Vodka, vinegar,biopellets and other organic carbon dosing
- Thread starter tmz
- Start date
Over the long holiday weekend, I read this whole thread. What an amazing source of information, thank you to all who contributed, especially Tom who started the thread.
Earlier in the thread, Tom mentioned that NOPOX is almost exactly the same chemical makeup of what your dosing currently of vodka and vinegar. I had already started dosing NOPOX about three weeks ago before i found this thread and am planning on continuing at this point.
I'm dosing 20ml of NOPOX daily on 165 gallons of actual water. Its has dropped by phosphates from .4 to .09 using a Hanna, but nitrates are still around 50 range and not dropped a bit. I have read that it could take nitrates a while to come down, up to several months with carbon dosing.
My question is that in my DT, i don't have any bacteria, algae, etc, pretty darn spotless since i started dosing NOPOX. However, in my sump, where the NOPOX is auto dosed, I do have bacteria growing on the sides and in the gac, etc. (white looking snot) Is this a sign that I'm dosing to much or is it okay since its only in my sump and not in my DT? In an effort to get the nitrates down faster, would it be safe to slowly increase the dosage like using vodka and vinegar or am I already at the max point since i have bacteria forming in my sump?
Thanks
Brian
Earlier in the thread, Tom mentioned that NOPOX is almost exactly the same chemical makeup of what your dosing currently of vodka and vinegar. I had already started dosing NOPOX about three weeks ago before i found this thread and am planning on continuing at this point.
I'm dosing 20ml of NOPOX daily on 165 gallons of actual water. Its has dropped by phosphates from .4 to .09 using a Hanna, but nitrates are still around 50 range and not dropped a bit. I have read that it could take nitrates a while to come down, up to several months with carbon dosing.
My question is that in my DT, i don't have any bacteria, algae, etc, pretty darn spotless since i started dosing NOPOX. However, in my sump, where the NOPOX is auto dosed, I do have bacteria growing on the sides and in the gac, etc. (white looking snot) Is this a sign that I'm dosing to much or is it okay since its only in my sump and not in my DT? In an effort to get the nitrates down faster, would it be safe to slowly increase the dosage like using vodka and vinegar or am I already at the max point since i have bacteria forming in my sump?
Thanks
Brian
. 20ml of NOPOx equals about 15 ml of vodka as estimated based on calculations on another thread in the chemistry forum.
My combined dose of vodka and vinegar equals about 46ml of vodka for 650 gallons . You have about .25 ot the water volume which would be about 11.5 ml of vodka or roughly 15 ml NOPOX for an equivalent dose to mine. If I go higher than the 46( actually 36 vodka and 80 vinegar) I get some snotty material which I like to avoid. Each tank is different. It can tanke months to drop 50 ppm nitrate . Getting it down to a more manageable level via a series of water changes or a sulfur dentirator can speed it all up and the organic carbon will then maintain it ,keeping up with inputs.
My combined dose of vodka and vinegar equals about 46ml of vodka for 650 gallons . You have about .25 ot the water volume which would be about 11.5 ml of vodka or roughly 15 ml NOPOX for an equivalent dose to mine. If I go higher than the 46( actually 36 vodka and 80 vinegar) I get some snotty material which I like to avoid. Each tank is different. It can tanke months to drop 50 ppm nitrate . Getting it down to a more manageable level via a series of water changes or a sulfur dentirator can speed it all up and the organic carbon will then maintain it ,keeping up with inputs.
Hi Tom,
thanks for starting the thread and keeping it alive
One thing that is still not quite clear to me (yes, I did read the thread from post #1 ) is why in your opinion starting carbon dosing in new tanks should be avoided?
Since in a typical Skimmer+rock based aquarium achieving low NO3 levels relying purely on classical anaerobic denitrification is hard/impossible I am under the impression that the carbon fueled NO3 removal becomes dominant.
If that is the case then as long as our target NO3 levels can be achieved while dosing vodka/vinegar at safe levels we do not really need the classical denitrification.
Having well established colony of denitrifying anaerobic bacteria would serve us only as a fail safe mechanism in case carbon dosing is stopped, but even that is not guaranteed. I would assume that when carbon dosing is introduced the C fueled bacteria over time out compete the anaerobic bacteria causing their population to decline.
Could you please share some thoughts on this?
Thanks
Jarek
thanks for starting the thread and keeping it alive
One thing that is still not quite clear to me (yes, I did read the thread from post #1
) is why in your opinion starting carbon dosing in new tanks should be avoided?Since in a typical Skimmer+rock based aquarium achieving low NO3 levels relying purely on classical anaerobic denitrification is hard/impossible I am under the impression that the carbon fueled NO3 removal becomes dominant.
If that is the case then as long as our target NO3 levels can be achieved while dosing vodka/vinegar at safe levels we do not really need the classical denitrification.
Having well established colony of denitrifying anaerobic bacteria would serve us only as a fail safe mechanism in case carbon dosing is stopped, but even that is not guaranteed. I would assume that when carbon dosing is introduced the C fueled bacteria over time out compete the anaerobic bacteria causing their population to decline.
