View Full Version : dosing vodka to bring down N and P
frankdreistein
12/25/2003, 08:51 AM
Hello,
There are some new articles in germany concerning the daily dosing of vodka.
This dosing of C should bring bacteria growth (bacteria plankton) that take up all the NO3 and the PO4, so it can be eaten by corals, sponges,.. or just be skimmed out of the tank.
An other aspect is to give the denitrifing bacteria the C they need.
You should start to dose more till there is a white bacteria film.
Then dose the half of this daily. NO3 and PO4 should come down to nearly zero.
The foam should get very hard.
And the skimmer only has to run, when there ist meassuring PO4, to bring it out. Or just run a smaller one.
Now you can bring in more nutrients with feeding Phytoplankton and very fine dry food (for gorgonians,..).
Anyone got experiences or opinions?
Greets
Frank
Obi-dad
12/25/2003, 09:18 AM
I know someone who does daily doses of vodka, but not to their aquarium... :lol:
Randy Holmes-Farley
12/25/2003, 09:44 AM
I don't know about making the foam hard, but otherwise, many folks have tried similar things. Adding sugar might be a better approach since it is purer than vodka.
When I dosed sugar once, many of my corals turned brown. Probably zooxanthallae growing much faster.
One thing to be concerned with is low oxygen as the bacteria use O2 to metabolize the ethanol (or sugar).
So whatever you do, start very slowly.
In general, growing and harvesting macroalgae is likely to be a better approach. These articles describe other approaches:
Nitrate
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/august2003/chem.htm
Phosphorus
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/sept2002/chem.htm
Justjoe
12/25/2003, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Randy Holmes-Farley
Adding sugar might be a better approach since it is purer than vodka.
When I dosed sugar once, many of my corals turned brown. Probably zooxanthallae growing much faster.
What kind of dosing rates were people trying with the sugar? Nitrates stay low in my tank, but the PO4 are higher then I would like.
Joe
Randy Holmes-Farley
12/25/2003, 02:26 PM
I'm not sure. I just added a teaspoonful to a 90 gallon tank, and away it went.
So if you start with a 55 gallon drum, that's probably about right. :lol:
However, if you are limited by nitrate, then you might not get a bloom.
Habib
12/25/2003, 03:04 PM
In my case when dosing sugar (far less than what Randy used) I saw an adverse and reproducible effect on LPS corals.
In Holland some people use a sort of Vodka (Jenever) when they have a cyano bloom. It sometimes works and I think that it works in some cases by creating a bacteria bloom in the water column which compete for e.g. ammonia with the cyano.
Boomer
12/26/2003, 01:06 AM
Hum, you can sure tell it is Chritmas and you guys have tipped one two many :rollface: :rollface: :rollface:
frankdreistein
12/26/2003, 04:32 AM
thanks for the reply.
It´s quite a hype here at the moment.
Let´s see what there will be left of it in a year or so.
Habib
12/26/2003, 06:07 AM
Let´s see what there will be left of it in a year or so.
Fish with liver problems? :D
tatuvaaj
12/26/2003, 06:38 AM
Just remember to dose aspirin every other day :D
571958
01/06/2004, 01:24 AM
Anyone with updates on the Volka method???
Thanks,
Max
billsreef
01/06/2004, 08:08 AM
Their still working off their hangovers :D
DonJasper
01/06/2004, 11:06 AM
Makes you wonder what scientific method was used to decide on vodka!
I think it's my Patriotic Duty to mention that since I've started dosing bourbon my hair algea has come under control, my pH is steady, it stopped snowing and I've a much better outlook on life.
571958
01/06/2004, 05:09 PM
Hi Randy,
I would like to hear your thoughts from the reef chemistry point of view. Basically I did try this method late 2002 and during that time it was tried for 2 weeks and was force to put a stop to it. My tank has low nitrate of 1~2ppm and main problem was with the PO4. Well as nitrate is the limiting fact, infact I got a algae boon adding Volka. Amount of Volka as far less than what the german reefers recommended, I'm using 0.5ml of Volka per 100L of tank water. Well, I wonder if there isn't a lot of nitrate in the tank the method will not work; sort of a need to have the right ratio of Nitrate & PO4 to bring both down to zero? If not, no Bacteria Boom and you will end up adding C to bring up an algae??:mad: ??????? Would like to hear your view about this.
Thanks,:rollface:
Max
Originally posted by Randy Holmes-Farley
I'm not sure. I just added a teaspoonful to a 90 gallon tank, and away it went.
So if you start with a 55 gallon drum, that's probably about right. :lol:
However, if you are limited by nitrate, then you might not get a bloom.
Randy Holmes-Farley
01/06/2004, 06:23 PM
I'm not sure what to make of it. I didn't think that most algae would use ethanol from the water column, but maybe some will.
Anyone have an idea how it might have increased algae, except coincidence?
Justjoe
01/06/2004, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by Randy Holmes-Farley
I'm not sure what to make of it. I didn't think that most algae would use ethanol from the water column, but maybe some will.
Anyone have an idea how it might have increased algae, except coincidence?
Maybe something to do with the NO3 depletion leading to PO4 release as first discussed in:
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=293640
I now have that article in a PDF file if interested.
That is, before it turned into a lecture in buttocks and aviation history:)
Joe
Boomer
01/06/2004, 07:16 PM
Randy see these
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T4F-4840VMF-1/2/01efa334c40d938d2ded7e8b37a55aa0
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T4F-47FDGDJ-1/2/f8a77e9f5b8691e502fec27bc4076530
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T4D-47DT91J-4/2/1c8a9079a19328d2044f8608f08bff85
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T8F-4846S6J-2/2/1648126c3b71a7321560b47b4d8353b2
Marine Chemistry (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=JournalURL&_cdi=5942&_auth=y&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6896f6a47c288b453f23907cfe48daac&chunk=x)
Treatise on Geochemistry. Vol. 6 The Oceans and Marine Geochemistry (http://www.treatiseongeochemistry.com/)
Randy Holmes-Farley
01/06/2004, 07:35 PM
OK, Boomer. Clue me in. What is that telling me about alcohol? I didn't find it mentioned.
Randy Holmes-Farley
01/06/2004, 07:39 PM
Maybe something to do with the NO3 depletion leading to PO4 release as first discussed in:
My understanding is that the phosphate release discussed there comes from phosphorus in the organics consumed by nitrate-based oxidation. If the carbon source driving the reaction has no phosphorus (as in vodka), then I don't see any phosphate being released. Perhaps I am misunderstanding where they claim the phosphorus comes from, however.
Boomer
01/06/2004, 07:51 PM
What is that telling me about alcohol?
:rollface: :rollface:
Nothing, maybe I should have mentioned here are some articles of itnerest to you on past subjects.You mean you didn't think that :confused:
By the way, bad day for Boomy in the mine. Backed over a $30,000, 2002 Ford F-250 Crew-Cab, with my big lodader:mad: TOTALED, bent and twisted the frame and flattened the right side-right rear door section.
Randy Holmes-Farley
01/06/2004, 07:53 PM
Backed over a $30,000, 2002 Ford F-250 Crew-Cab, with my big lodader TOTALED, bent and twisted the frame and flattened the right side-right rear door section.
Was your boss in it? :lol:
Nothing, maybe I should have mentioned here are some articles of itnerest to you on past subjects.You mean you didn't think that
I'll have to look at them again with a wider point of view. :D
Boomer
01/06/2004, 10:14 PM
Was your boss in it?
:rollface: :rollface: :rollface:
Well, if he was, he wouldn't be here answering this post :D
Ok, here is the good thing. You have to go in for a drug test. You can't go back to work unitl it is tested neg. You still get payed the same, as if you were there :lol: So I'm off for at least 3 days, maybe 5:cool: I'll call the lab and tell them to be realllllllly slow with the tests:p
Justjoe
01/07/2004, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by Randy Holmes-Farley
My understanding is that the phosphate release discussed there comes from phosphorus in the organics consumed by nitrate-based oxidation. If the carbon source driving the reaction has no phosphorus (as in vodka), then I don't see any phosphate being released. Perhaps I am misunderstanding where they claim the phosphorus comes from, however. [/B]
I dunno, that's why I'm a askin' dis stuff in da first place:confused:
I thought they were talking about the nitrates that were produced were then broken down, and when the nitrates were gone, the fact that the nitrates were now gone would allow the the PO4 to be released.
Thanks,
Joe
571958
01/07/2004, 01:13 AM
I was wondering in a specific tank condition where nitrate has been zero and with high PO4, naturally there will not be enough nitrate to strike a balance to encourage Bacteria growth for PO4 elimination. In this case, will the excess ethanol/volka, unused by bacteria be a source of algae growth?? Wonder what's the chemical composition of Volka & Ethanol, chances of these substance being a fuel for alage growth?
Regards,
Max
Originally posted by Justjoe
I dunno, that's why I'm a askin' dis stuff in da first place:confused:
I thought they were talking about the nitrates that were produced were then broken down, and when the nitrates were gone, the fact that the nitrates were now gone would allow the the PO4 to be released.
Thanks,
Joe
Randy Holmes-Farley
01/07/2004, 07:28 AM
I was wondering in a specific tank condition where nitrate has been zero and with high PO4, naturally there will not be enough nitrate to strike a balance to encourage Bacteria growth for PO4 elimination.
Yes, that is quite true. If nitrate were removed in a DSB or a denitrator, for example.
In this case, will the excess ethanol/volka, unused by bacteria be a source of algae growth?? Wonder what's the chemical composition of Volka & Ethanol, chances of these substance being a fuel for alage growth?
That's the part that I don't know: if algae can take advantage of ethanol in the water column. Still, if there is not enough phosphate for bacteria, then there won't likely be enough for algae either.
571958
01/08/2004, 09:28 PM
Hi Randy, the bottle of Ethanol I got a year back stated,
Ethy Alcohol 95% denaturated L261
C2H5OH and molecular weight of 46.07
Methanol not more than 5%
non-volatile residue not more than 0.01%
Appreciate you can explain if this is the right ethanol? I hope I did dose the right stuff a year back! BTW, I'm a chemistry idiot and the bottle was brought by my wife on my behalf, as her friend offer to help.
Thanks a Million:rollface: :strooper:
Max
Randy Holmes-Farley
01/09/2004, 07:14 AM
Appreciate you can explain if this is the right ethanol?
It is denatured, so it is sure not the right stuff for human drinking!!!!
I'm not sure that ethanol is a better choice for generating a bacterial bloom than is sugar.
That said, I'm also not sure what effects methanol might have on marine creatures. Since it is fairly toxic to humans, I might not risk adding it. If you really want to add ethanol, you might be better off with a nondenatured ethanol (no methanol or other ingredients that make it unsuitable for human consumption).
571958
01/09/2004, 12:03 PM
Thanks, if I can't find non denatured Ethanol, better off using Volka..............
Regards,
Max
Randy Holmes-Farley
01/09/2004, 12:18 PM
Yes, I think so.
And then if there is any left over, you can celebrate the success!
571958
01/09/2004, 12:30 PM
Man, I should have send you some for your New Year Celebrations:rollface:
Thanks a Million for Your Help,
Max
Randy Holmes-Farley
01/09/2004, 12:30 PM
You're welcome.
Good luck!
rshimek
02/04/2004, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by Randy Holmes-Farley
Hi Randy,
That's the part that I don't know: if algae can take advantage of ethanol in the water column.
Algae aren't probably taking advantage of anything here, but bacteria are. In low concentrations, this ethanol will be absorbed by anaerobic bacteria and enter the fermentation pathways.
Other alcohols will be processed the same way, methanol for example. For that matter, you can do the same with small amounts of formalin, it gets converted to methanol and utilized.
There were a slug of papers about this in the early to mid 1970's, but I didn't treat them as any more than odd biochemistry trivia at the time. This is such an odd - contrary to intuition result - that I think it even made it into Science. I always thought that folks adding formalin to their cultures and seeing if they processed the stuff was rather bizarre. Personally, I think the original reseach was triggered by somebody inadvertantly tipping over a beaker of formalin into a tank and noticing that really nothing seemed to mind overly much.
If this treatment lowers phosphate in a tank, it simply means in those tanks phosphate is not likely limiting, but sugars are short supply. Pretty anorexic tanks, probably.
Randy Holmes-Farley
02/04/2004, 10:46 AM
Thanks, Ron! :)
Machiavelli
02/04/2004, 10:59 AM
So does this mean that just adding sugar isnt as effective as adding sugar and ethanol/methanol or any other alcohols?
Randy Holmes-Farley
02/04/2004, 12:12 PM
I don't see a reason to prefer one over the other.
onthefly
02/04/2004, 12:16 PM
Hi everyone,
We've been stewing on the same topic at NR.com.
http://www.nano-reef.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24852
Fortunately, one of our members is German and attached some of the spread sheet data, as well as the dose regime that was published in a german mag. Very interesting, and as a biochemist myself.....I'm stumped for a hardcore answer.
Anyway, thought some of you science geeks might want to see some of the published data.
BTW, they use the cheapest, cold carbon filtered "Wodka" they coukd find.....I wouldn't even drink it!
Randy Holmes-Farley
02/04/2004, 12:51 PM
Thanks for the link!
movingshadow
02/05/2004, 01:55 AM
For anyone seeking further Info on this topic, I've started a thread over at nano-reef.com with this subject and a bunch of test results/graphics from indepentent german experiments. it seems some people are going to try the mrutzek/kokott method on test tanks... so if you're interested and want to follow this:
http://www.nano-reef.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24852
Habib
02/05/2004, 06:47 AM
I would like to check for possible interferences of alcohol on nitrate testing.
I seem to remember about this very vaguely but was about 10 years ago.
The graph from the link shows that nitrate rises after one or so day after reducing the dosage.
The rise in nitrate is from about 0 ppm to about 7 ppm in just 2 days.
This makes me more suspicious about an interference with testing.
I have in the past created intentionally bacterial blooms and did measure PO4 and NO3. IIRC then that was not a method to reduce them significantly.
I have heard from a few people in Holland who dose Vodka that some of them see some improvements such as reduced algae growth.
Randy Holmes-Farley
02/05/2004, 07:44 AM
I have heard from a few people in Holland who dose Vodka that some of them see some improvements such as reduced algae growth.
Did they just "see" the improvements after drinking the vodka? :D
Habib
02/05/2004, 08:17 AM
Did they just "see" the improvements after drinking the vodka?
That is the procedure. Add some to the tank and also drink some. :D
asmujica
02/13/2004, 05:37 AM
Bizzare idea, I wonder if tequila will work as well :D
movingshadow
02/13/2004, 06:20 AM
actually from what I understand, it wouldn't. This is due to the fact that vodka, in its production process, is cold carbon filtered which (if I understand correctly) leads to the overproduction in good bacterial growth.
hth
Randy Holmes-Farley
02/13/2004, 07:47 AM
Why would filtration matter?
bertoni
02/13/2004, 08:59 PM
Without filtration, the tequila needs some lime to work... A bit of salt helps, too. ;-)
Randy Holmes-Farley
02/14/2004, 07:03 AM
Maybe the idea is to avoid the worm! :D
movingshadow
02/14/2004, 08:51 AM
I'm not sure, as unfortunately I'm not exactly a science whizz... But the Mrutzek/Kokott article states, that there is a lacking carbon source in our marine systems, which is now being filled in with vodka. the vodka serves as a carbon source for beneficial bacterial life, I figure this is due to the filtration process on coal (as no other alcohols other than laboratory grade ethanol were utilized)
hth
Randy Holmes-Farley
02/14/2004, 12:06 PM
The carbon source there is the alcohol (ethanol) itself, which is CH3CH2OH.
movingshadow
02/15/2004, 08:30 AM
see what I mean... not a science whizz... I'll get the article and the test results up on NR. com soon though... I'll post here when I'm done :)
571958
02/15/2004, 07:07 PM
Hi Guys,
With testing on Vodka been run for 14 days, result has been excellent. The following is my tank parameters before & after
Test conducted on a 125G Berlin SPS + Clam tank.
Fish: 1xCB, 4XL.Wrasse, 1xCoral Goby, 1xalgae Benny
Feeding of SPS is 5X per week
Tank is BB w/ 100Kg of matured LR
Ozone w/controller set at 380mV.
H&S Skimmer 1500L -No.1 Skimmer in Europe!
Temp. 25~28 degree Celsius
Sg = 1.027
PH = 8.05~8.42
1 bag of Carbon insump
1 bag of RowaPhos insump
250W BLV 10K DE x 2 + 150W BLV DE x 1
4 Tunze all are 7000L/hr per pump
Return from Sump = MD40 =measured to be 3400L/hr
-----------------Before ------------------- After
Nitrate -----------5ppm------------------1ppm or less(undetectable)
PO4 --------------0.05ppm--------------0.015ppm or less
I started off with Top grade 40% alcohol Vodka. Dosage is 1ml per 150L of tank water and increase by slowly to 1ml per 100L over 7 days. I feel the dosage recmmende at the Germany Forum is good for tanks with big time nitrate issues. The test was conducted on a tanks with 60ppm nitrate & 0.7ppm PO4. Dosage should be admin or match to nitrate level. There is some side effect, most of my Acros have turn light pastel colors -> just like those regular SPS direct from Fiji or Solomon. Most reefers will realised that most Fiji SPS turn brown or at best turn to a darker tone from orginal colors. With this method I see all or most of my Acros turn to a light pastel hue. I believe this is due to very....very low level of nutrient in water as already used-up by the boom in Bacteria.
Now, comes the blunt truth. All or nearly 50% of my Indo-Zoanthid failed to open after 14 days of this method, some 20% of my mushroom turned white. Fiji Ricordia, Fiji white Xenia & Blastomussa are all OK. My Indonesia brown xenia died & Indonesia mushroom turn white as well.
I believe anyone who try this method have to be very careful. Our corals comes from a variety of places and some of these corals, even SPS can come from a environment with a certain amount of nutrient level. This is except Fiji corals, where water is god damn CLEAN! All my 18 clams, from XL Squamosa, Maximas & Corcea are all doing fine so far, with great shell gowth measured a bi-mthly-basis.
