HR Nitrate Remover without a Protein Skimmer

[Andy Reed]

Hi,

I bought some HR Nitrate Remover hoping to reduce my nitrate levels which have been up around 80ppm despite frequent water changes. However the product directions state:

'This product must be used in saltwater aquariums with a protein skimmer'

Since I don't have a protein skimmer I'd like to understand why this is important to the carbon dosing process. Please could I ask if someone is able to explain?

Many thanks,
Andy.

 

[Larry L]

Carbon dosing encourages the growth of bacteria, and then the bacteria consume nitrates. The protein skimmer captures the bacterial floc and provides the way to export those nitrates out of your system.

 

[HuduVudu]

Hi,

I bought some HR Nitrate Remover hoping to reduce my nitrate levels which have been up around 80ppm despite frequent water changes. However the product directions state:

'This product must be used in saltwater aquariums with a protein skimmer'

Since I don't have a protein skimmer I'd like to understand why this is important to the carbon dosing process. Please could I ask if someone is able to explain?

Many thanks,
Andy.

Carbon dosing works on the theory that planktonic production in aquariums is depressed because of lack of carbon bioavailability. In theory increasing the amount of available carbon increases the amount of planktonic biomass. This biomass is consuming nitrate and phosphate as food. If you remove the biomass then you remove the food that they have consumed and effectively exported the target sources i.e. nitrate and phosphate. The best way to export planktonic material is with a protein skimmer. If you do not have skimmer to export the plankton they will reproduce rapidly creating blooms. These blooms create unfavorable and unaesthetic conditions in your aquarium. These conditions come in the form of cloudyness of the water column and out of balance O2 and CO2 levels.

One possible pitfall of carbon dosing is that your populations of aerobic bacteria decreases because of the lack of food. The carbon dosing also encourages the uptake of ammonia and nitrite which are food for the aerobic bacteria.

I have not used this system so I can not speak to the loss of the aerobic bed, but I have seen many posts where people state this is an issue after they stop carbon dosing.

Hopefully that answers you question.

 

[Andy Reed]

Thank you so much for taking the time to explain that in such detail. I really appreciate it as it makes perfect sense. I'm glad I asked the question rather than assuming it would all work out without a skimmer.

Best regards,
Andy.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

It might well work fine without a skimmer. it depend son whether your tank has other ways to dealing with bacteria, such as filter feeders.

 

[HuduVudu]

It might well work fine without a skimmer. it depend son whether your tank has other ways to dealing with bacteria, such as filter feeders.

Running without a skimmer defeats the idea of nutrient export most acutely with phosphate.

 

[Dan_P]

It might well work fine without a skimmer. it depend son whether your tank has other ways to dealing with bacteria, such as filter feeders.

In addition to filter feeders removing bacteria, what about ciliates? Doesn’t that population explode along with the bacteria population? And what about all the nematodes? Aren’t they gobbling up bacterial films?

I understand the narrative that the export of bacteria is an integral part of carbon dosing, but how important is it compared to Internal bacteria consumption? As a side note, I was able to reduce nitrates to zero in a sample of tank water with carbon dosing and no skimming. Unfortunately, I did not think to see how the population of microorganisms changed over time. I need to rattle the @taricha cage on this topic as it pertains to investigating bottled bacteria performance

 

[taricha]

I understand the narrative that the export of bacteria is an integral part of carbon dosing, but how important is it compared to Internal bacteria consumption? As a side note, I was able to reduce nitrates to zero in a sample of tank water with carbon dosing and no skimming.

A paper on carbon dosing for ammonia control talked about a very loose rule of thumb that maybe ~20% of ingested nitrogen went into biomass. That was for much higher up the food chain (fish) but let's apply the concept to bacteriavores.
So 80% doesn't go up the food chain.
But also the paper lays out as a rough estimate ~20% of bacterial biomass N is indigestible, so it doesn't get rereleased to the water either.
So even if bacteria aren't exported, they still might sequester ~40% of their N away from the water - either up the food chain or down in indigestible debris.

If they don't get eaten, it's only 20%, ...and if they are exported, 100% of their N leaves the water.

 

[Dan_P]

A paper on carbon dosing for ammonia control talked about a very loose rule of thumb that maybe ~20% of ingested nitrogen went into biomass. That was for much higher up the food chain (fish) but let's apply the concept to bacteriavores.
So 80% doesn't go up the food chain.
But also the paper lays out as a rough estimate ~20% of bacterial biomass N is indigestible, so it doesn't get rereleased to the water either.
So even if bacteria aren't exported, they still might sequester ~40% of their N away from the water - either up the food chain or down in indigestible debris.

If they don't get eaten, it's only 20%, ...and if they are exported, 100% of their N leaves the water.

I am thinking about how to measure this flux.

 

[taricha]

I am thinking about how to measure this flux.

Here's something that might (which means probably won't) work.
Tank water, boiled. Add food source. Inoculate with aquarium bacteria. Measure O2 consumed over X days.
Boil it again to kill the biomass.
Re-inoculate, measure O2 consumed for another X days.
Should be a lower amount of O2 consumption because the bacteria in the 2nd crop won't be able to recycle 100% of nutrients from the first crop.

