how to stop vodka dosing, leasons learned

[Reefin' Dude]

MARINE SUBSTRATES HAVE AN APATITE FOR DIATOMACEOUS POLYPHOSPHATE.

Variable rates of phosphate uptake by shallow marine . carbonate sediments:
Mechanisms and ecological significance.

Bicarbonate Uptake by Nitrifiers: Effects of Growth Rate, pH, Substrate Concentration, and Metabolic Inhibitors

Denitrification, nutrient regeneration and carbon mineralization in sediments of Galveston Bay, Texas,USA

Ammonium regeneration and carbon utilization by marine bacteria grown on mixed substrates

13.5.1 Settling of phosphorus in sediments

Sources of sediment and nutrient exports to the Great Barrier Reef

Anoxic nitrification in marine sediments

Effect of organic loading on nitrification and denitrification in a marine sediment microcosm

Organic matter diagenesis at the oxic/anoxic interface in coastal marine sediments, with emphasis on the role of burrowing animals

SCOPE 21 -The Major Biogeochemical Cycles and Their Interactions

G~

[rgulrich]

As one that enjoys analogies in this life (and in this thread, apparently), I guess it's time to throw in two rupee' worth to the "poo" discussion (my apologies to Winnie, who has absolutely no bearing on the discussion...I hope. Other than perhaps participating in response to the question "Does a bear ..... in the woods?").

I've had the pleasure of living outside the city for a number of years now, and along with well water I have a septic system. I really hate to draw this analogy, but every time I flush the toilet, I know exactly where it goes - into the septic tank. I'll use a basic rendition of what happens from there:
1.First waste exits the house and enters the septic tank where solids settle out and grease and scum floats to the top. This is the first stage of treatment. Now, the solids that settle to the bottom of the tank slowly decompose (think bacterial action here). Gas bubbles given off during this process rise, carrying with them fats, oils, and greases (the stuff protein skimmer love in our reefs - if it isn't eaten first by somebody else in the food chain). The tank outlet is located between these two layers, where the clearest liquid is found.
2.Next, liquid effluent flows through the distribution box. A hydraulic pump is sometimes needed if the absorption site is higher than the septic tank, or if an elevated mound is used.
3.Finally, the effluent arrives at the absorption field where it is evenly distributed to the soil for treatment, Under ideal conditions microorganisms on the surface of the soil particles consume the organic pollutants in the effluent (this is the "surface area" part of the discussion with regards to live rock, sand, gravel, plastic bio media, et al). Effluent moves downward with the force of gravity in a process called percolation. As it percolates through the soil, minute solids, bacteria, and nutrients are removed from the effluent. This percolation process is a natural biological one that can safely treat many domestic effluents before they reach groundwater sources.

So far, so good, right? Oh, did I forget to mention that out here in the country we also have well water? So I guess after a fashion, there are literally millions of us in the U.S. alone that are, indeed, living in (and off of) our own "poo". Of course, those of you city folk that think you're safe and your water grows on trees or is safely captured from the falling rain, well...I used to live near the shores of Lake Huron, too. We all know that sooner or later it all runs downhill - and hope that it's pretty well processed by the time it gets there.

So, let's continue with the analogy a bit longer. We've all seen septic trucks, right? While some people think that they simply pump out septic tanks once they fill up...well, they do, but in another manner. They pump out the septic tanks after they fill with *processed "poo" and other solids* - the end product of biological processing. If they were called upon to pump out the oh, let's say 3 person 1,500 gallon septic tank every time it simply filled up, well, they'd be making the trip a lot more often, even at 1.3 gallons per flush of the modern toilet. What they do remove is what we frequently call "detritus" in the aquarium. In our aquariums it's waste and left over food, and no-longer-functioning inhabitants of various sizes among other things, all biologically processed.

So why this rant? I guess I felt the need for a bit of pedagogy and the platform was available for a moment. But really, a cleaner aquarium is really a good thing, yes, and we can practice good housekeeping by using some of the standard filtration (filter socks, poly pads, sponges, etc.) and occasional siphoning to reduce detritus, but I'm simply not convinced that running a "clean room" would necessarily be ideal, especially with the knowledge that the best place to catch a fatal bacterial infection is a hospital (look up MRSA, CRE, and others). Oops, slipped another analogy in there. That's why I quit using an ozone generator and u.v. sterilizer a while ago (didn't see their purpose that is, not that they were increasing antibiotic-resistant bacteria in hospitals...sorry in advance for any confusion). We all know that the majority of Ammonia released by our aquarium inhabitants is through respiration, right? I'm just not up to the task of siphoning out the entire volume of the aquarium every time one of my fish flutters its gills, as it's incredibly difficult to separate out the Ammonia any other way with the tools I have at hand. Hence, I tend to let Nature do some of the heavy lifting. Not too much, mind you, but enough that my other maintenance methods such as occasional filter socks, an algae filter, or some such can allow me enjoy this reef in my living room.

