one has plausibly made that case) why wouldn't bacteria feast too or out compete the yeast?
FWIW, I haven't used or needed gfo for several months in my system dosed with vodka and vinegar( PO4,.03ppm and NO3 ,0.2ppm) I had been using it very sparingly for several years along with the dosing but a small uptick in vodka dose made that unnecessary. The bacteria have a substantial reducing effect on PO4 via assimilation.

QUOTE]

Tom, perhaps I should have stated "there is not a product on the market that has the potential to skew the redfield ratio if certain preconditions exist.
for eg___
I have had many tanks that just using the biopellets is fine and no need to use gfo material as you have stated.
I have had a number of tanks where I have not known the history of the live rock and that rock must have been bathed in phosphates for years:eek2:
The result with using the pellets has been a skewing of the redfield ratio causing massive breakouts in bryopsis. At least this the explanation that has been stated on RC time and time again.
(This is well documented in the other big thread on carbon dosing on RC with the solution being to use a gfo material along with the pellets.I dont have the link in front of me but I know you have particated on it too)

In all cases I have dealt with, this is what I have done and it has solved the problems.

My statement was in reference to the original statement by the manufacturer of the Orca cubes--that this particular product did not skew the redfield ratio.

If it does indeed operate similar to other carbon dosing media then I would think that statment is wrong?

------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with the rest of the statement and it is kind of what I have been trying to say although you always state it with much more finess LOL
I have stated and you have agreed that for max nitrogen and phosphate assimulation then you would like both aerobic and anerobic processes occuring. This is why I and others are questioning the effeciency of adding oxygen to the yeast---are you not just getting aerobic activities occuring by doing this?