Max
Randy Holmes-Farley
02/16/2004, 09:19 AM
Thanks very much for the update! :thumbsup:
Because of the corals issues, perhaps folks trying it should start with far less alcohol, like 10-100 times less, and slowly raise it as long as corals are still OK and nitrate is not going away adequately (although I prefer macroalgae growth myself).
571958
02/17/2004, 03:05 AM
I would like to add on to the fact that the basic theory between ZEOVIT and Vodka is very much similar. -> it is to reduce the nutrient level in a closed system thru Bacteria-plankton boom.
Infact the Zeolite that comes with Zeovit system is coat with a layer of ehanol/carbon similar susbtance. The only differences is that Zeovit comes with Bacteria culture in a bottle to kick-start. Beside, people who use this method hae to dose Amino Acids, Minerals & Vitamins, as all these will be depleted to extremely low level, as utilised by the Bacteria Boom. The general concept is to create a nutrient free environment similar to Fiji.
Max
Randy Holmes-Farley
02/17/2004, 10:09 AM
I still wonder in this vodka method, where the nutrients and/or bacteria finally end up. Skimmed out, hopefully, or the effects may be only temporary.
571958
02/17/2004, 06:36 PM
Hi Randy,
the german reefers recommended cutting off skimmer & Ozone. Well I'm not taking any chances, I tune down ozone to miimum and skimmer is still runned full time. Reefers that utilise this method ona fully load tank(high fisg load) reported a significant increase in the skimmer performance-> or shall I say that increase in bacteria being taken out due to large bacteria with excess of DOCs/nutrient in system. As for my case, I can't tell a big differences since I don't feed my fishes and clams. SPS feeding is kept ot minimum. Time will tell, but 1 thing for sure, nutrient is depleted real fast using vodka. The mushroom, xenia & algae in the tank is a witness. I'll update again in another 2 weeks and I'm currently trying to calculate wha'ts the best vodka dosage with references to Nitrate & PO4 concentration in the system.
What I'm surprise with is the fact that all my clams survived the vodka trial. Infact they show tremendous growth in shell. My Giant Squamosa(11") & Maxima(9.5") show nearly 1cm of shell growth in width witin 2 weeks + and mantle coloration has been intense. I wonder if the clams benefit from the Bacteria-Plankton boom as a food source?
BTW, I was wondering is someone can help to ask Dr Ron for some opinions?:D :D
Thxz a Million :D :D
Max
Originally posted by Randy Holmes-Farley
I still wonder in this vodka method, where the nutrients and/or bacteria finally end up. Skimmed out, hopefully, or the effects may be only temporary.
movingshadow
02/18/2004, 01:30 AM
actually the german experiments that came to my attention (including the original mrutzek/kokott test) all employed the use of a skimmer while dosing vodka to the tank....
Interesting idea, that the bacterial bloom could serve as a food source for the clams... sounds plausible, though we should ask the experts ;)
Randy Holmes-Farley
02/19/2004, 01:51 PM
I wonder if the clams benefit from the Bacteria-Plankton boom as a food source?
Could be. It also could be that they benefit from reduced phosphate, which can inhibit calcification, and from reduced nitrate, which can overdrive zoox.
I added 140 ml of vodka to a 180 gallon system. I had a bacterial bloom for a week. The tank remained very cloudy during this bloom. I was a bit concerned, but the corals including all the sps and clams were acting completely normal. The skimmer has been skimming a lot more than normal. I found myself having to empty a very large collection cup twice a day!:eek: On the 6th day, I was getting a little tired of the cloudiness and the crazy skimming, so I made some fresh salt water and left it to mix over night. I came home from work the 7th day to do the water change, but to my surprise the tank was clear. And I mean very clear. Looking down the length of the tank from the side, I was amazed at the water clarity. I couldn't have gotten this clarity with carbon. The skimmer also slowed down the following days. It's been 3 weeks since, and my skimmer removes very little at the moment. I'm not sure what the bacterial bloom did to assist the skimmer, but apparently there's not much in the water to skim out for now.
I'm not advocating vodka or telling anyone to try it. I'm just sharing my personal experience. I was quite impressed. I don't think it would be wise to dose vodka constantly, but perhaps it is usefull as an annual "spring cleaning". :)
If you do try it, make sure you keep the water well oxygenated. A bacterial bloom can starve a tank of O2 quite fast!
Randy Holmes-Farley
02/19/2004, 06:56 PM
If you do try it, make sure you keep the water well oxygenated. A bacterial bloom can starve a tank of O2 quite fast!
Good advice!
571958
02/19/2004, 07:33 PM
I second Mark's commend on big improvement in water clarity. Since I dose at my moderate amound of less than 7ml per day (3ml~7ml. The water quality improved after 10 days. Infact my wife complained to me on the money I spend on the new bulbs - she thought I changed bulbs again with the present BLV bulbs juz 2 mths old. The added clarity in water quality makes the tank looks way brighter:eek2: :eek2: :eek2:
This also take into consideration my ozone has been shut down by my ORP controller for several days since the ORP value already hit 400.
Max
571958
02/19/2004, 07:35 PM
I add small amount of vodka into my tank 2 hrs after lights are on. The oxygen produce by the corals during photo-period will help to naturalize the amount of oxygen needed by the Bacteria boom.
Max
Originally posted by Randy Holmes-Farley
If you do try it, make sure you keep the water well oxygenated. A bacterial bloom can starve a tank of O2 quite fast!
Good advice!
frankdreistein
02/20/2004, 04:11 AM
If you just take 0,1 ml vodka more on 100 liters every day you have to meassure your NO3 and PO4 values with a very accurate test (merck, machery & nagel, hach,.) and always have to look for slight white bacteria films, which in some cases can´t be seen.
So when NO3 and PO4 are on the values they should be just take half of the vodka then.
If the values rise again just add some more vodka,...
There also were some problems whith axoozanthele gorgonians, wich seem to got problems with the vodka method.
Some shoot their SPS in doing it to fast or in bringing their nutrients extrem down without an extra feeding of the corals.
purplehaze
02/20/2004, 01:08 PM
Hey Frank, have you talked to Lars Sebralla about dosing vodka directly to a aquarium? Chech his site out and read about the Wodkafilter.... http://www.lars-sebralla.com/
I asked him and he answered: echter leichtsinn:D
frankdreistein
02/20/2004, 03:29 PM
I know Lars side. :)
Anyway I´m not dosing vodka, because my water parameters are very low through jaubert and algae.
The people of the biggest german forum http://www.meeresaquaristik.de/foren/index.php
who tried it have good success with this method till now.
But surely you have to be very carefull....and you have to give out more money for accurate water tests.
purplehaze
02/20/2004, 05:44 PM
Frank, I just checked the german forum out and there is a lot of stuff to read...:rollface:
i'll talk to you later
Well I have started dosing vodka, this is day 3, using a dose rate of 2 mls daily for my system with a total of 75 gallons.
There has been no unusual cloudiness, or skimmer activity, however, today the algae has whitened, and the water is noticeably crystal clear.
What has me concerned though is that most of my mushrooms have shrivelled to less than 1/2 size. So far the zoo's are fine. I guess I could live without mushrooms, but couldn't lose my beautiful zoo's.
From reading the thread so far, the concensus seems to be that the vodka method affects some organisms that prefer a high nutrient environement, because it removes the nutrients. However, as I am only at day 3 of using vodka, I would have thought it is to soon to get such a negative reaction from my mushrooms just from the nutrient removal.
My suspicion is that the vodka is actually poisoning them. Anybody got any thoughts?
Otherwise though, got to say the tank looks sparkling clean and very nice.
Randy Holmes-Farley
03/10/2004, 05:12 PM
I agree with the idea that reduced nutrients would seem unlikely to have an effect that fast, and I'd view it as a potential negative. Time will tell whether it goes away or gets worse.
571958
03/10/2004, 05:13 PM
I don't think it's poisioning if you using human consumable Vodka? As I say, I've an incident where my Indo Xenia shunk in size, but my Pacific island white Xenia infact grew...n...grew! My Ricoreda. F & Yuma do very well and as for zoos it will depends on species. But take note that you need to place these mushroom under sufficient in such low nutrient environment..................
One of my Zoos colony was not doing well 2 weeks after the vodka method. It was lying right at the right-bottom corner, partial shaded by a 11inch Squamosa. It has been there for 6 mths doing ok, till my nutrient level drops..........I move it over to centre bottom of the tank where it is not block by anything and the colony recovers and have grew since. The same applies to SPS, but we supplement the shortage of nutrient by extra feedings of rotifiers & zooplankton.
I hope this helps.
Max
571958
03/10/2004, 05:20 PM
BTW, can all SPS reefers here contribute their estimated success rate with Wild Fiji or Vanautau SPS colony?
I would like to understand if a low nutrient system couple with regular feedings enable a much higher survival rate of these corals from pristine waters.
So far I've only done 1 purchase since adpoting the Vodka method, since my tank is already rather full. The succes rate is 100% as per 1 purchase of 3 Fiji & 1 Vanautau specimen, this is not a good benchmark as I do not have as many purchase to do a reference point. My past purchase before Vodka method over 2~3 years has been 50% or less.
Max
Thanks both Randy and Max.
I am going to cut the dosage in 1/2, and will report back in a few days as to the health of the livestock.
Obi-dad
03/10/2004, 07:42 PM
'I don't think it's poisioning if you using human consumable Vodka? '--- alcohol is toxic to every cell in the human body. Just depends on the concentration.
Don't get me wrong, I have a glass of red wine next to me as I write this :D
Randy Holmes-Farley
03/10/2004, 08:09 PM
There can be lots of problems due to added organics that are not really poisoning in the classic sense. Low O2, excessive bacteria or zoox growth, etc.
dhess
03/10/2004, 08:33 PM
Could someone please tell me if i am right or wrong.
Would it be fair to say that in a nutrient situation like mine:
0 Nitrates but relatively high phosphates around 0.25
the vodka method should not be attempted as any bacterial bloom will be nitrate limited.
Has anyone with similar parrameters to mine tried dosing vodka?
Randy Holmes-Farley
03/10/2004, 08:39 PM
Yes, if those values are correct, you'll be nitrate limited and will be unlikely to drop phosphate too much in such a way. However, you might drop nitrate further, and that might be beneficial (depending on what the actual value really is).
dhess
03/10/2004, 08:49 PM
Randy,
Thanks fro the lightning quick response .
Both parrams were tested using new salifert kits and in the nitrate test water remained perfectly clear.
I guess I'll just have to do a few largish 25% water changes and maybe use media such as phosphate killer.
The only problem is that I suspect my live rock has a fair bit of phosphate bound to it as a result of past neglect.
What course of action would you recommend?
571958
03/10/2004, 09:02 PM
The german are using Lab grade test kits like Merck. Salifert not good enough for small values. But you can collect water samples right at the bottom of your tank and be surprise the values are there!
Max
Originally posted by Randy Holmes-Farley
When I dosed sugar once, many of my corals turned brown. Probably zooxanthallae growing much faster.
Zooxanthellae produce sugar via photosynthesis. I don't see why increasing the amount of sugar in the water would make them grow any faster.
Randy Holmes-Farley
03/11/2004, 06:46 AM
oxanthellae produce sugar via photosynthesis. I don't see why increasing the amount of sugar in the water would make them grow any faster.
Because they have more to eat and so are not limited by photosynthesis?
I agree that there may be other explanations for the browning as well.
crlkeep
03/11/2004, 06:52 AM
Zooxanthellae produce sugar via photosynthesis. I don't see why increasing the amount of sugar in the water would make them grow any faster.
I believe that the sugars produced by zooxanthellae are a little different than the sugars used to produce this "bacterial bloom". Assuming it was something like processed white table sugar.
IIRC the slime coating on these corals may be used to trap bacteria and other matter for the corals to digest as food. Which would mean extra nutrients inside to coral for feeding the Zooxanthaellae.
Randy,
When you added sugar, where you referring to regular Table sugar?
I think Dr. Ron had an interesting point on this when he said these tanks may be anorexic. Assuming he meant "starved".
I think that I will stick to Caulerpa to remove these nutrients. :)
Originally posted by crlkeep
I believe that the sugars produced by zooxanthellae are a little different than the sugars used to produce this "bacterial bloom". Assuming it was something like processed white table sugar.
Sugar is sugar to these organisms no matter whether it is sucrose, glucose or something more complex. They are just different forms of carbohydrates - they all provide energy through respiration.
Randy Holmes-Farley
03/11/2004, 07:47 AM
I believe that it was table sugar that I used. I'll search on carbohydrates and zoox tomorrow and see what turns up.
crlkeep
03/11/2004, 07:55 AM
Sugar is sugar to these organisms no matter whether it is sucrose, glucose or something more complex. They are just different forms of carbohydrates - they all provide energy through respiration.
I did not know that. Learn something new everyday. :)
Maybe the corals are trying the Atkin's diet...
ButterfyBoy
03/11/2004, 06:03 PM
Zooxanthellae produce sugar via photosynthesis. I don't see why increasing the amount of sugar in the water would make them grow any faster.
Except that you are assuming that they can only utilize sugar produced through photosynthesis. If its avaliable externally as well, isn't it likely that they will use as much of it as possible in addition to what they directly produce? I think it's not unlikely that they have multiple vectors for meeting their sugar demands.
Alternatively, could it also be that the coral polyp is utilizing the sugar, in turn resulting in an increased CO2 production which is thus indirectly stimulating the zooxanthellae?
Originally posted by ButterfyBoy
Except that you are assuming that they can only utilize sugar produced through photosynthesis. If its avaliable externally as well, isn't it likely that they will use as much of it as possible in addition to what they directly produce? I think it's not unlikely that they have multiple vectors for meeting their sugar demands.
Alternatively, could it also be that the coral polyp is utilizing the sugar, in turn resulting in an increased CO2 production which is thus indirectly stimulating the zooxanthellae?
I doubt either of these would be the case, but the latter may be more possible, in my opinion.
Under normal conditions, the zooxanthellae living within the coral tissues produce sugars in excess to their own needs and pass these on to the coral host (in the form of glycerol, I believe). In some species almost half of the carbohydrates produce by photosynthesis is passed on to the host animal. i.e. they are producing almost twice the carbohydrates that they need.
If they are already producing more sugar than they need, why would they utilize the added sugar? Why wouldn't that be utilizing the sugars that are being passed to the host?
I agree that the coral itself may be able to utilise the sugar, but why would this cause a significant increase in respiration? CO<sub>2</sub> is only going to be produced when the carbohydrates are "burnt" for energy. Why does the coral use more energy?
Additionally, the photosynthetic rate of most corals in captivity would be limited by irradiance levels more that CO<sub>2</sub> levels. If CO<sub>2</sub> levels were limiting, you might see an increase in the photosynthetic rate, but I believe most tanks are going to have higher CO<sub>2</sub> levels than reef seawater, especially if a calcium carbonate reactor is in use.
Randy Holmes-Farley
03/12/2004, 07:24 AM
I agree that under normal circumstances, sugars of various sorts are passed from the zoox to the host coral.
However, glucose in the water can apparently be taken up by both zoox and by corals:
Glucose and glycerol uptake by isolated zooxanthellae from Cassiopea xamachana: transport mechanisms and regulation by host homogenate fractions. McDermott, A. Macon; Blanquet, R. S. Dep. Biol., Georgetown Univ., Washington, DC, USA. Marine Biology (Berlin, Germany) (1991), 108(1), 129-36.
Abstract
The mechanisms were investigated by which glycerol and glucose enter freshly isolated zooxanthellae (FIZ), Symbiodinium microadriaticum, of the mangrove jellyfish, Cassiopea xamachana, and the specific sites of host factor interaction. Glucose entry into FIZ is accomplished by a Na+-dependent symport system driven by an electrochem. gradient generated via a Na+-K+ ATPase. Inhibition of glucose uptake by a low-mol.-wt. fraction of host homogenates [mol. wt. <2 kilodaltons (kD)] occurs through the interaction of a putative host factor with the carrier protein and not the ATPase. Glycerol entry is apparently accomplished by simple or facilitated diffusion and is not affected by host homogenate fractions.
Uptake of organic material by aquatic invertebrates. I. Uptake of glucose by the solitary coral, Fungia scutaria. Stephens, Grover C. Univ. of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Biological Bulletin (Woods Hole, MA, United States) (1962), 123 648-59.
Abstract
The hypothesis that some marine animals are capable of removing small org. mols. of biol. significance from very dil. soln. was supported by the complete recovery of C14 by F. scutaria kept in 0.5-10 mg./l. glucose-C14 soln. Uptake did not occur through the mouth of the organism or by adsorption on mucus and was little affected by temp. Lysine, aspartic acid, tyrosine, glycine, and lactate were similarly taken up from dil. solns., but sucrose, galactose, ribose, and arabinose were not taken up from any concn. Uptake of glycine was not affected by phlorizin. Glucose uptake was inhibited by phlorizin but not by 2,4-dinitrophenol.
crlkeep
03/12/2004, 12:35 PM
Interesting.....
How does Table Sugar add up? I am not familiar with its classification as a sugar, aside from it's being sweet... :)
Randy Holmes-Farley
03/12/2004, 12:50 PM
Table sugar is sucrose, which is a disaccharide composed of one glucose attached to one fructose. I do not know what corals or zoox might do with sucrose itself (except as mentioned in teh second reference), nor whether when adding sucrose to a reef aquarium, you get any free glucose or fructose (or any other metabolic byproducts) in solution.
crlkeep
03/12/2004, 12:55 PM
Any idea on whether bacteria may break down sucrose into one or the other?
Or if the bacteria may take up sucrose and be captured by the coral then broken down in it's gut to release either glucose or fructose?
Randy Holmes-Farley
03/12/2004, 02:32 PM
Bacteria certainly break it down rapidly. The question is whether they consume all that they break down or not.
A bacterial bloom that could be consumed by corals is another possibility for what the sugar might do.
crlkeep
03/12/2004, 03:04 PM
I have to admit that when I first started reading this thread I thought it was a joke...
Now it seems to have some very interesting merits... :)
It will be very interesting to see what information may be found from topics like this.
Originally posted by Randy Holmes-Farley
Glucose and glycerol uptake by isolated zooxanthellae from Cassiopea xamachana: transport mechanisms and regulation by host homogenate fractions. McDermott, A. Macon; Blanquet, R. S. Dep. Biol., Georgetown Univ., Washington, DC, USA. Marine Biology (Berlin, Germany) (1991), 108(1), 129-36.
