Reef Central Online Community
Marine Depot

Home Forum Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences View New Posts View Today's Posts

Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Search Reefkeeping ...an online magazine for marine aquarists Support our sponsors and mention Reef Central

Go Back   Reef Central Online Community > General Interest Forums > The Reef Chemistry Forum
Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

Notices

User Tag List

Reply
Thread Tools
Old 01/05/2018, 03:12 PM   #51
bertoni
RC Mod
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Mountain View, CA, USA
Posts: 87,163
I absolutely agree that it's possible that the nitrifying and denitrifying bacteria to be impacted, but I don't see any evidence that this is dangerous. At this point, there are a lot of tanks running with carbon dosing.

I'd like to know what actually happens to the organic carbon and the nitrifying-denitrifying microbes, but I don't see a reasonable way to get that information. I might be wrong, but that seems to be an expensive proposition.


__________________
Jonathan Bertoni
bertoni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01/07/2018, 07:19 AM   #52
Belgian Anthias
Registered Member
 
Belgian Anthias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Belgium
Posts: 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by bertoni View Post
That's my opinion.

The system might or might not require much time to recover an ammonia-processing capacity. I don't see why this is relevant. If you're worried, just back off slowly on carbon dosing. That's what I generally recommend.

I'm not sure what you mean by "unbalanced". Balanced with respect to what? I also disagree about carbon dosing being particularly dangerous. I haven't seen any evidence of that since the dosing guidelines were created.
If it was that simple we would not have this discussion.
Is removing the normal nitrogen cycle which was installed and replace it by an other without risk? May be. May be not? For me it is not a good idea, the reason why I have explained.


__________________
Belgian Anthias

Current Tank Info: BBS: BADES Biofilm System. An aqua-system in wich the nitrogen cycle is closed by removing the daily nitrate production daily, every day, by incorporation of BADES (Biological Anaerobe Denitrification using Elemental Sulphur.)
Belgian Anthias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01/07/2018, 10:35 AM   #53
Belgian Anthias
Registered Member
 
Belgian Anthias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Belgium
Posts: 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_P View Post
increasing carbon increases bacterial biomass (I wonder if one gram of carbon results in some tenths of a gram of bacteria. Sounds like too much, there is predation and export as you point out.). And you are right, we typically donít fill our aquarium with bacteria, though that would be an interesting calculation. 40 gallons of bacteria equals how much vodka. However, when the nitrogen or phosphorous is used up, I am pretty sure the larger bacterial population has few choices if any but to die or form spores. I think to move forwards at this point we need to answer the question how many bacteria are generated from a mg of NH3. I donít know off hand what a typical bacterial stoichiometric ratio of elements is but assume 5% by weight is nitrogen. That gives 20 milligrams dry weight of bacteria. Spread throughout the aquarium that amount would be invisible, yes? And if skimmable, I would guess removed or diminished in number quite easily. There must be a portion lost through predation too.

I have macro algae on the brain

So where are we? Carbon dosing could impact autotrophs but we have little or no data to say this is a large downside. In principle, we should remove the extra bacteria we grow with carbon dosing to maximize nutrient export but this might not be totally necessary if that bacterial biomass is assimilated and locked up long term in some other biomass, e.g., the tanks population of protozoa, rotifers, amphipods, etc. Are we done here?
For removing 1 gram of NH4-N by assimilation into biomass 8 grams of protein VSS must be produced. http://www.baharini.eu/baharini /dok...onium_reductie +- 4 gram carbon is needed to remove 1 gram NH4-N. +- Half the weight of VSS is carbon. 8 grams of bacterial protein corresponds to approximately 35,2 grams of bacteria. Not included the weight of the reserves stored in vacuoles. 1 gram carbon may be responsible for +- 9 gram bacteria.
400 grams bacteria contain 300 gram water and 100 gram dry material (TSS). TSS consits of 90 gram organic material (VSS) and 10 gram minerals. http://www.baharini.eu/baharini/doku...bacteri%C3%ABn

In fact the only thing we add is the carbohydrate as the rest is provided by the system and feeding.

All approved data to prove my point is available in de Makazi Baharini wiki.

Every link in the food chain will use +- 10 % of the consumed protein and release the rest, most of it as ammonia and ureum. In the case of scrimp as an end user 90% is released back into the system the same day. Some will be used to produce energy the rest will be released when the scrimp dies. To remove something the scrimp must be harvested.

The increase in biomass I do not see as a real problem as this is easily compensated for by the feeding's.

The use of fotoautotrophic ammonia reduction is in my opinion the best way to reduce ammonia and nitrate. A problem may be that +-200 grams of algae must be harvested daily to remove 1 gram NH4-N daily ( 1ppm in a 1000l aquarium)

An other way is increasing the denitrification rate.


