Another conversation about how to chemically reduce nitrates.

[mcarroll]

I know...most people do. I attribute it to having quite old-fashioned sensibilities - often a handicap. Most people are naturally biased the other way. The upside is that my reef tends to be more resilient than most as well as less expensive to run.

-Matt

 

[hart24601]

Not a band-aid - that's a stunt! Technically, yes it functions as an anaerobic environment the same way live rock does. Sadly it's nothing short of a magic trick to get one to last. The best ones would be deployed in a separate tank from the display so they could be deconstructed and cleaned as needed.



Band Aids?
I think the bandaid term is just used as a term for a temporary fix as opposed to a long-term one. People generally want to put more animals in a tank than they should...almost always requiring extensive band-aiding just to keep the system from crashing and killing the contents. A system designed from the outset for the number of animals in question would be sized appropriately and not require all the band aids. (It's too bad IMO that this is such an exotic idea....and band-aids the norm.)

Carbon dosing is not a nutrient export method.
Carbon dosing encourages bacteria to grow. During their itty-bitty lives they use up nutrients and sequester them within thier living cells. There is no conversion to gas - anaerobic conditions like inside live rock are required for that.

A secondary mechanism such as a skimmer or hungry coral is required for there to be any chance at export or productive use for the nutrients in that bacteria. If the bacteria dies a natural death, the nutrients would return to the water column.

And as mentioned before, based on this I think it's a bit of wishful thinking to imagine a skimmer catching even a majority of bacteria escaping a pellet reactor. We won't bring up the alkalinity issues or other hidden "costs" related to carbon dosing. It's not a method of nutrient export and it's not a free lunch either. There's always going to be a cost associated with overstocking.

By contrast...
Live rock can convert nitrate to nitrogen gas.
Water changes remove a specific percentage of waste according to how much water is removed.
A skimmer is a source of nutrient export....probably on par with a ~20% weekly water change schedule if you skim wet and keep the skimmer clean religiously.
An algae scrubber or macro-algae refugium is a source of nutrient export as long as algae is regularly harvested.

I hope this helps!

-Matt

There is no reason to think carbon dosing doesn't also fuel the anaerobic bacteria to produce nitrogen from nitrate and that is removed from the system not by skimming but direct gas release pretty much like those aquaripurefilters.

Large Aquaripure Nitrate Filter

Of course the carbon has to diffuse to the anaerobic areas, but I have not seen any evidence that it doesn't do that. It would also give some support to the advanced aquairst article where they didn't see large increase in bacteria in the water column following carbon dosing.

 

[hart24601]

All the other methods are far better understood (the good and bad) than carbon dosing.

For one aspect of this, "burnt tips" is the closest anyone has come to explaining one of the caveats of carbon dosing...but it's an entirely unscientific explanation that's really only valuable in explaining the known hack/workaround of keeping your alkalinity low to avoid the problem.

Relative to the other options - which also includes proper stocking levels - carbon dosing is a pure hack, not a full-fledged tool every ReefKeeper should use.

IMO a suitable use might be as a stop-gap used on your way to a tank upgrade - an actual solution.

To need it day to day indicates an unbalanced reef.

Unbalanced reefs can still grow fish and coral, but are more susceptible to bad luck, among other things.

-Matt

I really couldn't disagree more, but I can respect that opinion. I don't think carbon dosing indicates an improper balance any more than growing macro algae does. I mean really the only way to keep proper balance would be to constantly keep adding fresh seawater. And how does one define proper stocking levels? I don't mean keep too large of fish, but a system with no skimmer, no macro and only weekly waterchanges is going to have a different level than someone running a skimmer or DSB or maco. Stocking levels with no filter supports and no live rock? Really we use live rock as a biofilter, but what if we don't want much rock? All that changes stocking levels too. I don't see how one could have a really balanced system unless there are no fish and only tiny food inputs for the corals. We have little cubes of water sitting in our house.

I do think it's not something every reefer needs to use, but I have not experienced any reason to not use it. You are just feeding the system. You are increasing the base level of life in the tank, the lowest level of the food chain. People run it for nutrient reduction, but I keep running it not because my nutrients would climb back up, but I run it to feed the food chain.

