Vodka, vinegar,biopellets and other organic carbon dosing
- Thread starter tmz
- Start date
rogergolf, I never read any article about the correlation between nutrients and light. I experienced it by myself so many times and did the same so many friends, that for me it's unequivocally proven.
I still have to better define the difference between longer light time with less power and a shorter time with more powerful light.
I encourage everybody giving it a try, because in my opinion light is much more powerful in reducing nutrients than every other skimmer, GFO, biopellet or anything else. At present time, I think it's easier to encounter people who starve their corals because of too much light in respect to administered nutrients.
The most beautiful tanks I saw with my eyes used really low light power or few hours of light. A friend of mine has a tank 1 meter tall that is enlighted with 54w T5 tubes 1' over the water. I saw a humilis acro growing on the bottom glass in partial shadow. I think it's emblematic. IMO ULNS need low light or maybe few hours of light to success for longer time. Thomas Pohl keeps their fixtures about 40cm over the water, for instance.
Luca
I still have to better define the difference between longer light time with less power and a shorter time with more powerful light.
I encourage everybody giving it a try, because in my opinion light is much more powerful in reducing nutrients than every other skimmer, GFO, biopellet or anything else. At present time, I think it's easier to encounter people who starve their corals because of too much light in respect to administered nutrients.
The most beautiful tanks I saw with my eyes used really low light power or few hours of light. A friend of mine has a tank 1 meter tall that is enlighted with 54w T5 tubes 1' over the water. I saw a humilis acro growing on the bottom glass in partial shadow. I think it's emblematic. IMO ULNS need low light or maybe few hours of light to success for longer time. Thomas Pohl keeps their fixtures about 40cm over the water, for instance.
Luca
rogergolf66
im an addict lol
trueblackpercula
New member
I said I never read anything specifically. I tried by my own. It's curious how a so important theme for the right management of a reef tank has never been specifically discussed, or at least I never found anything about that.
I've never used led, but I guess they work as any other source of light, You can reduce light duration, raise your fixture and even reduce the power, if they're dimmable.
I've never used led, but I guess they work as any other source of light, You can reduce light duration, raise your fixture and even reduce the power, if they're dimmable.
trueblackpercula
New member
Thanks
Lighting has been discussed extensively as it relates to reef tanks in terms of PAR (photosynthetically active radiation) . There is no discussion of a correlation as to light increases causing nutrient reduction , because there isn't any.
Light does not reduce nutrients; light energy adds to nutrient production in organic carbon ( carbohydrates) and fixed nitrogen by organisms like cyanobacteria .Reducing light will limit these additions; not increase them.
For the most part light fuels photosynthetic organisms like phytoplankton ,corals etc which consume nitrogen and phosphorous and produce carbohydrates.
Light provides life energy for living things captured in the bonds in organic compounds created in photosynthesis.
Unused nutrients from decaying matter , runoffs ,etc. gather in the absence of consumption by photosynthetic organisms such as phytoplankton in deep dark areas of the sea; there are no photosynthetic organisms to consume them where there is no light. The upwelling that occurs on reefs and other areas brings them up into lighted areas where they are consumed and brought into the food chain by photosynthetic organisms.
Reducing light will cutback consumption and growth ; photosynthetic organisms will be limited by a lack of light using less nitrogen and phosphorus as well as less major minor and trace elements . Reduced life activity may be a necessary state for survival in anemic tanks with severe nutrient limitations such as the so called "ultra low nutrient" systems.
.Overly intense light in tanks as may often be a result of T 5 lighting and other types of lighting can adversely affect corals in a number of ways such as : photo inhibition /corals stay closed ; the over production of oxygen radicals by symbionts/zooxanthellae ; a decrease in zooxantherllae densities /paling; and the expulsion of zooxanthellae often leading to "bleaching". These conditions may worsen when nitrogen or phosphate deffciencies occur or minor or trace elements are depleted to a point where they can be limiting .
Light does not reduce nutrients; light energy adds to nutrient production in organic carbon ( carbohydrates) and fixed nitrogen by organisms like cyanobacteria .Reducing light will limit these additions; not increase them.