Perhaps striking a fair balance is the most challenging part of this passion/hobby.

Well, my time at the podium is up, anyone want the gavel?

Cheers,
Ray

[CStrickland]

Originally Posted by Reefin' Dude

MARINE SUBSTRATES HAVE AN APATITE FOR DIATOMACEOUS POLYPHOSPHATE.
Variable rates of phosphate uptake by shallow marine . carbonate sediments:
Mechanisms and ecological significance.
Bicarbonate Uptake by Nitrifiers: Effects of Growth Rate, pH, Substrate Concentration, and Metabolic Inhibitors
Denitrification, nutrient regeneration and carbon mineralization in sediments of Galveston Bay, Texas,USA
Ammonium regeneration and carbon utilization by marine bacteria grown on mixed substrates
13.5.1 Settling of phosphorus in sediments
Sources of sediment and nutrient exports to the Great Barrier Reef
Anoxic nitrification in marine sediments
Effect of organic loading on nitrification and denitrification in a marine sediment microcosm
Organic matter diagenesis at the oxic/anoxic interface in coastal marine sediments, with emphasis on the role of burrowing animals
SCOPE 21 -The Major Biogeochemical Cycles and Their Interactions

G~

Thanks! I think a couple of these got by me before.

I would love to read the basis for the position that dead organisms like bacteria and plants, as well as feces, release their bound nutrients so quickly as to be pointless to remove because they are not contributing to the total N and P of the tank (not sarcasm). I'm not so picky that everything has to be peer-reviewed side-by-side double-blind experiments, but I need a bit more than a feeling. I've heard it repeated, but not supported... Sigh.

[PhaneSoul]

Originally Posted by rgulrich

As one that enjoys analogies in this life (and in this thread, apparently), I guess it's time to throw in two rupee' worth to the "poo" discussion (my apologies to Winnie, who has absolutely no bearing on the discussion...I hope. Other than perhaps participating in response to the question "Does a bear ..... in the woods?").

I've had the pleasure of living outside the city for a number of years now, and along with well water I have a septic system. I really hate to draw this analogy, but every time I flush the toilet, I know exactly where it goes - into the septic tank. I'll use a basic rendition of what happens from there:
1.First waste exits the house and enters the septic tank where solids settle out and grease and scum floats to the top. This is the first stage of treatment. Now, the solids that settle to the bottom of the tank slowly decompose (think bacterial action here). Gas bubbles given off during this process rise, carrying with them fats, oils, and greases (the stuff protein skimmer love in our reefs - if it isn't eaten first by somebody else in the food chain). The tank outlet is located between these two layers, where the clearest liquid is found.
2.Next, liquid effluent flows through the distribution box. A hydraulic pump is sometimes needed if the absorption site is higher than the septic tank, or if an elevated mound is used.
3.Finally, the effluent arrives at the absorption field where it is evenly distributed to the soil for treatment, Under ideal conditions microorganisms on the surface of the soil particles consume the organic pollutants in the effluent (this is the "surface area" part of the discussion with regards to live rock, sand, gravel, plastic bio media, et al). Effluent moves downward with the force of gravity in a process called percolation. As it percolates through the soil, minute solids, bacteria, and nutrients are removed from the effluent. This percolation process is a natural biological one that can safely treat many domestic effluents before they reach groundwater sources.

So far, so good, right? Oh, did I forget to mention that out here in the country we also have well water? So I guess after a fashion, there are literally millions of us in the U.S. alone that are, indeed, living in (and off of) our own "poo". Of course, those of you city folk that think you're safe and your water grows on trees or is safely captured from the falling rain, well...I used to live near the shores of Lake Huron, too. We all know that sooner or later it all runs downhill - and hope that it's pretty well processed by the time it gets there.

So, let's continue with the analogy a bit longer. We've all seen septic trucks, right? While some people think that they simply pump out septic tanks once they fill up...well, they do, but in another manner. They pump out the septic tanks after they fill with *processed "poo" and other solids* - the end product of biological processing. If they were called upon to pump out the oh, let's say 3 person 1,500 gallon septic tank every time it simply filled up, well, they'd be making the trip a lot more often, even at 1.3 gallons per flush of the modern toilet. What they do remove is what we frequently call "detritus" in the aquarium. In our aquariums it's waste and left over food, and no-longer-functioning inhabitants of various sizes among other things, all biologically processed.