 

[Pete polyp]

I was under the assumption that burned tips were a product of ulns and elevated alk. Carbon dosing is only one of many ways to achieve ulns.

I believe that carbon dosing should only be used after a hobbyist can have success without the use of it. Inexperienced aquarists will not learn the foundation of how this all works if they jump right in. That's not going to happen, and I'm not saying people can't or shouldn't. Understanding the foundation of what it takes to have a healthy reef is priceless when it comes to the hobby, and its going to be hard to gain that knowledge if you start with carbon dosing. An understanding of the nitrogen cycle and what makes it work in our aquariums should be understood to every hobbyist.

My newest setup is the first time I will be using a carbon source to aid in nutrient export. Its also the first tank I have had with a sump or a skimmer. Over the years I have gained the knowledge of the fundamentals and I'm comfortable with moving forward with this direction.

 

[Pete polyp]

I really couldn't disagree more, but I can respect that opinion. I don't think carbon dosing indicates an improper balance any more than growing macro algae does. I mean really the only way to keep proper balance would be to constantly keep adding fresh seawater. And how does one define proper stocking levels? I don't mean keep too large of fish, but a system with no skimmer, no macro and only weekly waterchanges is going to have a different level than someone running a skimmer or DSB or maco. Stocking levels with no filter supports and no live rock? Really we use live rock as a biofilter, but what if we don't want much rock? All that changes stocking levels too. I don't see how one could have a really balanced system unless there are no fish and only tiny food inputs for the corals. We have little cubes of water sitting in our house.

I do think it's not something every reefer needs to use, but I have not experienced any reason to not use it. You are just feeding the system. You are increasing the base level of life in the tank, the lowest level of the food chain. People run it for nutrient reduction, but I keep running it not because my nutrients would climb back up, but I run it to feed the food chain.

Well said!

 

[H2O]

I like all natural kind of reef less chemicals less room for error I keep a refugium its all natural hair algae and cheto plus water changes I have no need to run anykind of media levels stay on point and my algae makes natural food breeding grounds, oxygen and suckcs nutrients out .. chemicals multiply the bacteria pollute the water and god knows what alse

 

[mcarroll]

I was under the assumption that burned tips were a product of ulns and elevated alk. [...]

I'm not aware of any cases of burned tips where some form of carbon (organic or inorganic) wasn't being dosed. I don't think high or low (or "ultra low") dissolved nutrient levels have anything to do with it.

-Matt

 

[Daniel@R2R Verified Admin]

chemicals multiply the bacteria pollute the water and god knows what alse

Based on what you've said, it doesn't sound like you have experience with chemical media at all. We all add chemicals to our tanks whether it's through dosing (even maintenance dosing of kalk or two-part is chemical dosing) or just water changes (your salt mix is a chemical cocktail made to create a mix of water and minerals that allow for sealife to thrive), so we cannot say that we do not add chemicals (though I assume you are referring to media for export of nutrients). As has already been said, many well-known successful reefers utilize chemical media got nutrient export without any of the problems you have mentioned. None of us would say that you HAVE to use chemical filtration, but it doesn't seem right to assert the contrary either. What's your basis for this statement?

 

[Pete polyp]

I'm not aware of any cases of burned tips where some form of carbon (organic or inorganic) wasn't being dosed. I don't think high or low (or "ultra low") dissolved nutrient levels have anything to do with it.

-Matt

I just felt as if you're trying to imply that every system that utilizes carbon dosing will have burned tips on the sps.

 

[mcarroll]

There is no reason to think carbon dosing doesn't also fuel the anaerobic bacteria to produce nitrogen from nitrate and that is removed from the system not by skimming but direct gas release pretty much like those aquaripurefilters.

Large Aquaripure Nitrate Filter

Of course the carbon has to diffuse to the anaerobic areas, but I have not seen any evidence that it doesn't do that. It would also give some support to the advanced aquairst article where they didn't see large increase in bacteria in the water column following carbon dosing.

That sounds logical, but I'm pretty sure (like most info regarding the mechanisms of carbon dosing) that you are speculating. I've never even heard people selling carbon-dosing products (going as far back as AZNO3, at least) claim anything like that. Definitely would not apply to bio-pellets.

