Carbon dosing without a skimmer ...

[HuduVudu]

Will this impact the biological filter too?

 

[ceaver]

I'm not sure I fully understand exactly what you're asking about, but since I'm probably one of few who is carbon dosing w/o a skimmer, I thought I'd chime in. I am dosing small ~weekly doses of vinegar to help create a bit more bacteria as coral food. I don't have a problem with nutrient levels to begin with, so I'm not carbon dosing for that purpose, which is why I believe I can get away with not having a skimmer while doing it...

 

[HuduVudu]

I'm not sure I fully understand exactly what you're asking about, but since I'm probably one of few who is carbon dosing w/o a skimmer, I thought I'd chime in. I am dosing small ~weekly doses of vinegar to help create a bit more bacteria as coral food. I don't have a problem with nutrient levels to begin with, so I'm not carbon dosing for that purpose, which is why I believe I can get away with not having a skimmer while doing it...

What do you see typically for your nitrate and phosphate levels?

Did you measure your nitrate and phosphate before you started dosing?

Did you see any difference on your corals doing this? Polyp extension?

Thank you for your response.

 

[redfishbluefish]

The purpose of carbon dosing is to introduce a food source (carbon) to stimulate bacterial growth. In the process of growing and dividing, the bacteria also consume nitrates and phosphates. You now need a skimmer to remove this excess bacteria, thereby removing nitrates and phosphates. If you have no skimmer, you're just feeding bacteria (and corals/algae), with no reduction of nitrates and phosphates.

More to your question, it not only feeds the "good" bacteria, but is also a food source for cyano bacteria, algae and anything else that is growing in your tank.

 

[HuduVudu]

The purpose of carbon dosing is to introduce a food source (carbon) to stimulate bacterial growth. In the process of growing and dividing, the bacteria also consume nitrates and phosphates. You now need a skimmer to remove this excess bacteria, thereby removing nitrates and phosphates. If you have no skimmer, you're just feeding bacteria (and corals/algae), with no reduction of nitrates and phosphates.

More to your question, it not only feeds the "good" bacteria, but is also a food source for cyano bacteria, algae and anything else that is growing in your tank.

I fully understand this and I am not doing it for nutrient reduction hence the skimmerless part.

The concern that I have is that the carbon dosing will hit the biological filter and I do not really want this. The skimmer is pulling the "bloom", and thus exporting but if this isn't the case will the "bloom" continue to consume nutrients and go straight to filter feeders and thus act as a de facto skimmer leaving the biological filter weakened or will most of it make it back into the tank thus liberating the consumed nutrients. This can be a concern because if I "turn off" the carbon dosing I need to be aware that this effect is in place and ween the tank down.

 

[ceaver]

I fully understand this and I am not doing it for nutrient reduction hence the skimmerless part.

The concern that I have is that the carbon dosing will hit the biological filter and I do not really want this. The skimmer is pulling the "bloom", and thus exporting but if this isn't the case will the "bloom" continue to consume nutrients and go straight to filter feeders and thus act as a de facto skimmer leaving the biological filter weakened or will most of it make it back into the tank thus liberating the consumed nutrients. This can be a concern because if I "turn off" the carbon dosing I need to be aware that this effect is in place and ween the tank down.

My nitrates are often between 6 to 11 ppm, and phosphates between .04 to .10. I only started doing it fairly recently, and am not dosing anything near what the typical dosing schedule is for people trying to lower nutrients. I have not observed any kind of bloom or cloudiness at all. I don't want to bottom out my nutrients cuz there goes the acros, so I'm going slow. I haven't noticed any real changes yet, but again just started doing it...

I have to say that I'm still not 100% clear on what you're asking about or what your concern is regarding your bio filter (ie, nitrifying bacteria)... Sorry! But I haven't seen any issues yet...

 

[NowGlazeIT]

Will this impact the biological filter too?

Yes it will boost biological filtration. If you don’t have a skimmer then try more frequent water changes.

 

[HuduVudu]

I have to say that I'm still not 100% clear on what you're asking about or what your concern is regarding your bio filter (ie, nitrifying bacteria)... Sorry! But I haven't seen any issues yet...