For the most part light fuels photosynthetic organisms like phytoplankton ,corals etc which consume nitrogen and phosphorous and produce carbohydrates.
Light provides life energy for living things captured in the bonds in organic compounds created in photosynthesis.
Unused nutrients from decaying matter , runoffs ,etc. gather in the absence of consumption by photosynthetic organisms such as phytoplankton in deep dark areas of the sea; there are no photosynthetic organisms to consume them where there is no light. The upwelling that occurs on reefs and other areas brings them up into lighted areas where they are consumed and brought into the food chain by photosynthetic organisms.
Reducing light will cutback consumption and growth ; photosynthetic organisms will be limited by a lack of light using less nitrogen and phosphorus as well as less major minor and trace elements . Reduced life activity may be a necessary state for survival in anemic tanks with severe nutrient limitations such as the so called "ultra low nutrient" systems.
.Overly intense light in tanks as may often be a result of T 5 lighting and other types of lighting can adversely affect corals in a number of ways such as : photo inhibition /corals stay closed ; the over production of oxygen radicals by symbionts/zooxanthellae ; a decrease in zooxantherllae densities /paling; and the expulsion of zooxanthellae often leading to "bleaching". These conditions may worsen when nitrogen or phosphate deffciencies occur or minor or trace elements are depleted to a point where they can be limiting .
Last edited:
DiscusHeckel
Acropora Gardener
Hi Tom,
Thanks for your post.
I think the notion of PUR (Photosynthetically Usable Radiation) is also very pertinent issue for coral keepers in these days after it has been realised that corals do not show their best colouration and/or thrive under certain spectrum of light even though they are exposed to high intensity of light (i.e. PAR). For example, extensive use of red spectrum of light is shown to cause bleaching of corals even if the red spectrum can boost PAR readings. Hence, PAR and PUR are like two sides of a coin, which need to be considered collectively.
Sorry for the diversion.
Hi,
I've been reading this thread for days.Never thought carbon dosing could be interesting.
Currently I'm using bio pellet but want to change over to vodka dosing.The bio snot keeps clogging effluent line and gumming up impeller/screens.
Question.
Can I just remove pellets and jump right into vodka regiment? Also being that tank has been running about a year on BP,should I start dosing at an elevated dose?
Sorry if this has been addressed .
Thanks breaking it all down.
I've been reading this thread for days.Never thought carbon dosing could be interesting.
Currently I'm using bio pellet but want to change over to vodka dosing.The bio snot keeps clogging effluent line and gumming up impeller/screens.
Question.
Can I just remove pellets and jump right into vodka regiment? Also being that tank has been running about a year on BP,should I start dosing at an elevated dose?
Sorry if this has been addressed .
Thanks breaking it all down.
I never used the pellets. There will be some different bacteria involved ,so I'd probably switch over incrementally.
Don't know how to convert to a dosing volume from pellets to a soluble organic like vodka or vinegar since we don't know how much organic carbon is coming from the pellets.
I'd probably aim for an approximate max vodka dose in the range of 10ml to 20ml ( or 80ml to 160 ml vinegar or an equivalent combination of vodka and vinegar) for a 300 gallon system. I'd reduce the pellets by 25% and add 5 ml of vodka for starters, then a few days later another 25% upping the vodka dose to 10 ml and so on. I'd check PO4 and NO3 levels along the way and watch the animals closely as well as unwanted bacterial growth and adjust the ethanol dose accordingly
Don't know how to convert to a dosing volume from pellets to a soluble organic like vodka or vinegar since we don't know how much organic carbon is coming from the pellets.
I'd probably aim for an approximate max vodka dose in the range of 10ml to 20ml ( or 80ml to 160 ml vinegar or an equivalent combination of vodka and vinegar) for a 300 gallon system. I'd reduce the pellets by 25% and add 5 ml of vodka for starters, then a few days later another 25% upping the vodka dose to 10 ml and so on. I'd check PO4 and NO3 levels along the way and watch the animals closely as well as unwanted bacterial growth and adjust the ethanol dose accordingly
A few posts of mine from relevant discussions about vodka and /or vinegar dosing on another current thread in the Reeef Chemsitry forum+:
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2414758
re: is vodka better than vinegar or vice versa?
