Radical change contemplated: swap lit refugia for carbon dosing

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

OK, I'm considering a possible big change to my system, swapping out all (or nearly all) of my lit refugia for carbon dosing.

Here's the rational...

My mixed reef tank system (a 120, a 90, 4 refugia, 2 sumps, skimmer, ozone reactor, carbon in cannister; limewater top off) has been running for more than 13 years, most of that time using brightly lit refugia for nutrient export. It works well. I'm happy with my display tanks. I'm not looking for any change in the two display tanks, unless it can decrease cyano, which I do not anticipate.

I currently use about 450 watts of lighting on my refugia, and the brightest lit ones do the best. That costs about a thousand dollars a year. Is that worth it?

I've experimented with some vodka dosing along with the refugia, and saw little difference aside from perhaps less macroalgae growth, maybe a bit more cyano (which has not declined since stopping vodka) and less scraping of the glass.

Could my system run on vodka/vinegar/whatever, saving a lot of money, and still be as nice or better?

But I'd hate to cause a disaster just for trying something unnecessarily.

Anyone actually make this specific swap on a well established system?

Comments?

[HighlandReefer]

I have always been a believer in "if it ain't broke than don't mess with it".

In the interest of our hobby, I think it would be a great contribution if you partake in this adventure.

You have had the same set-up for quite a long period of time and perhaps there is room for some excitement.

I am personally very frustrated with my vinegar dosing adventure at this point. Granted I started off on the wrong foot with putting crushed coral in my tank to start with. I went from 80 ppm nitrate down to 10 ppm by dosing vinegar and installing a deep sand bed with chaeto. The phosphates were running around 0.5. The micro was growing rapidly at that point. I installed a phosphate reactor and the micro started to die off. Then the bacteria started to grow faster than I wanted. I cut back on the vinegar and the bacteria slowed down. Now the cyano is taking over. I have temporarily stopped vinegar dosing all together to see what affect it may have. I have 0 nitrates per Mr. Salifert and 0 phosphates per Mr. Hach PO-19. I still have some micro at the lower level of my tank. I am currently contemplating taring my tank down, remove the crushed coral, nuke my rock, install a deep sand bed in its place and start over. I feel that most of my problems are from the crushed coral, which I can not get out?

IMHO, I would tell you to go for it though.

[Genetics]

Originally posted by Randy Holmes-Farley
OK, I'm considering a possible big change to my system,
I currently use about 450 watts of lighting on my refugia, and the brightest lit ones do the best. That costs about a thousand dollars a year. Is that worth it?

That's more than my entire 180g costs to run in a year!

I've experimented with some vodka dosing along with the refugia, and saw little difference aside from perhaps less macroalgae growth, maybe a bit more cyano (which has not declined since stopping vodka) and less scraping of the glass.

I think this may provide a means to swapping out some of your refugia. Could you start back up on whatever organic you are preferring, either from the supermarket or from one of the reef-oriented vendors? Start off with that and then slowly phase out your refugiums. Personally, I would keep at least one for no less than a year until you're confident that this is the way you want to go.

Could my system run on vodka/vinegar/whatever, saving a lot of money, and still be as nice or better?

It's hard to say on improvement. For the cost, I would have to say yes (I spent $15 on vodka last year). I had a very nice 29g setup running a refugium and would say my current setup with vodka looks just as nice.

But I'd hate to cause a disaster just for trying something unnecessarily.

Getting over the dosing/learning what to look for curve could have some negative impact.

[KevChem]

Originally posted by Randy Holmes-Farley
I currently use about 450 watts of lighting on my refugia, and the brightest lit ones do the best. That costs about a thousand dollars a year. Is that worth it?

OK - if I'm calculating right you mean 450 watts on each refugium - for a total of 1800 watts? Then at about 18cents per kWh and a 10hour light period it comes out over $1000.

My question/suggestion - 450 watts seems like a lot - what are your fixtures? You could grow some great macroalgae with a good T5 system with good reflectors and plant bulbs and use a lot fewer watts (assuming your 450 is from something like MH lights).

Kevin

[jedheuer]

Why not try it, but go slow? Gradually decrease the photo period in the refugia as well as slowly removing the macro out while you ramp up on the vodka. If you begin to see adverse reactions go back to what you know works.

[Mike O'Brien]

You do realize the implications if you do this successfully ?