I really couldn't disagree more, but I can respect that opinion. I don't think carbon dosing indicates an improper balance any more than growing macro algae does. [...] And how does one define proper stocking levels?[...]

It's not carbon dosing per se, but the need for it, that indicates the imbalance. The question to me is whether carbon dosing is as good as other options when all things are considered. Which makes it a problem that we don't have all the info about carbon dosing to consider

And how to define balance is an excellent question that gets asked all too infrequently. There's no one correct answer since everyone's tank is a little different, but I think I've got a pretty good - at least very useful - one.

If your animals can live happily (which I can only honestly measure in terms of lifespan) with minimal to no water changes, their biological processes can be considered "in balance" with your live rock.

Once your animals exceed this balance, nutrients start accumulating - pollution begins, your tank is out of balance.​

This is easy to understand and easy to use:

• Buy a tank that's big enough for your animals to properly grow up to adult size in, then they will live easily to ripe old ages.
• Done this way, not much specialty gear is required and your main interaction with the tank will be with the animals and feeding rather than other things. Not only that, your tank will be more resilient and you'll have more money in your pocket. Spend it on a bigger tank!

The biggest problem is that most people blow by this option on the way to the gadget/chemical aisle without a second thought.

The Berliners figured out back in the 1970's that all your really needed was a source of flow, live rock and a skimmer.

If anyone can remember what it was like before the Berliners methods were brought over here in the 1980's, modern times are starting to look similar. To me, anyway. Hi-Tech!!

There aren't many good, complete explanations of the Berlin Method still out there that include the history, so a third party link is called for:
Link. (Keep in mind what is considered a "big" skimmer and "bright" light are what pretty much everyone uses these days.)

-Matt

P.S. I forget if it was you, but someone mentioned a lack of increase in bacteria in the water column under carbon dosing. The bacteria grow in mats on surfaces - they are not generally free-floating when alive. Even when they are in the water column, more than likely it'll be as part of an aggregation of marine snow, not just free floating.

P.P.S. Just trying to add some meat to the discussion....hope all this isn't perceived as all negative! Keep the discussion going!

 

[b_rad_G]

Burnt tips started out in zeo systems. It has been widely excepted that the cause of burnt tips in a low nutrient system is high alk levels. Most users seem to find a level around 8 dkh as being the best in a low nutrient system. I have never heard anyone blame the carbon for burnt tips until today. I have also never seen or heard of someone with burnt tips with alk near NSW.

There are many advanced reefers that use carbon dosing with great success. I have even seen people carbon dose and nitrate dose at a small level. Large scale carbon dosing is generally not an accepted long term practice. The general idea is to find the problem fix the problem use carbon to lower nutrient levels then slack the dose to a maintain the lower levels.

I think what some people are missing in this conversation is all nutrient export requires manual export at some stage. Weather it is harvesting algae water changes or cleaning the skimmer cup. Carbon dosing does require a skimmer for removal.

Another factor that seems to be overlooked is the bacteria created in carbon dosing can be a great food source for the life in our tank. I have no doubt that corals feed on free floating bacteria and many other micro organisms probably do as well.

 

[b_rad_G]

The argument of only keep as any fish as can be "happy" is not valid. You are grasping now. Think about how many miles a happy tang can swim in the ocean. I mean seriously the only fish we could possibly keep would be clowns and only because they don't stray from their nem. As far as the water quality side it is almost as bad of an argument. NSW has perfect levels constantly. There are no swings and no elevated nitrate or phosphate. We simply can not reproduce natural habitat in an aquarium.

 

[Pete polyp]

Burnt tips started out in zeo systems. It has been widely excepted that the cause of burnt tips in a low nutrient system is high alk levels. Most users seem to find a level around 8 dkh as being the best in a low nutrient system. I have never heard anyone blame the carbon for burnt tips until today. I have also never seen or heard of someone with burnt tips with alk near NSW.

There are many advanced reefers that use carbon dosing with great success. I have even seen people carbon dose and nitrate dose at a small level. Large scale carbon dosing is generally not an accepted long term practice. The general idea is to find the problem fix the problem use carbon to lower nutrient levels then slack the dose to a maintain the lower levels.