I think they are about the same and use just vinegar on some smaller tanks.
Although I use vodka and vinegar on the main system ;it's laregly because I started with vodka .In the large system it suits my routine and there may be some advantage to dentirification when bolus dosing the organic carbon source as I recall from a study Randy shared years ago.
I don't think vodka has any significant intrinsic advantage over vinegar or vice versa. There might be small advantages of one over the other but folks use either or both successfully.
Initially, I used only vodka; got some cyano as many do when starting to dose organic carbon of any type;decided to switch off to vinegar as some anecdotal reports suggested switching the source might result in less cyano.Reduced vodka dosing by about 25% and made it up with some vinegar at 8 times the vodka reduction . When I went for a second 25% switch cyano increased significantly, probably due to the change over or perhaps coincidentally. So, I went back to the roughly 75% /25% organic carbon mix of vodka and vinegar and have stayed in that neighborhood for the last 5 plus years. Almost never see any cyano and when I do it's a small patch near where two corals are touching or over a patch of unatended detritus. Tried some small amounts of sugar a few times with significant coral stress issues. (Currently 36ml of 80 proof vodka and 80 ml of 5% acetic acid vinegar per day)
My inebriated fish breed a lot but then so do those in tanks without the vodka.:celeb3::spin3:
re; does high alk cause burnt tips When usingorganic carbon?
I've kept mine in the 9 to 10 dkh range for many years without burnt tips which can be attributed to a number of causes related or unrelated to organic carbon dosing when they occur. Keeping alk steady at a level to your liking withing the 7 to 11 dkh range is one key to sps health IME. I like the 9 range to provide a margin of error for potential shortfalls.It also works out to that level for me with calcium hydroxide( kalk) dosing 24/7.
Bacteria take up inorganic phosphate and dissolved nitrogen;both are exported with the bacteria.
In my case without gfo or other PO4 removers organic carbon dosing results in low PO4: .02ppm to .04ppm and NO3: <0.2ppm. The system houses over 50 fish, hundreds of corals and is heavily fed.
re: Is vodka faster than vinegar ?
Does anyone know the chemistry or science behind burnt sps tips ?
Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset"> Originally Posted by BrentH
I'm not sure how accurate this is but from what I've read it seems like people get faster results wih vodka .... Probly not also seems like people act like it's better to have different carbon sources for some reason ? But u veteran carbon dossers say there's no real difference
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
It's not accurate .IME nor in the accounts I've read. It can take months for either to have an effect on high initial nitrate levels.
There are some differences between the two sources(vodka/ethanol and vinegar/acetic acid ) but I don't think they would effect the speed of nitrate or PO4 reduction significantly.
Ethanol is oxidized to acetic acid usually by acetobacteria which are ubiquitous in the air and water ; then the acetic acid from the vodka will convert to acetate at pH over 5.5 as will the acetic acid from the vinegar. Acetate is the organic carbon source for the facultative heterotrophic bacteria that take up nitrogen and phosphate and are heavily exported via skimming. The acetobacteria will also use some nitrogen and phosphate and may also be exprted by skimming .
I don't know about the potential for direct uptake of either ethanol or acetic acid by organisms. Not sure the acetate is directly beneficial to organisms via direct uptake othert han the bacteria that use it but it is likely so,imo. There may also be alternative pathways for ethanol but I haven't found any.
I think,the extra step to get to acetic acid with ethanol slows down the initial H+release that occurs when acetic acid goes into high pH water. It takes some time for the ethanol it to oxidize to acetic acid. This makes it easier to bolus dose vodka vs vinegar which must be dosed slowly preferably during photosynthetic periods Vodka is harder to dose on small systems or via auto dosing given it's relatively high concentration of organic carbon,8 times as much vs vinegar.