I'm just starting to try it myself. For some reason, I just can't seem to grow Chaetomorpha well. I can grow Caulerpa just fine, but with either one, I end up with Cyano in the refugium. I tried using GFO, but that really doesn't change anything in my tank, it just ends up killing the Macro algae. I have red hair algae in my tank, and would love to get rid of it. IME limiting nutrients isn't going to do anything for it, but it should slow the growth a bit and let my herbivoirs get at it.

I started Sunday with VSV. Being kind of nervouse, I made the recipe and added as much water to cut the dose in half. It makes it easier to add such a small dose. Today I went up to 1 ml. I have also started to use Cycle, and plant to use that once a week at the maintenance dose. I don't know how that compares to other products, but it's cheap and available locally. I figure I'd try some other brands if I continue with this. The only other thing I'm doing is adding an extra feeding at night with Cyclopeeze and Phyto plan for some extra AA's.

What I'm hoping to accomplish is to transition without having anything bleach on me. I have a mixed reef without Acropora, so I'm not really going for the ultra low nutrients. But nutrients are not a problem for me, so I can't use them for a judge of the dose, just my observations. I'm just going to stay with where I'm at now and see what happens in the next few months.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

OK - if I'm calculating right you mean 450 watts on each refugium - for a total of 1800 watts? Then at about 18cents per kWh and a 10hour light period it comes out over $1000.

No, its 450 watts total. The refugia have 100, 100, 175, and about 75 watts. These are large refugia, several square feet of surface area each.

450 watts x 24 h /1000 w/kw x 0.25 $/kwh = $2.70 per day.

so 365 days = $986.

Why not try it, but go slow? Gradually decrease the photo period in the refugia as well as slowly removing the macro out while you ramp up on the vodka. If you begin to see adverse reactions go back to what you know works.

Maybe. I've found that carbon dosing begins to kill the macroalgae, so striking a middle ground position may be tricky.

[Paul_PSU]

I took my macro out of the sump when I started dosing vodka. I have LR and a DSB in the DT. My sump only has my skimmer and return pump. I will let you know how mine progresses. So far so good. It has been about 3 months.

edit: I also have two reactors in sump with carbon. the second had GFO which I took offline also when I started vodka.

[LunarDDS]

I don't think your tank will crash if you try it. Start slow and see how things look. If your bac are taking out nutrients you may be able to phase out your fuges 1 at a time or strike a nice middle ground. I never understood why you have to max out the bac when dosing. Why not just add a little here and there to drive some bac growth and help clean things up once in a while?

[yraveh]

Originally posted by Randy Holmes-Farley


No, its 450 watts total. The refugia have 100, 100, 175, and about 75 watts. These are large refugia, several square feet of surface area each.

450 watts x 24 h /1000 w/kw x 0.25 $/kwh = $2.70 per day.

so 365 days = $986.

The cost is in fact higher. If you calculate the amperage X Voltage of the ballast you will find that to produce 450 watts of light takes more watts.

look at this quote from reefkeeping magazine


The ballast also has an amp rating. A 250 watt MH ballast that draws 2.6 amps at 120 VAC is drawing 312 watts in, yet producing 250 watts output. The 62 watts difference will be turned into heat. A different 250 watt MH ballast that draws 2.2 amps at 120 VAC is drawing 264 watts, so only 14 watts will be turned into heat.

[redfishsc]

Randy, I would be hesitant... or at least cautious. For one, the plants in the refugia provide a LOT of substrate for growing microfauna. I suppose you could replace that with something like LR ($$$). If I recall your tank, you have a good bit of soft corals (and LPS?) that are probably benefiting from the extra "food" in the system.


If the electricity cost is bothering you, consider upgrading your larger light systems to a DIY LED system (given your chemistry credentials, I'm pretty sure you could handle a soldering iron )

Or consider this little fellow. 42W sure beats 175W. The up front cost is expensive, but should last a very long time.
http://www.247aquariumsupply.com/pro...roducts_id=143

[Joe Pusdesris]

It is impressive indeed that just a little bit of sugar with an energy density of about 16000 joules/gram can power filtration just as much as your lighting which gives the tank 450 joules/second! I suppose photosynthesis is just inefficient.

[Masoch]

Hi Randy,

You could try putting together a turf scrubber. Lots of plans around the net for them. In my own experience, they're very, very good at lowering N and P. Frankly, I think a scrubber works better and takes up less space than chaeto.