I think what some people are missing in this conversation is all nutrient export requires manual export at some stage. Weather it is harvesting algae water changes or cleaning the skimmer cup. Carbon dosing does require a skimmer for removal.

Another factor that seems to be overlooked is the bacteria created in carbon dosing can be a great food source for the life in our tank. I have no doubt that corals feed on free floating bacteria and many other micro organisms probably do as well.

Large scale carbon dosing is generally not an accepted long term practice. The general idea is to find the problem fix the problem use carbon to lower nutrient levels then slack the dose to a maintain the lower levels

When you say large scale do you mean large quantities or prolonged use?

 

[mcarroll]

Burnt tips started out in zeo systems. It has been widely excepted that the cause of burnt tips in a low nutrient system is high alk levels. Most users seem to find a level around 8 dkh as being the best in a low nutrient system. I have never heard anyone blame the carbon for burnt tips until today. I have also never seen or heard of someone with burnt tips with alk near NSW.

There are many advanced reefers that use carbon dosing with great success. I have even seen people carbon dose and nitrate dose at a small level. Large scale carbon dosing is generally not an accepted long term practice. The general idea is to find the problem fix the problem use carbon to lower nutrient levels then slack the dose to a maintain the lower levels.

I think what some people are missing in this conversation is all nutrient export requires manual export at some stage. Weather it is harvesting algae water changes or cleaning the skimmer cup. Carbon dosing does require a skimmer for removal.

Another factor that seems to be overlooked is the bacteria created in carbon dosing can be a great food source for the life in our tank. I have no doubt that corals feed on free floating bacteria and many other micro organisms probably do as well.

Good points!

Live rock is the exception, needing no further assistance to export Nitrogen from the tank.

Folks seem to be under the impression that a skimmer is going to grab all the dead/sloughing bacterial exiting a pellet reactor. I don't see how that's even close to possible.

I don't need a reactor, but if I ran one, I'm pretty sure I'd aim the effluent at a coral or grouping of corals. The skimmer is questionable, but corals (many of them) are made to eat marine snow such as this. A "sea of mouths" like a big monti or stylo (prolly many good options, but a fast grower would be better) seems like in time it should be able to grow out into a shape that would enable it to consume the reactor output with very good efficiency. Maybe even a non-photosythetic coral would be a good option.

-Matt

 

[Daniel@R2R Verified Admin]

I don't need a reactor, but if I ran one, I'm pretty sure I'd aim the effluent at a coral or grouping of corals. The skimmer is questionable, but corals (many of them) are made to eat marine snow such as this. A "sea of mouths" like a big monti or stylo (prolly many good options, but a fast grower would be better) seems like in time it should be able to grow out into a shape that would enable it to consume the reactor output with very good efficiency. Maybe even a non-photosythetic coral would be a good option.

-Matt

I really like this idea!

 

[mcarroll]

The argument of only keep as any fish as can be "happy" is not valid. You are grasping now. Think about how many miles a happy tang can swim in the ocean. I mean seriously the only fish we could possibly keep would be clowns and only because they don't stray from their nem. As far as the water quality side it is almost as bad of an argument. NSW has perfect levels constantly. There are no swings and no elevated nitrate or phosphate. We simply can not reproduce natural habitat in an aquarium.

Why do you think it is not valid? Simply because you've never seen anyone keep a tang into old age?

Trust me when I say it's the keeper's fault and not the tang's when they suffer early death.

The aquarium should be a place free of predators so they can easily glide through old age. Instead they are taken out usually by stress-induced disease or a house-of-cards tank that had an accident and crashed.

There's nothing keeping any of us from making the GOOD outcome the normal case in every single tank for every single fish except the right willpower and knowledge.

-Matt

 

[Pete polyp]

Why do you think it is not valid? Simply because you've never seen anyone keep a tang into old age?

Trust me when I say it's the keeper's fault and not the tang's when they suffer early death.

The aquarium should be a place free of predators so they can easily glide through old age. Instead they are taken out usually by stress-induced disease or a house-of-cards tank that had an accident and crashed.