There is no proven benefit to using different types of organic carbon sources;the opposite may be true as with sugars for example;in the end it's acetate . No reason to encourage so called bacterial diversity ,imo. The soluble organics primarily vodka and vinegar are closest to the acetate, using them limits the variety of bacteria involved in acetogenisis.
__________________
I don't really know how to define a "ulns" system or why tip troubles occur but I'll offer some speculation .
Most"unls" systems" I've seen go for zero NO3 and zero PO4 with a focus on ripping out as much phosphate and nitrogen as possible and then adding back some nitrogen sources and a host of other elements,foods, amminos and supplements.
Corals in these systems usually exhibit pastel coloration indicative of limited zooxanthellae density.
These systems also involve a mix of organic carbon sources and bacteria as manufacturer's espouse the need for bacterial diversity without a real basis for that assertion.
I'd speculate the organic carbon sources used in these systems include some glucose to slow zooxanthellae density to get the pastel effect as it may interfere with zooxanthellae density.
Extremely low phosphate may mess up normal calcium and carbonate disposition since the coral uses ATP ,adenosine triphosphate, in moving it for disposition in the skeletal matrix.
Either or both of these conditions(low energy from a low density of zooxanthellae and./or a lack of phosphate could make it hard for the coral to grow enough tissue to keep up with skeletal growth and/or result in abnormal skeletal growth .
Inconsistent alkalinity , particularly on the low end might also cause interference in the calcification process . Jumpy alk particularly at the low end is often followed by stn.
Nobody really knows the cause but many who use the so called unls systems do seem to experience tip troubles perhaps more so at higher alk levels.Maybe reduced directed transport and disposition of calcium and carbonate by the coral combined with more of it in the water results in misdirected or uncontrolled skeletal growth and less balance with tissue growth.
Some including me with some PO4 and higher alk do not have tip troubles or stn .
IME, some PO4 improves the richness of color and overall vibrancy. Not much is needed ( 0.02 to 0.04ppm as tested with the hanah 713 does very well,ime) while still managing nuisance algae acceptably well . But my chaeto won't grow at those levels and needs more . Some run nice sps tanks at much higher phosphate levels levels than mine,btw.Some run nice tanks with lower PO4 too. I think the range of PO4 levels can vary but some is necessary. Trying to eliminate it or dropping it too fast can affect corals and other calcifying organisms in a negative way ,imo.
__________________
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2414758
re: is vodka better than vinegar or vice versa?
I think they are about the same and use just vinegar on some smaller tanks.
Although I use vodka and vinegar on the main system ;it's laregly because I started with vodka .In the large system it suits my routine and there may be some advantage to dentirification when bolus dosing the organic carbon source as I recall from a study Randy shared years ago.
I don't think vodka has any significant intrinsic advantage over vinegar or vice versa. There might be small advantages of one over the other but folks use either or both successfully.
Initially, I used only vodka; got some cyano as many do when starting to dose organic carbon of any type;decided to switch off to vinegar as some anecdotal reports suggested switching the source might result in less cyano.Reduced vodka dosing by about 25% and made it up with some vinegar at 8 times the vodka reduction . When I went for a second 25% switch cyano increased significantly, probably due to the change over or perhaps coincidentally. So, I went back to the roughly 75% /25% organic carbon mix of vodka and vinegar and have stayed in that neighborhood for the last 5 plus years. Almost never see any cyano and when I do it's a small patch near where two corals are touching or over a patch of unatended detritus. Tried some small amounts of sugar a few times with significant coral stress issues. (Currently 36ml of 80 proof vodka and 80 ml of 5% acetic acid vinegar per day)
My inebriated fish breed a lot but then so do those in tanks without the vodka.:celeb3::spin3:
re; does high alk cause burnt tips When usingorganic carbon?
I've kept mine in the 9 to 10 dkh range for many years without burnt tips which can be attributed to a number of causes related or unrelated to organic carbon dosing when they occur. Keeping alk steady at a level to your liking withing the 7 to 11 dkh range is one key to sps health IME. I like the 9 range to provide a margin of error for potential shortfalls.It also works out to that level for me with calcium hydroxide( kalk) dosing 24/7.