Abstract
The mechanisms were investigated by which glycerol and glucose enter freshly isolated zooxanthellae (FIZ), Symbiodinium microadriaticum, of the mangrove jellyfish, Cassiopea xamachana, and the specific sites of host factor interaction. Glucose entry into FIZ is accomplished by a Na+-dependent symport system driven by an electrochem. gradient generated via a Na+-K+ ATPase. Inhibition of glucose uptake by a low-mol.-wt. fraction of host homogenates [mol. wt. <2 kilodaltons (kD)] occurs through the interaction of a putative host factor with the carrier protein and not the ATPase. Glycerol entry is apparently accomplished by simple or facilitated diffusion and is not affected by host homogenate fractions.
While this shows that zooxanthellae can take up glycerol, I still don't believe this is going to happen in healthy corals. Perhaps if light was severly limiting, extra carbohydrates in the water could be utilised by the zooxanthellae as a substitute for photosynthesis. It may even occur in "healthy" corals where the products of photosynthesis can be distributed to from zooxanthellae in lighted areas of the corals to those in shaded areas - although, I'm not sure what the long term value for this would be.
Uptake of organic material by aquatic invertebrates. I. Uptake of glucose by the solitary coral, Fungia scutaria. Stephens, Grover C. Univ. of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Biological Bulletin (Woods Hole, MA, United States) (1962), 123 648-59.
Abstract
The hypothesis that some marine animals are capable of removing small org. mols. of biol. significance from very dil. soln. was supported by the complete recovery of C14 by F. scutaria kept in 0.5-10 mg./l. glucose-C14 soln. Uptake did not occur through the mouth of the organism or by adsorption on mucus and was little affected by temp. Lysine, aspartic acid, tyrosine, glycine, and lactate were similarly taken up from dil. solns., but sucrose, galactose, ribose, and arabinose were not taken up from any concn. Uptake of glycine was not affected by phlorizin. Glucose uptake was inhibited by phlorizin but not by 2,4-dinitrophenol.
We already know that corals can absorb the carbohydrates released from the zooxanthellae, so I guess this is not so surprising.
Here is an interesting study into the use of the carbohydrates passed from the zooxanthellae to their coral hosts:
Coral uses slimy mucus to donate food (http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1058188.htm).
crlkeep
03/14/2004, 09:31 AM
That was an interesting article. I also enjoyed the article that followed on the cyclone causing the reef to avoid a bleaching event.
Nature sure does try hard to counter the affects of man... :(
ButterfyBoy
03/15/2004, 10:51 PM
I do see where ATJ is coming from with that. Out of curiousity, is there any substantial evidence that this reported apparent "browning" of coral tissues following the addition of glucose is actually due to the zooxanthellae? Or could we be seeing a proliferation of other commensal microorganisms, algae or bacteria or such? I suppose what I'm asking is, do we know of any other organisms that live within coral tissue, besides zooxanthellae, that might multiply in the presence of additional sugars and thus cause the discoloration that is being attributed to zooxanthellae?
Randy Holmes-Farley
03/16/2004, 05:55 AM
do we know of any other organisms that live within coral tissue, besides zooxanthellae, that might multiply in the presence of additional sugars and thus cause the discoloration that is being attributed to zooxanthellae?
I don't know. I thought of zoox because browning due to incresed zoox appears to happen in other situations, like low light. But there could be many other explanations, including the corals themselves making more pigment.
Around 3 weeks ago I started dosing 2 mls vodka daily into my total of 75 g system. The water went really clear and the algae whitened, but after a few days the mushrooms shrivelled to less than 1/2 normal size. I therefore reduced the dose to 1 ml per day.
The mushrooms have slowly recovered, but the algae has come back also. Therefore, 2 days ago I increased the dose back to 2 mls daily, the algae has again whitened, but this time the mushrooms are very slightly shrivelled, but not very much, they must be adapting.
Basically I am trying to find at what point is the optimum dose. I will post again in another few weeks.
Poriferaphile
04/08/2004, 04:52 AM
This topic caught my interest, as I had several years ago built a large coil denitrator that used methanol as its fuel source. (It worked ok but was a pain in the butt to run, and was gladly discarded after I discovered deep-sand denitrification.) I used methanol because it was the standard carbon source for municipal-scale denitrification and a lot of science had been done on the method. I suspect that this is where these German aquarists got the idea that ethanol would be a similarly good food for their bacteria, as well as being less toxic than methanol.
In any case, as with the sugar-dosing experiments, this is tricky stuff. In particular, who knows how it might be metabolized in a particular system? There are a lot of different end-products for ethanol metabolism - typically acetate, but it is possible that some of the weird results people found were due to other end-products. Most interesting to me is ethylene, a gas long known as a stimulant to fruit ripening, but scientists are learning how it has many actions as a hormone signalling metabolic processes in plants, and more recently in some higher animals. Here are a few links that may be of interest:
http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/marinegas/research/ethene.shtml
http://www.plantcell.org/cgi/reprint/14/suppl_1/S131.pdf
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2121/2/7
How can ethanol get converted to ethylene in the aquarium? There are various ways: one might be reaction catalyzed by UV light - present in significant quantity with MH lighting. Another might be a natural process by a plant - let’s say a particular macroalga uses ethylene in signalling sexual reproduction. It might produce a significant amount which would in the ocean be quickly diluted, but in the aquarium be concentrated. A third possible method is catalysis by substrates or filtering material - one way ethylene is manufactured is by using zeolite (a porous aluminosilicate mineral). Different types of zeolite are made for aquarium use to remove ammonia, phosphates, and heavy metals. (The Zeovit system mentioned in this thread uses zeolites.) It’s possible that some of these filtering materials are the right type to convert ethanol to ethylene. It’s even possible that natural coralline materials might have a zeolite-type structure and function in the same way.
I know this is so much speculation on my part, but it seems plausible, and could explain why different people have had widely divergent experiences dosing ethanol.
-Rick Andrews
That's very interesting, Poriferaphile, although a lot of that stuff was beyond my science education.
I'm really trying to understand the science behind vodka dosing, because of the dramatic improvement it has made to my tank. Some people I know have started using the zeovit system, but I do wonder if they are spending a ton of money to achieve the same thing I am getting with just a very small dosing of vodka.
I just feel like I am playing with the unknown though, and would like to have a better understanding of what is actually happening in the tank.
I suspect that because nobody is going to make a whole lot of money from vodka dosing, there is no incentive to do any exhaustive research on it.
Randy Holmes-Farley
04/08/2004, 06:27 AM
The function of organic molecules in marine aquaria and in natural seawater is a virtually wide open field. I expect there are lots of good things and lots of bad things happening because of the levels of particular organic compounds in aquaria, although most folks usually only think about toxins.
Ethylene could certainly be an interesting player. I don't have any reason to believe that it is naturally produced from ethanol, and in fact, ethanol might even inhibit natural biosynthesis. Nevertheless, it is an ineresting hypothesis. :)
Here's a paper showing that ethanol inhibits ethylene formation in tomatos (my bolding):
Role of alcohol dehydrogenase on ripening of ethanol-treated tomato and kiwifruit. Massantini, R.; Gobattoni, E.; Botondi, R.; Mencarelli, F. Istituto di Technologie Agroalimentari Universita' degli Studi della Tuscia, Viterbo, Italy. Acta Horticulturae (1995), 379(International Symposium on the Quality of Fruit and Vegetables: The Influence of Pre- and Post-Harvest Factors and Technology, 1993), 297-304.
Abstract
Ethanol vapor treatments for 8 h of tomato fruit disks stimulated greatly the ADH (alc. dehydrogenase) activity and inhibited ethylene biosynthesis. When 10 mM 4-methylpyrazole (4-MP), an inhibitor of ADH, was applied, ADH activity was halved in ethanol-treated disks and completely inhibited in water-treated tissues, and ethylene formation was also inhibited. 5 MM AVG (aminoethoxyvinylglycine) reduced ethylene evolution but did not affect ADH activity. In kiwifruit disks, ADH was only detectable after ethanol treatments and its activity was inhibited by 4-MP and AVG. ACC (1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid) and ethephon stimulated ethylene but not ADH activity. Role and interation of ADH with ethylene are discussed.
Here's an article on mangos:
Acetaldehyde inhibition of ethylene biosynthesis in mango fruit. Burdon, Jeremy; Dori, Sasson; Marinansky, Rosita; Pesis, Edna. Volcani Centre, Agriculture Research Organisation, Bet Dagan, Israel. Postharvest Biology and Technology (1996), 8(2), 153-161.
Abstract
Mango fruit ripening is accompanied by increased ethylene prodn. which coordinates the ripening process. Ethylene prodn. in other fruit was inhibited by acetaldehyde and ethanol. In unripe mango fruit the ethylene prodn. is very low (<1 nL g-1 h-1) and treatments with acetaldehyde and ethanol had concn.-dependent effects on ethylene prodn. The application of 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid (ACC) to acetaldehyde or ethanol treated fruit disks showed acetaldehyde to be capable of completely eliminating increased ACC oxidase activity, whereas ethanol did not. Thus, acetaldehyde is capable of inhibiting the activity of ACC oxidase directly, or alternatively of preventing the increase in the enzyme, thereby providing a possible mechanism for retarding fruit ripening.
It also inhibits it in carnations:
Influence of ethanol on ethylene biosynthesis and flower senescence of cut carnation. Heins, R. D.; Blakely, N. Dep. Hortic., Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI, USA. Scientia Horticulturae (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (1980), 13(4), 361-9.
Abstract
Ethanol [64-17-5] (2%) in the holding-soln. inhibited climacteric C2H4 [74-85-1] biosynthesis and decreased the respiration rate 60% during a 7-day period in cut carnation flowers. Conversion of 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid (ACC) [22059-21-8] to C2H4 was inhibited by adding ethanol to the holding-soln., with a simultaneous inhibition of ACC-induced senescence in carnation flowers. Ethanol was the most effective alc. in delaying carnation flower senescence of the tested series of C1-C4 alcs. Ovary development was also inhibited in cornation flowers by ethanol. The senescence of Easter lily flowers and tulip flowers was not delayed by ethanol.
Poriferaphile
04/08/2004, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by wasp
... I'm really trying to understand the science behind vodka dosing, because of the dramatic improvement it has made to my tank.
... I just feel like I am playing with the unknown though
wasp,
The basic science is fairly straightforward in that the vodka works by feeding the denitrifying bacteria which reduces NO3 and PO4. However, I do think that you are taking a significant risk because of the other points I make, and because of the basic fact that you are introducing bioload in order to control bioload. It may work in the short term but IMHO does not seem to be a wise strategy. That said, I could be wrong - if you’re very careful, it could continue to work for you.
Poriferaphile
04/08/2004, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by Randy Holmes-Farley
The function of organic molecules in marine aquaria and in natural seawater is a virtually wide open field. I expect there are lots of good things and lots of bad things happening because of the levels of particular organic compounds in aquaria, although most folks usually only think about toxins.
Randy, we agree so far.
Ethylene could certainly be an interesting player. I don't have any reason to believe that it is naturally produced from ethanol...
Here we part company. All three of my quoted articles mention that ethylene is produced photochemically from dissolved organic carbon, and I believe that ethanol qualifies as DOC. Also, as I mentioned, zeolite catalysis is a well-established method of ethylene synthesis, and zeolites are widely used in aquaria.
ethanol might even inhibit natural biosynthesis
Yes, and the articles you excerpt support that, but I did not try to make the argument that our plants were using the ethanol to make ethylene, only that plants do make ethylene and perhaps in quantities that would have a significant impact on a small closed system. Nevertheless, the articles you posted could hypothetically support my argument - if the ethanol acts like a finger in a dike to temporarily hold back the ethylene, then the water on the other side of the dike continues to build up, and when the finger is removed, the pressure will be that much greater.
My main points are these:
1. Ethylene is a powerful hormone controlling life cycle and gene expression in plants and animals, and we would be wise to learn more about it.
2. Natural processes in aquaria can produce ethylene in quantities that may affect overall aquarium health, and adding ethanol can be a significant source of that ethylene.
3. High variability may be at play in the system - if we decide PO4 is too high and add zeolite, change the lighting, a plant becomes mature, etc.
4. It is important to be informed about the ways in which we may be putting our treasured work at risk. In trying to make things better, we would do well not to take undue risk.
-Rick Andrews
571958
04/08/2004, 08:20 AM
Hi Rick,
do you implied that both Vodka dosing and Zeovit is a DOC agent?
Max
Poriferaphile
04/08/2004, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by 571958
do you implied that both Vodka dosing and Zeovit is a DOC agent?
Hi Max, Yes vodka counts as DOC. Zeovit, as I understand it, is a multipart system, and I don't know what all the parts are (I'm not sure I really want to know) the zeolite itself is a mineral and contains no DOC.
-Rick
Randy Holmes-Farley
04/08/2004, 09:07 AM
All three of my quoted articles mention that ethylene is produced photochemically from dissolved organic carbon, and I believe that ethanol qualifies as DOC. Also, as I mentioned, zeolite catalysis is a well-established method of ethylene synthesis, and zeolites are widely used in aquaria.
.
Yes, but none of them indicate that ethanol is a likely precursor. Your hypothesis that ethanol is doing something unusual would suggest that it should be a better precursor than organics already there for it to be important. I don't have any reason to believe that is the case.
You can dehydrate ethanol to ethylene at high temperature on appropriate catalysts. I do not believe that that process proceeds in water at room temperature. I also agree that intense UV can accelerate the dehydration of ethanol.
So I agree that this is an interesting suggestion, but I do not really see any evidence that it actually happens.
To address your points more specifically:
1. Ethylene is a powerful hormone controlling life cycle and gene expression in plants and animals, and we would be wise to learn more about it.
That could be an interesting, if complicated thing to pursue, I agree.
2. Natural processes in aquaria can produce ethylene in quantities that may affect overall aquarium health, and adding ethanol can be a significant source of that ethylene.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. How do you know that sufficient quantities are formed to be significant?
3. High variability may be at play in the system - if we decide PO4 is too high and add zeolite, change the lighting, a plant becomes mature, etc.
True, whether we are talking about ethylene, ethanol, or any other organic compounds that might be present.
4. It is important to be informed about the ways in which we may be putting our treasured work at risk. In trying to make things better, we would do well not to take undue risk.
True. But after some folks have taken the risk, and observed positive effects, what then?
I'm not a fan of adding ethanol, but it seems no more risky to me than many other actions aquarists take (garlic, other medications, not changing wtaer frequently, using imperfect artificial seawater, compressing animals unusually closely together, etc.
Marc Euschen
04/08/2004, 05:00 PM
Hi @ all
at the end of last year I started some test series on these vodka method.
The results weren't all that nice in Lab and later on in the aquarias !
I do know arround 30 aquarists in europe that lost some big quantity of their stony corals... mostly due to
bacterial infections.
The ethanol boosts the growth of almost any bacteria in the tank, some people even reported some withe slimy film
on the aquaria glass. In some tanks the coral died because of "starvation", since PO4 and/or NO3 went down to zero in no time.
Some other ones dies because of the mysterious PO4 increase.
I did a some test in my Lab here in switzerland over period of about 2 month. I did these with some enriched bacteria cultures of my
tanks sediments. When the PO4/NO3 ration was around 1/16, there was a good decrease of PO4 and NO3. If not so, the one or the other
element was the limiting factor stopping or slowing the bacterial bloom. As soon as these happened, the PO4 went up. The answer to that
is, that the dying bacteria where releasing the Phosphorus they previously got out of the PO4.
In a normal tank the skimmer should eliminate most of the biomass resulting from the bacterial bloom. But if the skimmer is
to slow or the biomass to big, then the tank would suffer a massive PO4 peak.
In one tank I was able to measure these, the PO4 went up to 2mg in 18 houres ! If we wouldn't have been monitoring these tank
so closely, then these would have been the end of another aquarium... but we where able to bring enough PO4 Adsorber in to the System
to remove it just in time...
Some other experiments in these area where about the bacterial diversity. The diversity decreased in all cultures and aquarias after
a short while, when feeding it whit ethanol or vodka. In some closed cultures I ended up with just one bacterial strain left in the culture within a week.
Since then I used ethanol only for "jump starting" new systems, so I could get very fast a good bacterial density in a fresh tank.
I believe that ethanol is very dangerous, since its unpredictable what the bacteria growth will be in a certain tank. Ethanol will boost almost
any bacterial, even some marine pathogens. Depending on the conditions, those bacterias might take over the system.
Marc
Some very worthwhile research Marc.
A question for you. - If vodka dosing was combined with very aggressive skimming, would this remove most of the bacteria from the water column, including the P they contain, and thereby prevent some of the problems you just mentioned, from being able to happen?
Poriferaphile
04/08/2004, 08:03 PM
Randy,
I admit I don’t have hard evidence that ethylene is produced in the aquarium, but I certainly do seem to fall more on the curious side of the equation than you do. I read something like this (from The Plant Cell article cited above): “ethylene is one of the major alkene[s] in seawater produced by photochemical reactions of the dissolved organic carbon,†I am not inclined to think “they are not saying ethanol is a likely precursor,†knowing full well that ethanol is not present in seawater like it is in dosed aquariums. Frankly your logic sounds more curmudgeonly than open-minded. If I had to think up good precursors for ethylene, ethanol would be pretty darn close to the top of the list. I’m not saying that I know for certain thus-and-so, but I am saying here are some interesting facts that may or may not account for some of the behavior we observe, like otherwise inexplicable algae blooms, say. Better to light a candle than curse the darkness.
-Rick
bertoni
04/08/2004, 08:48 PM
Rick,
I don't want to jump into the technical discussion, but I personally thought the personal attack in your previous message was not constructive.
Jon
Poriferaphile
04/09/2004, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by bertoni
Rick,
I don't want to jump into the technical discussion, but I personally thought the personal attack in your previous message was not constructive.