There's nothing keeping any of us from making the GOOD outcome the normal case in every single tank for every single fish except the right willpower and knowledge.

-Matt

Hey now.... Many top notch systems with world renowned aquarists have suffered crashes. Just because a crash happens doesn't mean the system was a "house of cards"

 

[hart24601]

That sounds logical, but I'm pretty sure (like most info regarding the mechanisms of carbon dosing) that you are speculating. I've never even heard people selling carbon-dosing products (going as far back as AZNO3, at least) claim anything like that. Definitely would not apply to bio-pellets.



It's not carbon dosing per se, but the need for it, that indicates the imbalance. The question to me is whether carbon dosing is as good as other options when all things are considered. Which makes it a problem that we don't have all the info about carbon dosing to consider

And how to define balance is an excellent question that gets asked all too infrequently. There's no one correct answer since everyone's tank is a little different, but I think I've got a pretty good - at least very useful - one.

If your animals can live happily (which I can only honestly measure in terms of lifespan) with minimal to no water changes, their biological processes can be considered "in balance" with your live rock.

Once your animals exceed this balance, nutrients start accumulating - pollution begins, your tank is out of balance.​

This is easy to understand and easy to use:

• Buy a tank that's big enough for your animals to properly grow up to adult size in, then they will live easily to ripe old ages.
• Done this way, not much specialty gear is required and your main interaction with the tank will be with the animals and feeding rather than other things. Not only that, your tank will be more resilient and you'll have more money in your pocket. Spend it on a bigger tank!

The biggest problem is that most people blow by this option on the way to the gadget/chemical aisle without a second thought.

The Berliners figured out back in the 1970's that all your really needed was a source of flow, live rock and a skimmer.

If anyone can remember what it was like before the Berliners methods were brought over here in the 1980's, modern times are starting to look similar. To me, anyway. Hi-Tech!!

There aren't many good, complete explanations of the Berlin Method still out there that include the history, so a third party link is called for:
Link. (Keep in mind what is considered a "big" skimmer and "bright" light are what pretty much everyone uses these days.)

-Matt

P.S. I forget if it was you, but someone mentioned a lack of increase in bacteria in the water column under carbon dosing. The bacteria grow in mats on surfaces - they are not generally free-floating when alive. Even when they are in the water column, more than likely it'll be as part of an aggregation of marine snow, not just free floating.

P.P.S. Just trying to add some meat to the discussion....hope all this isn't perceived as all negative! Keep the discussion going!

You are correct, I am speculating. That's pretty much what microbiologist do all the time, lol. Community and environmental microbiology is really complex and very difficult. Right now I am working on project involving microbial populations in silage and also looking at gene expression changes in the entire populations. It's really cool next-gen sequencing has reached the point where it is not insanely expensive to run samples (for us in industry). Our lab did have to hire a dedicated bioinformatics person so it's not that cheap I guess... We also just started being able to run miseq in house for RNA gene expression of entire populations, not sure yet how that will work, or even if rt-PCR would work, but hopefully these can drop in price so we as hobbyists can start seeing microbial populations in aquarium systems and then looking at expression and regulations. Maybe in 5-10 years.

 

[hart24601]

Lets also keep in mind that despite our different options and how we individually define things the real important issue is that our reefs and fish are growing and doing well.

 

[Reefing Madness]

Good points!

Live rock is the exception, needing no further assistance to export Nitrogen from the tank.

Folks seem to be under the impression that a skimmer is going to grab all the dead/sloughing bacterial exiting a pellet reactor. I don't see how that's even close to possible.

I don't need a reactor, but if I ran one, I'm pretty sure I'd aim the effluent at a coral or grouping of corals. The skimmer is questionable, but corals (many of them) are made to eat marine snow such as this. A "sea of mouths" like a big monti or stylo (prolly many good options, but a fast grower would be better) seems like in time it should be able to grow out into a shape that would enable it to consume the reactor output with very good efficiency. Maybe even a non-photosythetic coral would be a good option.

-Matt

most have the wrong idea on a skimmer though, most just get one rated at their size tank, which is a no no. If one had the biggest skimmer one could keep in their tank, sump, this may be a mute subject.