So why this rant? I guess I felt the need for a bit of pedagogy and the platform was available for a moment. But really, a cleaner aquarium is really a good thing, yes, and we can practice good housekeeping by using some of the standard filtration (filter socks, poly pads, sponges, etc.) and occasional siphoning to reduce detritus, but I'm simply not convinced that running a "clean room" would necessarily be ideal, especially with the knowledge that the best place to catch a fatal bacterial infection is a hospital (look up MRSA, CRE, and others). Oops, slipped another analogy in there. That's why I quit using an ozone generator and u.v. sterilizer a while ago (didn't see their purpose that is, not that they were increasing antibiotic-resistant bacteria in hospitals...sorry in advance for any confusion). We all know that the majority of Ammonia released by our aquarium inhabitants is through respiration, right? I'm just not up to the task of siphoning out the entire volume of the aquarium every time one of my fish flutters its gills, as it's incredibly difficult to separate out the Ammonia any other way with the tools I have at hand. Hence, I tend to let Nature do some of the heavy lifting. Not too much, mind you, but enough that my other maintenance methods such as occasional filter socks, an algae filter, or some such can allow me enjoy this reef in my living room.

Perhaps striking a fair balance is the most challenging part of this passion/hobby.

Well, my time at the podium is up, anyone want the gavel?

Cheers,
Ray

Were not trying to run a 'clean room' were trying to run a clean substrate, well unless your shooting for sps dominance in which case it would be good. Live rock will contain all the desired bacteria and will self clean itself. The substrate cannot self clean and will not without human interaction due to gravity.

Why do you think it's so easy to catch an infection/ect in a hospital? Surely it's not because hospitals are where people get aide when they are sick. That is their business, to treat sick people and others in need of help. Of course the likelihood is greater there. Where am I more likely to get food poisonig, a restaurant or playing in the park? Last time I checked QTing was apart of the hobby.

I don't think your septic system really applies here since once it's flushed down the toilet it's removed from your house and will have no effect on what's happening inside the house. But rather think of it as taking out the trash vrs not taking out the trash.

[nuxx]

I've been very happy with Vodka dosing. Took care of our hair algae in no time and also cleared up the water.

The nitrates also dropped down to 0. That has made me a bit lazy with water changes...

Just bought an Neptune DoS to get automatic water changes started.

Thinking Vodka might be little more hit or miss on smaller water volumes. I'm not even that precise on my dosage, just a little bit over 10ml.

[rgulrich]

@Phane - I'm sorry, perhaps you missed the part where the water comes back into my house - via the well. And into yours, whatever you water source is, as well. Post treatment by all those little biological agents and minerals.
And actually you've just restated my points, in your vernacular, in your first paragraph. Although the liverock part...it needs a current to remove any floc the digesting bacteria discard, just like the substrate. If you have current in your aquarium, and it's enough to suspend a good portion of the particles you desire to remove, than that current you are supplying is the human interaction (you bought and positioned the pump). If you would rather supply that current with a siphon hose, then by all means, please do. I'm not telling you to stop - honest!
And nowhere did I tell you not to remove any detritus, "poo", Ammonia in solution, heavy metals (you'd be surprised), or dead animals. That's called "husbandry", and it's what we're supposed to be practicing when we care for for these creatures out of their natural habitats. What I am telling you, is that there really isn't necessarily *O*N*E* (emphasis mine) correct or best way to see to their care and see to the removal of the detritus, as is repeated not only throughout this board, but, well, lots of other places, too. Sorry, I'm a bit tired to pull up and cite my sources.
And by the way, you're very correct, you are much more likely to get food poisoning in a restaurant; but unfortunately you are much more likely to acquire an antibiotic-resistant bacteria and die in a hospital than anywhere else (molecular biology runs in the family so I pay attention to these things - my bad) despite the drastic measures taken for maintaining a clean, if not sterile, environment.
You can see the results of my approach - that's one year's growth from 2"-3" frags. I stir the coral rubble (I've a pretty strong current in there, so sand is out of the question) and let things go into the coral, the fish (they tend to grab the crustaceans, worms, and such), and let what detritus (the already processed and not already processed) pass into the filter system to be removed as will. That's my method of siphoning out the rubble.

If your balance works for you - please continue on. If your goal is to remove all of the more solid fish waster prior to it's being processed by bacteria to maintain a clean system, how many times a day do you siphon the aquarium, and how do you time it? At what point would you say you'd have to strike a balance on the return of your investment in time? How do develop, collect and analyze the metrics to ensure the accuracy and efficacy of your procedures? Just curious as to whether it would be possible for me with my 300 as it works quite well for you.

Cheers,
Ray

[CHSUB]

I just recently stopped vinegar dosing after about 2.5 years and have found the results great. I have been all over the place with amounts of vinegar used: from <.2 ml/gal to as high as .9 ml/gal. I slowly increased dosing over several months trying to control no3, but I never achieved the desired results (no3 < 1 ppm). As I increased dosing sps’ stn and paled, po4 remained undetectable and no3 went higher. My only idea is that po4 was limited, since stopping vinegar no3 has dipped below .5 from 5-10 ppm and all corals look much better.

[Reefin' Dude]

Originally Posted by rgulrich

@Phane - I'm sorry, perhaps you missed the part where the water comes back into my house - via the well. And into yours, whatever you water source is, as well. Post treatment by all those little biological agents and minerals.

no, we got that you are on well water. the important question for you is, how deep is your well?