Jon
Jon,
Well perhaps, if you think of "curmudgeonly" is an "attack." As someone who can be a curmudgeon sometimes myself, I thought of it as a mild way to express frustration at what seemed to me to be a needless refutation and even willful disregard of what had been written. For instance, the quote “I don't have any reason to believe [ethylene] is naturally produced from ethanol,†treats the clearly stated hypotheses as if they had never been laid out. To have been constructive, he could have said, “how can we determine if that is in fact happening?†Or, “is there an assay for ethylene in seawater?†Or, “what concentrations are we talking about here?†Something more in the spirit of learning and intellectual inquiry, rather than what had appeared to me to be dismissive refutation. To me that was the real “personal attack.†What was truly “unconstructive†here seemed to me the framing of the discussion in a needlessly oppositional way that had the effect of cutting off inquiry, not a mild personal gibe.
That having been said, I realize it probably would have been better to have expressed my frustration as I just did, and avoiding "curmudgeonly." So I guess that ultimately you are right, and I apologize.
Thanks, Jon.
-Rick
JoeMack
04/09/2004, 12:30 AM
wow, you guys are very smart and I can only comprehend some of the material I just read in these 5 pages but why would you want to use vodca in your tank? When you can't get rid of NO3 and PO4 by other means??
I ellimated them by doing things the so called right way (RO/DI & a fuge & no flake food) to ellimate the problem before it starts its cycle again. Interesting in all and i'm not trying to bash this because this is very interesting and I love learning new ideas but I guess some people cant get rid of their NO3 and PO4? I would love for this thread to get 10+ pages long but I do not understand why we would do this.
The vodka seems like a easy fuge to me. Is this maybe going to replace a fuge (it does the same thing)? I'm very sorry for my ignorance and I might of missed then when reading the paragraphs where it didn't ring a dime to me.
Thanks again all.
Joey
Poriferaphile
04/09/2004, 01:50 AM
Originally posted by Marc Euschen
I believe that ethanol is very dangerous, since its unpredictable what the bacteria growth will be in a certain tank. Ethanol will boost almost any bacterial, even some marine pathogens. Depending on the conditions, those bacterias might take over the system.
Marc
Marc, when it comes to using ethanol for NO3 and PO4 reduction, I tend to agree with your view. The one area where the jury is still out for me, however, is whether ethanol could be used as a nutrient for the general plankton population - as a way of feeding the higher animals, rather than just nutrient export. So, your notes on tests that showed a reduced biodiversity are of great interest. I wonder what dose you used in those tests, and whether a smaller dose would have a similar effect.
Originally posted by JoeMack
The vodka seems like a easy fuge to me. Is this maybe going to replace a fuge (it does the same thing)?
Extremely doubtful. It seems you are doing the right things already.
-Rick
Marc Euschen
04/09/2004, 04:40 AM
@WASP: You're probably right, it should theoreticly be possible to remove the bacterias these way and thus the PO4 with it.
But what if your skimmer isen't 100% effective ? And even if it would be so, then you would still have deal with shift in biodiversity.
One other thing that I'm quit sure for my self is, that PO4 and NO3 should stay in a certain ration to each other. Everytime
I shift these ration in one of my tanks, I get cyanobacterias as result ! When I bring the one or the other level back to a normal state,
then these cyano films start to dissolve again...
I don't know what I'm doing differently to others, but I never had a problem with PO4 nor NO3, well in the opposite way I did. These means
I have to add PO4 and some times even NO3. But in my tanks PO4 is the limiting factor that reduces coral growth. I can see these when the
parts of corals that are in the shadow start to bleach !
To compensate these I add Phytoplankton to my tank several times a day. These seams to be a other possible source for the basic element.
It is still unclear today if SPS are feeding on Phyto or not. But there are two beneficial ways that Phyto goes... one it takes up PO4, NO3 and some Silicates while it is in the tank and removes these through the skimmer, the other thing is that when it "dies" in the tank it releases some Microdoses of its basic elements, these then act as a food source for the corals.
@Poriferaphile: I don't think that ethanol contributes to a better Plankton diversity. It increases the amount of bacterias but not its diversity ! The increase in the bacterial amount could contribute to a better growth of small Zooplankton that feed on bacterias, maybe the same is true for some corals. But since I've seen so many dying corals because of Ethanol, I wouldn't realy
take these as a good way to go.... There are better ways of increasing the Plankton in a aquarium.
Like I mentioned above, the addition of Phytoplankton is one of these ways. The reduction of skimming the system might be another thing, since skimmer remove about all the Plankton in a tank there is !
Marc
Randy Holmes-Farley
04/09/2004, 05:09 AM
Frankly your logic sounds more curmudgeonly than open-minded.
Sorry. I'd like to characterize it is skeptical, but everyone is entitled to a different opinion. Lots of things sound like reasonable theories, but end up being wrong.
I am saying here are some interesting facts that may or may not account for some of the behavior we observe, like otherwise inexplicable algae blooms
I guess that I am missing the whole unexplained effects part. If you add a great carbon source, you expect blooms of microorgansims, unless somethign else is limiting. Since such organisms can be limited by lots of different things (organic carbon, inorganic carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, iron, silica, space, oxygen, light, etc), it seems clear that different aquaria with different assemblies of microorganisms might respond differently.
So what are we trying to explain again?
Randy Holmes-Farley
04/09/2004, 05:13 AM
The results weren't all that nice in Lab and later on in the aquarias !
Wow, thanks for giving those results. That certainly should keep people thinking of using it in a more cautionary mode. :)
The ethanol boosts the growth of almost any bacteria in the tank
That is certainly my expectation, and is part of the reason why I am unconvinced when folks claim that drops in nitrate on adding carbon sources necessarily takes place in low oxygen environments. A simple bloom is an equally, if not more likely explanation.
You have to ADD Po4 Marc ??
Wish I had that problem!
Marc Euschen
04/09/2004, 05:37 AM
@WASP: Yup I do have to "feed" my tank with Phosphate !
These was only possible after I matched the PO4/NO3 Ratio of 1/16 or so. I did these by the use of a sulfur filter and some PO4 Adsorbent. I found out that in my tank there is a thing like a critical level of 4-5mg NO3. When I get belove these 4mg NO3 I will not be able to hold it there ! It will decrease by itself without any special filtration... the same is for PO4 arround 0.02mg.
The intrusting thing is, is that above 4mg NO3 the level would slowly rise to about 12mg and stop there, but then the level is way out of its ration to PO4.
During the time I tryed these out, my corals have grown that much, that PO4 and some times NO3 have gotten the limiting factors in "my reef". Today I do not use the sulfur filter or any Adsorbent anymore and the levels have staye these way for more then 10 month now.
Most of the time I feed the PO4 in form of some F/2 Media that has not been completly deepletet by the Phytoplankton I feed.
But I must add to these, that my tanks (2 of them) are standing in the office of my Lab. So I have plenty of time and possibilities to play arround it !
@Randy: I'm on your side regarding the "low oxygen environments" ! I did the tests in Lab flasks, on a stirring and "shaking" system. So these culture have 100% not been low in oxigen ! I added some amount of PO4 to each culture, bu I would have to consult my notes to tell you how much :rolleye1: ... I then mesured these cultures by Ion Chromatography, directly after filtering the samples or after "digesting" the Biomass and messuring the "fixated" Phospate levels. The results where absolutly clear, the bacterias deepleted the Phosphorous source quiet quickly, the same is for Nitrogen. But these works only if you have them in the right ratio for the specifiy mix of bacterias, then otherways you were lowering just one part of it !
Since there is now way of controling all these parameters at same timem there will be now possibilty to control such a methode. If one source gets depleeted to early, the bloom would crash an so would your tank !!!
Marc
Marc, How is your tank set up?
I would loke to know how such excellent phosphate control is achieved.
Randy Holmes-Farley
04/09/2004, 06:02 AM
Rick:
One of the areas that I think could be a new frontier for reefkeeping is how specific organics might increase growth and/or reproduction (spawning).
Coral farmers, in particular, would be very interested in anything they could add to double growth rates. Further, if we could induce spawning (and successful settlement and growth) of many of the corals that we keep (especially LPS and others that are hard to frag), that would open up whole new species to coral farming.
I think that organics have a big role to play in those actions. Starting with one that would be simple to add (like ethylene) would seem like a worthwhile activity for someone who wanted to study these areas.
One can buy a cylinder of ethylene gas and bubble it into a tank of corals. Maybe it will kill everything. Maybe things will grow faster. Maybe nothing will happen. But that's an easy experiment.
Other hormones/growth regulators/etc. would be potentially much harder to study. First they'd have to be identified, then likely synthesized and purified, and finally tested.
Marc Euschen
04/09/2004, 06:40 AM
@Randy: I do believe that Ethylen would not do much better than Ethanol. Rohwer and some resent ongoing Studies of Eric Borneman will show that
the composition of Bacteria on and arround corals is vital to them. Even small changes can kill some of the more delicate ones.
Because of these I would say that anything that alters the Bacterial composition will have it's negative effects.
Inducing spawning in corals would indeed be a big progress. But our systems today do not allow any planktonic Organisms to survive very long :(
I think one place to start is to make Plankton safer tank systems. In europe we have a lot of activities in these field since Phytoplankton is
becoming more and more important over here.
@WASP: My tank is really simple... a Berline like System, lots of live Rock an some sort of mechanical filter containing some live rocks and some
smaller filter media. A skimmer that operates only 6 hours a day and thats more or less it ! A payed a lot of attention on the flow rates in the tank and in the filter system. I do have 1000 liter tank, I have no idea how many gallons these is !? I have about 25 fish in it and a lot of LPS and SPS.
If your interested you can visit my small web page http://www.euschen.ch, it has some picures and a Webcam on one of the tanks.
One thing I'd like to mention here is something that most europeans forgot or didn't understand when they started the Vodka dosing.
Phosphorus can not be reduced the same way as Nitrogen. Nitrogen can be reduced to Oxigen and Nitrogen Gas, these way it is able to exit
the system. Phosphorus is a solid element and has to stay within the system, as soon as a Cell dyes it releases its Phosphorus, the P. will then
"regroup" with Oxigen and become PO4 again. The only way to get rid of PO4 is, to remove in a solid form or to have it built in to organic matter.
Marc
Randy Holmes-Farley
04/09/2004, 06:49 AM
Randy: I do believe that Ethylen would not do much better than Ethanol. Rohwer and some resent ongoing Studies of Eric Borneman will show that
the composition of Bacteria on and arround corals is vital to them. Even small changes can kill some of the more delicate ones.
Because of these I would say that anything that alters the Bacterial composition will have it's negative effects.
I'm not sure we are connecting here. The ethylene is not intended to have an impact of nitrate or phosphate (or bacteria), but to act directly on the biochemical regulatory pathways of corals and other tank inhabitants.
You don't think that it is more likely to have such effects than ethanol?
I'm also not suggesting that it be done in a reef aquarium, but in an experimental coral farm.
Marc Euschen
04/09/2004, 06:59 AM
@Randy: You're right about the difference of Ethanol and Ethylen. But don't you think that the changes in methobolism of the corals could also occure in bacterias ? And therefore also change the balance of them ?
It could be interesting to make these tests !
Ethylen is used in biology for a hole bunch of things... the simplest is to ripe fruits faster... I have to read and think about that for a bit more since I'm not really familiar with Ethylen and its usage.
Marc
Marc Euschen
04/09/2004, 07:03 AM
@WASP: Just a small view on the top of my reef :)
Randy Holmes-Farley
04/09/2004, 07:07 AM
The effect of specific organics can be very particular, or widespread. Many species use highly unusual compounds specifically so they do not get "confused" by signals coming from other organisms.
Ethylene is farily widespread, at least in nonmarine environmenbts, so it won't be unique to a single species, but I do not know if that extends down to marine bacteria or not (it apparently does not impact some, but it may impact others). It is known to impact phytoplankton. But the effects may be quite different in an LPS coral than in a bacterium.
Marc Euschen
04/09/2004, 07:27 AM
@Randy: Now you've got me... what are the effects of Ethylen on Phytoplankton ? I'm working for some years now on Phyto and its needs, but Ehtylen never crossed my mind nor did I ever read anything about it.
Randy Holmes-Farley
04/09/2004, 07:51 AM
Perhaps "Known to impact phytoplankton" was an overstatement of mine. Better would have been "believed to be associated with phytoplankton" .
It isn't something that I know much about, but in looking through some references to address the earlier questions in this thread, I came across these papers:
Ethylene and methane in the upper water column of the subtropical Atlantic. Seifert, Richard; Delling, Nikolai; Richnow, Hans Hermann; Kempe, Stephan; Hefter, Jens; Michaelis, Walter. Institut fur Biogeochemie und Meereschemie, Universitat Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany. Biogeochemistry (1999), 44(1), 73-91.
Abstract
The vertical distributions of ethylene and methane in the upper water column of the subtropical Atlantic were measured along a transect from Madeira to the Caribbean and compared with temp., salinity, O, nutrients, chlorophyll a, and dissolved org. C (DOC). Methane concns. 41.6-60.7 nL/L were found in the upper 20 m of the water column giving a calcd. av. flux of methane into the atm. of 0.82 mg/m2-h. Methane profiles reveal several distinct maxima in the upper 500 m of the water column and short-time variations which are presumably partly related to the vertical migration of zooplankton. Ethylene concns. in near surface waters were 1.8-8.2 nL/L. Calcd. flux rates for ethylene into the atm. were 0.41-1.35 mg/m2-h with a mean of 0.83 mg/m2-h. Maximum concns. of £39.2 nL/L were detected directly below the pycnocline in the western Atlantic. The vertical distributions of ethylene generally showed one max. at the pycnocline (.apprx.100 m depth) where elevated concns. of chlorophyll a, dissolved O, and nutrients were also found; no ethylene was detected below 270 m depth. This suggests that ethylene release is mainly related to one, probably phytoplankton assocd., source, while for methane, enhanced net prodn. occurs at various depth horizons. For surface waters, a simple correlation between ethylene and chlorophyll a or DOC concns. could not be obsd. No considerable diurnal variation was obsd. for the distribution and concn. of ethylene in the upper water column.
Emissions of hydrocarbons from marine phytoplankton-some results from controlled laboratory experiments. McKay, W. A.; Turner, M. F.; Jones, B. M. R.; Halliwell, C. M. AEA Technology, Natl. Environmental Technology centre, Culham, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK. Atmospheric Environment (1996), 30(14), 2583-2593.
Abstract
Lab. expts. have been carried out to help assess and quantify the role of marine phytoplankton in the prodn. of non-methane hydrocarbons. Evidence is presented here that supports the hypothesis that some short-chain hydrocarbons are produced during diatom and dinoflagellate lifecycles. The pattern of their emissions to the air above axenic unicultures of diatoms and dinoflagellates has been followed. The results suggest that ethane, ethene, propane and propene are produced during the autolysis of some phytoplankton, possibly by the oxidn. of polyunsatd. lipids released into their culture medium. In contrast, isoprene and hexane appear during phytoplankton growth and are thus most likely produced either directly by the plankton or through the oxidn. of exuded dissolved org. carbon.
This one does not specifically mention ethylene, but is discussing the kind of signaling that I was referring to in the context of simple hydrocrbons:
Trophic interactions in the sea: an ecological role for climate relevant volatiles? Steinke, Michael; Malin, Gill; Liss, Peter S. School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. Journal of Phycology (2002), 38(4), 630-638.
Abstract
When attacked by herbivores, land plants can produce a variety of volatile compds. that attract carnivorous mutualists. Plants and carnivores can benefit from this symbiotic relationship, because the induced defensive interaction increases foraging success of the carnivores, while reducing the grazing pressure exerted by the herbivores on the plants. Here, we examine whether aquatic phytoplankton use volatile chem. cues in analogous tritrophic interactions. Marine algae produce several classes of biogenic gases such as non-methane hydrocarbons, organohalogens, ammonia and methylamines, and dimethylsulfide. The grazing-induced release of marine biogenic volatiles is poorly understood, however, and its effect on the chem. ecol. of plankton and the foraging behavior of predators is essentially unknown. We outline grazing-induced defenses in algae and highlight the biogenic prodn. of volatiles when phytoplankton are attacked by herbivores. The role of chem. signaling in marine ecol. presents several possible avenues for future research, and we believe that progress in this area will result in better understanding of species competition, bloom development, and the structuring of food webs in the sea. This has further implications for biogeochem. cycles, because several key compds. are emitted that influence the chem. of the atm. and global climate.
Randy Holmes-Farley
04/09/2004, 08:09 AM
Here's a reference more on point:
Ethylene production by photosynthetic bacteria, cyanobacteria, and algae. Maillard, Patrick; Thepenier, Catherine; Gudin, Claude. Dep. Physiol. Veg. Ecosyst., CEA Cadarache, Saint Paul Lez Durance, Fr. Journal of Marine Biotechnology (1993), 1(2), 97-100.
Abstract
Ethylene prodn. has been studied in five strains of freshwater photosynthetic bacteria, 11 strains of freshwater cyanobacteria, 17 strains of freshwater algae, and 37 strains of marine algae. Thirty-seven of the 54 strains of algae were unicellular. All these species produce ethylene under std. culture conditions, the range of prodn. varying from 0.6 to 5.2 nmol/g(dw)/day. Small differences were obsd. in ethylene emission between phyla or microalgae classes, but no difference between marine and freshwater algae were detd. In all cases, ethylene emission is significantly increased with the addn. of 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid (ACC), this increase depending on ACC concn. Thus, in all the species tested, there is at least one pathway of ethylene synthesis that is the same as in higher plants: ACC --> C2H4.
Randy Holmes-Farley
04/09/2004, 08:12 AM
This reference shows that ethylene impacts some bacteria and not others:
Inhibition of methanogenesis by ethylene and other unsaturated hydrocarbons. Schink, Bernhard. Fak. Biol., Univ. Konstanz, Konstanz, Fed. Rep. Ger. FEMS Microbiology Ecology (1985), 31(2), 63-8.