__________________
Belgian Anthias

Current Tank Info: BBS: BADES Biofilm System. An aqua-system in wich the nitrogen cycle is closed by removing the daily nitrate production daily, every day, by incorporation of BADES (Biological Anaerobe Denitrification using Elemental Sulphur.)
Belgian Anthias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01/07/2018, 10:54 AM   #54
Belgian Anthias
Registered Member
 
Belgian Anthias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Belgium
Posts: 581
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by bertoni View Post
I absolutely agree that it's possible that the nitrifying and denitrifying bacteria to be impacted, but I don't see any evidence that this is dangerous. At this point, there are a lot of tanks running with carbon dosing.

I'd like to know what actually happens to the organic carbon and the nitrifying-denitrifying microbes, but I don't see a reasonable way to get that information. I might be wrong, but that seems to be an expensive proposition.
Did you find any evidence that it is not dangerous? That the situation in which a system may be brought due to carbohydrate dosing which I have described is not possible?

Where all this users properly informed and advised about the pro's and con's involved?

All information can be found in the links published by me in this threat. All information is based on approved references which can be consulted with one click. Most is thoroughly explained in this threat.


__________________
Belgian Anthias

Current Tank Info: BBS: BADES Biofilm System. An aqua-system in wich the nitrogen cycle is closed by removing the daily nitrate production daily, every day, by incorporation of BADES (Biological Anaerobe Denitrification using Elemental Sulphur.)
Belgian Anthias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01/07/2018, 12:27 PM   #55
Belgian Anthias
Registered Member
 
Belgian Anthias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Belgium
Posts: 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by bertoni View Post

That's possible. In addition, the ammonia-processing capacity might increase very rapidly in response to the input. At some point, we'll be arguing over wording here. The end result is the same.

I am sure that carbon dosing will have some impact on autotrophs. I am skeptical about the downside being significant, given the experiences reported here. I think we're done, pending data on what is happening. That data is going to be very expensive to produce, I'd guess, which is too bad. It'd be interesting to see what's happening.
How the the ammonia-processing capacity might increase very rapidly in response to the input when carbo dosing is stopped?
The only way to do so is stop feeding which is advisable.
It is a fact that autotroph nitrifiers need 15 days to double there nitrification capacity. If this capacity is brought back to 15 % instead of 60% because of carbo dosing it will take one month to reach the normal capacity needed.

All data is available as heterotrophic ammonia and nitrate reduction has been researched thoroughly during past decennia in university's all over the world. I have used research of Ebeling, J.M., Timmons, M.B., Bisogni, J.J., 2006. (Engineering analysis of the stoichiometry of photoautotrophic, autotrophic, and heterotrophic removal of ammonia–nitrogen in aquaculture systems. Aquaculture 257, 346–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2006.03.019)
to help develop my point of view. The publication can be consulted http://www.baharini.eu/baharini/doku...onium_reductie

The suppression of autotrophs by heterotrophs is a key factor in managing mixotropic biofilters and part of most studies about this subject. I advice to read some of these studies.


__________________
Belgian Anthias

Current Tank Info: BBS: BADES Biofilm System. An aqua-system in wich the nitrogen cycle is closed by removing the daily nitrate production daily, every day, by incorporation of BADES (Biological Anaerobe Denitrification using Elemental Sulphur.)

Last edited by Belgian Anthias; 01/07/2018 at 01:55 PM.
Belgian Anthias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01/07/2018, 02:15 PM   #56
Dan_P
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belgian Anthias View Post
All data is available as heterotrophic ammonia and nitrate reduction has been researched thoroughly during past decennia in university's all over the world. I have used research of Ebeling, J.M., Timmons, M.B., Bisogni, J.J., 2006. (Engineering analysis of the stoichiometry of photoautotrophic, autotrophic, and heterotrophic removal of ammoniaĖnitrogen in aquaculture systems. Aquaculture 257, 346Ė358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2006.03.019)
to help develop my point of view. The publication can be consulted http://www.baharini.eu/baharini/doku...onium_reductie
Yes this is good read if you want to know about the science behind carbon dosing but a somewhat more readable version was presented at the 6th International Conference on Recirculating Aquaculture. It is published here.

https://ejournals.lib.vt.edu/ijra/ar...view/1336/1814

Figure 2 is important to put the ideas in this post in perspective. The bar chart reflects Jonathanís perspective. Unless the C:N ratio is very high, you always have some autotrophic activity. Ending carbon dosing suddenly when the system is heavily dependent on heterotrophic activity to remove nitrogen seems likely to produce an ammonia spike, but you havenít provided evidence or calculated a C:N ratio for a typical aquarium to show whether the typical aquarium heterotrophic:autotrophic ratio is on the edge of disaster. The notion to use care tapering off carbon dosing is sound advice. Whether a sudden cessation is dangerous has yet to be demonstrated.