Originally Posted by rgulrich

And actually you've just restated my points, in your vernacular, in your first paragraph. Although the liverock part...it needs a current to remove any floc the digesting bacteria discard, just like the substrate. If you have current in your aquarium, and it's enough to suspend a good portion of the particles you desire to remove, than that current you are supplying is the human interaction (you bought and positioned the pump). If you would rather supply that current with a siphon hose, then by all means, please do. I'm not telling you to stop - honest!

you are exporting the poo. i am not sure which side you are on. all we are saying is that you need to export the poo. you at first say no we do not, we recycle it just like your septic/well system at the house, then you go on and tell us you stir the substrate and let the filters take it out. taking it out is exporting. stirring the substrate is exporting and starting over the decomposition clock. you are not using biological means to remove the waste organic material you are using mechanical means to remove the waste organic material from the substrate.

Originally Posted by rgulrich

And nowhere did I tell you not to remove any detritus, "poo", Ammonia in solution, heavy metals (you'd be surprised), or dead animals. That's called "husbandry", and it's what we're supposed to be practicing when we care for for these creatures out of their natural habitats. What I am telling you, is that there really isn't necessarily *O*N*E* (emphasis mine) correct or best way to see to their care and see to the removal of the detritus, as is repeated not only throughout this board, but, well, lots of other places, too. Sorry, I'm a bit tired to pull up and cite my sources.

this is all that we are saying. feed the critters what they need, and remove their waste in a timely manner. we are not suggesting anything else. we are suggesting keeping poo as a pet and letting it rot in our systems to feed further organisms, that poo, and so on down the line where each link in the chain is a total increase in nutrients.

here is a good chart showing which types of phosphate the various methods we employ remove.



not my graphic, but great visual representation.

Originally Posted by rgulrich

And by the way, you're very correct, you are much more likely to get food poisoning in a restaurant; but unfortunately you are much more likely to acquire an antibiotic-resistant bacteria and die in a hospital than anywhere else (molecular biology runs in the family so I pay attention to these things - my bad) despite the drastic measures taken for maintaining a clean, if not sterile, environment.

because hospitals need to be sterile. survival of the fittest. works with bacteria also. we are not saying to keep our systems sterile, far from it. we need the bacteria. we are just saying to keep only the amount of bacteria needed to process the soluble compounds. we do not need all of the bacteria needed to work on the solids because we are removing them in a timely manner.

Originally Posted by rgulrich

You can see the results of my approach - that's one year's growth from 2"-3" frags. I stir the coral rubble (I've a pretty strong current in there, so sand is out of the question) and let things go into the coral, the fish (they tend to grab the crustaceans, worms, and such), and let what detritus (the already processed and not already processed) pass into the filter system to be removed as will. That's my method of siphoning out the rubble.

exporting the waste organic material from the substrate, and not letting the bacteria and the organisms do it over a much greater time period. keep the substrate only as full of waste organic material as necessary to maintain the desired trophic state for your must have organisms. you are saying what we are saying.

Originally Posted by rgulrich

If your balance works for you - please continue on. If your goal is to remove all of the more solid fish waster prior to it's being processed by bacteria to maintain a clean system, how many times a day do you siphon the aquarium, and how do you time it? At what point would you say you'd have to strike a balance on the return of your investment in time? How do develop, collect and analyze the metrics to ensure the accuracy and efficacy of your procedures? Just curious as to whether it would be possible for me with my 300 as it works quite well for you.

Cheers,
Ray

once a week for me.

in my 125g tank. i would do between a 5g and a 15g water change every week. ALL of the detritus would settle in the sump. i only had to siphon the sump. i had 12,500gph of flow in the display. i had closed loops behind the LR blowing downward on the BB in order to push all detritus out from under the LR and get to the sump. my total water change time was 15min.

if you design the system around nutrient export instead of nutrient accumulation keeping a reef can be very easy and a lot less expensive.

G~

[rgulrich]

Perhaps we are saying the same thing, but in different ways. I’m perhaps not as focused as to the importance of rapid detritus removal, especially with my understanding of how rapidly biological decomposition occurs and some of the nutritional requirements of some of my reef’s inhabitants. The Dragonface pipefish routinely browse the coral rubble for nearly microscopic crusteceans (their mouth size is around 300 microns), and the Tomini Tang is primarily a detrivore. Perhaps if one wishes to keep sediment-feeding fishes, detrivores, or those that feed off the organisms that hang out in those regions, then detritus removal may not be as high a priority. I also think there may be some other factors to consider, such as Wilson et al’s study which “…suggests that detrital aggregates are a major source of dietary fatty acids for the blenny Salarias patzneri”.

Wilson, S., Burns, K., Codi, S. (2001). Sources of dietary lipids in the coral reef blenny Salarias patzneri. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 222: 291–296.
http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/222/m222p291.pdf

Other essentials may also be found as in Benner’s and Kaiser’s 2003 research “Abundance of amino sugars and peptidoglycan in marine particulate and dissolved organic matter, Limnology and Oceanography, 48:118-128.”