Abstract
CH4 [74-82-8] formation in anoxic slurries contg. aquatic sediments was inhibited by 50 and 94% at C2H4 [74-85-1] concns. of .apprx.5 and ³36 mM, resp., with no effect on SO42- redn. C2H2 [74-86-2] at gas-phase concns. of 0.015 and 0.3% inhibited CH4 formation by 50 and 97%, resp. Similar results were obtained with anoxic sewage sludge. CH4 formation from added acetate [71-50-1], MeOH [67-56-1], or H/CO2 in the reactor contg. Canal Grande (Venice, Italy) sediment was inhibited by ³98% at a C2H4 gas phase concn. of 5%; inhibition was .apprx.90% when lactate [113-21-3] used as the substrate. Cyclopentadiene [542-92-7] and cycloheptatriene [544-25-2] were strong inhibitors, and C6H6 [71-43-2], PhMe [108-88-3], isoprene [78-79-5], and n1-hexyne [693-02-7] were moderate inhibitors of methanogenesis. Several unsatd. hydrocarbons had no effect. Pure cultures of Methanospirillum hungatei, Methanothrix soehngenii, and Methanosarcina barkeri were inhibited by 50% at C2H4 concns. of 3.6-7.2 mM. Neither C2H4 nor C2H2 had a significant effect on pure cultures of Acteobacterium woodii, Halobacterium halobium, and Sulfolobus acidocaldarius. C2H4 is recommended as a selective inhibitor of methanogenesis for physiol. and enrichment expts. with sediment and sludge samples.
Marc Euschen
04/09/2004, 08:42 AM
the last artikel you posted showed that if Ethylen would be introduced in to system, even if its just a farming tank, the Bac population would shift.
In some cases these could be in fovour of the coral, in others who knows...
But as much as I know today about biologic cycles, I would say that the Ethylen production by Phytoplankton could be another small clue... since everything that is produced by one is needed by another one.
It could just be a matter of amount, as in most Cases... even Paracelsus said so 500 years agoe.
One of the key problems with Ethanol is to find the right dose. A increased Bac population is a good thing, as long as it stays under control. With all difference in the tanks it won't be possible to ajust these level without a Lab that controls them.
By the way, most Problems ocured when People tryed to decrease the Ethanol dose even in very small steps. In the Lab it was more or less these way, the Culures lived or dyed, but there was hardly any Culture that was just "surviving".
Try to adapt these to a aquarium !
Marc
Marc Euschen
04/09/2004, 02:56 PM
So I went a bit over my books... apart of beeing nerly electrocutet by a tank heating today and spending the rest of in the emergency room !
I doupt that Ethylen plays a role in a Aquatic System since it is a mainly a Gas.
And the effects of Ethylen in normal terrestrial Biology does anything exept acting as a carbon source for cell development.
I'm not shure if there is a big difference between Ethanol and Ethylen in regard of its Carbon uptake since both have the same amount of it.
The brackedown of the Ethylen molecue might be much simpler than the one for Ethanol.
For me now it make more sense to use Ethanol. The simpler Carbon sources will possibly feed the Corals directly, but Ethanol goes its way via Bacteria which grow much faster than Coral tissue or Zoox's. These way the browning of the corals could also be avoided.
Some people reportet that the Coral polyps did extend much better when on Ethanol. I'm still not sure whether it has something to do with the increase of bacteria or because of the lower Nutrient Levels in the water.
The Biotoxicity of Ethanol is not importent regarding the small amouts used per Liter. But the effects on the Bacterial composition is another story...
Marc
This is all awesome stuff guys, Loving it!!
Also checked your web site Marc, Way Cool
Marc Euschen
04/09/2004, 04:04 PM
Hi WASP thanx for the flowers :) My site is close to empty ! I spend so much time in my Lab or working on other Aquarias that there is not much time for my home page.
Do you grow PhytoP in NewZeeland ?
greats Marc
Not me anyway, generally reefing is not as advanced here as US/Europe, my own tank is mainly all the easy stuff, but still is attractive and manages to get gasps when people walk into the room.
Cheers
Marc Euschen
04/09/2004, 05:06 PM
@WASP: There is mo difference in ReefKeeping between Europe, USA and anywhere else in the world... its the same Biology and since the internet is available everywhere it not even the knowledge anymore if you ask me !
Whats a simple Tank anyway ? One with just water in it ? I've got a Tank with stony corals and one with softcorals, well the stony one is a bit more technicaly, but besides these i wouldn't want to give either one away.
Marc
Poriferaphile
04/10/2004, 08:19 AM
Randy Holmes-Farley I guess I am missing the whole unexplained effects part. If you add a great carbon source, you expect blooms of microorganisms...So what are we trying to explain again?
On the first page of this topic you wrote: “I'm not sure what to make of it. I didn't think that most algae would use ethanol from the water column, but maybe some will. Anyone have an idea how it might have increased algae, except coincidence?â€
Perhaps you’ve changed your thinking? And maybe you think all the reports of coral deaths are explainable by “a great carbon source.†Perhaps so. I’m just not so sure. Given ethylene’s importance I think it’s at least important to ask the question. Most people agree it’s wise to use the simplest explanation for any given phenomenon, and I certainly subscribe to that practice, but when the simple explanations don’t satisfy, then let’s look further.
Let me tell a story about my tank. I had been trying for quite some time to grow sponges (which of course explains my ID). I’d been having some success, with several good-size specimens when about four months ago disaster struck. I had some red lettuce algae growing (ulva I guess) and it was pretty, so I let it grow into a large thicket. Mistake. At some point it apparently decided to “go sexual†and seemingly overnight I had a dense white bloom of what I’m not completely sure - gametes mixed with bacteria from the decaying mass of algae? Anyway, the coral were stressed but pretty much survived. The sponges however almost all completely died. They quickly showed parts of their skeletons and though I cleared the water with massive water changes the sponges, except for two tiny specks, over the next week or two continued to recede, completely succumbing. Well I was upset of course, but knowing a little about sponge biology I was hoping that some cells from the dying colonies were released and would reseed, and in fact that is what happened. Now indeed I have dozens of small blue, yellow, purple and white sponges (new colors too!! -another question for another time).
So here’s where ethylene helps explain the story and begs for more understanding. Although I’m not certain, from what I’ve read on land plants, and how pervasive ethylene is in flowering and maturation I’d say it’s a good bet that ethylene had a role in the red algae’s “going sexual†(there must be a good word for that!). But the sponge part of the story is more interesting, and there’s some research to go along. Apparently when sponges are damaged or the colony undergoes programmed death due to stress (which seems is what happened here) cells are released into the water column. But the cells can’t grow by themselves - they have to form little aggregates with other cells they meet. These aggregations are called “primmorphs.†(This appears to be to be a primitive form of sexuality - the cells wait around until meeting another which is more likely than not to be from another colony with slightly different genetics.) Anyway it seems that ethylene plays a part in the life of these primmorphs - turning on genes that function to stabilize the structure help to prevent cell death. Here’s the paper: http://www.jbc.org/cgi/content/full/274/44/31524
I tell the story because knowing ethylene’s role (at least partly) helps to explain otherwise mysterious occurrences and provides opportunities for intervention down the line. Say I had pumped a little ethylene into the water after the crash - would I now have double the number of little sponges?
-Rick
Poriferaphile
04/10/2004, 08:31 AM
(I’m breaking this posting in two because it’s just so long.)
Randy Holmes-Farley One of the areas that I think could be a new frontier for reefkeeping is how specific organics might increase growth and/or reproduction...I think that organics have a big role to play in those actions. Starting with one that could be simple to add (like ethylene) would seem like a worthwhile activity for someone who wanted to study these areas.
I absolutely agree. Ethylene plays a big role in terrestrial agriculture (just beginning with the facts of its removal allowing cold storage and its presence allowing timed ripening), so why not in mariculture?
Marc Euschen But our systems today do not allow any planktonic Organisms to survive very long. I think one place to start is to make Plankton safter tank systems. In europe we have a lot of activities in these field...
I’m also very interested in optimizing the plankton in my system. Do you know of a good ongoing discussion on Reef Central or do you want to start one up?
Randy, I found the articles you posted on plankton and ethylene very interesting, but in my own searches I haven’t had such good luck finding the same articles you do. Would you mind sharing what database(s) you use to find such good info?
Marc Euschen I doubt the Ethylen plays a role in a Aquatic System since it is mainly a Gas...I’m not sure if there is a big difference between Ethanol and Ethylen in regard of its Carbon uptake since both have the same amount of it.
First, I’m glad you survived the electric shock ok - Yikes! Now about the gas question, you know O2 and CO2 are both gasses, but we couldn’t do without either of them, right? Next point, I was ready to reinforce Randy’s statement that the interest in ethylene was about its action as a hormone, not as a carbon source. But then I ran across several articles such as these that tell how it is in fact used as a carbon source by some bacteria:
http://jb.asm.org/cgi/content/full/185/18/5536
http://www.chem.usu.edu/~ensigns/research.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10508093
http://mic.sgmjournals.org/cgi/reprint/143/12/3775.pdf
Now that doesn’t seems so farfetched an idea. Especially because it appears that symbiosis is an important part of the lifestyle of these ethylene-using bacteria, modulating local concentrations, keeping things in check. Well, perhaps it still wouldn’t actually be practical to grow large amounts of bacteria on ethylene, particularly not to reduce NO3 and PO4. I’d say though it’s still in the running as a growth factor.
Randy Holmes-Farley
04/10/2004, 07:05 PM
On the first page of this topic you wrote: “I'm not sure what to make of it. I didn't think that most algae would use ethanol from the water column, but maybe some will. Anyone have an idea how it might have increased algae, except coincidence?â€
Perhaps you’ve changed your thinking? And maybe you think all the reports of coral deaths are explainable by “a great carbon source.â€
Why do you think that coral deaths suggest that algae take up ethanol?
I can hand wave all kinds of arguments about what might have happened. From a general bloom lowering oxygen to ethanol driving a pathogenic bacteria to harmful levels to ethanol driving zoox too much. Sure, there could have been something more complicated as well.
Would you mind sharing what database(s) you use
I'lll PM you on the search. :)
Marc Euschen
04/10/2004, 07:18 PM
After reading some of the linked artikels let me think a bit more about Ethylen than I first did !
Non of my Bio/Chemical books here show much about Ethylen, beside its chemical properties and the standard infos regarding ripening.
Maybe Ethylen plays also an iportant role in other azooxanthular living corals.
Marc
Poriferaphile
04/12/2004, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by Randy Holmes-Farley
On the first page of this topic you wrote: “I'm not sure what to make of it. I didn't think that most algae would use ethanol from the water column...â€
Why do you think that coral deaths suggest that algae take up ethanol?
I can hand wave all kinds of arguments.. Sure, there could have been something more complicated as well.
I didn’t say I thought that. There was a question, though, about algae which you chose not to address. :wave: Now I’ve enjoyed this discussion, but there’s not that much more to say than I already have in this context, so I will attempt to bow out at this point. Next thing I guess I have to find the right kind of spectrometer and do some experiments - if anyone has easy access to such equipment and is as interested in this as I am, then please contact me and we’ll run experiments.
My intent in joining this thread was just to encourage thinking about ethylene effects, and to remind people how simple questions can have complex answers. I hope I’ve done that. Thanks to everyone who contributed.
-Rick
http://www.aquariumtoday.com/ethylene_bonding-s.jpg
http://www.aquariumtoday.com/tomatoes-c2h4damage-s.jpg
http://www.aquariumtoday.com/eth-injury.jpg
http://www.aquariumtoday.com/ethylene-control.jpg
Randy Holmes-Farley
04/13/2004, 05:53 AM
That last picture would be a good one for an article on ethylene in reef aquaria. :lol:
rpgraff
04/13/2004, 06:54 AM
I was in class the other day (Culinary school) and we were discussing storage issues regarding fresh produce. Some produce gives off ethylene as it ripens while others when exposed to this are degraded in quality.
Profession and Hobby have just crossed paths :D
reefsrus
08/05/2004, 11:43 PM
Hey, sorry to jump in so late on this forum. But i just found it, and skimmed just about all of it.
Wasp, did you continue dosing vodka to your tank? What was long term outcome?
I am not dosing vodka now, it got rid of my cyano, which has never returned, but it was not a lasting fix for algae in my case.
It seems to work differently in different tanks. The bacteria it promotes require a supply of nitrate and phosphate, so in a tank with plenty of nitrate, the bacteria will be able to consume all the P before the nitrate is used. But in my tank the nitrate was already close to zero, so the bacteria the vodka encouraged were not able to remove all the P because the nitrate was all used before they had used all the P.
So what happened in my case was that all cyano dissapeared, and then the algae whitened and died. But there was still phosphate in the tank, the algae died due to lack of nitrate. However, nitrate is easily replaced at each feeding, so there was not a lasting fix for algae, and there was still phosphate to interfere with calcification.
I am now using a different means to reduce phosphate, however I believe that vodka dosing can be a useful tool in some situations but needs to be understood to know what it can and cannot do.
Hope that info is some use.
javajaws
08/06/2004, 08:37 AM
Check out:
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=3264040#post3264040
and
http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/Bot482/Kaneohe%20Bay%20algae%20N-P%20Larned%20Mar%20Biol.pdf
Next thing you know everyone will be dosing nitrogen or phosphate (perhaps in addition to vodka) into their tanks so that both can be consumed totally.
Or perhaps not so extreme: tune your tank to produce more nitrogen or phosphates (whichever one is lacking) until you reach a supply/demand equilibrium of both such that both are able to be consumed equally.
Thanks Javajaws, those are useful articles.
A good understanding of those concepts can allow vodka and other means to be used effectively IMO
Randy Holmes-Farley
08/06/2004, 05:24 PM
One of the concerns that I always had about the DSB approach was that it reduced nitrate, leaving phosphate potentially harder to eliminate via macroalgae and other "growing organism" methods.
Very interesting. Nitrates in my current setup have always been undetectable and any macro algae I have used has always done poorly, but I always have to work on phosphate.
Perhaps I should somehow dose nitrate.
Randy Holmes-Farley
08/07/2004, 07:52 AM
That might be worth considering, IMO. :)
Xx_de_xX
08/07/2004, 07:39 PM
Do you think it's possible to create enough nitrate in a system using bio-bale or filter floss? This is very interesting. I'm in the same boat as wasp.
Randy Holmes-Farley
08/07/2004, 07:43 PM
Perhaps, but that might also contribute some phosphate if particulate organics are allowed to accumulate and degrade.
Xx_de_xX
08/07/2004, 07:51 PM
thanks, this might be worth a shot.
Randy Holmes-Farley
08/07/2004, 07:53 PM
If you try it, let us know what happens. :)
What about some bio balls in the overflow? This would promote some aerobic only processing, but waterflow should be enough to not allow any detritus buildup.
Xx_de_xX
08/07/2004, 11:55 PM
That's not a bad idea.. I think I'm gonna give it a shot
frankdreistein
08/08/2004, 03:02 AM
Do you think it's possible to create enough nitrate in a system using bio-bale or filter floss?
Sorry, to get in here, but where should the N for the nitrat come from?
If the N ist oxidated to nitrat its just in a lower energy status as before (ammonia) but there is no more N than at the beginning.
Corals can take up ammonia much better as nitrat, so bacteria should do too ??
And if you do strong aerobic filtration the C in the water from the vodka will fast only be CO2.
Only thing that should help is extra dosing of N (KNO3, CaNO3, ammonianitrate,...)
frankdreistein
08/08/2004, 03:12 AM
Here in germany some people leave dosing vodka to their systems although many still do it.
A little number people report of dying fish and think it comes from exessive growth of "bad" bacteria and so to bacteria pressure on the fish giving good ground for other diseases.
And gorgonians without zooxanthelles don´t seem to like it too.
Good points Frankdreistein, I can see what you mean by this - Quote "If the N ist oxidated to nitrat its just in a lower energy status as before (ammonia) but there is no more N than at the beginning."
And this - "Only thing that should help is extra dosing of N (KNO3, CaNO3, ammonianitrate,...)"
However let me run some thoughts by you, I would be interested in your comments :-
In a system with plenty of anearobic bacteria to reduce nitrate, such as a DSB, or liverock, the bacteria that reduce the nitrate are in the anaerobic zone, so are likely to trap some P in that zone, and once built up enough the P will likely begin to leach and cause problems.
But if including aerobic media such as bioballs in a system, as well as P, which is going to accumulate anyway, surplus nitrate will be released into the system, which could fuel several P export mechanisms, such as macroalgae, or skimmable bacteria or phytoplankton.
In other words, using what is currently considered the ideal of strong anaerobic activity so that nearly all nitrate is processed into nitrogen gas and leaves the tank without taking any P with it, perhaps a better plan would be to uae more aerobic media to allow some nitrate to remain available to organisms such as macroalgae that can be removed from the tank along with a quota of phosphate.
Where I am coming from with these thoughts is the current situation in my own tank, with enough anaerobic activity to keep nitrate at undetectable levels, and not much export alternatives for the P other than chemical media. I do not even have enough nitrate to support healthy macro algae growth.
My thoughts on this may be all wrong, but I am just putting this up to further the discussion, and perhaps eventually come up with something useful.
Randy Holmes-Farley
08/08/2004, 07:12 AM
Sorry, to get in here, but where should the N for the nitrat come from?
If the N ist oxidated to nitrat its just in a lower energy status as before (ammonia) but there is no more N than at the beginning.
The idea is the reverse of the idea that removing bioballs will reduce nitrate. In some cases, removing the bioballs may decrease the nitrate as the ammonia to nitrate conversion is forced to happen on surfaces where nitrate is the only end product possible (the bioball).
Without any bioballs, some of that conversion may take place on rock and sand where some of the nitrate may continue on to N2 gas, thereby reducing nitrate. This effect is greater than if the same amount of nitrate is formed on a bioball surface and then has to migrate over to the rock and sand becuase the local concentration of nitrate on the rock/sand surface will be higher than it would be if the nitrate were made on a bioball.
So in that case, the higher concentration of nitrate at the surface of rock and sand potentially decreases nitrate in the bulk of the water column.
Likewise, adding bioballs may decrease the nitrate concentration on the surface of the rock and sand, and may result in increased nitrate concentations in the water column.
So it seems like a reasonable hypothesis to me.
Thanks Randy, glad you think it is a reasonable idea.
The other thing is, I have several times heard bioballs referred to as a "phosphate factory". However, from my viewpoint, once in the tank, the phosphate is in the tank, bioballs or not.
So IMO they would not be harmful in that regard, they just would not have any phosphate binding effect, but if we are looking at the long term and P export, to me that would not matter.