Where I think we missed an important point in this discussion is that the ratio of heterotrophic:autotrophic may be predictive of a systemís propensity to grow nuisance photoautotrophs such as diatoms, dinoflagellates, cyanobacteria and algae. The notion that nitrate and phosphate are predictive or are the cause of nuisance organism growth needs to be revisited. It might be more useful to think in terms of inadequate heterotrophic activity or a low C:N ratio as the cause of nuisance organism growth.


Dan_P is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01/07/2018, 02:42 PM   #57
Belgian Anthias
Registered Member
 
Belgian Anthias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Belgium
Posts: 581
Zmas

Many zero emission marine aquaculture systems ( ZMAS) are managed with carbohydrate dosing and adjusted feeding. No markable nitrification and denitrification takes place in these systems. No filters are used exempt for the removal of detritus.
These systems are completely dependable of the carbohydrate doses and corresponding matched feeding rate.
How it is possible that no nitrification takes place in a system with a high carrying capacity and a very high ammonia production?
As there is no nitrate produced in the system in combination with a very high daily ammonia production, how the correct carbohydrate doses are calculated?
What will happen when dosing is not matched with the ammonia production ?

Of coarse one can not compare such ZMAS with a reef aquarium ( also a ZMAS) but the bio-chemical basics and principles are for both systems the same.


__________________
Belgian Anthias

Current Tank Info: BBS: BADES Biofilm System. An aqua-system in wich the nitrogen cycle is closed by removing the daily nitrate production daily, every day, by incorporation of BADES (Biological Anaerobe Denitrification using Elemental Sulphur.)
Belgian Anthias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01/07/2018, 04:01 PM   #58
Belgian Anthias
Registered Member
 
Belgian Anthias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Belgium
Posts: 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_P View Post
Yes this is good read if you want to know about the science behind carbon dosing but a somewhat more readable version was presented at the 6th International Conference on Recirculating Aquaculture. It is published here.

https://ejournals.lib.vt.edu/ijra/ar...view/1336/1814

Figure 2 is important to put the ideas in this post in perspective. The bar chart reflects Jonathanís perspective. Unless the C:N ratio is very high, you always have some autotrophic activity. Ending carbon dosing suddenly when the system is heavily dependent on heterotrophic activity to remove nitrogen seems likely to produce an ammonia spike, but you havenít provided evidence or calculated a C:N ratio for a typical aquarium to show whether the typical aquarium heterotrophic:autotrophic ratio is on the edge of disaster. The notion to use care tapering off carbon dosing is sound advice. Whether a sudden cessation is dangerous has yet to be demonstrated.

Where I think we missed an important point in this discussion is that the ratio of heterotrophic:autotrophic may be predictive of a systemís propensity to grow nuisance photoautotrophs such as diatoms, dinoflagellates, cyanobacteria and algae. The notion that nitrate and phosphate are predictive or are the cause of nuisance organism growth needs to be revisited. It might be more useful to think in terms of inadequate heterotrophic activity or a low C:N ratio as the cause of nuisance organism growth.
Both publications are available and included in my article including a lot of other publications http://www.baharini.eu/baharini/doku...onium_reductie

It is known that autotrophs do not care at all about the presence of heterotophs and that it is just a question of available organic carbon and competition for the same building materials. And there will be always autotrophs present in an aquarium, they will not be wiped out.
The problem is the difference in growth rate. They may be suppressed and drastic be reduced in a few hours to days, but they need time to reinstall when given the space. Autotrophic decay feeds heterotrops due increased availability of organics.

This threat is not about the influence of nitrate on the system but about how to have control over the nitrate production and removal in function of maintaining the carrying capacity needed. Most organism prefer ammonia above nitrite and nitrate as nitrogen source for celsynthesis. , Respiration is also a factor of big influence.
How to control nitrate and what is the safest way to do so.?
The fact that carbohydrate dosing will reduce the nitrification capacity is not a problem as long the carrying capacity is not changed. The problem is that when the dosing is interrupted the carrying capacity will change. When the change is to big it will have its effect and its consequences. Dangerous? A system that may loses a part of its carrying capacity from one day to an other, yes I find this situation dangerous. It is a risk one does not have to take, not for fine tuning the nitrate level.
When one messes with nature it has always consequences. It is important to know what may happen before starting messing with it.