And these have a little to contribute as well.

E. Hadas, M. Shpigel, M. Ilan (2009). Particulate organic matter as a food source for a coral reef sponge. The Journal of Experimental Biology 212, 3643-3650.
http://jeb.biologists.org/content/212/22/3643.full.pdf

D. Crossman, J. Choat, K. Clements, T. Hardy, J. McConochie (2001). Detritus as food for grazing fishes on coral reefs. Limnol. Oceanogr., 46(7), 2001, 1596–1605.
http://www.aslo.org/lo/pdf/vol_46/issue_7/1596.pdf

And revisited by D. Crossman for his PhD thesis:
D. Crossman (2002). Detritus as Food for Sediment-Grazing Fishes on Coral Reefs
https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/1040

New research tracks fate of detritus on coral reefs
http://cmap.msi.ucsb.edu/news/PalmyraDetritus

Keep it clean? Of course. But perhaps as with so many things in this life -with moderation.

Cheers,
Ray

[PhaneSoul]

Hey ray, when you storm your substrate are your pipefish affected at all? Paulb does the same and every time he does he has loss of pipefish

[CStrickland]

Originally Posted by rgulrich

Keep it clean? Of course. But perhaps as with so many things in this life -with moderation

Thanks for the links Ray! I'm looking forward to reading those.

For the moderation part, I totally agree. I think it goes back to being aware of the needs of the organisms in the tank. That's why you see some folks who have SPS heavy tanks and are just over the moon when they switch to a nutrient export model like G employs. I'm guessing the sources of soluble nutrients mentioned earlier that are not so easily removed provide what those critters need; while controlling settling for easy removal combined with heavy skimming keeps levels from getting too high and inhibiting growth. OTOH, sometimes that's too much for Lps / softies and you can have a tank with too little nutrients for them.

I think that's what some of the recovering carbon addicts might have created too by going overboard on nutrient reduction. Similar to when people switch to bb and don't realize that they can feed more that every other day. I also wonder if a fuge acts as kind of a buffer for some carbon tanks, by keeping nutrients from ever getting too low without the addition of a GFO reactor? I know some bb reefers who have added back a little patch of sand to raise levels, and G's advice for me was to have some sand cause I like it, and I want a whole bunch of Euphyllia but don't care so much for Acro's. With all the different variables in each tank, I think the point with moderation also applies to not getting caught up in "nutrients bad!" thinking. For me it isn't about scrubbing every bit of phos and N from the system, rather, setting a goal level and trying to get there. It's just that the goal point is so low that most of the work for most of the tanks is reduction. But that isn't the same as sterile, far from it. I feed at least 3x a day, sterile's not really on the table.

I'm still just getting started, but I don't see why people think it's such a hassle to clean their tanks. I made a nifty vac thing out of stuff I had laying around, and it takes me like 3 minutes once a week to do my sand and another 10-15 to blow off my rocks and change the water. G's tank's even easier without the sand cause he just turns a knob. I suppose it's personal preference, but all of the algae trimming (especially the scrubbers that you have to bring to the sink and scrape, eww) and reactors and nitrate columns and rdsb's seem like a lot more work. Maybe 10 years ago when people were still learning how to set up their tanks to make it easy, they had to do more work and it got a rep for being a constant, obsessive, OCD-type of deal. IMO the methods that remove nutrients from the water are a lot of work to avoid a little maintenance.

[rgulrich]

@Phane - I follow a number of Paulb's threads in abject wonder. He has simply amazing long term results and has a blast doing it. I only churn up about 1/5 - 1/4 of the rubble at a time to produce my little detritus storms. I think that's pretty close to being enough to satisfy my occasional desire for housecleaning while still "keeping the pantry full" for these little guys:

The male's pregnant now, and while I don't have any hopes, really, of ever even seeing the young let alone raising them, I think they are utterly fascinating. They spend more time "crawling" over the rubble and the reef than "swimming" in the water.

@CStrickland - Exactly - when the animals that you wish to keep are happy, and you're comfortable with the level of effort that it entails - that's the balance that needs to be struck. Each different element of the filter systems you describe contribute in their own specific manner, and can easily compliment basic water changes in husbandry. The activated carbon and even gfo can remove some yellowing compounds from solution (among noxious substances - keep this in mind in case someone paints the fishroom with something high in VOCs). An algae filter provides a home and food source for little crusteceans that might otherwise get consumed in the display - and they in turn reproduce and provide an "in house" form of plankton for the reef. This is while the algae removes some material that carbon and gfo might miss. Something as simple as a sponge filter can provide a home for bacteria while it's functioning as a bubble trap in your sump - as long as you rinse it out in saltwater (otherwise you lose all the bacteria in the freshwater rinse).

