Nitrate management beyond water changes in a nano.
- Thread starter glb
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I've been in the same boat as the OP, but with nitrates of 30+ in my 12g tank with just a small fish and a cleaner shrimp, very light feeding and minimal detritus removal. Took a while (and lots of reading) to appreciate that the bacteria living in the substrates need to have a steady source of carbon to function effectively and complete the nitrogen cycle all the way through. A gummed up substrate impedes flow/nutrients that the bacteria need. Of course, too much food all at once can turn a tank into a eurtrophic mess if export is not sufficient to balance the system, so input shouldn't be excessive, either.
Interestingly, the same conditions that benefit substrate nitrifying/denitrifying bacteria (they live in very close 'coupled' proximity to each other) has also kept phosphate (inorganic and organic forms) in check, too. The mechanism at work here is less clear, but I believe that my daily substrate stirring to release detritus /bacteria into the water column as a food source means that phosphate is assimilated into organism tissue for metabolism/growth and also causes a repopulating of the substrate bacterial communities...which then uses/sequesters phosphate in a continuous dynamic cycle.
Sounds good, but darn hard to prove
Oceansize
Active Member
I've been in the same boat as the OP, but with nitrates of 30+ in my 12g tank with just a small fish and a cleaner shrimp, very light feeding and minimal detritus removal. Took a while (and lots of reading) to appreciate that the bacteria living in the substrates need to have a steady source of carbon to function effectively and complete the nitrogen cycle all the way through. A gummed up substrate impedes flow/nutrients that the bacteria need. Of course, too much food all at once can turn a tank into a eurtrophic mess if export is not sufficient to balance the system, so input shouldn't be excessive, either.
Interestingly, the same conditions that benefit substrate nitrifying/denitrifying bacteria (they live in very close 'coupled' proximity to each other) has also kept phosphate (inorganic and organic forms) in check, too. The mechanism at work here is less clear, but I believe that my daily substrate stirring to release detritus /bacteria into the water column as a food source means that phosphate is assimilated into organism tissue for metabolism/growth and also causes a repopulating of the substrate bacterial communities...which then uses/sequesters phosphate in a continuous dynamic cycle.
Sounds good, but darn hard to prove
You've got my ear, the logic makes sense. You've solidified my thinking that I need to stir my substrate more, regardless of whether it's accompanied by a water change. I'm always amazed at how much better my tank looks a day after stirring up everything. I got in the habit of only worrying about that during a water change, but I'm rapidly becoming convinced of the benefit of doing it far more frequently, making it a separate event from water changes.
In a well maintained tank where the sand is cleaned regularly during water changes, like yours, should be okay to stir the sand bed daily. However, for those with a sand bed that is rarely if ever disturbed, caution is advised not to stir up the substrate all at once since toxic substances en mass can be released potentially wiping out a system!
The idea comes from way back in the 'good old days' of reefing. Peter Wilkins was keeping NPS corals like Dendronephthea back in the 70's using daily sand bed stirring with a long glass rod to release detritus/bacteria/benthic algae/why as a food source. Since we now understand that PS corals need more than just good light to survive, it makes sense to use this free and abundant nutrient source.
Last edited:
Oceansize
Active Member
I have snails of three different sizes including ones that burrow (nassarius and Babylon) and hermits, but I don't know what good they do. A lot of fluff comes up when I stir so it doesn't seem like they're extremely effective. I just added a diamond goby yesterday and my tank has been constantly cloudy ever since as he is making all his burrows; I'm hoping that dies down as he gets settled in.
Before, I was over-feeding on purpose because my nitrate export is very efficient and I was concerned about sterile tank syndrome. But now that I'll be stirring more, there will be more nutrients available and less need to over-feed. And that hopefully will result in less gunk in the water column as a result of that goby sucking up all my sand! Great tip, thanks!
Before, I was over-feeding on purpose because my nitrate export is very efficient and I was concerned about sterile tank syndrome. But now that I'll be stirring more, there will be more nutrients available and less need to over-feed. And that hopefully will result in less gunk in the water column as a result of that goby sucking up all my sand! Great tip, thanks!