__________________
Belgian Anthias

Current Tank Info: BBS: BADES Biofilm System. An aqua-system in wich the nitrogen cycle is closed by removing the daily nitrate production daily, every day, by incorporation of BADES (Biological Anaerobe Denitrification using Elemental Sulphur.)
Belgian Anthias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01/07/2018, 06:29 PM   #59
Dan_P
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belgian Anthias View Post
, The problem is that when the dosing is interrupted the carrying capacity will change. When the change is to big it will have its effect and its consequences. Dangerous? A system that may loses a part of its carrying capacity from one day to an other, yes I find this situation dangerous. It is a risk one does not have to take, not for fine tuning the nitrate level.
When one messes with nature it has always consequences. It is important to know what may happen before starting messing with it.
The C:N ratio in the reference I quoted for complete heterotrophic N assimilation is 13:1. That means a 39:1 ratio of acetic acid to ammonia nitrgen. That corresponds to a volume of vinegar of 780 mL per gram of ammonia nitrogen. I am pretty sure no aquarist is at this level of dosing, and therefore, has not pushed their system into all heterotrophic activity. A large ammonia spike does not seem like a realistic danger. Beyond this point, estimating the size of the consequence of abruptly stopping carbon additions seems impossible. To this point in time carbon dosing does not seem to have increased aquarium issues, something to be expected if many of the systems were teetering on the edge of disaster.

I understand your concern about the risk of dosing and agree with the idea to understand before attempting to adjust aquarium conditions. We disagree on the severity of the risk of carbon dosing. I think the size of the risk is testable, maybe without endangering organisms other than bacteria.


Dan_P is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01/07/2018, 07:06 PM   #60
bertoni
RC Mod
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Mountain View, CA, USA
Posts: 87,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belgian Anthias View Post
Did you find any evidence that it is not dangerous?
Yes. Years of experience with many, many tanks tell us that this approach is safe. That's as good as it gets with aquariums. In your opinion, it's dangerous or possibly dangerous. That's fine, but other people have different opinions, and what evidence we have says that carbon dosing can be done safely. Admittedly, the evidence is limited watching what happens to people's tanks rather than controlled experiments, but in the end, that's what we care about: how well the tanks perform. Aquarium science isn't going to get much funding for much beyond that.

Your references are interesting, but they do not tell us anything about the risks in our systems.


__________________
Jonathan Bertoni
bertoni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01/08/2018, 07:23 AM   #61
Belgian Anthias
Registered Member
 
Belgian Anthias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Belgium
Posts: 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by bertoni View Post

Your references are interesting, but they do not tell us anything about the risks in our systems.
You obviously did not take up much from this threat.

I try again

It is a proven fact that a situation is created which will shift the carrying capacity of the system from autotropic ammonia reduction to heterotrophic ammonia reduction. This is proven by hundreds or thousands of different labtests and practical experience using biofilters,aquaculture and aquaria systems all over the world. This shift may result in 0% nitrification capacity depending of the maintained C:N ratio. This is a fact! There is no reason to doubt about that.
As one has no control over the C:N ratio by dosing based on the nitrate level one has no idea how many nitrifying capacity is left over. This may create a dangerous situation when dosing is interrupted as the carrying capacity of the system relays on the carbo doses and may fall at once to 50% or even 0 % for a period of time. Aquarium science is not different from other basic science.
Some one who is aware of this shift knows he has to stop feeding when dosing is interrupted . Feeding must be cut back or stopped when carbo doses are cut back by half from one day to an other to avoid possible problems with the carrying capacity.

Instead of having doubts about this one should put the energy in finding a better way for dosing which prevents a high C:N ratio

There are ways to remove nitrate without bringin in danger the carrying capacity of the system.


__________________
Belgian Anthias

Current Tank Info: BBS: BADES Biofilm System. An aqua-system in wich the nitrogen cycle is closed by removing the daily nitrate production daily, every day, by incorporation of BADES (Biological Anaerobe Denitrification using Elemental Sulphur.)
Belgian Anthias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01/08/2018, 10:08 AM   #62
Belgian Anthias
Registered Member
 
Belgian Anthias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Belgium
Posts: 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_P View Post
The C:N ratio in the reference I quoted for complete heterotrophic N assimilation is 13:1. That means a 39:1 ratio of acetic acid to ammonia nitrgen. That corresponds to a volume of vinegar of 780 mL per gram of ammonia nitrogen. I am pretty sure no aquarist is at this level of dosing, and therefore, has not pushed their system into all heterotrophic activity. A large ammonia spike does not seem like a realistic danger. Beyond this point, estimating the size of the consequence of abruptly stopping carbon additions seems impossible. To this point in time carbon dosing does not seem to have increased aquarium issues, something to be expected if many of the systems were teetering on the edge of disaster.

I understand your concern about the risk of dosing and agree with the idea to understand before attempting to adjust aquarium conditions. We disagree on the severity of the risk of carbon dosing. I think the size of the risk is testable, maybe without endangering organisms other than bacteria.
An aquarium is one big biofilter.
It is a realistic danger without any doubt.