I would guesstimate that, with a skimmer and ozone, you could put together an effective 12 X 12 screen (bigger would be better) lit with ~ 100 watts' worth of CFL floodlight from HD ... and export a lot of algal biomass every week. For flow, you could use a T off your drain.

Just a thought.

[onetrickpony]

Since you would be relying on your protein skimmer for nutrient export,
How do you think this article and its conclusion would come into play with dosing carbon?

“Thus, all skimmers tested remove around 20 - 30% of the TOC in the aquarium water, and that's it; 70 - 80% of the measurable TOC is left behind unperturbed by the skimming process. It may be possible to develop a rationalization for this unexpected behavior by referring back to Fig. 1. Perhaps only 20 - 30% of the organic species in the aquarium water meet the hydrophobic requirements for bubble capture, whereas the remaining 70-80%, for whatever reason, don't. Since the chemical structures of the TOC components are not known, any further speculation along these lines must await chemical structural analysis for verification.�
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2009/1/aafeature2

[Jk5]

Welcome to the dark side of the force, Randy...

It´s very dificult to say...
each tank is a diferent world...

I think vodka dosage is not working for Melev...
In many ULNS (ultra low nutrient system) tutorials, they say that they are for Berlin System, not for DSB...
with Dsb perhaphs it works, perhaps not (remember Melev).

My experience.
like you, I have seen macroalgae growth very slowly when you are dosing vodka...
I stopped macroalgae growth with vodka, but I have not killed them...

In the last days, I mixed vinegar with vodka, and then and only then I have seen macroalgae die...
I think vinegar is lower in carbon than vodka, but with vinegar in the mix, I have killed macroalgae...
I know and I like the very lightened fuges I know they really works very good and avoid the nuisance algae growth in the display.
I hope you find the middle ground position until you discovered if carbon dosage works for you...
Perhaps you could run a vertical waterfall ATS (50x50cm) optimized and operated with 100-150 w during 16 h (your costs would be 6 times less)

[Jk5]

I remember macroalgae die with ULNS (zeovit or so)

I remember the Fauna Marine product (ultrabak) contains:

calcium chloride, sulfato del magnesio, potassium chloride, ethylene acetate, ethanol, Peptone, Tryptone, clorhidrato del Histidine, D-Phenylalanine, L-Threonine, DL-Tryptonphane, DL-Valine, tiamine chloride, niconamida, Ribiflavine, clorhidrato de Pridoxine, Cyanococobalamine, Sodiummethyl-4-hydroxybezoate, ácidos orgánicos, oligoelementos.




I would make this mix:
90% vodka 10% vinegar.
And my dosage will be 0.1 ml/100 liters and increasing 0.1 ml each 7 days...
until you have nitrates between 0-3.

If you arrived until 1 ml/100 liters then stop, dont go more there.


I would not add sugar...
With much sugar I have seen diatoms growth in the sand, and co2, macroalgae growths better...

I killed macroalgae using the next mix:
50% vodka 50% vinegar
70% vodka 30% vinegar

Now I am testing
90% vodka 10% vinegar
with this mix It seems it runs well.

[InsaneClownFish]

Randy, first and foremost, thirteen years is fantastic. Congratulations and continued success. Like others have intimated, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

While you can supplement your nutrient export with other solutions, I wouldn't remove the fuge on an established system.

Have you considered running less wattage on your refugia to save in energy costs? It has been proven time and time again that a refugium can be very simplistic, and function as a nutrient export, off of very minimal lighting.

[Genetics]

Originally posted by Jk5

I would make this mix:
90% vodka 10% vinegar.
And my dosage will be 0.1 ml/100 liters and increasing 0.1 ml each 7 days...
until you have nitrates between 0-3.

If you arrived until 1 ml/100 liters then stop, dont go more there.


I would not add sugar...
With much sugar I have seen diatoms growth in the sand, and co2, macroalgae growths better...

I killed macroalgae using the next mix:
50% vodka 50% vinegar
70% vodka 30% vinegar

Now I am testing
90% vodka 10% vinegar
with this mix It seems it runs well. [/B]

I would differ a bit and say to use some sugar at a concentration of 0.04ppm. Sucrose gives you a nice darkening of corals. Glucose/dextrose gives your greens/blues a nice pop. Or so I've seen with my tank recently. I will be watching for VC changes this month.