 

[Dan_P]

Here's something that might (which means probably won't) work.
Tank water, boiled. Add food source. Inoculate with aquarium bacteria. Measure O2 consumed over X days.
Boil it again to kill the biomass.
Re-inoculate, measure O2 consumed for another X days.
Should be a lower amount of O2 consumption because the bacteria in the 2nd crop won't be able to recycle 100% of nutrients from the first crop.

The “law” of diminishing returns. It could work.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Running without a skimmer defeats the idea of nutrient export most acutely with phosphate.

Yes, it prevents export,, but it does not necessarily prevent the process from reducing nutrients by converting the nutrients into food for filter feeders. It's like growing macroalgae but using the macroalgae as fish food.

 

[HuduVudu]

Yes, it prevents export,, but it does not necessarily prevent the process from reducing nutrients by converting the nutrients into food for filter feeders. It's like growing macroalgae but using the macroalgae as fish food.

Until the creature in question dies. We are talking about filter feeders not fish, and unless the filter feeder is specifically removed or reduced then death releases the nutrients back into the water. All this does store the nutrients for later release.

Once again the goal is to export the nutrients not store them in the tank.

 

[Nano sapiens]

Until the creature in question dies. We are talking about filter feeders not fish, and unless the filter feeder is specifically removed or reduced then death releases the nutrients back into the water. All this does store the nutrients for later release.

Once again the goal is to export the nutrients not store them in the tank.

Assuming one has a healthy system, we continuously store nutrients via organism growth and reproduction. We can remove stored nutrients via pruning and/or excess organism removal. Death of an organism(s) that will release nutrients back into the system is certainly a possibility, but in a healthy reef aquarium this should be a relatively rare event. And I'd add if caught early and removed, should have a minimal impact on the system.

I can also remove nutrients by removing the pelagic bacteria/archaea that naturally become embedded in a substrate, via the advection process, by vacuuming (obviously, not so applicable to bare-bottom systems).

I would say that protein skimming is one effective method to remove excess nutrients from a system, but it certainly isn't the only one.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Once again the goal is to export the nutrients not store them in the tank.

That may have been your goal. It may be the goal of many. It was not mine, and need not be anyone's goal with using organic carbon dosing.

My specific goal in dosing vinegar was to feed filter feeders, and it worked, IMO, sponges grew substantially faster after I started vinegar dosing.

Frankly the comments about creatures dying is rather odd. How can it be more problematic to drive bacterial growth and provide food for organisms, or to specifically add outside food for those organisms.

 

[HuduVudu]

I would say that protein skimming is one effective method to remove excess nutrients from a system, but it certainly isn't the only one.

And when effectiveness drops then other nutrient export strategies become more viable, making carbon dosing without a skimmer become less desirable.

 

[HuduVudu]

That may have been your goal. It may be the goal of many. It was not mine, and need not be anyone's goal with using organic carbon dosing.

Ummmm ... I never said it was my goal, I don't use carbon dosing as a strategy.
The OP was asking about it how carbon dosing works as to understand why a product he was using calls for protein skimming. I don't see how answering a specific question has resulted in these comments.

My specific goal in dosing vinegar was to feed filter feeders, and it worked, IMO, sponges grew substantially faster after I started vinegar dosing.

Frankly the comments about creatures dying is rather odd. How can it be more problematic to drive bacterial growth and provide food for organisms, or to specifically add outside food for those organisms.

While I guess it serves to make you to appear smart and allows you to elucidate the unwashed masses on alternative uses involving carbon dosing, I think it has very little to do with the question OP asked.

I guess this is some sort of SEO strategy because the continuous bickering comments only serves communicate that questions are not to be tolerated and will be shut down in a cascade of mindless drivel.

 

[Nano sapiens]

And when effectiveness drops then other nutrient export strategies become more viable, making carbon dosing without a skimmer become less desirable.

The point that I'm trying to make is that as long as the excess nutrients are sufficiently removed, it matters not if it's done by skimming, vacuuming, ATS, etc. This answers the OP's question of whether a skimmer is 'required' when carbon dosing.

I have personally used vinegar in the past as a carbon source and I don't have a skimmer. I found that as long as the amount of vinegar dosed was in moderation, regular sand bed vacuuming was sufficient for my small system to stay clear and clean.

As always, the adage 'Your results may vary' is appropriate and some experimentation is necessary to determine what works best for any particular system.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Ummmm ... I never said it was my goal, I don't use carbon dosing as a strategy.
The OP was asking about it how carbon dosing works as to understand why a product he was using calls for protein skimming. I don't see how answering a specific question has resulted in these comments.

I provided a counterpoint to the idea that a skimmer is needed. If you look back over the years, i have posted this same idea many times. It is not new here, and I think it is unnecessary to claim it is always needed.

While I guess it serves to make you to appear smart and allows you to elucidate the unwashed masses on alternative uses involving carbon dosing, I think it has very little to do with the question OP asked.

It only makes me appear smart if the idea has merit. If the idea lacked merit, it would make me look foolish.

I think it is obvious it has merit, but you may disagree.

 

[Andy Reed]

Thank you all for a very informative discussion. I certainly feel like I understand a lot more about the export process now.

I friend of mine has given me an old Hydor in-tank skimmer which I cleaned up and installed last night. It collected a good amount of brown filth overnight so hopefully I might be on track. I assume its best to see how things settle before going ahead with the carbon dosing though.

Andy.