The effect of dosing carbohydrates on nitrifying biofilter are wel known. The influence of the C / N ratio on the functioning of bioreactors was extensively tested. When an efficiency of more than 95% is obtained at a C / N between 0 and 2, the efficiency falls to + - 50% at a C / N ratio of 4 and falls back to 0 at much higher ratio's. http://www.baharini.eu/baharini/doku..._nitrification

Everybody who drives a car does it without thinking about the consequences but the risks are known and accepted. Driving a car is one of the most dangerous things one can do. When one is aware of the risk there should be no problem. After an accident one will start the discussion what went wrong and who or what was in error. Sometimes the driver and passengers will not take part to this discussion.

Minimizing the problem is not the right approach. What is there to defend?

Precautions can be taken to limit the risk by correct dosing. Correct dosing is not possible when one only takes into account the nitrate level.
As it is difficult to measure the C:N ratio as it changes in time after each dosing and as a C:N meter does not exists.
One may start with determining the daily production of ammonia nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen production. One can have some idea and make some calculations when one knows the composition of the feed and % protein added each day. http://www.baharini.eu/baharini/doku...edselconversie A lot of work just for fine trimming nitrate.

In aquaculture systems based on carbohydrate dosing a high C:N ratio is maintained taken into account the feeding content, quantity and rate. Overdosing must be avoided, dosing must be correct to support the carrying capacity of the system as no nitrification capacity is present. In these systems no nitrate has to be removed.

There are other ways to remove nitrate which have no influence on the carrying capacity of the system at all and do not need daily attention. if they are better are more safe that is an other discussion.


__________________
Belgian Anthias

Current Tank Info: BBS: BADES Biofilm System. An aqua-system in wich the nitrogen cycle is closed by removing the daily nitrate production daily, every day, by incorporation of BADES (Biological Anaerobe Denitrification using Elemental Sulphur.)
Belgian Anthias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01/08/2018, 01:43 PM   #63
Dan_P
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belgian Anthias View Post
An aquarium is one big biofilter.
It is a realistic danger without any doubt
There are two components to risk: severity of the event and probability of the event. Just because a disaster is plausible, you cannot afford to worry about every plausible disaster, otherwise, you would never experiment, innovate or explore. A sound sense of proportion is needed.

For this discussion letís call an ammonia spike troubling and one that kills fish a catastrophic failure. While catastrophic failures of aquarium biofilters are plausible, how often does that happen? Of those failures, how many were caused by rapid changes in carbon dosing? This does not prove anything except to point out that we are not experiencing an epidemic. Is this a situation that is like getting upset about the possibility of being hit by a meteor?

Where is the aquarium based data that shows a sudden, abrupt change in carbon dosing cause a serious problem? What is the chance that a ďtypicalĒ aquarium is even close to the point of having a problem with a rapid decline in carbon dosing? I still agree it is plausible, but we need these answers to fully evaluate the risk.


Dan_P is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01/08/2018, 04:45 PM   #64
bertoni
RC Mod
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Mountain View, CA, USA
Posts: 87,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belgian Anthias View Post
It is a proven fact that a situation is created which will shift the carrying capacity of the system from autotropic ammonia reduction to heterotrophic ammonia reduction. This is proven by hundreds or thousands of different labtests and practical experience using biofilters,aquaculture and aquaria systems all over the world. This shift may result in 0% nitrification capacity depending of the maintained C:N ratio.
There's absolutely no reason to believe that any aquarium ever has reached the level of carbon input that would cause a problem. There is weak evidence to the contrary.


__________________
Jonathan Bertoni
bertoni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01/08/2018, 05:53 PM   #65
Belgian Anthias
Registered Member
 
Belgian Anthias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Belgium
Posts: 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_P View Post
.