Welcome to a fascinating hobby! Things are much easier today, as coming from the era of slate-bottom stainless steel framed aquariums I really like the choices we're presented today in the hobby. You're sure to find many opinions on how to best care for your reef, but I really hope you read not only the research papers (they provide some of the scientific basis for most of our methodologies, but not all), but the array of methods successful reefkeepers use as well. Ask folks why they use this and don't use that, and don't be surprised when you get to diametrically opposed responses.

Cheers,
Ray

[Mishri]

Originally Posted by Dan_P

Don't quit now :-)

Around 90% of the nitrogen that fish ingest is released as ammonia. Other animals dump excess nitrogen this way too although I do not know the percentage.

Yep, and that is why detritus removal doesn't fix it. That ammonia is going to eventually be Nitrate, and it is never in a solid form we can collect. The vast majority of the bio-load produced is from fish.

[CStrickland]

Originally Posted by Mishri

Yep, and that is why detritus removal doesn't fix it. That ammonia is going to eventually be Nitrate, and it is never in a solid form we can collect. The vast majority of the bio-load produced is from fish.

I think N is found in a solid form in the bodies of bacteria, I believe the ratio is 116C :16N :1P or something like that. I thought the whole idea of carbon dosing was to get it out of the water and into their bodies. If it were never in a solid form, I don't see how C dosing would lower N levels.

If they die and fall on the floor and I vac them up, that solid N is collected. Just like you trimming your algae. But most of the benefit is phosphates for me, since they don't off gas like nitrates. I'm suprised how many folks still need GFO on top of algae-based systems, I haven't seen as much redundancy on tanks that are kept cleaned. I've also been reading with great interest the threads where people are dosing nitrates along with their carbon to get more phos removal.

[Paul B]

Why do you think it's so easy to catch an infection/ect in a hospital? Surely it's not because hospitals are where people get aide when they are sick.

People get sick in a hospital because most people are not generally exposed to the diseases that are prevalent in a hospital so they have no antibodies against them. And don't call me Surely.

It's the same with fish. If you keep them sterile and quarantine everything that you put in the tank, the fish will not be safe or immune from anything so you have to keep quarantining. That is the only way you can keep them healthy. Of course if you take fish from the sea where they were exposed to everything including wash water from Columbus underware and Amelia Airhardt's shoes "and" you get them into spawning condition right away, they will stay immune. So there are two ways to look at this Surely. If you disagree with me. Send me a self addressed stamped envelope and I will pry off the stamp and ignore the letter. But that's just me.

Love those dragons. Here is a video

[reefgeezer]

Originally Posted by Paul B

Send me a self addressed stamped envelope and I will pry off the stamp and ignore the letter. But that's just me.

This isn't a stamp collecting hobby forum but post your address and I bet many would help you out.

But really, how many fish are in your tank? You've talked about pipefish, a clown, and a butterfly. Are there others?

[rgulrich]

Yep, the whole purpose of carbon dosing is export of soluble Nitrate and Phosphate via the bacteria's consumption and then the subsequent removal of said bacteria via skimming (or having them jump on to the floor and letting us vacuum them up - I like that). A rather sizable portion of the biodegradable material in fish waste that is in a more "solid" form breaks down rather quickly, or is consumed by something else - including other fish - in the food chain, and takes a more meandering course to a mineralized state.

There are lots of things that are going on at once in this process of processes (kind of like a system of systems), with some components rendered biologically inert (mineralized) very rapidly, some assuming a half-life of a few hundred years, and then some, well, they never really want to leave. The last couple paragraphs of this Tanaka et al paper touch upon this subject, and includes further research references in the citations:
Bacterial degradability of dissolved organic carbon in coral mucus
http://www.nova.edu/ncri/11icrs/proc...les/m19-12.pdf

Paul - you're killin' me here, man. I'm still kicking myself for not getting my pipefish on video mating, although I don't know if I could post it anywhere if I did...Thanks for all your contributions and reminding us all this is supposed to be fun!

Cheers,
Ray

[Reefin' Dude]

Originally Posted by rgulrich

Yep, the whole purpose of carbon dosing is export of soluble Nitrate and Phosphate via the bacteria's consumption and then the subsequent removal of said bacteria via skimming (or having them jump on to the floor and letting us vacuum them up - I like that). A rather sizable portion of the biodegradable material in fish waste that is in a more "solid" form breaks down rather quickly, or is consumed by something else - including other fish - in the food chain, and takes a more meandering course to a mineralized state.

sorry, but this is just plain false. if this were true, then there would not be any detritus on the bottom of the tank or in the substrate. if this were true, then there would not be any resources for algae in live sumps or on ATS. i just can not understand why the SW hobby feels that material spontaneously decomposes into nothing.

please post a time frame for how quickly fish poo and detritus breaks down. all i know is that i can see it on the bottom of the tank, and unless i siphon it out, that pile just keeps getting bigger. how does a growing pile of poo equal breaking down "rather quickly"?