I am actually going to try this, my overflow is perfect to put some bioballs in, I am going to try to get my nitrate up to at least detectable, and see if the macro algae will perform better.
frankdreistein
08/08/2004, 09:05 AM
I try to answer, but it is as you would say just my 2 cents :)
And sorry if I don´t always hit the point. Its sometimes hard for me to exactly understand everything
wasp
But if including aerobic media such as bioballs in a system, as well as P, which is going to accumulate anyway, surplus nitrate will be released into the system, which could fuel several P export mechanisms, such as macroalgae, or skimmable bacteria or phytoplankton.
Nitrat has to be reduced by bacteria/alga/corals to function as a source for N.
An aerobic filter converts N-stuff (amino acid, ammonia) which can be taken up very good by bacteria/algae/corals to Nitrat which can´t be taken up as easily and so accumulate in the water.
So the aerobic filter takes out utilizable N and so increases P.
On the other hand an aerobic filter breaks down organics which consist again of P which so get into the water and can´t be skimmed anymore.
An other important point is that a strong aerobic filter takes out C quickly and then you are where you were before dosing (vodka) C.
A further point is that especially C is limiting the denitrification.
Denitrification is increasing when there is C and can happen simultan in any biofilm in many places in the tank, where the flow is low enough.
There are still some other points why an aerobic filter should not be good in a reef tank.
Randy
Likewise, adding bioballs may decrease the nitrate concentration on the surface of the rock and sand, and may result in increased nitrate concentations in the water column.
I agree, but if a decrease or increase is taking place should be different, depending on various factors.
One main question is, if the aerobic filter quickly enough eliminates the C.
Maybe you can say a sentence to the things I stated above, if you think they are right or wrong.
Aged Salt
08/08/2004, 09:09 AM
Frank, you have PM. Bob
javajaws
08/08/2004, 10:20 AM
Read the 7 posts or so starting with:
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=3278993#post3278993
Randy, do you think dosing Iron would increase the available nitrogen? What would be a safe dose?
Randy Holmes-Farley
08/08/2004, 02:21 PM
The other thing is, I have several times heard bioballs referred to as a "phosphate factory".
I've never heard that, only "nitrate factory". :D
To generate phosphate, it would mean accumulating detritus that might otherwise be skimmed out or otherwise removed, that slowly breaks down, releasing phosphate.
Randy Holmes-Farley
08/08/2004, 02:24 PM
There are still some other points why an aerobic filter should not be good in a reef tank.
With the exception of the nitrogen phosphate possible imbalance, I didn't gather any problems from what you said. I think reducing organics is a good thing, not a bad one. So if nitrate is not elevated, I don't see a problem.
Randy Holmes-Farley
08/08/2004, 02:30 PM
Randy, do you think dosing Iron would increase the available nitrogen? What would be a safe dose?
I dose iron, as detailed in these articles, but I do not think it will increase nitrogen, but rather possibly spur algal growth and reduce it. While it might spur cyano to fix nitrogen, it also spurs algae that use nitrogen. I've not seen any evidence that cyano fix (and release) enough nitrogen to generate elevated nitrate in aquaria.
FWIW, I disagree with Bombers statement in that link that nitrogen cannot be limiting in reef aquaria. Some folks here have 1 + ppm phosphate. Do people think that phosphate is limiting in such a case?
First Iron Article: Macroalgae and Dosing Recommendations
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/aug2002/chem.htm
Second Iron Article: Iron: A Look at Organisms Other than Macroalgae
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/oct2002/chem.htm
Xx_de_xX
08/08/2004, 05:54 PM
Can the air a skimmer pulls through a venturi be the source of Nitrogen? Considering that Nitrogen makes up 78.09% of "air?" Basically, I'm just wondering if Nitrogen can be dissolved in sea water.
The problem I have with that is that it is nitrogen gas, not nitrate, so not so sure if it would be as directly useful.
But Randy would know more.
reefsrus
08/08/2004, 06:05 PM
I think im going to start dosing, as soon as i go pick up a bottle, but i was think about just dosing in cycles with small doses. Like a drop or a couple of drops each day to start and do it everyday. Or whatever you guys think would be a good amount to start. For say 2 weeks or month, then hold off for a month. Then start the cycle right back over. Does this defeat the purpose of it? Once i stop will the phosphates be back in the next day or so? Or will they only come back gradually as i add them to the tank, like when i feed?
Xx_de_xX
08/08/2004, 06:22 PM
You'll prolly get to it before I will- I just dumped a bunch of bioballs in the sump today to start the nitrate factory going. I'll wait until I have sufficient nitrate for me to start dosing. Keep us updated. I plan on doing logbook. Visual and Chemical changes.
Just put bioballs in mine too.
So I'm picking it will only be a few weeks to see if this will actually work in practise or not.
Not sure the time frame, but I'm expecting to see nitrate become detectable, and then hoping the macro algae will take off, and perhaps skimming increase due to greater phyto growth.
And ultimately, P go to levels at which I do not have to use chemical media.
Here's hoping, anyway.
And reefsrus, vodka works in some tanks, but not others. Do you have detectable nitrate? Let's know how it goes.
Randy Holmes-Farley
08/09/2004, 07:20 AM
Can the air a skimmer pulls through a venturi be the source of Nitrogen? Considering that Nitrogen makes up 78.09% of "air?" Basically, I'm just wondering if Nitrogen can be dissolved in sea water.
There is lots of dissolved N2 in your aquarium, but it is not usable by most organisms (including algae and corals). Among the very few nitrogen fixers are cyanobacteria, although I do not know if they ever bother to fix nitrogen if there is measurable nitrate around.
I think im going to start dosing, as soon as i go pick up a bottle, but i was think about just dosing in cycles with small doses.
Dosing what? Sodium nitrate, or something similar? That is a fine experiment, IMO. Don't overdose. :D
2-3 weeks is a fine time frame to see if any of these ideas has desirable benefits, IMO. :)
reefsrus
08/11/2004, 11:57 AM
Well, i ended up picking up a bottle today. But, i wondering if any brand will do.? I just picked up a cheap brand that ran 5 bucks for a 1/5 called vladimir vodka, is there any difference in effects it will have on your tank from the more expensive brands? Or will every vodka have the same effect?
Btw: I threw a 1ml in today, just to get the stuff in my system, what do you work for a normal daily doseage for a 75 gallon tank? I was thinking about dropping it to 1/3 or 1/2 ml each day.
Randy Holmes-Farley
08/11/2004, 02:07 PM
Ah, OK. You mean vodka dosing. We had just been talking about nitrate dosing, so I got confused. I don't have a recommended amount, so I'll leave that to others that use and recommend its addition.
reefsrus
08/11/2004, 08:42 PM
Do you know if it really matters what kind you use, will even the cheap ones work?
reefsrus
08/11/2004, 11:03 PM
disregard that last post, after reading through the thread on nano-reef it turns out that the experiment was conducted with cheap vodka like i bought. So im pretty sure now it doesnt matter.
alanseah
08/12/2004, 08:25 AM
for my cases it's the other way round.. I have been dosing vodka for a month to 2.. and dont seen any improvement in result or any changes...
my n03 and phosphate is still dectable... then I came along poly filter and I throw 1 in and to my surprise my phosphate has been undectable till now... but my n03 is still around. So I went off and start using AZN03 and it did really reduce my n03 to undectable for a long while and these few days I found that my phosphate is still undectable but my n03 has increase. My macro algae did grow but very slowly.
After reading the new additions to this thread and the idea of adding bioballs, it had me wondering if this is the same concept that the zeovit system employs. Adding a aerobic filter to increase nitrate.
But there are two things I find confusing.
1) what happens when the phosphate is gone and you have just the opposite of where you started (ie low phosphate to high nitrate)
2) in the zeovit system you remove 100% of the biological media after 4-6 weeks. If indeed this system works like the bioballs suggestion, what purpose would it serve to remove it completely?
It would seem that you would need a source for phosphates to keep the balance or else you would have a seesaw affect where your phosphate and nitrate levels would go up and down. Makes me wonder what is in those additives the zeovit system employs.
Alanseah, how old is your tank, and how much LR do you have, and how much water circulation? If your nitrate is really high it sounds like there is somehow something amiss with your filtration system. Using nitrate removers like AZNO3 should really be only a short term fix.
And Quote - "1) what happens when the phosphate is gone and you have just the opposite of where you started (ie low phosphate to high nitrate)"
I have been thinking of that, if I get to a point of good biological phosphate removal, through macralgae or whatever, but high nitrate, I am thinking it will just be a case of removing some bioballs, until the right balance is struck. I am wondering if some of the really successful tanks that never have nitrate or phosphate problems have happened upon this balance already.
Quote - "2) in the zeovit system you remove 100% of the biological media after 4-6 weeks. If indeed this system works like the bioballs suggestion, what purpose would it serve to remove it completely?"
Herein lies the Zeovit conundrum - nobody quite knows exactly how it works. It is a manufacturers secret :)
Not sure if this is true, but one article I read suggested that even the inventor of the system did not fully understand it, it was a system he had arrived at by trial and error, until he found something that works. Don't quote me on that though, it was just what I read so cannot vouch for it.
571958
08/16/2004, 02:01 AM
Adding BioBalls is great trying to match the right PO4 and NO3 ratio for effective removal of both to very low -levels. I suggest adding several layers of sponges to prefilter all water flowing thru the bio-balls. These prefilters sponges can be added to drip-plate and exercise weekly changes of these filter sponges that will have large amount of dirt collected. This help to keep the NO3 build-up at the Bio-Balls in check.
Max
Originally posted by pi
After reading the new additions to this thread and the idea of adding bioballs, it had me wondering if this is the same concept that the zeovit system employs. Adding a aerobic filter to increase nitrate.
But there are two things I find confusing.
1) what happens when the phosphate is gone and you have just the opposite of where you started (ie low phosphate to high nitrate)
2) in the zeovit system you remove 100% of the biological media after 4-6 weeks. If indeed this system works like the bioballs suggestion, what purpose would it serve to remove it completely?
It would seem that you would need a source for phosphates to keep the balance or else you would have a seesaw affect where your phosphate and nitrate levels would go up and down. Makes me wonder what is in those additives the zeovit system employs. ;) :p
Jrg Kokott
08/17/2004, 04:00 AM
Hey guys,
nice discussion, however, I think I need to get back to the beginning of this thread as you discuss like hell and I need some time reading everything carefully :)
Zeovit: in fact, T. Pohl does'nt really understand what he's selling, however, zeolite filtration is quite simple to understand.
The zeolite used for the reef aquarium hobby is a clinoptilolite, characterized by strong ammonia affinity and only minor calcium affinity. All other zeolites used in the fresh water hobby strongly adsorb calcium... not really good for marine tanks.
However, when te clinoptilolit adsorbs ammonia, bacteria can simply nitrify the ammonia to generate nitrate (oxic surface), which is further denitrified within the molecular sieve of the zeolite (anoxic inner surface).
Ammonia adsorption is the key why the current within a zeolit filter must be high, otherwise bacteria would'nt have any chance to catch any dissolved inorganic nutrient.
As these clinoptilolites also contain iron and manganese, we have discussed whether iron and manganese dissolve in seawater and bind orthophosphate in the water column. These metal-phosphates might then be skimmable. But this hypothesis is still unprooved. However. when you put zeolite in the water, your aquarium water gets cristal clear within 24 hours. I think, that's due to the iron/manganese release and subsequent skimming of metal-phosphate colloids. But as I said, that's an unprooved hypothesis.
Zeovit is a product name, not a specific zeolite. Zeovit ist the clinoptilolite, zeofood is a growth medium for heterotrophic bacteria with ammonium acetate as carbon source for heterotrophic bacterial nutrition, enriched with amino acids and vitamins, and the zeobac bacteria T. Pohl sells might be Paracoccus denitrificans (because these are commonly sold as aquarium bacteria in Germany). That's it with zeovit.
You can also combine zeolites with vodka. The zeolite works independently from any carbon source you add to the water, because the main function of the zeolite is to adsorb ammonia.
Habib
08/17/2004, 04:21 AM
Yes, Clinoptilolite has enough affinity for ammonia in seawater to highly enhance the ability of bacteria to transform it to nitrite.
However the carbon source for these bacteria is bicarbonate.
I think that any organic source of carbon might be to grow more other bacteria which would incorporate phosphor and nitrogen in their bio-mass.
So the Clinoptilolite together with some bacteria to rapidly remove any ammonia from the water and an organic source of carbon for bateria to multiply and grow and incorporate nitrogen and phosphate. If they are skimmed out these nurients will be exported from the tank.
I'm not sure if a bacteria culture would be needed if there are already just a few of the required bacteria.
Habib
08/17/2004, 04:24 AM
Jörg:
Almost forgot:
[welcome]
Habib
08/17/2004, 04:32 AM
Here is an article which highly suggests that some zeolites have affinity for ammonia in seawater. I have more but need to look for them.
Mar Pollut Bull. 2003 May;46(5):607-18.
Removal of ammonia toxicity in marine sediment TIEs: a comparison of Ulva lactuca, zeolite and aeration methods.
Burgess RM, Pelletier MC, Ho KT, Serbst JR, Ryba SA, Kuhn A, Perron MM, Raczelowski P, Cantwell MG.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ORD/NHEERL Atlantic Ecology Division, 27 Tarzwell Drive, Narragansett, RI 02882, USA.
Toxicity Identification Evaluations (TIEs) can be used to determine the specific toxicant(s), including ammonia, causing toxicity observed in marine sediments. Two primary TIE manipulations are available for characterizing and identifying ammonia in marine sediments: Ulva lactuca addition and zeolite addition. In this study, we compared the efficacy of these methods to (1) remove NH(x) and NH(3) from overlying and interstitial waters and (2) reduce toxicity to the amphipod Ampelisca abdita and mysid Americamysis bahia using both spiked and environmentally contaminated sediments. The utility of aeration for removing NH(x) and NH(3) during a marine sediment TIE was also evaluated preliminarily. In general, the U. lactuca and zeolite addition methods performed similarly well at removing spiked NH(x) and NH(3) from overlying and interstitial waters compared to an unmanipulated sediment. Toxicity to the amphipod was reduced approximately the same by both methods. However, toxicity to the mysid was most effectively reduced by the U. lactuca addition indicating this method functions best with epibenthic species exposed to ammonia in the water column. Aeration removed NH(x) and NH(3) from seawater when the pH was adjusted to 10; however, very little ammonia was removed at ambient pHs ( approximately 8.0). This comparison demonstrates both U. lactuca and zeolite addition methods are effective TIE tools for reducing the concentrations and toxicity of ammonia in whole sediment toxicity tests.
Jrg Kokott
08/17/2004, 05:02 AM
Originally posted by Habib
However the carbon source for these bacteria is bicarbonate.
Dear Habib,
yes, that's true for chemoautotrophic nitrifying bacteria. I have talked about the acetate providing an appropriate carbon source for heterotrophic denitrifying bacteria, e.g. Paracoccus denitrificans.
paper: I know this paper, and it's interesting, however, most German reef tanks lack algae refugia where you could grow Ulva lactuca or other green algae. Ulva is a temperate alga and I don't think it's easy to grow in tropical marine tanks.
Thus, a zeolite filter is much easier to apply to a tank rather than an algae refugium.
Thx for your nice welcome :)
Habib
08/17/2004, 05:12 AM
Jörg:
I wanted to show with that paper that atleast some zeolites have an affinity for ammonia in seawater. :)
There have been some threads about the zeovit method on Reef Central and some used the argument that zeolites would do not much in a seawater environment. That might have been used as an argument here and wanted to be on step ahead. :D
I agree with that argument however and do not consider zeolites to be good enough to decrease ammonia by adsorption from seawater but certainly belive that they have a sufficient high affinity in seawater to create a steeper ammonia gradient which would facilitate the bacteria to remove ammonia much faster.
In that way they would compete much stronger with other organisms for ammonia uptake.
Aged Salt
08/17/2004, 05:15 AM
Jorg, you have PM. Bob
Well, those last few posts were interesting - Thanks.
Beginning to understand zeovit.
Jrg Kokott
08/17/2004, 06:04 AM
Originally posted by Habib
I agree with that argument however and do not consider zeolites to be good enough to decrease ammonia by adsorption from seawater but certainly belive that they have a sufficient high affinity in seawater to create a steeper ammonia gradient which would facilitate the bacteria to remove ammonia much faster.
In that way they would compete much stronger with other organisms for ammonia uptake. [/B]
Ya, that's true. Considering the preferential clinoptilolite adsorption of Cs2+ > NH4+ > Na+ > K+ ... the sodium and potassium cations are strongly competing with ammonia. In fact, as I have conducted some measurements with an experimental aquarium run by a zeolite filter, the ammonium concentration was almost detectable in the range 0.5 - 1.5 umol/L by an autoanalyzer. However, I couldn't detect any nitrite/nitrate in this tank by the autoanalyzer.
Well this is a bit off topic now, but while all these experts are around :) , a thing I want to know about zeovit is this :- Why do they recommend a much lower alkalinity than is common in most hobby reef tanks? To me it would seem that the things zeovit does in terms of water purification, would be just as effective with a higher alkalinity, however I suppose there must be a reason, or they would not have recommended this.
(Apologies to those interested in vodka, I'm sure it will be back on track soon)
Jrg Kokott
08/17/2004, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by wasp
Well this is a bit off topic now, but while all these experts are around :) , a thing I want to know about zeovit is this :- Why do they recommend a much lower alkalinity than is common in most hobby reef tanks? To me it would seem that the things zeovit does in terms of water purification, would be just as effective with a higher alkalinity, however I suppose there must be a reason, or they would not have recommended this.
(Apologies to those interested in vodka, I'm sure it will be back on track soon)
Hi,
alkalinity doesn't have anything to do with zeolite filtration, it's simply the personal experience of T. Pohl that calcium precipitation is much less at alkalinities between 2.4 - 2.8 meq/L.
In Germany we determine the "Karbonathärte" (KH, translated: carbonate hardness - however, these tests do determine total alkalinity, and not carbonate alkalinity!), and is simply a synonym for total alkalinity but has a different unit (°dKH, instead of meq/L).