Where I think we missed an important point in this discussion is that the ratio of heterotrophic:autotrophic may be predictive of a systemís propensity to grow nuisance photoautotrophs such as diatoms, dinoflagellates, cyanobacteria and algae. The notion that nitrate and phosphate are predictive or are the cause of nuisance organism growth needs to be revisited. It might be more useful to think in terms of inadequate heterotrophic activity or a low C:N ratio as the cause of nuisance organism growth.
It is a fact that the nitrate level has nothing to do with the total nitrogen produced in a system. As ammonia is used directly by a lot of organism it is difficult to determine how much is used by heterotrophic and autotrophic bacteria and how much is denitrified. Nitrate is the product of autotrophs but the denitrification ratio is not known.
As most organisms prefer ammonia, also nuisance organism growth, on has to make a study of there needs. As example the C:N:P ratio for bentic algae differs a lot from the ratio needed by phytho plankton. When carbon is provided the competition will be for nitrogen and phosphate. When carbon is not provided heterotropic growth is limited by the availability of organic carbon and nitrification and denitrification will be normal which means that nitrogen may be removed from the system and not stored into the food chain and not be reused by nuisance organisms after decay. Photoautotrops will use ammonia by preference and nitrite and nitrate as emergency nitrogen source, some cyno's have one more pathway and can take up nitrogen to produce ammonia bringing nitrogen within the organic carbon chain. They will only do so to survive, when no other nitrogen source is available. http://www.baharini.eu/baharini/doku...o-chemie:cyano Study of the pathways of the different nuisance organisms may bring more information about there typical needs.
When heterotrophic growth is responsible for limiting nuisance growth it may be due to the competition for ammonia and phosphate as the growth rate using nitrate is a lot less. I think cyno's are in favour in the competition for nitrogen as they are Phototautotropic. The limiting factor may be phosphate or other building materials. Limited availability of phosphate and building materials will have influence on all live forms.
As most organisms are in competition for the same building materials one organism my switch sooner to another pathway as an other organism according to there needs.


__________________
Belgian Anthias

Current Tank Info: BBS: BADES Biofilm System. An aqua-system in wich the nitrogen cycle is closed by removing the daily nitrate production daily, every day, by incorporation of BADES (Biological Anaerobe Denitrification using Elemental Sulphur.)
Belgian Anthias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01/08/2018, 05:59 PM   #66
bertoni
RC Mod
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Mountain View, CA, USA
Posts: 87,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belgian Anthias View Post
Photoautotrops will use ammonia by preference and nitrite and nitrate as emergency nitrogen source, some cyno's have one more pathway and can take up nitrogen to produce ammonia bringing nitrogen within the organic carbon chain. They will only do so to survive, when no other nitrogen source is available. \
I am not sure what you mean by an "emergency" nitrogen source, but many people feed nitrate to grow algae, clams, and corals. The organisms seem to do well enough. I also am not sure what you mean by "only do so to survive". Algae generally only do things in order to survive or reproduce. Ammonia probably will be taken up first. I'm not sure what relevance that has in this conversation.


__________________
Jonathan Bertoni
bertoni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01/08/2018, 06:14 PM   #67
Belgian Anthias
Registered Member
 
Belgian Anthias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Belgium
Posts: 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by bertoni View Post
There's absolutely no reason to believe that any aquarium ever has reached the level of carbon input that would cause a problem. There is weak evidence to the contrary.
There is absolutely more than one reason to believe that most aquaria where carbon is added based on the nitrate level have a carrying capacity supported for more than 50% by these doses. . Google "mixotrophic ammonia reduction" or read the listed references on the bottom of this page http://www.baharini.eu/baharini/doku...chemie:biofilm


__________________
Belgian Anthias

Current Tank Info: BBS: BADES Biofilm System. An aqua-system in wich the nitrogen cycle is closed by removing the daily nitrate production daily, every day, by incorporation of BADES (Biological Anaerobe Denitrification using Elemental Sulphur.)
Belgian Anthias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01/08/2018, 06:35 PM   #68
bertoni
RC Mod
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Mountain View, CA, USA
Posts: 87,163
There are simply too many tanks that doing very well with regular carbon dosing for me to believe that they all are on the edge of a tank crash.

The part of your article (I am guessing that you wrote it?) that is in English didn't seem to have any data at all. The link isn't working at the moment, so I can't check again.


__________________
Jonathan Bertoni
bertoni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01/08/2018, 06:56 PM   #69
Dan_P
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belgian Anthias View Post
There is absolutely more than one reason to believe that most aquaria where carbon is added based on the nitrate level have a carrying capacity supported for more than 50% by these doses. . Google "mixotrophic ammonia reduction" or read the listed references on the bottom of this page http://www.baharini.eu/baharini/doku...chemie:biofilm
I think Jonathanís doubt is not going to be eased by telling him to go chase references on a Google search page. Science is not a legal proceeding where showing precedence helps win the case.

At this point in the discussion, the only thing established is that you believe that there is a relatively large risk from dosing carbon, specifically, when it is abruptly stopped. You have kindly provided information that supports your hypothesis. Continuing to answer doubts about your hypothesis with references that support your beliefs will not further the discussion.

While I still think your hypothesis is plausible, we still have no data of failed aquariums or even failed aquacultures because of abrupt changes to carbon dosing. We do not yet know how likely failure to be. 100% of the time? 10%? And if there are no reports of failures, where are the stoiciometric calculations demonstrating that an abrupt change in carbon dosing for a given amount of protein input will produce an ammonia spike of so many ppm over a certain period of time for a given carbon dosing regimen?