Could you please share some thoughts on this?
Thanks
Jarek
Thanks Tom, I'm going to cut back a bit on the NOPOX and see if that clears the snotty stuff in my sump.
Now the dilemma,how to get the nitrates down... Trying to convince my wife that i need another $350 for a denitrator after I just dropped $3500 on new LED lights and power heads or figure out how i'm going to heat 11 - 5 gallon buckets to to the exact same temp as my aquarium when the RO water is in my garage and its cold! I guess i could go ahead add another 55 gallon drum and actually make a mixing station. What the hell, its only money!
Now the dilemma,how to get the nitrates down... Trying to convince my wife that i need another $350 for a denitrator after I just dropped $3500 on new LED lights and power heads or figure out how i'm going to heat 11 - 5 gallon buckets to to the exact same temp as my aquarium when the RO water is in my garage and its cold! I guess i could go ahead add another 55 gallon drum and actually make a mixing station. What the hell, its only money!
Nizz
New member
https://vimeo.com/115712753
Just getting people's opinion. But does my cheato look burnt? I am putting it here because I vodka dosing as well and also my tank has been on a rash of high nitrates.
Just getting people's opinion. But does my cheato look burnt? I am putting it here because I vodka dosing as well and also my tank has been on a rash of high nitrates.
Hi Tom,
thanks for starting the thread and keeping it alive
One thing that is still not quite clear to me (yes, I did read the thread from post #1
Since in a typical Skimmer+rock based aquarium achieving low NO3 levels relying purely on classical anaerobic denitrification is hard/impossible I am under the impression that the carbon fueled NO3 removal becomes dominant.
If that is the case then as long as our target NO3 levels can be achieved while dosing vodka/vinegar at safe levels we do not really need the classical denitrification.
Having well established colony of denitrifying anaerobic bacteria would serve us only as a fail safe mechanism in case carbon dosing is stopped, but even that is not guaranteed. I would assume that when carbon dosing is introduced the C fueled bacteria over time out compete the anaerobic bacteria causing their population to decline.
Could you please share some thoughts on this?
Thanks
Jarek
Jarek.,
I think new tanks have an unsettled evolving biology and chemistry that takes at least a few months maybe as much as a year to become stable. I prefer not to add a boost to total heterotrophic bacteria activity to the chaos . It might be ok but I'm inclined not to start it until there is some evidence the tank is stable at least until standard ammonia oxidizing bacteria( nitrifiers) as well as anaerobic dentirifiers establish themselves and die off and decay from "live" rock etc. are spent.
Consider the heterotrophic bacteria benefiting from the carbon dosing take up ammonia preferentially for nitrate and move on to NO3 for oxygen when oxygen in exhausted in local areas. So, they are likely to have an effect on the nitrification cyle and denitrification cylce .
Tom, thanks for this thread, it explains a lot about carbon dosing.
I have started dosing vodka on our tank. It's problem isn't nitrates or phosphates per se, but algae. The rocks are covered with it. I am hoping the carbon will tip things in favor of the bacteria, and that I can get enough of them out of the tank (along with the phosphorous they consumed) to starve off the algae.
I have started dosing vodka on our tank. It's problem isn't nitrates or phosphates per se, but algae. The rocks are covered with it. I am hoping the carbon will tip things in favor of the bacteria, and that I can get enough of them out of the tank (along with the phosphorous they consumed) to starve off the algae.
The algae is using phospahte and nitrate; let's hope feeding the the heteroptrophic bacteria with organic carbon let's them get to the N and P first.
Algae can also get a boost in nitrogen and/or phosphate from the substrate itself in some cases tghough.
Algae can also get a boost in nitrogen and/or phosphate from the substrate itself in some cases tghough.
I'm sure that's the case, the algae is on the rock, which I'm sure is full of phosphates at this point. My goal is to give the bacteria a leg up on the algae, and through more frequent cleaning (dusting the rocks), export what they liberate from the rocks. That's the hope any way.
In another thread, you talked about dosing nitrates, how did that work out? I ask because our tank has "zero" nitrates, although it is showing some phosphates now (between 0 and 0.04 ppm). I figured trying the carbon dosing is fail-safe, as the algae makes its own, but nitrate may wind up fueling the algae as well as the bacteria.
I did not get any significant reduction in PO4 when dosing extra nitrogen via NaNO3 ,sodium nitrate, or C4H7NO4,aspartic acid, a commonly used ammino acid. I did note an undesired bump in nuisance algae; even with very small doses. As it is now, my aquariums maintain a low level of nitrate( about 0.2ppm) with PO4 in the 002ppm to 0.04ppm range consistently without dosing extra bound nitrogen beyond what comes in with food.
The notion regarding nitrate or phosphate dosing, commonly called" nutrient fixing" ,or any other element dosing regimen for that matter, follows the same logic as organic carbon dosing . Manage the ratio and the amount and control levels via increased consumption provided all the other elements like iron, potassium etc are not at limiting levels.
