|
01/24/2018, 07:34 PM | #101 | |
Registered Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,432
|
Quote:
|
|
01/24/2018, 08:14 PM | #102 |
RC Mod
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Mountain View, CA, USA
Posts: 88,616
|
As far as I know, there's little or no data on what's actually happening with carbon dosing. It might vary from system to system, for that matter.
__________________
Jonathan Bertoni |
01/25/2018, 07:15 AM | #103 | |
Registered Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,432
|
Quote:
|
|
01/25/2018, 09:11 AM | #104 | |
Registered Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Belgium
Posts: 608
|
Quote:
Nitrogen not exported can suddenly accumulate, hopefully as nitrate and not as ammonia In ZMAS aquaculture systems based on carbon dosing the food-cycle is closed as long there is enough growth. All nitrogen is exported when the bio-load is harvested. |
|
01/25/2018, 10:51 AM | #105 | |
Registered Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Belgium
Posts: 608
|
data?
Quote:
Because of the importance of certain strains of bacteria for the health of corals, research is started to know if these strains are removed or not by a skimmer. As these strains are in less quantities present in the aquarium as in nature one may assume they are skimmed but this is not confirmed to my knowledge. Any way, it is confirmed by thorough research that the total removal of live bacteria out of the water column is limited ad selective. And as a lot bacteria fed by carbon dosing are bentic !? Why adding something to a live support system when one does not know what happens when one does so? The reason must be very important, to correct a more dangerous situation. To remove something as nitrate, not a threat for a system at all? How much data you need concerning carbon dosing? Carbon dosing is very extensively researched for commercial aquaculture purposes. A lot of this date I have in our data base. You may start here: http://www.baharini.eu/baharini/doku...iwitafschuimer Use the references The main processes are the same as for aquaculture systems, the side effects may be completely different. The shift from autotrohpic to heterotrophic ammonia reduction to be the most important. A simple question as: How much vodka has to be dosed daily to lower the nitrate level with 1ppm daily? may become complex if one does not know how much nitrate is produced daily and how much nitrogen and carbon is added by feeding. Advices for dosing are given based on the presence of nitrate , without knowing the daily nitrate over-production and feed content in protein, In mg/100 lit based on assumptions, trail and error!? One has no clue of the C/N ratio after dosing and before dosing the next dose. Why not make doses based on known factors ? When it comes to nitrogen export from the system in comparison with nitrification/denitrification, there should be no debate as carbon dosing does not export nitrogen; The nitrogen export is done by a third party and depends entirely on ability of the skimmer. The ability of a skimmer to remove live bacteria and organics is known and needs no debate any more. |
|
01/25/2018, 11:23 AM | #106 |
Acropora Gardener
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Sheffield, UK
Posts: 2,780
|
Have your research papers appeared in a peer reviewed journal? If so, would you mind providing their citation please?
Thank you.
__________________
Featured Tank OCT 2016 | "Reef Hobbyist Magazine" TOTM OCT 2016 | "Ultimate Reef", UK FB | "/troutsReefTank/" 65G SPS Reef- ATI 8 X 39W PM; TM [Bacto-Balance A-; Reef Actif; Nitribiotic; Iodine] |
01/25/2018, 12:52 PM | #107 | |
Registered Member
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,821
|
Quote:
Also for the 35% of total removed organic matter being bacteria, is that the value with carbon dosing or is the the amount removed in a tank w/o carbon dosing ? Because carbon dosing is known to significantly increase skimmer output. The increase is most likely bacteria or bacteria-based molecules. Even than 35% is not a small number. I would actually expect the value to be a lot less. That is like 1.5% of removed organics is nitrogen inside bacteria. And like Bertoni pointed you dont have to remove intact bacteria, bacteria based products can also achieve this. Some bacteria that gets into foam will lyse before they can reach the collection cup, some will die or lyse within the tank and their contents will end up in skimmer. So you wont just have bacteria within the skimate, but the bacterial content. So the actual indirect export can be a lot higher. There would also be output from stuff like bacteria that is being consumed by other organisms (like bacteria ->copepod->fish). In my experience carbon dosing increase copepod populations, which indicate