They say ... if you carbon dose then your tank will become acustomed to the dosing and your nitrosomus bacteria population will fall due to lack of food. These are the bacteria that are responsible for the breakdown of wastes in aerobic environments. I am aware there are other bacteria involved in this process but to keep it simple, I'll leave the others out. These are the bacteria in the bottle. When these bacteria get starved out by the carbon dosing bacteria (not sure of these but they are bacteria) then their populations fall. This means if the carbon dosing is suddenly removed then the bacteria that were removing the nutrients lose their carbon source and their populations decline and the nitrosomus must pick up the slack. This means that you essentially go through a "new" tank cycle, as the nitrosomus ramp up.

My question is if anyone knows if this is the case for a skimmerless carbon dose.

I was hoping to get some numbers from you to try and infer if that was the case. Sounds as though you haven't really been doing it long enough and you aren't really providing a heavy enough dose to impact your tank if you remove it.

Definitely I am with you that the extra free food would be good, and I see this as a nice secondary effect of what I am doing.

@Jay Hemdal any thoughts? Not sure if you have used carbon dosing.

 

[Jay Hemdal Verified Community Expert]

They say ... if you carbon dose then your tank will become acustomed to the dosing and your nitrosomus bacteria population will fall due to lack of food. These are the bacteria that are responsible for the breakdown of wastes in aerobic environments. I am aware there are other bacteria involved in this process but to keep it simple, I'll leave the others out. These are the bacteria in the bottle. When these bacteria get starved out by the carbon dosing bacteria (not sure of these but they are bacteria) then their populations fall. This means if the carbon dosing is suddenly removed then the bacteria that were removing the nutrients lose their carbon source and their populations decline and the nitrosomus must pick up the slack. This means that you essentially go through a "new" tank cycle, as the nitrosomus ramp up.

My question is if anyone knows if this is the case for a skimmerless carbon dose.

I was hoping to get some numbers from you to try and infer if that was the case. Sounds as though you haven't really been doing it long enough and you aren't really providing a heavy enough dose to impact your tank if you remove it.

Definitely I am with you that the extra free food would be good, and I see this as a nice secondary effect of what I am doing.

@Jay Hemdal any thoughts? Not sure if you have used carbon dosing.

Sorry, I have little firsthand knowledge, but I do know from studies by Barrett Christie, that carbon is limiting to nitrifying bacteria, at least during the initial startup. He came up with the coca cola dosing system for fishless startups. The coke supplies carbon and phosphorus. The joke is that the caffeine is an added bonus (grin).

Jay

 

[ceaver]

They say ... if you carbon dose then your tank will become acustomed to the dosing and your nitrosomus bacteria population will fall due to lack of food. These are the bacteria that are responsible for the breakdown of wastes in aerobic environments. I am aware there are other bacteria involved in this process but to keep it simple, I'll leave the others out. These are the bacteria in the bottle. When these bacteria get starved out by the carbon dosing bacteria (not sure of these but they are bacteria) then their populations fall. This means if the carbon dosing is suddenly removed then the bacteria that were removing the nutrients lose their carbon source and their populations decline and the nitrosomus must pick up the slack. This means that you essentially go through a "new" tank cycle, as the nitrosomus ramp up.

My question is if anyone knows if this is the case for a skimmerless carbon dose.

I was hoping to get some numbers from you to try and infer if that was the case. Sounds as though you haven't really been doing it long enough and you aren't really providing a heavy enough dose to impact your tank if you remove it.

Definitely I am with you that the extra free food would be good, and I see this as a nice secondary effect of what I am doing.

@Jay Hemdal any thoughts? Not sure if you have used carbon dosing.

Got it, thank you for the detailed explanation! That is info I hadn't come across yet. You are correct that I have not done enough dosing or measurement of this yet to be able to offer any insight into your question.

Theoretically, I would think you would avoid the issue, since the nutrients taken up by the bacteria would eventually be released back into the system at some point....?

I must ask, if you're not doing it to reduce nutrients and you see the free coral food as a secondary bonus, then what is the primary rationale for your carbon dosing?