Can you fulfill these requests for data or can you perform the calculations?


Dan_P is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01/08/2018, 07:02 PM   #70
Belgian Anthias
Registered Member
 
Belgian Anthias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Belgium
Posts: 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by bertoni View Post
I am not sure what you mean by an "emergency" nitrogen source, but many people feed nitrate to grow algae, clams, and corals. The organisms seem to do well enough. I also am not sure what you mean by "only do so to survive". Algae generally only do things in order to survive or reproduce. Ammonia probably will be taken up first. I'm not sure what relevance that has in this conversation.
Nitrate or ammonia? The difference in energy consumption and growth rate is considerable.

if not an "emergency" let us say " last choice"

You still use the word "probably". Do you have no faith in scientific research and approved publications.? All the referenced articles in this threat are referenced with approved publications which are consult able by the interested reader.

On which approved research the advices given for carbohydrate dosing is based? Which approved references are available to dose carbohydrates by estimating the dose based on the nitrate level?


__________________
Belgian Anthias

Current Tank Info: BBS: BADES Biofilm System. An aqua-system in wich the nitrogen cycle is closed by removing the daily nitrate production daily, every day, by incorporation of BADES (Biological Anaerobe Denitrification using Elemental Sulphur.)
Belgian Anthias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01/08/2018, 07:16 PM   #71
bertoni
RC Mod
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Mountain View, CA, USA
Posts: 87,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belgian Anthias View Post
Nitrate or ammonia? The difference in energy consumption and growth rate is considerable.

if not an "emergency" let us say " last choice"
I am not sure what your point is. Whether nitrate consumption is "optimal" or not seems irrelevant to me. We are not discussing methods of maximizing growth.
Quote:
You still use the word "probably". Do you have no faith in scientific research and approved publications.? All the referenced articles in this threat are referenced with approved publications which are consult able by the interested reader.

On which approved research the advices given for carbohydrate dosing is based? Which approved references are available to dose carbohydrates by estimating the dose based on the nitrate level?
As I have said repeatedly, funding for aquarium research is effectively zero, so we likely will never get high-quality data. You are postulating that a widely-used practice that has a long track record of safety. The burden of proof is on you, in my opinion.

I wouldn't call all of the articles you have referenced "scientific" nor would I call all of them "approved". In any case, none of the actual scientific papers support your assumption that aquariums getting a bit of organic carbon are in some sort of danger. Interestingly, you quote a number of articles about a successful method of aquaculture using carbon dosing, yet somehow conclude that these same article demonstrate that the technique is "dangerous". I'm still unclear how you think these tanks might fail. You have made some comments about how discontinuing the dosing might be an issue. Is there any other risk you can describe precisely?


__________________
Jonathan Bertoni
bertoni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01/11/2018, 05:47 AM   #72
Belgian Anthias
Registered Member
 
Belgian Anthias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Belgium
Posts: 581
Other concerns

Till now this discussion is limited to a few persons and I could not find any argument or input which demonstrates that the statement I made is incorrect and or is based on wrong interpretation of the available information . I would be happy with more funded comment.

I am not a fan of carbohydrate dosing and I made up my opinion after thorough and in depth investigation and research which can be consulted in our wiki Makazi Baharini. http://www.baharini.eu/baharini/doku...iltratie:vodka
The nitrogen cycle and how to close it in a closed marine aquarium was the base for this on going research. During years of extensive research on this theme also denitrification and the use of sulphur in biofilters was invested in depth. http://www.baharini.eu/baharini/doku...:theorie:start
http://www.baharini.eu/baharini/doku...n:badess:start

The discussion should be about how doses can be corrected to minimise the side effects. To do this correctly, one needs correct information of the possible side effects and why advice is given to dose carbon based on the nitrate level and not on the combination of other logic parameters. As nitrate is the end product of nitrification and as it is known for a few decennia that nitrification is suppressed by adding carbohydrates this is at least remarkable.

My statement is that carbon dosing based only on the nitrate level may create an undesirable and even dangerous situation. I thoroughly explained why and why the carrying capacity of the system is effected by carbon dosing due to the shift from autotrophic ammonia reduction to heterotrophic ammonia reduction.

I do have a lot of other concerns about carbohydrate dosing of which I think users should be aware. :

The effect of explosive exponential bacterial growth and explosive exponential decay.

Impact on the nitrifying biofilm and denitrification capacity, the bio-balance on live rock and other surfaces. What is the purpose of live rock when carbohydrates are dosed?

And a lot more.