The problem with high alkalinities is the increased instability of dissolved calciumcarbonat/calciumbicarbonate, and CaCO3 may preferentially precipitate at high pH values in combination with high total alkalinity. However, as many German aquarists use "kalkreaktoren", alkalinity in these tanks is increased (> 3 meq/L), and usually c(Ca2+) doesn't get higher than 400 ppm.
Habib
08/17/2004, 08:25 AM
FWIW "kalkreactor" as Jörg says is the same as a calcium reactor in the USA. :)
Not to be confused with a kalkreactor here in the USA which is for kalkwasser. This is called a calcium reactor in the non-English speaking countries. :D
Jrg Kokott
08/17/2004, 08:50 AM
Thx Habib! I mean calcium reactor, this thing dissolving CaCO3 by CO2. I don't like calcium reactors for exactly this reason.
However, Habib, let's get back to vodka:
you're right, ethanol as a carbon source may on the one hand enhance denitrification rates in an anoxic environment, and on the other hand may be utilized by aerobic heterotrophic bacteria in the oxic environment.
But: I think, whether the carbon source is utilized for denitrification or simply for bacterial biomass production depends on the bacterial community structure.
Imagine a Berlin System lacking a DSB, but effectively protein skimmed, and completely filled with live rock. Most oxic surfaces are dominated by AOB (ammonia oxidizing bacteria) and NOB (nitrite oxidizing bacteria). These are - as you said - autotrophic. Now I think that heterotrophic bacteria in such Berlin systems are limited to the anoxic environment, and given the case that ethanol reaches these anoxic zones, these denitrifying bacteria utilize ethanol for heterotrophic nutrition and use nitrate as electron acceptor. I believe this is the case in those tanks, which react with quick nitrate removal but unchanged phosphate concentrations on ethanol supplementation.
In many other tanks both nitrate and phosphate were quickly removed after ethanol supplementation. For me, this is a hint for a mixotrophic bacterial community in the oxic environment, and ethanol is mostly utilized for aerobic heterotrophic nutrition, but less for denitrification.
The occurence of mixotrophic bacterial communities might correlate to the skimming efficiency. If oversized, very effective protein skimmers are used, the water may become depleted of dissolved organic carbon sources. Thus the heterotrophic bacteria in these tanks might be carbon limited, and are incompetitive against autotrophic AOB and NOB.
If dissolved organic material (DOM) stays available in a given tank (because of less effective skimming), a mixotrophic community might develop, since both autotrophic and heterotrophic bacteria are equally competitive.
These are simply hypotheses, however, as we (Michael Mrutzek and me) try to find answers on the many questions which have been coming up after our publication, I think it's OK to offer some speculations (I mean, I would'nt be mad and present such things on a scientific conference...)
Habib
08/17/2004, 09:05 AM
I believe this is the case in those tanks, which react with quick nitrate removal but unchanged phosphate concentrations on ethanol supplementation.
In such tanks there still might have been a lowering of the total inorganic phosphate concentration but might have remained unnoticed if the rocks did release phosphate into the water column where the test sample is taken.
Jorg/Habib - Thanks for your input on zeovites!!! It was discussed and concluded at length in another (now closed) thread that it is not possible for zeovites to serve as a mechanical filter in salt water. Taking this as fact, I could not understand what zeovites would provide opposed to using bioballs or any other high surface material. In addition, I could not see a reason to remove the zeovites periodically if all they were serving as is a bacterial host.
My point is simply thanks for clearing this up!!!!
Paul
However, when te clinoptilolit adsorbs ammonia, bacteria can simply nitrify the ammonia to generate nitrate (oxic surface), which is further denitrified within the molecular sieve of the zeolite (anoxic inner surface).
Jörg...
From an earlier thread here I seem to recall it be stated that the inner structure of zeolites in general can not host bacteria. The pore sizes are smaller than the bacteria.
Do you think that to be incorrect?
Steve U
invincible569
08/17/2004, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by gtrestoration
Jörg...
From an earlier thread here I seem to recall it be stated that the inner structure of zeolites in general can not host bacteria. The pore sizes are smaller than the bacteria.
Do you think that to be incorrect?
Steve U
Good question. That is something we have always wanted answered. Hopefully those microcavities do host bacteria, BUT i've only read that they have only been tested to do ion exchange.
Jorge, can clinoptilolites be regenerated by boiling them or any other method? Also, why does Zeo translate from Greek "to bubble". Is this where the regenaration takes place?
Also, we use Zeostart to drop levels. Supposedly Acetic Acid/Vinegar. It is said that Zeostart has more than just this, but how can any other element be in conjuction with such a strong liquid?
Thanks for all your help!
invincible569
08/17/2004, 10:40 AM
Sorry Guys. Just realized this was a Vodka thread :(
I will PM you Jorge
Jrg Kokott
08/17/2004, 11:13 AM
Hey guys,
I've been friendly asked by Thomas Pohl to stop writing about zeovit and all his other products.
I suggest you send all your questions concerning his products directly to him. However, as he's not the single only zeolite distributer in Germany I should be able to write about zeolites and clinoptilolites in common.
However, this thread is about vodka, so lets keep going discussing on this issue.
invincible569
08/17/2004, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by Jörg Kokott
Hey guys,
I've been friendly asked by Thomas Pohl to stop writing about zeovit and all his other products.
?? uh ok. We're just trying to figure out what we are putting in our system. tisk, tisk. the truth will come out one day.
Habib
08/17/2004, 11:41 AM
I've been friendly asked by Thomas Pohl to stop writing about zeovit and all his other products.
Oh really? Why did he not say the same of the so many other threads?
Should we stop discussing his method and products on this board?
Sorry Jörg, I'm just expressing my concerns. :)
IMO both methods that is using zeolite(s) and vodka have something in common.
Perhaps Randy might split out some posts and make another thread of it. :)
Jrg Kokott
08/17/2004, 11:46 AM
Hello,
with this I take back everything I wrote about zeovit, zeofood and zeobak, products of korallenzucht Coburg, Germany. I have absolutely no idea about the mentioned products of Thomas Pohl and the information I have provided in this forum is wrong in all details.
As Thomas Pohl is the developer and distributor of the mentioned products, and furthermore the only one who knows what he sells, pls. contact him for further information and questions.
Pls. understand that I'm not willing to reply on further questions about the products of Korallenzucht Coburg, Germany.
MiddletonMark
08/17/2004, 11:48 AM
Wow, this sounds like a salt study :eek1:
Maybe it's time to bring back the vodka! :beer:
Why did he not say the same of the so many other threads?
He was scared the "cat may be let out of the bag" by a very knowledgeable source??? It appears he shut him down too.....?
Jrg Kokott
08/17/2004, 11:58 AM
Addition:
I regard Thomas Pohl as an expert in the reef aquarium hobby, who has great and long-year experiences with coral reef aquaria and marine reef keeping. He exactly knows and understands the functioning of the product he sells.
Habib
08/17/2004, 11:59 AM
Let's concentrate on Vodka and allow Jörg to add much of his knowledge about that method here.
There are many zeovit threads and in atleast one of them I'll add a few things I found not too long ago. I'll try to add them later today in :
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=133912
invincible569
08/17/2004, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Jörg Kokott
Hello,
with this I take back everything I wrote about zeovit, zeofood and zeobak, products of korallenzucht Coburg, Germany. I have absolutely no idea about the mentioned products of Thomas Pohl and the information I have provided in this forum is wrong in all details.
Pls. understand that I'm not willing to reply on further questions about the products of Korallenzucht Coburg, Germany.
Jorge, please dont fool us. We know that you knew what you were talking about. You've shed some light over this type of system.
I dotn understand why all of a sudden after Pohl contacted you, you changed your views and statements so fast.
As a business owner, though not in this industry, I fully understand Thomas Pohl's concerns of protecting his intellectual property. I also think that Jorge's position of protecting that information should be respected.
That being said I hope Jorge continues to offer us information not pertaining to the Thomas Pohl products. If he decides to no longer participate we have much more to miss.
Steve U
MiddletonMark
08/17/2004, 12:34 PM
Is that `if he's forced to no longer participate' ... or chooses to?
I'm confused as to which it is.
Mark,
Often I am "Forced" to make "Choices", none the less they are still choices.
Trying to extract the reasoning may only keep Jorg from posting anything further he feels comfortable discussing.
Steve U
Anemone
08/17/2004, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by gtrestoration
Mark,
Often I am "Forced" to make "Choices", none the less they are still choices.
Trying to extract the reasoning may only keep Jorg from posting anything further he feels comfortable discussing.
Steve U
True. Jorg's statement about what he will not discuss is very specific. Sounds almost like it was written by a lawyer. Too bad zeovit has taken that position.
Let's respect Jorg's decision and return to discussing vodka...now, on the rocks (live rock) or straight? :D
Kevin
Habib
08/17/2004, 01:30 PM
What Kevin said and if you want to discuss zeolites the following might be an option:
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=133912
Well maybe we better shut Reef Central - Heck, we discuss skimmers, salt, all sorts.
But have to respect Jorg, he is a profesional and has his reasons. Just lucky other manufacturers are more forthcoming.
But have subscribed to your thread Habib.
Very strange turn of events. I get the feeling this thread is going to become very popular.
invincible569
08/17/2004, 08:50 PM
I respect Jorge's decision. Doesnt look like he will be back. Someone may want to check the german paper tomorrow just in case!! ;) JK
Yes, a great shame. I see Jorge has been registered since 2002, but only just put up 8 posts, and already someone has a crack at him.
I've seen people discuss and even criticise Salifert products (Habib), but I note Habib did not feel the need to jump in and make the person retract. And the same with other brands. But I hope Jorge will be back, he has a lot of knowledge worth sharing.
boobookitty
08/17/2004, 10:19 PM
Then I'll post. :)
My theory is that Zeovit is actually 3 separate intertwining systems, one of which (based on Zeostart) is similar in nature to vodka dosing. I have nothing to back this up, except the claim that Zeostart's primary purpose is to lower phosphates and nitratres, and my personal experience using Zeovit - my phosphates were elevated for a period of time after dosing, then dropped very quickly, almost as if a bacterial bloom had taken place.
I seriously considered using the vodka method, but elected to go with Zeovit because I was looking for a complete SPS system, and I've been very happy...phosphates and nitrates are undetectable with Salifert test kits, and my coral colors have been superb.
As for what it is, there are many additives that the average consumer uses that are cyphers; from an empirical standpoint I've already seen improvements in my tank, and so I won't be reverse-engineering to determine if there is a cheaper way to do it. If someone else does and sells it as a product line, their product either will or won't show the same results; it's called free enterprise, and is similar to trying to reverse engineer knock-offs for Knop reactors, MTC, or others. In some countries it's legal, not in others, but it's reality.
I'll likely stick with Zeovit, because the results are proven over an extended period of time, and because quite honestly I'm spending less money using Zeovit than I would with a combination of golden pearls, Lugols, Cyclopeeze, Kent iron, blah, blah, blah.
:)
Arthur
Jrg Kokott
08/17/2004, 11:20 PM
Good morning,
sure I'll keep writing, however, not about Pohl's zeostuff.
I registered here in 2002 but somehow my bloody old computer didn't want let me do it. Somehow registration failed and I couldn't log in. However, as I regularily write in a German forum as member of the advisory board (quite small compared to RC) I have limited time to look up all these thousands of daily threads, though many are really interesting.
However, I plan to spend a little bit more time to RC in the future.
Yesterday I was really fed up with the troubles I had and decided to keep a little break and have a good sleep.
Thanks for your understanding anyway.
Jens Kallmeyer
08/18/2004, 04:43 AM
Howdy
Although I am registered at RC for quite a while I just didn't find the time to participate actively. Hopefully this will change in the future, the level at which you are discussing chemistry is truly amazing, congratulations. The reason I start writing now is the Pohl vs. Kokott issue, something I just couldn't keep my fingers off the keyboard.
Th. Pohl made this technique popular in Germany, and he definetly opened up a whole new field of reef keeping, but right now he slightly over-reacts, at least in my opinion. As Th. Pohl apparently sues or threatens to sue everybody that says something negative about his products, therefore I would like to inform the users of this forum that there are other suppliers of Zeolites, including dedicated filter systems, additions, chemicals etc.
I made the experience that Claude Schumacher for example always likes to discuss the pros and cons of products, he is extremely open to suggestions and comments.
So in case you got the impression that Th. Pohl is the sole distributor of Zeolites, check this out.
http://www.aquaterrashop.de/cgi-bin/his-webshop.pl?f=GRUPPE&c=11j&t=temamgroup&start=1&dif=10
He has heaps of products, unfortunately his website is only in German at present. In case you are looking for something specific, just drop him a line, he has an English price list.
Cheers
Jens
MiddletonMark
08/18/2004, 05:11 AM
Guys, aren't we talking about Vodka?
I guess we'll need a new thread to get back to the subject of this one.
MiddletonMark
08/18/2004, 05:13 AM
Originally posted by boobookitty
I'll likely stick with Zeovit, because the results are proven over an extended period of time, and because quite honestly I'm spending less money using Zeovit than I would with a combination of golden pearls, Lugols, Cyclopeeze, Kent iron, blah, blah, blah.
You don't have to feed with this system? No food input?
I'd think you'd still need to feed your fish, which is what I feed cyclops-eeze to.
Look, I'm not trying to be a detractor, but I'd bet the fish still need to eat [corals maybe a bit too].
G.Alexander
08/18/2004, 05:18 AM
Jens, do you have experience with the named system ? I would be interested so it looks like you recommend it.
Maybe you can post some pictures which would be very interesting.
By the way, this is not a sales forum, so why do you talk about sales stuff ?
G.Alexander
Habib
08/18/2004, 05:22 AM
G. Alexander:
Are you commercially involved with zeovit?
purplehaze
08/18/2004, 05:24 AM
Originally posted by Jörg Kokott
given the case that ethanol reaches these anoxic zones, these denitrifying bacteria utilize ethanol for heterotrophic nutrition and use nitrate as electron acceptor. I believe this is the case in those tanks, which react with quick nitrate removal but unchanged phosphate concentrations on ethanol supplementation.
Joerg, isn`t this how to the Vodka-Filter from Lars Sebralla works..:rolleyes: Anaerobic bacteria are fed with ethanol (vodka) and consumes all the nitrat.
G.Alexander
08/18/2004, 05:24 AM
No Habib,
neither in the past nor in the future.
I earn nothing for my support !
G.Alexander
bluereefs
08/18/2004, 05:27 AM
As Th. Pohl apparently sues or threatens to sue everybody that says something negative about his products
Are you sure that is the reason why he change his mind?
Situation is definitivly quite odd and unusual,but I dont think that any one can sue other person because that person express his opinion.I dont think that case will have any chance in any court.
Lets not make conclusion without any proofs because that can make situation much worse.
There can be numerous another reason why he change his position.
However, I plan to spend a little bit more time to RC in the future.
Glad to hear it Jorg!! I look forward to your posts!
Jens Kallmeyer
08/18/2004, 06:33 AM
Originally posted by purplehaze
Joerg, isn`t this how to the Vodka-Filter from Lars Sebralla works..:rolleyes: Anaerobic bacteria are fed with ethanol (vodka) and consumes all the nitrat.
Hi
I'm not Jörg but I can answer this question: In principle yes, but instead of creating a small volume (pot filter) with a huge bacterial density and very high turnover (=denitrification) rates, the Vodka method uses the entire tank for Denitrification. The pot filters can be a very dangerous thing, as they become sulfidic in no time. I wouldn't want to use the system without a Redox controller.
There are many small suboxic or anoxic environments in a tank, mostly inside life Rock and the sand bottom, where denitrifying bacteria sit. They are fed by the Vodka and do the Job.
However, there is another important point when using Vodka. Due to the available carbon source, the total amount of bacterial Biomass increases, thereby fixing N and P. The bacteria can live freely in the water of attached on the decoration. Eventually part of these bugs will reach the Skimmer where they will be removed. In my experience this is the major way of N and P removal when using Vodka. Since I use the method (dec. 2003) the amount of foam in the Skimmer has roughly tripled and stinks like hell. You won't believe how bad it is.........Plus I have to clean the upper part of the foam tube (is there a proper English expression?) at least twice a week to removea slimey, fatty black layer, basically rotting baterial biomass.
The problem with the method is that not all biomass reaches the skimmer and some will eventually die in the tank. After a few months I got into trouble with yellow water, even carbon filtration did not help. Finally I got myself a Ozonizator and use it continously with a very low concentration. Water is crystal clear, corals are doing well, but the Nitrate level went up a bit and is slowly coming down again, apparently there was a shift in the bacterial populations and the entire nutrient cycling in the tank.
Using Vodka without a skimmer makes only little sense, as you miss the most offective part of the technique. From what I have heard from German sources, those people that have DSB; Jaubert or Miracle Mud Systems where not successfull with Vodka, while those that have a skimmer generally made good progress. Of course several folks had massive problems, mostly due to overdosing. One guy started with the 10 fold dose, fortunately he realized the same night and only lost one colony. You should ONLY try on yourself AFTER you have calculated the amount for your tank.
Cheers
Jens
(Vodka addict)
Habib
08/18/2004, 06:40 AM
You should ONLY try on yourself AFTER you have calculated the amount for your tank.
Are you saying that we should first calculate the amount for the tank and then drink it ("try on yourself") ? :D
Wait I already see the answer:
Cheers
Jens
(Vodka addict)
:lol:
Just joking.
BTW Jens:
<img src="/images/welcome.gif" width="500" height="62"><br><b><i><big><big>To Reef Central</b></i></big></big>
Hi Jens - Question for you.
You mentioned another zeolit product. Some time ago I read some posts saying that there were other zeolit products available, but none of them as good as zeovit.
Do you think there are other products for sale that will perform as well as zeovit?
Randy Holmes-Farley
08/18/2004, 07:26 AM
Are you saying that we should first calculate the amount for the tank and then drink it ("try on yourself") ?
I think he is, but only after you misdosed the first time and killed some colonies, necessitating drowing your sorrows. :D
FWIW, I think the point about a skimmer is an important one, and one that folks thinking of adding carbon sources should keep in mind. One always has to consider where the nitrogen and phosphorus are expected to end up in the system.
Jens Kallmeyer
08/18/2004, 07:29 AM
Hi wasp
try yourself, some products work for certain people, some others don't, I just wanted to mention that there are several suppliers
Cheers
jens
boobookitty
08/18/2004, 08:27 AM
"You don't have to feed with this system? No food input?