Bacteria take up inorganic phosphate and dissolved nitrogen;both are exported with the bacteria.
In my case without gfo or other PO4 removers organic carbon dosing results in low PO4: .02ppm to .04ppm and NO3: <0.2ppm. The system houses over 50 fish, hundreds of corals and is heavily fed.
re: Is vodka faster than vinegar ?
Does anyone know the chemistry or science behind burnt sps tips ?
Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset"> Originally Posted by BrentH
I'm not sure how accurate this is but from what I've read it seems like people get faster results wih vodka .... Probly not also seems like people act like it's better to have different carbon sources for some reason ? But u veteran carbon dossers say there's no real difference
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
It's not accurate .IME nor in the accounts I've read. It can take months for either to have an effect on high initial nitrate levels.
There are some differences between the two sources(vodka/ethanol and vinegar/acetic acid ) but I don't think they would effect the speed of nitrate or PO4 reduction significantly.
Ethanol is oxidized to acetic acid usually by acetobacteria which are ubiquitous in the air and water ; then the acetic acid from the vodka will convert to acetate at pH over 5.5 as will the acetic acid from the vinegar. Acetate is the organic carbon source for the facultative heterotrophic bacteria that take up nitrogen and phosphate and are heavily exported via skimming. The acetobacteria will also use some nitrogen and phosphate and may also be exprted by skimming .
I don't know about the potential for direct uptake of either ethanol or acetic acid by organisms. Not sure the acetate is directly beneficial to organisms via direct uptake othert han the bacteria that use it but it is likely so,imo. There may also be alternative pathways for ethanol but I haven't found any.
I think,the extra step to get to acetic acid with ethanol slows down the initial H+release that occurs when acetic acid goes into high pH water. It takes some time for the ethanol it to oxidize to acetic acid. This makes it easier to bolus dose vodka vs vinegar which must be dosed slowly preferably during photosynthetic periods Vodka is harder to dose on small systems or via auto dosing given it's relatively high concentration of organic carbon,8 times as much vs vinegar.
There is no proven benefit to using different types of organic carbon sources;the opposite may be true as with sugars for example;in the end it's acetate . No reason to encourage so called bacterial diversity ,imo. The soluble organics primarily vodka and vinegar are closest to the acetate, using them limits the variety of bacteria involved in acetogenisis.
__________________
I don't really know how to define a "ulns" system or why tip troubles occur but I'll offer some speculation .
Most"unls" systems" I've seen go for zero NO3 and zero PO4 with a focus on ripping out as much phosphate and nitrogen as possible and then adding back some nitrogen sources and a host of other elements,foods, amminos and supplements.
Corals in these systems usually exhibit pastel coloration indicative of limited zooxanthellae density.
These systems also involve a mix of organic carbon sources and bacteria as manufacturer's espouse the need for bacterial diversity without a real basis for that assertion.
I'd speculate the organic carbon sources used in these systems include some glucose to slow zooxanthellae density to get the pastel effect as it may interfere with zooxanthellae density.
Extremely low phosphate may mess up normal calcium and carbonate disposition since the coral uses ATP ,adenosine triphosphate, in moving it for disposition in the skeletal matrix.
Either or both of these conditions(low energy from a low density of zooxanthellae and./or a lack of phosphate could make it hard for the coral to grow enough tissue to keep up with skeletal growth and/or result in abnormal skeletal growth .
Inconsistent alkalinity , particularly on the low end might also cause interference in the calcification process . Jumpy alk particularly at the low end is often followed by stn.
Nobody really knows the cause but many who use the so called unls systems do seem to experience tip troubles perhaps more so at higher alk levels.Maybe reduced directed transport and disposition of calcium and carbonate by the coral combined with more of it in the water results in misdirected or uncontrolled skeletal growth and less balance with tissue growth.