consumption by something else is still all of those nutrients in the system and does not represent a lowering of total nutrients in the system, but an increase in total nutrients. biomass equals nutrients. there has to be enough resources to support that biomass, there is all of the nutrients in the bioimass, and there is all of the nutrients expelled by the biomass as waste. no organism is 100% efficient.

do not get me wrong. if the purpose of an aquarists system is to grow poo and all of the organisms that feed on poo, then great, there is nothing wrong with that. these organisms are not necessary necessary to support the organisms we want to keep. they do however take away resources from them and create more work for the aquarist in keeping a static trophic state in the system.

nobody is saying to keep a sterile environment. i am not sure why this keeps being brought up. true BB systems are not sterile, they contain all of the bacteria that a DSB system would contain. the only difference is that they do not contain the biomass associated with the detritus/poo. whether that is worms, bacteria, or Nessie and all of the resources and waste that that biomass needs/produces to survive. all that is being said is do not spread your poo all over the floor and wait for it to be consumed by vermin, insects, and mold. just remove it at a rate that maintains the trophic state wishing to be maintained.

G~

[Paul B]

But really, how many fish are in your tank? You've talked about pipefish, a clown, and a butterfly. Are there others?

Quite a few actually, some I don't even know what they are, like this guy.


I think I have 25 or so fish in there.

Shrimpfish. I don't like or have any common fish like tangs or angels. I just don't find them interesting.

[Dan_P]

Originally Posted by Reefin' Dude

MARINE SUBSTRATES HAVE AN APATITE FOR DIATOMACEOUS POLYPHOSPHATE.

Variable rates of phosphate uptake by shallow marine . carbonate sediments:
Mechanisms and ecological significance.

Bicarbonate Uptake by Nitrifiers: Effects of Growth Rate, pH, Substrate Concentration, and Metabolic Inhibitors

Denitrification, nutrient regeneration and carbon mineralization in sediments of Galveston Bay, Texas,USA

Ammonium regeneration and carbon utilization by marine bacteria grown on mixed substrates

13.5.1 Settling of phosphorus in sediments

Sources of sediment and nutrient exports to the Great Barrier Reef

Anoxic nitrification in marine sediments

Effect of organic loading on nitrification and denitrification in a marine sediment microcosm

Organic matter diagenesis at the oxic/anoxic interface in coastal marine sediments, with emphasis on the role of burrowing animals

SCOPE 21 -The Major Biogeochemical Cycles and Their Interactions

G~

Thanks. I appreciate your effort in listing these articles. This collection is a nice overview of what could be happening in our substrate.

I underestimate the importance of polyphosphates and orgonophosphates, probably because I can only measure orthophosphate. Since I have silica sand and granite stones, I can take the aragonite-phosphate interaction out of the equation in trying to understand my system's pore water contents.

Dan

[Dan_P]

Originally Posted by CStrickland

Thanks! I think a couple of these got by me before.

I would love to read the basis for the position that dead organisms like bacteria and plants, as well as feces, release their bound nutrients so quickly as to be pointless to remove because they are not contributing to the total N and P of the tank (not sarcasm). I'm not so picky that everything has to be peer-reviewed side-by-side double-blind experiments, but I need a bit more than a feeling. I've heard it repeated, but not supported... Sigh.

I am keeping an eye out for the same thing, but I think the answer won't be in one place. But here is a sketch that I am trying to fill in with facts. It is a philosophy/hypothesis that I am trying to disprove.

As for removing dead bacteria, I am not sure that is in our control. When they die, they fall apart and spill their cytoplasm. Given the speed of digestive enzymes, dead bacteria don't hang around many hours. I presume their nutrients are recycled quickly by the surrounding bacterial communities. A big portion of the carbon goes to energy production by who ever consumes them. This explains in part why our aquariums are not a solid protein and carbohydrate mass after a couple of years. But I still don't have a good idea for how long an aquarium can last, and if theiretically forever, what are the signs that it is about to go bad.

As for cleaning up macro algae, I have less of a sense about how fast they can spill their innards, but in my rough sketch here, it is a fast leakage. Cleaning up the ghostly remains might be worth it but it also might be robbing the sysem of carbon needed to deal with nitrogen cycling. I clean it up because the aquarium and refugium look better afterwards.

As for cleaning up feces, let the bacteria have it. It represents a small proportion of animal nitrogen excretion. As for the phosphorous content of feces, it might be worth going after it, but why not leave it to the bacteria and soak up what they don't need with GFO.

As you can tell, I rely on my biofilter to keep the water quality high. But how long can this go on? What is accumulating that I cannot see? What am I not measuring that might let me know that my biofilter is about to die? Does a water change have much of an affect on pore water? Are the aquarists who are vigorously siphoning their substrate doing the right thing after all?

Dan

[Dan_P]

Originally Posted by PhaneSoul

Were not trying to run a 'clean room' were trying to run a clean substrate, well unless your shooting for sps dominance in which case it would be good. Live rock will contain all the desired bacteria and will self clean itself. The substrate cannot self clean and will not without human interaction due to gravity.