 

[ReefGeezer]

I once dosed carbon (vinegar) to create what I thought was a simple food source with an added bonus of reducing free available nutrients. Unfortunately, I later found out that the process also binds ammonia. This drives populations of nitrifying bacteria down and limits ammonia in the water column that some corals need. I finally decided just to add more fish and feed them more.

 

[HuduVudu]

Theoretically, I would think you would avoid the issue, since the nutrients taken up by the bacteria would eventually be released back into the system at some point....?

Agreed ... but that point might be very far into the future. A clam takes it up and then lives 10 years. It is essentially bound at that point. By being bound the bacteria is essentially exported as though it were removed by the skimmer.

I must ask, if you're not doing it to reduce nutrients and you see the free coral food as a secondary bonus, then what is the primary rationale for your carbon dosing?

I won't get into why I am doing. What I will say here is that it is because it is controversial and I am not going to fight with the ignorant about it because it is really esoteric. The long and short of it is that I am trying to boost my calcium levels without using calcium chloride.

Some background. I have smallish tank it used to be 20 gallons but I have expanded out to 60ish gallons. I am trying to grow stony corals. I was at the top end of Kalk and I created a way to push more Kalk but it was labor intensive and I tired of doing it because I could not automate it. It worked but ... so I decided to go to a CaRx. I knew that with the demand it would difficult to deal with. I have worked out the issues with lower demand on a CaRx but I am getting too much alk. Hilariously I tried to push up the calcium to balance the higher alk using calcium nitrate. This was a giant fail because I have plenums and the alk went through the roof. This sucked because I couldn't push it down quickly. Needless to say my corals bear the scars of my stupid. I figured I would use acetic acid to get the alk down. This worked, but not for the direct acid I don't think but because I knocked the nitrate down doing this of course.

Now I have the alk at a reasonable level but my calcium is now out of balance and VERY low and pushing the reactor up just moves the alk up. I am now using acetic acid on Kalk to get calcium and this is working. Sadly I will need to use it on Magnesium carbonate to get the magnesium back in balance. Needless to say I am pushing a lot of vinegar. When I get balance I will want to stop and see if the CaRx can hold the balance. I am struggling to figure out if I can just yank the acetic acid or if I need to pare down. I am leaning toward slow slope off for safety.

I have some projects that I think will help keep the alk down on the CaRx but projects take time and my coral don't care whether I get it or not.

Just preparing for the day hopefully I can stop pushing the vinegar.

 

[HuduVudu]

I once dosed carbon (vinegar) to create what I thought was a simple food source with an added bonus of reducing free available nutrients. Unfortunately, I later found out that the process also binds ammonia. This drives populations of nitrifying bacteria down and limits ammonia in the water column that some corals need. I finally decided just to add more fish and feed them more.

Where you using a skimmer?

 

[HuduVudu]

@Subsea any thoughts?

 

[ReefGeezer]

Where you using a skimmer?

Yes... but I wasn't dosing enough to matter.

 

[Subsea]

I don’t have measurements but I dosed vinegar for one year and have been skimmerless for 30 years. I now only dose ammonia & ChaetoGrow . I get passive alkalinity & trace mineral addittion with solubility of aroggonite in water using reverse flow undergravel filter thru 2” substrate.

Redfield Ratio of carbon-nitrogen-phosphate for phytoplankton is 160-16-1. Not all carbon is the same: vinegar & sugar. Also, if a little is good a lot is better does not work well in a closed system. Because my systems focus on filter feeders like flame scallops, sea apples and NPS recently, I do not focus on alkalinity or calcium demanding SPS. I do focus on the microbial loop which moves carbon up the food chain. After dosing vinegar everyday for one year, I dealt with Cynobacteria and stopped dosing vinegar. I suspect if I dosed only once a week I would not have had a Cynobacteria outbreak.

I do plan on adding a calcium reactor, which will directly contribute carbonate alkalinity. Because I choose light fish load, dosing ammonia & ChaetoGrow allows me to operate with zero waterchanges and maintain a high nutrient system for ornamental seaweed mixed garden lagoons.

 

[Subsea]

Will this impact the biological filter too?

YES. However, The biological filter is more complex than nitrification bacteria. Get @Timfish and @Lasse and @DanP and @Dana Riddle involved in this complex subject.