Some including me with some PO4 and higher alk do not have tip troubles or stn .
IME, some PO4 improves the richness of color and overall vibrancy. Not much is needed ( 0.02 to 0.04ppm as tested with the hanah 713 does very well,ime) while still managing nuisance algae acceptably well . But my chaeto won't grow at those levels and needs more . Some run nice sps tanks at much higher phosphate levels levels than mine,btw.Some run nice tanks with lower PO4 too. I think the range of PO4 levels can vary but some is necessary. Trying to eliminate it or dropping it too fast can affect corals and other calcifying organisms in a negative way ,imo.
__________________
S2minute
New member
Great read Tom 
I figured my net water volume to be about 300 gals. So i started vodka dosing on 4/14 with 1.2 ml of vodka the 1st week. I feed hvy so keeping PO4 down is not as easy as it used to be. By 5/5 PO4 levels leveled off @ 17-19 ppb. By 5/27 12ppb and now @ 6/3 11ppb. I just upped the dose .5 ml to 5.7 ml a day. I also reduced the Vin level in the kalk mix to 675ml vin for a 15 gal solution dosed 1 gal/24 hour period. I still use a tiny amount of BP as well. My Alk is maintained between 7-8 and now that the windows are open Ph is higher too,(8.08).
I figured my net water volume to be about 300 gals. So i started vodka dosing on 4/14 with 1.2 ml of vodka the 1st week. I feed hvy so keeping PO4 down is not as easy as it used to be. By 5/5 PO4 levels leveled off @ 17-19 ppb. By 5/27 12ppb and now @ 6/3 11ppb. I just upped the dose .5 ml to 5.7 ml a day. I also reduced the Vin level in the kalk mix to 675ml vin for a 15 gal solution dosed 1 gal/24 hour period. I still use a tiny amount of BP as well. My Alk is maintained between 7-8 and now that the windows are open Ph is higher too,(8.08).
You are welcome folks .
For those who like details and for the sake of keeping the information in one place , these are the reactions for ethanol to acetic acid and acetic acid to acetate:
Ethanol (C2H5OH) + O2 from acetobacteria oxidation -------> Acetc acid CH3CO2H + H20
Acetic acid (CH3CO2H) at pH > 5.5, as in the tank ------->Acetate C2H3O plus H+.
For those who like details and for the sake of keeping the information in one place , these are the reactions for ethanol to acetic acid and acetic acid to acetate:
Ethanol (C2H5OH) + O2 from acetobacteria oxidation -------> Acetc acid CH3CO2H + H20
Acetic acid (CH3CO2H) at pH > 5.5, as in the tank ------->Acetate C2H3O plus H+.
Good morning Tom,...I have a question for you. My live rock continues to leach phosphate producing GHA,...I so called cooked it in tubs for over a year, and after putting it back in my tank, it returned. It looks like it is holding on for dear life as for the most part appears to be dying. I drip LC every few weeks to fight it, and brush scrub it, but it just keeps returning. I know the problem is strictly in my rock because I have no algae on the sand or glass, due to my vinegar dosing.
Ok now the question. I think I need to pull the rock again
and do the LC thing with it out of my tank,...do you have a how to link on treating the rock out of the tank with LC. I'm even half thinking of just pulling the rock and let it sit out in the sun as I really don't think it has anything else living on it. I can always reseed it later. Any idea how long the GHA would survive if I put the rock out in the sun?
Also I think I read somewhere that if you can get the rock encrusted with coralline algae, it would prohibit the GAH growth? Is this true?
Thanks in advance,---Rick
Ok now the question. I think I need to pull the rock again
and do the LC thing with it out of my tank,...do you have a how to link on treating the rock out of the tank with LC. I'm even half thinking of just pulling the rock and let it sit out in the sun as I really don't think it has anything else living on it. I can always reseed it later. Any idea how long the GHA would survive if I put the rock out in the sun?Also I think I read somewhere that if you can get the rock encrusted with coralline algae, it would prohibit the GAH growth? Is this true?
Thanks in advance,---Rick
Similar threads