Why do you say live rock self cleans? And if the substate is fine, how do propose that solids get into it?

[Dan_P]

Originally Posted by CHSUB

I just recently stopped vinegar dosing after about 2.5 years and have found the results great. I have been all over the place with amounts of vinegar used: from <.2 ml/gal to as high as .9 ml/gal. I slowly increased dosing over several months trying to control no3, but I never achieved the desired results (no3 < 1 ppm). As I increased dosing sps’ stn and paled, po4 remained undetectable and no3 went higher. My only idea is that po4 was limited, since stopping vinegar no3 has dipped below .5 from 5-10 ppm and all corals look much better.

Interesting results.

Do you have fish in the system?

[CStrickland]

Originally Posted by Dan_P

I am keeping an eye out for the same thing, but I think the answer won't be in one place. But here is a sketch that I am trying to fill in with facts. It is a philosophy/hypothesis that I am trying to disprove.
...

As you can tell, I rely on my biofilter to keep the water quality high. But how long can this go on? What is accumulating that I cannot see? What am I not measuring that might let me know that my biofilter is about to die? Does a water change have much of an affect on pore water? Are the aquarists who are vigorously siphoning their substrate doing the right thing after all?

Dan

I want answers Dan, not more questions! Just kidding, I like the cut of your jib It's so refreshing when posters are open-minded and always questioning and reevaluating what they think they know. It is far more beneficial to noobs like me (and I suspect the hobby writ large) when someone takes the time to explain why they use a particular method, and supports it with personal experience or research papers or Time Magazine articles. Some old-timers just sort of talk down to noobs like a smartypants and then say "because I said so" when you push them for a reason, or disappear and make silly off-topic posts in other threads about how "some people think siphoning works, lol winkyface." I suppose that feels good. But I hope those of you who take the time to present a rationale for your thinking realize how much you are all appreciated (even if some of you think smelly ATS's are cool ).

I'm still working through the links from G and Geezer, but you are right, there are some really interesting puzzle pieces in there. Specially how you can tell what the blennies eat by the length of the carbon-chain fatty acids. I just think that's so wow!



PS I think phane means that in the rock when bacteria pull phos out of the carbon structure the activities of the colony create a pressure (I think it's called turgor) that expels the resulting detritus from the rock and into the water column, coupled with high flow this can keep things from getting too nutrient laden (it's the same process as "curing rock"). In the sand bed, after a while there isn't anywhere for it to turgor to, that's what they mean by a sand bed that's "full." Fine sand still harbors bacteria of course. I would think the solids could be very small, but even without them all mixed in like you would picture, as that turgor process is occurring the relatively heavy phos laden detritus kind of stairsteps downward through the bed. I think that's why those happy anoxic denitrifying bacteria aren't phos limited in their deep homes? But I'm just taking a swing at it, idk that much about the sand cause mines silica too.

[Dan_P]

Originally Posted by Reefin' Dude

sorry, but this is just plain false. if this were true, then there would not be any detritus on the bottom of the tank or in the substrate. if this were true, then there would not be any resources for algae in live sumps or on ATS. i just can not understand why the SW hobby feels that material spontaneously decomposes into nothing.

I am enjoying this thread because it is the exact conversation going on in my head!

Because detritus is chemically uncharacterized and no one is weighing it, judging the importance of its removal is debatable. My challenge is to get somebody to collect, dry, and weigh "detritus" every so often and tell us how many milligrams are produced every week in their system. And if I could get somebody to measure the carbon content, that would be really informative. I currently refer to detritus as aquarium dust bunnies.

The notion that material accumulates in an aquarium sounds right to me, but I cannot physically or theoretically close the loop on the mass of material entering and exiting the aquarium. My high level notion is that food added to the aquarium for the most part is assimilated by the fish and used for energy. The excreted nitrogen, mostly ammonia, goes mostly to nitrate and that to nitrogen gas. Phosphate clearly accumulates, so, that has to be removed. All the organics not used by the fish get digested. A big chunk of that carbon goes to making energy and CO2, and left over nitrogen eventually becomes nitrogen gas. Left over phosphate accumulates. So, in this simplistic view, there is no major amount of mass accumulating. Bioload might be something not being fully considered in the debate.

At one extreme, aquaculture or your septic tank or maybe even the average freshwater aquarium, there is an unsustainable bioload in the system. Stuff accumulates at a frightening rate. But when the bioload is relatively low, and this I think is a hallmark of our hobby, material does not accumulate at an appreciable or detrimental rate. Not siphoning it out under these conditions might be OK. One way we might test this idea is to collect detritus and measure the biological oxygen demand of it. Not a test we can readily perform but maybe easier than measuring carbon content and more to the point of answering the question is the stuff relatively inert.

I was just whining to myself the other day about what seems to be decline in meaty debates on this forum. This one has proved otherwise and was useful to me.

Dan