Only 3% of natural wild reef bacteria are able to be produced in a laboratory.

DOC from coral and DOC from algae grow different bacteria.

DOC from coral is mostly lipids & proteins, while DOC from algae is mostly carbohydrate.

Cryptic sponges process massive amounts of DOC & POC into DIC & detritus. Detritus feeds the microbial loop.

See what @Paul B says about detritus/MULM:

• 
  
• WAMAS Speaker
• • 3.9k
• Gender:Male
• Location:Long Island NY
• #1

June 10, 2016
[I think one of the most important, and least understood or mentioned things in a reef tank is "mulm". That stuff that grows in the dark portions of a tank if it is set up long enough. "Mulm" is a combination of algae, sponges, bacteria, pods, worms, detritus, poop and any thing else that can be propagated or grown in the dark. I realize most people would immediately get out the sponge, razor blade or grenade to remove it but there is a word I like to use to describe those people. That word is "wrong". Mulm is a natural product that you will find in the sea all over the world. Our tanks run on bacteria, algae and a food chain. Bacteria and a food chain are dependent on having a place to reproduce. Mulm is the perfect place. Rocks and glass are flat surfaces that are only two dimensional. Mulm makes these places three dimensional allowing much more space for bacteria and microscopic organisms to grow and do the macarana. (Then love to dance) Pods, which are needed for any small fish also need to eat and their numbers are directly related to how much food they can get their hands on (or whatever pods use to eat with) The more food, the more pods, the more pods, the easier to keep smaller fish. Larger fish such as copperbands and angels also eat pods.
Many people try to keep fish such as pipefish, mandarins or other dragonettes in a sterile tank and while feeding them a couple of times a day with tiger pods or some other expensive food. Those types of fish will not live for long in such a tank and they certainly won't spawn which I consider the "only" criteria to determine the state of health for any paired fish.
Mulm (after a while, maybe a few years) should grow on the back and sides of glass as well as under rocks.
Here in this picture of my clingfish, the mulm appears green. It is really brownish and that fish is on the side of my tank. I brightened up the picture and turned it sideways because it was in the dark and the fish was hard to see.
There is a thick layer of it on the back of my tank where my mandarins and pipefish like to hunt. My long spined urchin also grazes there most of the time as there is not much algae in my tank for him to eat. He is many years old as are the mandarins and pipefish and they are dependent on this food source.
A sterile tank IMO is the biggest problem we have keeping certain fish healthy.
Sterile is good in an operating room but very bad in a tank.]

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Theoretically, I would think you would avoid the issue, since the nutrients taken up by the bacteria would eventually be released back into the system at some point....?

I'm not sure that is entirely true. Every time an organism consumes the bacteria, some of the N and P likely goes into building more tissue.

There's no theoretical reason one cannot use carbon dosing just to provide food. It's certainly no worse from a nutrient accumulation perspective than actually adding new foods.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

DOC from coral and DOC from algae grow different bacteria.

DOC from coral is mostly lipids & proteins, while DOC from algae is mostly carbohydrate.

Cryptic sponges process massive amounts of DOC & POC into DIC & detritus. Detritus feeds the microbial loop.

FWIW, if you feed a simple organic form like acetate, nearly all bacteria can consume it. It is apparently the compound with the highest turnover rate in sediments.

I understand the cyano issue you mentioned. They like it too.

 

[HuduVudu]

I'm not sure that is entirely true. Every time an organism consumes the bacteria, some of the N and P likely goes into building more tissue.

There's no theoretical reason one cannot use carbon dosing just to provide food. It's certainly no worse from a nutrient accumulation perspective than actually adding new foods.

I am using vinegar on kalk for calcium and will also use it on mgco3 for mag. I am using quite a bit (I think) 8ml/day on 5% acidity (whatever that means, it's what the bottle says). I am trying to balance a system that got out of whack.

In your opinion would be better to ramp down the usage or can I just cut it off when I don't need it. If you want to provide your reasoning that would kewl too, from an educational stand point.

EDIT: If you are feeling like adding a bit more it would be nice to know what is the breakdown path for the acetate.

EDIT:EDIT: Is DOC Dissolved Organic Compounds or Dissolved Organic Carbon?