Carbon dosing: Seachem Excel ?

[Mr.Monkey]

Hi guys,

Just wondering if anyone know if Seachem Flourish Excel can be used for carbon dosing to reduce PO4 and NO3 instead of vodka ?
Seachem Excel is also a source of organic carbon, so is there any reason why excel cannot be used ?

Thanks.

[cabezon2469]

I was just asking this question to myself last night as I bought a new bottle for the FW.

[murraycamp]

I wonder what additional ingredients are in it, such as the "iron reducing properties which promote the ferrous state of iron (Fe+2), which is more easily utilized by plants than ferric iron (Fe+3)." per Seachem.

What advantage over conventional DIY carbon dosing methods (ethanol, acetic acid, VSV, ect.) are you trying to achieve?

[Mr.Monkey]

I wonder what additional ingredients are in it, such as the "iron reducing properties which promote the ferrous state of iron (Fe+2), which is more easily utilized by plants than ferric iron (Fe+3)." per Seachem.
That's why I asked the question to find out. I guess the extra ingredients in Excel wont work in salt water tank.


What advantage over conventional DIY carbon dosing methods (ethanol, acetic acid, VSV, ect.) are you trying to achieve?

Nothing special really. Just wondering as Excel is also a source of organic carbon and I used this for my freshwater planted tank.

[murraycamp]

I wonder what additional ingredients are in it, such as the "iron reducing properties which promote the ferrous state of iron (Fe+2), which is more easily utilized by plants than ferric iron (Fe+3)." per Seachem.
That's why I asked the question to find out. I guess the extra ingredients in Excel wont work in salt water tank.


I don't know if it will or not, but it merits further investigation IMHO.

[cabezon2469]

I really dont want to have vodka in the house as I am a recovering alcoholic, who is now addicted to salt water.

[Navyblue]

The reason plants need CO2 is to produce longer chain carbon compounds also known as photosynthetic intermediates. Photosynthetic intermediates includes compounds such as ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate, and 2-carboxy-3-keto-D-arabinitol 1,5 bisphosphate. Although the names are complicated, the structures are quite simple (5 carbon chains). Flourish Excel™ does not contain these specific compounds per se, but one that is quite similar. By dosing with Flourish Excel™ you bypass the involvement of CO2 and introduce the already finished, structurally similar compounds.

It did not mention if the molecules are similar to the carbon part, the phosphate part, or both. If it is the later you'd be doing the exact opposite of one of the most important reason that you are dosing carbon in the first place.

There are many carbon sources that bacteria can utilise. The reason why vodka, vinegar or sugar is selected as the preferred source is they are nitrogen and phosphorus free, at least not to a point that it matters.

But if it is meant to grow plant, it probably will.

[Nanz]

Weekly water changes and less feeding will solve your problem. If your nitrates are already too high then you may have to increase the size of water being changed until its at a controllable level. Unless you have a nitrate reactor I would not dose vodka in a tank. You have no idea what bactera your feeding. Save the vodka for yourself, hehe.

[jcolletteiii]

Excel uses glutaraldehyde as a carbon source - note the -aldehyde. Stuff is used as a sanitizer/germ killer in hospitals. Although Excel uses very low concentrations, I still do not trust the stuff, and once I found out what the carbon source was, I stopped dosing my planted tank with it and threw it out. IMO, I don't think trying it in a reef with sensitive inverts would be good, especially when simpler carbon alternatives are out there.

[MatthewAD]

Excel = waste of money, not super helpful for planted tanks, dose diy CO2.

Vodka dosing looks to be quite involved, though if you read the carbon dosing posts, people are getting the same effects from sugar or vinegar (how cheap is that??? = no alchohol in the house)

Also the Amino acids that a lot of vodka dosers are adding as an ammonia source also can be a significant source of carbon. Some amino acids have quite a bit of carbon, others less depeding on the -R group.

[eros]

I really dont want to have vodka in the house as I am a recovering alcoholic, who is now addicted to salt water.

Dose Vinegar or Sugar

[Mr.Monkey]

Cool, cheers guys

[murraycamp]

Weekly water changes and less feeding will solve your problem. If your nitrates are already too high then you may have to increase the size of water being changed until its at a controllable level. Unless you have a nitrate reactor I would not dose vodka in a tank. You have no idea what bactera your feeding. Save the vodka for yourself, hehe.


In my experience, water changes are a blunt, and often ineffective, tool for nutrient control, especially of import/export balance is not addressed. Don't get me wrong, they are helpful, especially for addressing element depletion, but if the system is taking more food in that the export methodologies can address, water changes are not an effective way to control dissolved nutrients in anything more than a very short term context.

Even with a decent import/export balance relative to the water column, NO3 and PO4 issues can still exist, especially if the substrate has adsorbed or otherwise bound nutrients. Water changes can be less helpful in this situation. That's why proactive management of heterotrophic bacterial densities through carbon dosing is an effective technique when done properly.

On the issue of increasing "bad" bacteria, certainly pathogens exist in our systems, but I am unaware of any reported instances of significant reliability that lead to the conclusion that carbon dosing leads to a competitive exclusion dynamic that ultimately results in the dominance of pathogenic strains. In other words, careful implementation of carbon dosing should, and apparently does, result in a balance of strains with the net result being a more robust net metabolism of dissolved nutrients.

HTH

[Nanz]

In my experience, water changes are a blunt, and often ineffective, tool for nutrient control, especially of import/export balance is not addressed. Don't get me wrong, they are helpful, especially for addressing element depletion, but if the system is taking more food in that the export methodologies can address, water changes are not an effective way to control dissolved nutrients in anything more than a very short term context.

Even with a decent import/export balance relative to the water column, NO3 and PO4 issues can still exist, especially if the substrate has adsorbed or otherwise bound nutrients. Water changes can be less helpful in this situation. That's why proactive management of heterotrophic bacterial densities through carbon dosing is an effective technique when done properly.

On the issue of increasing "bad" bacteria, certainly pathogens exist in our systems, but I am unaware of any reported instances of significant reliability that lead to the conclusion that carbon dosing leads to a competitive exclusion dynamic that ultimately results in the dominance of pathogenic strains. In other words, careful implementation of carbon dosing should, and apparently does, result in a balance of strains with the net result being a more robust net metabolism of dissolved nutrients.

HTH

I wish I could agree with you but from my past experience 2 years of carbon dosing(NeoZeo, Zeovit and vodka) has lead to no change other than less money in my purse. Nitrates never went below 6ppm when I was using carbon dosing and I am easily maintaining 6ppm with just weekly water changes now.

[murraycamp]

I wish I could agree with you but from my past experience 2 years of carbon dosing(NeoZeo, Zeovit and vodka) has lead to no change other than less money in my purse. Nitrates never went below 6ppm when I was using carbon dosing and I am easily maintaining 6ppm with just weekly water changes now.


That's cool. There are many ways to get there.

I would suspect that your NO3 levels are the result of the extant well-balanced bacterial dynamics in your system, which I'm sure the water changes help sustain to a some extent. Each tank is different.

I just disagree that water changes alone are a generally effective solution for excess nutrient issues in anything other than the immediate term.