[ksed]

Just a suggestion, how about Prodibio, the reason why I mentioned about this is because I don't think you can over dose Prodibio. Phase that in with the fuge. I believe it is a milder form of carbon dosing,and also without having to dose daily.
Just IMO. If any with different opinion we would like to hear.

Kevin

[texc4]

Hello,
I m sorry, i speak a little english so I try to say what i do :
First : I dose Biodigest directly in my sump
- 2 doses the 1th day
- 1 dose the 2sd day
- 1 dose the 3th day
- 2 doses the 4th day
I turn off my skimmer 2 hours each time before use Biodigest.
Before, I began vodka 2 weeks ago with :
0.5ml /100l the first week
1.0ml/100l the second week
When I started Biodigest, it was the week three. At this moment, I dose Vodka 1.5ml/100l. I kept this level.
After two month, my PO4 and NO3 levels are not detectable.
I used Biodigest to adjust the good bacteria population in the good proportion.
My setup : 800 liters ( with sump ) Jaubert with a big sand bed
One sump
Skimmer ATI BBM250 ( need a big skimmer to use Vodka ) the skim is now more dark.
salt 1025.
I use clay balls ( I hope it is the good word ) in my sump, 2 liters.
I use zeolith ( 0.5 liter, but i will add to have 1 liter ) in my sump ( 4mm diameter max ) in slow place. My corals grow now very fast, the colors are changed. The polyps are more big.
The first week, the PH down slowly but after it was OK. I dose Vodka when the lights are on. The Biodigest was add when the lights are off. I think i need two months because my tank has a sand bed. I must stay to 1.5 ml/100l to keep NO3 and PO4 down. Don't use Fe to down PO4 and Vodka in the same time : dead corals ( bleach you say ? ). Max dose for Vodka is 2ml/100l ( with sand bed ). Use Vodka if the ratio NO3/PO4 is good ( if your NO3 are 15 and your PO4 are undetectable, don't use for example )
Doses are big because I have a big sand bed, I think I divide by 2 if no sand bed.
Sorry for my poor english... it was what I do

[Genetics]

Out of curiosity, Randy what do you have in your tank?

[Ralph ATL]

Randy, you know the routine. Go slow. go very slow. acclimate over a 2 or 3 month period. keep your alk low. dosing carbon is not as difficult as GFO is. IMHO. I've been dosing for 2.5 years with very little issue (I also have GFO). Since I have pipefish, I have to keep a fuge. (I actually have 2). I just use compact fluorescents & replace cheato every 6 month or so. maybe longer. It usually grows for the first 3 months, then stays stagnant, then lightens up.

I think I could offer you some links, but alas, I believe that you might have read them!

GOOD LUCK!

Ralph


I do have a question for you here about switching carbon products:

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?
s=&threadid=1558232


what carbon sources will you be using?

[HighlandReefer]

Randy, I have been contemplating what your are proposing to do. Personally I am in a situation where I can also start to dose a carbon source of choice. Noting the efforts of many other hobbyists (ie. Genetics), I would be glad to participate in any effort to extend the knowledge of carbon dosing. I have some additional funds that I am willing to supply either to you or to add to my own necessary equipment or supplies, if you so choose to run some kind of experiment.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Thanks, everyone for the input!


Out of curiosity, Randy what do you have in your tank?

Here are some pictures of the 120. It is a bit dated, but the tank hasn't changed all that much. The 90 is similar in that it has a lot of rock, some E.quads, and various LPS and soft corals. There is not much SPS. I have a lot more live rock in one of the sumps.

FWIW, I'd not striving for a ULNS, so any issues relating to such system would only be arrived at accidently. In fact, I'm concerned that some of the organisms (like the leather corals) will not fair as well if the nutrients are any lower than they are now.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Have you considered running less wattage on your refugia to save in energy costs? It has been proven time and time again that a refugium can be very simplistic, and function as a nutrient export, off of very minimal lighting.

Perhaps true, but it is the brightest lit refugium that has most of the growth in my tank. I even moved the 175 w mh lamp from one refugium to another, and the high growth moved with it. Maybe I can drop 2 of the others and keep this one, at least during a phase in.


FWIW, I do not grow Chaeto. I've found that in my system Caulerpa racemosa is presumably more efficient, and over time it replaced all of the Chaeto.