nitrogen in these bacteria can end up in a variety of different members of an aquarium. And from there nitorgen can go to skimmer, like in fish poop form or continue to be recycled among the organisms. These indirect outputs would be something hard to measure, you can potentially dose carbon-14 ethanol or acetic acid and make a radioactive tracing to see how much of it end up in the skimmer, fish and etc. and extrapolate a rough number for nitrogen (like 1 nitrogen atom for every 6 carbon atoms, which is the average ratio within a cell ). But I dont think anybody is doing or done this. I am not disagreeing that autotrophic nitrification is a lot more effective, but here I assume you are talking about sulfur based chemo-autotrophic assimilation. This is something I am very wary about the long term safety. I personally know someone whose tank nearly crashed to a sudden burst of H2S production. For an autotrophic assimilation nitrate process, using macro-algae or even mangroves is a lot safer. Is regular carbon dosing completely safe,of course no. It can cause bacteria blooms and suffocate the tank. It depletes some elements that we do not regularly test for (most notably potassium). But I have never heard anybody experiencing a sudden ammonia burst during carbon dosing. Considering carbon dosing is probably being done by thousands of people, lack of empirical evidence suggest it is not as likely as you suggest it to be. And all in all there is one major problem. What you describe can only reduce nitrate but not phosphate. So you need an additional mechanisms to control phosphate, likely GFO or aluminum based absorbents. When you add these do the mix, it generally make the system phosphate limited and would effectively reduce the efficiency of nitrogen reduction. On the other hand carbon dosing can reduce both. |
|
01/25/2018, 06:26 PM | #108 | |
Registered Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Belgium
Posts: 608
|
Quote:
|
|
01/25/2018, 06:40 PM | #109 | |
Registered Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Belgium
Posts: 608
|
Quote:
We are hobbyists and did the research for personal use. Comments can be made below each article. |
|
01/25/2018, 07:12 PM | #110 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Belgium
Posts: 608
|
conclusions
Dieter Brockman, one of the driving forces behind the Berlin method, said in an interview with Roger Vitko in 2004: "The Internet is as much a curse to hobbyists as it is a blessing. It contains many false statements and poorly thought out hobbyist "experiments" that are accepted as fact.
Keeping that in mind I try to use the knowledge available to make decisions. I have no doubt that carbon dosing does shift the ammonia reduction capacity from nitrification to assimilation and that the carrying capacity of the system may become dependable of the dosing of carbohydrates. I shared the information on which I have based myself to conclude that it may create a dangerous situation when for some reason carbon dosing is interrupted. Al the other caveats which may or may not exist, it does not matter . And for those who use it, the dosed should be matched with what is added to the aquarium and what is used by the aquarium and not only on nitrate present in the system |
01/29/2018, 08:25 AM | #111 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Belgium
Posts: 608
|
Biofloc technology.
For those who want to know more about carbon dosing may be interested in the Biofloc technology.
Biofloc was introduced in the seventies in France and the technology was further developed and used worldwide for aquaculture and in ZMAS. http://www.baharini.eu/baharini/doku...tratie:biofloc Managing aquaculture systems by carbon dosing has no secrets any more. New detection technology introduced a lot of new players in de pocess but basically not much has changed. All aquaria are aqua culture systems but few aquaculture systems are managed as it where aquaria as the purpose of use is completely different. Biofloc technologie can be introduced in refugia, used as biofilter and for feeding. http://www.baharini.eu/baharini/doku...tratie:biofloc Last edited by Belgian Anthias; 01/29/2018 at 08:36 AM. |
01/30/2018, 07:19 PM | #112 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,432
|
Nice presentation on biofloc technology.
https://cals.arizona.edu/azaqua/ista...y%205.3.11.pdf The photomicrographs of biofloc in this presentation look very similar to solids collected by my skimmer. I started to examine skimmer solids after starting carbon dosing but at this time can’t conclude anything from preliminary observations. The only thing different is that I had to decrease air flow through the skimmer to maintain a reasonable flow of foam, otherwise I’d have a lot of skimmate on the floor :-). |
Thread Tools | |
|
|