I'd think you'd still need to feed your fish, which is what I feed cyclops-eeze to.
Look, I'm not trying to be a detractor, but I'd bet the fish still need to eat [corals maybe a bit too]."
Sorry, didn't mean it to sound that way. Yes, I feed fish, and I also feel LPS (brain, etc.). However, the golden pearls, zooplankton, lugols, etc. were specifically for the SPS, and with Zeovit you don't "feed" SPS at all (or the chain that ultimately led to feeding SPS), nor dose other elements.
Sorry for any confusion...
I'd also like to add that I don't think anyone has ever said zeolits weren't available elsewhere. There are thousands of types. The question is, which ones (Thomas apparently uses 4), and what the additives are. As I said, I believe Zeovit is 3 intertwined pieces, one of which is similar in nature and effect to vodka dosing; specific types of zeolits is another part.
Arthur
MiddletonMark
08/18/2004, 08:37 AM
:)
Well, I don't zeo [yet, at least] ... and don't feed anything more than my fish their normal food. Yup, I experimented with DT's, golden pearls ... and the like. But once I started reading the literature, realizing that while these may feed the SPS, bacteria, DOM, detritus was feeding them too.
Having had a `base line' with GP's + such coral-food ... I reduced then eliminated that. Haven't had any problems since [except my algae scraper goes unused a lot more :D] - and haven't seen that big of a change in overall tank health IMO, maybe 4 months later. Probably too early to `tell for sure' ... don't know if I ever will.
[but in general I saw a lot more nuisance [cyano + others] algae, lot less diatoms/etc on the glass, good growth and color from Acropora]
Just want to suggest that maybe part of what you're seeing is the results of quitting adding excessive particulate foods, rich in nutrient to your tank. Some [cannot venture how much] could be from that factor. What's happening due to the Zeo - I won't venture a guess, though probably think something too. I don't claim to know what's going on your tank, I pray I never will :)
Anyway - back to the vodka! :beer:
javajaws
08/18/2004, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by MiddletonMark
You don't have to feed with this system? No food input?
I'd think you'd still need to feed your fish, which is what I feed cyclops-eeze to.
Look, I'm not trying to be a detractor, but I'd bet the fish still need to eat [corals maybe a bit too].
I think you'd still want to feed your fish, but feeding the corals is probably not necessary.
From Eric Borneman, http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-01/eb/index.htm :
"It has been found that bacteria alone can supply up to 100% of both the daily carbon and nitrogen requirements of corals."
I see the ZEOvit system aiding bacterial feeding of corals in several ways:
- Regular addition of water-borne bacterial "additives" (ZEObak)
- Regular addition of a source of bacterial food/fertilizer (ZEOfood)
- Regular suspension of additional bacteria and bacterial rich matter into the water through daily "cleansing" of the ZEOvit reactor
It also think that by redirecting the nitrogen that would support a larger zooxanthellae population within zooxanthellate corals into a larger bacterial community instead, you aren't really shifting the coral's dependence on the zooxanthellae (at least totally). The reduction in zooxanthellae populations is mostly a reduction in those zooxanthellae that aren't needed by the coral (it's only a reduction of the excess zooxanthella that were able to survive off of the freely available nitrogen in the nutrient rich water - as opposed to those zooxanthellae that get their nitrogen from the coral itself). I assume that the coral can get as much nitrogen as it needs from consuming the bacteria (and whatever other means it has available) and can pass that through to support a zooxanthellae population that it deems is enough.
We have been asked in a Zeo thread to return to the vodka thread if we wish to discuss vodka dosing further. Comparisons in that commercial forum seem to be unwelcome.
I look forward to continued discussion concerning vodka dosing. If comparisons arise here between the two methodologies I would assume that would be acceptable as it would still be on track with the original discussion.
Steve U
Fatboy
08/18/2004, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by wasp
Hi Jens - Question for you.
You mentioned another zeolit product. Some time ago I read some posts saying that there were other zeolit products available, but none of them as good as zeovit.
Do you think there are other products for sale that will perform as well as zeovit?
Other zeolit based products ? What about Easy Life Fluid Filter Medium ?
http://www.easylife.nl/usa/index.html?id=06
I'm not a 100% sure that this product is based on zeolit but at least is a fine insoluble zeolite like substance. Most of their statements seem exaggerated but the strange thing is that a lot of people have said that it had worked for them.
Fatboy,
I could not say what it is for sure. But on the surface it appears to be nothing more than a filter medium. That's not to say it's good or bad just not in the same line of dosing a carbon source.
Steve U
Jrg Kokott
08/18/2004, 03:22 PM
Easylife is a bentonite, not a zeolite. Bentonites are clays which function as ion-exchangers too, characterized by a small grain size (off corse depending on the fraction, but the smalles fraction should be 1-10 um). If dried they suck up water and swell up (however, not in seawater).
571958
08/18/2004, 06:52 PM
Ji Jorg,
good to see u in ReefCentral. I've a few request, especially the article u and MM have on Vodka method and how lighting spectrum impacts SPS coloration. I understand these article was done and download in PDF format. I need your help to obtain a copy in english or I can do my conversion if you have a assessable format in Microsoft words?
BTW been running Vodka method for coming to a year, so far the effect is just as good as Zeovit...........
Plse PM or send me an email
Max
Originally posted by Jörg Kokott
Easylife is a bentonite, not a zeolite. Bentonites are clays which function as ion-exchangers too, characterized by a small grain size (off corse depending on the fraction, but the smalles fraction should be 1-10 um). If dried they suck up water and swell up (however, not in seawater).
micha2611
08/19/2004, 12:31 PM
Hey Max...
We( Joerg an me)have send a new Part of the Vodka-Article( include the newest experience = UV and Ozon) in Eglish up to two Magazine´s in the USA , but we already got now answer if they will puplish.
Also we puplish in this new Part the Units of Vodka, they need and we hope that the User bether understand what will be happens in the System.
571958
08/19/2004, 02:22 PM
Hi Michael, Thanks or the tip-0ff
Regards,
Peter Peh
Originally posted by micha2611
Hey Max...
We( Joerg an me)have send a new Part of the Vodka-Article( include the newest experience = UV and Ozon) in Eglish up to two Magazine´s in the USA , but we already got now answer if they will puplish.
Also we puplish in this new Part the Units of Vodka, they need and we hope that the User bether understand what will be happens in the System.
invincible569
08/19/2004, 08:47 PM
Here's a small experiment with Vodka which Jorge helped on which has has the same result with overdosage in a Zeovit system (green bacteria):
http://www.udo-gereke.de/html/the_vodka_method.html
I would like to again point out here that I do not accomplish water changes. It must now show up, how the durable use of Wodka works directly into the aquarium.
For the purchase note there was the following default:
no additives in the Wodka
40 vol%
cheaply
"Gusarskaja Vodka" blue label ' product OF Germany ' was used.
I always gave my dosage to the filter chamber of the schnellfilters. Man should the total dose before with aquarium water dilute and in several thrusts (15 min or longer) bring in. With a basin with 1000 litres and 3 ml dose 100 of litres each are nevertheless that 30 ml Wodka. (my basin approx. 400 litres, the relationship have change however thereby not). If this quantity alcohol cannot be diminished by the bacteria, is to be counted on problems. We intervene substantial in a balanced system. This balance must again and again again adjust itself if we alcohol to supply.
Important is probably also the slow increase of the dose, so that the bacteria colonies can develop.
I would like to read on it references the original article and the report from corral reef here again to. The Link's is present in my PAGE, newspaper with the dealer.
If mentioned grey film (bacteria) becomes apparent, on disk is one obviously at the goal. With me after 2 weeks, others after 3-4 weeks.
The measurement to 04.01.04 was therefore a reference to the success of the action.
I thanks here the two authors
Michael Mrutzek and Joerg Kokott for their report
“Ethanol dosage in the aquariumâ€. This method should carry their names.
invincible569
08/19/2004, 08:51 PM
http://www.korallenriff.de/alkoholmethode.html
Visual:
http://www.korallenriff.de/wodka_2flasch.jpg
Habib
08/20/2004, 03:48 AM
IMO from that article it looks like there are atleast 2 different mechanims involved.
First there is a decrease in nitrate but not phosphate and then nothing changes for a couple of weeks and then (inset of another mechansim) both nitrate and phosphate are lowered.
Perhaps Jörg, Michael or Jens can comment. :)
Habib
08/20/2004, 04:38 AM
Here is some testing with ethanol done by the manufacturer of the Zeovit system. It is German. I'll give the link but will also paste the content here just in case the link does not work after some time.
http://www.korallen-zucht.de/index.php?id=69
Meine Erfahrungen und praktischen Tests mit Ethanol und Wodka Praktische Versuche aus Mai.2000 in einem unserer Aquarien mit oben genannten Kohlenstoffen.
Da mir von Bekannten ein Bericht einer Fachzeitschrift über eine angeblich neue Methode der Nitrat und Phosphatveratmung durch Bakterienkulturen zugeschickt wurde schreibe ich hier mein damaliges niederschmetterndes Ergebniss mit diesen puplizierten Kohlenstoffen zur Fütterung von Bakterien im Aquarium nach einer Testphase von nur wenigen Tagen um so manche verzweifelte Aquarianer vor Schaden zu bewahren.
Die Denkweise welches mich dazu bewog im Jahre 2000 Wodka und danach Ethanol zu testen war der Filter eines Aquarianers aus dem Hessischen Raum, Namen kann ich in diesem Bericht nicht nennen, sonst gibt es wieder Abmahnungen. Ich dachte wenn Nitrate in einem Filter gesenkt werden, dann muss es doch auch im Aquarium funktionieren da es auch dort Sauerstoffarme Zonen gibt. Nachfolgend sehen sie die Dosierung und das Ergebniss.
Dosierung Wodka: Täglich je 1000L - 1ml direkt in den Wasserkreislauf
Ergebniss: nach 6 Tagen war das Polypenbild bei Hysterix und verschiedenen Pocciloporen und Stylophoren verschwunden. Eine empfindliche Hysterix in pinkgelb aus Fiji wurde von der Basis nach aussen weis und starb ab.
Nach 14 Tagen wurde eine Woche ausgesetzt um auf eine Besserung des Polypenbildes bei den ganannten Restkorallen zu warten. Vergeblich.
Nach 25 Tagen war das Polypenbild noch genauso schlecht. Der Test mit Wodka wurde abgebrochen. An Acroporen und Weichkorallen war nichts negatives und nichts positives zu bemerken.
Nach Rücksprache mit einem befreundeten Biologen und Chemiker riet er mir Ethanol zu testen, da hier der Alkohol zu 96% rein ist.
Dosierung Ethanol 96% : 1ml für 5000L alle 3 Tage
Wirkung: am 12ten Tag löste sich bei meiner grosse rosa Poccilopora an verschiedenen Teilen das Gewebe ab. Eine Rettung war auch mit Einsatz von verschiedenen Aktivkohlen nicht mehr möglich. Meine Stylophora in Pink aus Fiji wurde von unten nach oben weiss und der grösste Teil des Gewebes schwamm in Fetzen im Aquarium. Meine grosse rote Hysterix wurde von innen nach aussen weis, dies stopte zum Glück nach ein paar Tagen und ich habe das Tier noch Heute, bei einer grösse von mehr als 80cm Länge.
Fazit: Ethanol und Wodka sind agresivste Kohlenstoffe und für Hysterix, Pocciloporen, Stylophoren welche das empfindlichste Korallengewebe überhaupt haben, auf keinen Fall verträglich.
Wenn ich zurück überlege und diesen Artikel lese frag ich mich in welchem Zustand bei diesen Testern die Korallen sein müssen. Ausserdem bezweifle ich stark eine Testphase mit verschieden Steinkorallen von 3 Jahren mit Ethanol und Wodka, ausser die Korallen sind aus Kunststoff. Wer diese Testzeit angiebt und behauptet lügt sich in die eigene Tasche, oder es handelt sich um einen Druckfehler. Ich finde es von der Redaktion dieser Fachzeitung schwach und gefährlich solche Artikel ohne Vorherige Tests abzudrucken, dies sollte in Zukunft zum Wohle von empfindlichen Steinkorallen zur Pflicht gehören.
Th.Pohl Dez. 2003
Well the bioballs I put in nearly two weeks ago are finally starting to work, just tested for nitrate and there is a trace amount, right at the bottom of the color scale, but there is color.
I did notice today that my macro algae has greened a bit also. Just going to let nitrate come up a little more, and then do a vodka dose and see what happens.
I would have been interested to read that last article, but German is not a language I speak.
Randy Holmes-Farley
08/20/2004, 06:41 AM
Very interesting! :)
javajaws
08/20/2004, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by wasp
Well the bioballs I put in nearly two weeks ago are finally starting to work, just tested for nitrate and there is a trace amount, right at the bottom of the color scale, but there is color.
I did notice today that my macro algae has greened a bit also. Just going to let nitrate come up a little more, and then do a vodka dose and see what happens.
I would have been interested to read that last article, but German is not a language I speak.
Nice to hear you are proceeding with the experiment. Should be interesting.
Here's the article roughly translated from babelfish.altavista.com:
After consultation with a friendly biologist and chemist he guessed/advised to test me ethanol, since the alcohol is pure to 96% here. Dosage ethanol 96%: 1ml for 5000L every 3 days Effect: at the 12ten day became detached with my large rosa Poccilopora at different parts the fabric. A rescue was no longer possible also with use of different activated charcoal. My Stylophora in Pink from Fiji became upward white from down and the largest part of the fabric swam in Fetzen in the aquarium. My large red Hysterix became from the inside outward points, this stopte fortunately after a few days and I has the animal still today, with a size of more than 80cm length. Result: Ethanol and Wodka are agresivste coal materials and for Hysterix, Pocciloporen, Stylophoren which the most sensitive Korallengewebe at all have, in no case compatibly. If I back consider and this article read ask I in which condition with these testers the korallen to be must. In addition I doubt a test phase with differently Steinkorallen of 3 years with ethanol and Wodka, except the korallen am strong from plastic. Who angiebt this testing time and stated lies itself into the own bag, or it concerns a misprint. I find it from the editorship of this specialized newspaper weakly and dangerously such articles without previous tests to print, this should in the future to the well-being from sensitive Steinkorallen to the obligation belong. Th.Pohl December. 2003
javajaws
08/20/2004, 08:38 AM
Sorry, missed the first half of the translation, here it is in it's entirety:
My experiences and practical tests with ethanol and Wodka practical attempts from Mai.2000 in one of our aquariums with mentioned above coal materials. There to me by acquaintance a report of a technical periodical over an allegedly new method that nitrate and phosphate respiration by bacterial cultures write I was dispatched my niederschmetterndes at that time suppl.-smooth-eat with these puplizierten coal materials for feeding of bacteria in the aquarium after a test phase of only few days the some desperate Aquarianer here against harm to protect. The way of thinking which to it induced me in the year 2000 Wodka and afterwards ethanol was to be tested the filter of a Aquarianers from the hessian area, name can I in this report not call, otherwise there are again warnings. I thought for being lowered if nitrate in a filter, then it must function nevertheless also in the aquarium it also there oxygen-poor zones gives there. They see the dosage following and suppl.-smooth-eat. Dosage Wodka: Daily for each 1000L - 1ml directly into the water circulation Suppl.-smooth-eat: after 6 days the polyp picture with Hysterix and different Pocciloporen and Stylophoren had disappeared. A sensitive Hysterix in pinkgelb from Fiji became from the basis outward points and died. To wait after 14 days one week suspended over for an improvement of the polyp picture with the ganannten Restkorallen. In vain. After 25 days the polyp picture was still just as bad. The test with Wodka was broken off. At Acroporen and Weichkorallen nothing negative and nothing positive were to be noticed. After consultation with a friendly biologist and chemist he guessed/advised to test me ethanol, since the alcohol is pure to 96% here. Dosage ethanol 96%: 1ml for 5000L every 3 days Effect: at the 12ten day became detached with my large rosa Poccilopora at different parts the fabric. A rescue was no longer possible also with use of different activated charcoal. My Stylophora in Pink from Fiji became upward white from down and the largest part of the fabric swam in Fetzen in the aquarium. My large red Hysterix became from the inside outward points, this stopte fortunately after a few days and I has the animal still today, with a size of more than 80cm length. Result: Ethanol and Wodka are agresivste coal materials and for Hysterix, Pocciloporen, Stylophoren which the most sensitive Korallengewebe at all have, in no case compatibly. If I back consider and this article read ask I in which condition with these testers the korallen to be must. In addition I doubt a test phase with differently Steinkorallen of 3 years with ethanol and Wodka, except the korallen am strong from plastic. Who angiebt this testing time and stated lies itself into the own bag, or it concerns a misprint. I find it from the editorship of this specialized newspaper weakly and dangerously such articles without previous tests to print, this should in the future to the well-being from sensitive Steinkorallen to the obligation belong. Th.Pohl December. 2003
Thanks Javajaws.
Got to say though, from what I can make out, the article looks more like an attempt to debunk vodka dosing, it focuses on damage to corals, but no mention of water quality. All this from 1 ml to 5000 litres? In the past I dosed a lot more than that with no ill effects.
Jrg Kokott
08/20/2004, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by wasp
Thanks Javajaws.
Got to say though, from what I can make out, the article looks more like an attempt to debunk vodka dosing, it focuses on damage to corals, but no mention of water quality. All this from 1 ml to 5000 litres? In the past I dosed a lot more than that with no ill effects.
wasp,
...any comments from my part? I don't think so... 1 mL per 1000 L! However, this is a microliter per Liter. Have you ever used a syringe applicable to one microliter...it's only a drop in a 1L tray.
However, there were many peolple having troubles with zeolites, many who applied nitrate filters to their tanks, or new, more eficient skimmers, and you simply need to apply an overdose of a phosphate adsorber to your tank and your corals will bleach within hours. So, why does people think that adding vodka into reef tanks is completely without risk? Any method harburs advantages and disadvantages, and with the latter the possibility for getting troubles is increased.
Do you think Michael or me would risk our quite good reputation by publishing an article which we would know to be more risky than safe? Though I'm a scientist I'm not mad...
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.