I will address my other concerns in the following contributions to this threat

For those who need more precise information, adequate information is available in our articles and consultable references published in our wiki Makazi Baharini

The past years a lot of research has been done about the biodiversity in marine aquaria and other marine aquaculture systems. AOA, ANAMMOX in aquarium biofilters, simultane nitrification and mixotropic denitrification on sulphur , new players, new developments. ( not really new because they have always been part of the game)
A recent development is the knowledge that most of autotropic amonia reduction ( nitrification) in aquaria is not done by bacteria but instead by Archaea (AOA) http://www.baharini.eu/baharini/doku...rchaeabacteria


__________________
Belgian Anthias

Current Tank Info: BBS: BADES Biofilm System. An aqua-system in wich the nitrogen cycle is closed by removing the daily nitrate production daily, every day, by incorporation of BADES (Biological Anaerobe Denitrification using Elemental Sulphur.)
Belgian Anthias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01/11/2018, 07:00 AM   #73
Belgian Anthias
Registered Member
 
Belgian Anthias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Belgium
Posts: 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_P View Post

Where I think we missed an important point in this discussion is that the ratio of heterotrophic:autotrophic may be predictive of a systemís propensity to grow nuisance photoautotrophs such as diatoms, dinoflagellates, cyanobacteria and algae. The notion that nitrate and phosphate are predictive or are the cause of nuisance organism growth needs to be revisited. It might be more useful to think in terms of inadequate heterotrophic activity or a low C:N ratio as the cause of nuisance organism growth.
Does the redfield ratio or C:N ratio or N:P ratio in the water column has any effect on nuisance growth? Probably as most organisms are triggered by there environment.
But as each organism has its own way to respond on this environment they will take what they need from the total available building materials and battle only for what is left.
Can we remove bentic algae with C:N:P 550:30:1, by maintaining the N:P ratio at 16:1 in the water column. I do not think so.http://www.baharini.eu/baharini/doku...hemie:redfield
One needs to look at the specific needs of the specimen.

Normally most processes concerning the nitrogen cycle are surface related and take place in a biofilm and not in the water column. The situation in the biofilm is completely different and exchange of the building materials only takes place at the surface of the film.
When ammonia and other building materials are removed fast out of the water column and a lot of oxygen is used due to a high heterotropic activity in the water column this ammonia and building materials are not available for building up and maintaining the biofilm; Is a biofilm a nuisance?
The same for bentic algae as most of the total available ammonia will be used up by heterotrops and phytoplankton in the water column. The effect of algae growth in combination with carbon dosing has been a subject of a lot of research. A high C:N ratio will influence the growth of bentic and other algae, can even prevent it. But is it better, as algae can easily be harvested? What is a nuisance?
Adding carbohydrates will suppress bentic growth which is dependable of the supply from the water column.
Doses must be made correctly in function of the result

The effect on a mixed reef aquarium, the bacterial balance between specific bacteria and corals?


__________________
Belgian Anthias

Current Tank Info: BBS: BADES Biofilm System. An aqua-system in wich the nitrogen cycle is closed by removing the daily nitrate production daily, every day, by incorporation of BADES (Biological Anaerobe Denitrification using Elemental Sulphur.)
Belgian Anthias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01/11/2018, 09:37 AM   #74
Dan_P
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belgian Anthias View Post
Till now this discussion is limited to a few persons and I could not find any argument or input which demonstrates that the statement I made is incorrect and or is based on wrong interpretation of the available information . I would be happy with more funded comment.
Science is more than debating or deciding on the validity of an idea based on the number of papers you can quote. I have said repeatedly the you have a plausible arguement, but there is a big difference between plausible and scientifically proven. I think Jonathan is getting to this very point when he asks for aquarium data that supports your idea. Unless all the carbon dosers have been very, very lucky so far, the notion that carbon dosing is inherently risky, dangerous and bad is probably an incomplete idea.

Since you have read so many scientific papers, you will appreciate that in this discussion we have only got through the ďintroductionĒ, where the issue is presented, the literature is summarized and the study of the hypothesis justified. To progress any further, we will need experimental data or at least a thorough modeling of the typical aquarium with and without carbo dosing. In science it is up to you, the presenter of the hypothesis to prove your point.

Good Luck!

Dan


Dan_P is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01/11/2018, 03:17 PM   #75
bertoni
RC Mod
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Mountain View, CA, USA
Posts: 87,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belgian Anthias View Post
Till now this discussion is limited to a few persons and I could not find any argument or input which demonstrates that the statement I made is incorrect and or is based on wrong interpretation of the available information .
You are welcome to your opinion. I don't find the evidence you have presented to be convincing. We will have to continue to disagree.


__________________
Jonathan Bertoni
bertoni is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:17 PM.


TapaTalk Enabled

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2018 Axivo Inc.
Use of this web site is subject to the terms and conditions described in the user agreement.
Reef CentralTM Reef Central, LLC. Copyright ©1999-2014
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.