There are two with two keystone scientific studies at the foundation of dosing organic carbon, nitrogen or phosphorous: Liebig's law of the minimum and the Redfield ratio.
The Redfield ratio is based on a series of enmasse measures of the amounts of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus found in plankton in the world's seas. (116 C : 16 N:1P).
Liebig's law of the minimum dictates that no matter how much of the other element are available ,organisms will be limited by the element in short supply.
Heterotrophic and mixotrophic organisms use carbon nitrogen and phosphorous in proportionate amounts(other major minor and trace elements too ); growth will be limited by the nutrient that is not available in adequate quantiity for the organism . The thought is maintain the Redfield ratio and bacterial, corals etc will use all the PO4 ,NO3 and Carbon you throw at them. Trouble is those ratios vary from organism to organism and even in the same organisms based on levels of various nutrients in their environment.; so, the Redfield ratio really doesn't apply to a reef tank where a myriad of life forms dwell. Other processes in a closed syten also come into play such as organic carbon production via coral slime and algae exudates, leaching substrate,the amount of bacterial activity including anaerobic nitrate reduction ,feeding and so on.
The notion regarding nitrate or phosphate dosing, commonly called" nutrient fixing" ,or any other element dosing regimen for that matter, follows the same logic as organic carbon dosing . Manage the ratio and the amount and control levels via increased consumption provided all the other elements like iron, potassium etc are not at limiting levels.
There are two with two keystone scientific studies at the foundation of dosing organic carbon, nitrogen or phosphorous: Liebig's law of the minimum and the Redfield ratio.
The Redfield ratio is based on a series of enmasse measures of the amounts of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus found in plankton in the world's seas. (116 C : 16 N:1P).
Liebig's law of the minimum dictates that no matter how much of the other element are available ,organisms will be limited by the element in short supply.
Heterotrophic and mixotrophic organisms use carbon nitrogen and phosphorous in proportionate amounts(other major minor and trace elements too ); growth will be limited by the nutrient that is not available in adequate quantiity for the organism . The thought is maintain the Redfield ratio and bacterial, corals etc will use all the PO4 ,NO3 and Carbon you throw at them. Trouble is those ratios vary from organism to organism and even in the same organisms based on levels of various nutrients in their environment.; so, the Redfield ratio really doesn't apply to a reef tank where a myriad of life forms dwell. Other processes in a closed syten also come into play such as organic carbon production via coral slime and algae exudates, leaching substrate,the amount of bacterial activity including anaerobic nitrate reduction ,feeding and so on.
Last edited:
Thanks for the response on the nitrates, that matches the anecdotal stuff I found, so I guess I will skip dosing it for now. I ran across the Redfield ratio researching this, not sure it is of any practical use in keeping a reef tank.
One interesting thing from a waste water treatment study was a comparison of carbon sources on phosphate removal. Isovaleric acid was identified as the most effective at fueling phosphate removal (but according to Wikipedia, it smells like bad feet), acetic acid was the most cost effective source, and ethanol was effective after an acclimatization period of 2 months. Glucose was found to reduce phosphate removal, not good, at least for me!
One interesting thing from a waste water treatment study was a comparison of carbon sources on phosphate removal. Isovaleric acid was identified as the most effective at fueling phosphate removal (but according to Wikipedia, it smells like bad feet), acetic acid was the most cost effective source, and ethanol was effective after an acclimatization period of 2 months. Glucose was found to reduce phosphate removal, not good, at least for me!
If the corals are doing well chances are there is no nitrogen deficiency even with a zero NO3 reading in a fed tank with fish in it there should be plenty of ammonia for the bacterial to use. Nonetheless, dosing a very small amount of sodium nitrate may /may not be useful. It's just not predictable for every tank and may just bump nuisance algae growth. The Redfield ratio gives a perspective on the relative amounts of C:N
but is not really applicable to what's going on in a given tank.
but is not really applicable to what's going on in a given tank.I have been dosing ethanol for about two weeks, and it does seem to be affecting the algae. It appears to be receding, and is certainly changing, previously the tank was covered in thick, wiry "hair" algae with strong anchors to the rocks. The coverage is less now, the hair is being supplanted in some places by "turf", which is easy to remove in big clumps, and the remaining hair seems weakened and easy to remove.
I also get a lot of very wet skimate, is this typical?
I also get a lot of very wet skimate, is this typical?
kissman
New member
I would think the GAC might absorb the vinegar? Hopefully somebody chimes in that has or has not run it
(For my personal experience) I've been running vinegar and kalk in my ATO while using Purigen, and still experienced a nitrate reduction. Anyone else?
I do run GAC and have for years with organic carbon dosing. I don't think GAC has an affinity for for acetic acid or acetate which breaks down quickly in the water. GAC is noted for pulling out yellowing compounds which are refractory and hydrophobic or amphipathic.
Similar threads