Kungpaoshizi
Valuable Member
An awesome read from another source. (the results of these statements held true in my tank)
Nitrate and Phosphate Reduction via Carbon Dosing
By
Sharon Ram
Chief Scientist, Red Sea
Fighting nutrient build up in the aquarium is one of the major struggles the common hobbyist must face on a daily basis. Today, there are several methods to reduce nutrient levels; some by resins (ad/absorbers) and other chemical filtration components, but the latest trends include “pro-biotic” and/or the enhancement of biological nutrient reduction by bacteria.
Most hobbyists that favor biological filtration are well aware that the limiting factor in these processes is the absence of low molecular weight carbon compounds, which act as the energy source for the reduction processes. In order to boost the biological activity, many hobbyists started to dose the tank with any available carbon sources such as vodka, vinegar and sugars or various mixtures of all three. Common knowledge suggests that by providing enough organic carbon sources, together with the availability of the anoxic areas in the tank (live rocks and sediment) will be enough to encourage proper denitrification and phosphate reduction activities. Theoretically this is true, however it may also encourage other biological activities that may lead to disaster if they are not controlled or prevented from becoming established. It is important to be aware that the dissimilation processes in the marine environment involves very complicated ecological interactions between several groups of bacteria. These groups include 2 groups of dissimilatory nitrate reducers, another group of POA’s (phosphate accumulating bacteria or PHA bacteria) and the SRB’s (Sulfate reducing bacteria).
Between these 4 groups there are continuous competition and inhibition relationships that are regulated by the concentrations, availability and ratios of nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus and sulfur), the availabilities of enzymatic co-factors and other biotic and abiotic factors.
When we investigate the dissimilatory pathways in the aquarium, we found the two major bacterial groups, the first group is the DNRA bacteria that reduces nitrate to either nitrite or ammonia, and the other group of heterotrophic denitrifiers that reduces nitrate via nitrite to gaseous nitrogen. Elemental nitrogen is the end product of this process, but intermediate accumulation of nitrite, nitric oxide and nitrous oxide may take place under certain conditions, usually in the absence of enzymatic co-factors.
Environmental factors, in particular the availability and type of organic carbon compounds, the C/N ratio, the availability of specific co-factors and the oxidation/reduction state of the aquatic environment, dictate to a large extent the occurrence of each dissimilatory group and the primary reduction pathway.
For example; an unbalanced C/N ratio will prevent full denitrification and will increase DNRA activity which leads to the accumulation of ammonia and nitrite. After the initial maturation cycle most hobbyist do not test for NH4+ and NO2- and therefore while dosing carbon sources they may observe a reduction in NO3- but will not notice any accumulation of ammonia or nitrite. Even when the C/N ratio is optimal for denitrification there are other obligatory factors that regulate the full denitrification of nitrate to free nitrogen.
These factors include specific chemical elements that act as co-factors in each stage of the denitrification process. The absence or unbalanced levels of these elements may end the denitrification process in any of the early stages and will lead to the accumulation of toxic N2O and NO.
Therefore, one of the important aspects of biological nutrient reduction is to encourage specific dissimilatory pathway of heterotrophic bacteria and to ensure a complete process. This is what Red Sea’s NO3
O4-X was developed for.
Red Sea’s NO3O4-X provides stoichiometricaly balanced levels of several carbon compounds, which we found encourage heterotrophic denitrifiers upon the DNRA bacteria and by that it prevents the accumulation of ammonia or nitrite. NO3O4-X also provides 7 enzymatic co-factors to insure complete denitrification to nitrogen gas and prevent the probability for N2O and NO formation.
Usually under denitrifying conditions with the availability of a sufficient carbon source, another 2 groups of nutrient reduction bacteria will start to thrive; the poly-phosphate accumulating bacteria and the sulfate reducing bacteria. These two groups have significant impact on the overall nutrient reduction processes in the aquarium.
The most common PAO’s or Poly-P bacteria are the PHA’s that accumulate phosphate in a two stage process of aerobic / anoxic and anaerobic conditions. These bacteria compete with the denitrifiers for the carbon source and in anaerobic conditions they may release PO4-3 back to the water. We have found that specific strains of heterotrophic denitrifiers are capable of accumulating phosphate and synthesize poly-P during the process of nitrate reduction with nitrate instead of oxygen serving as the terminal electron acceptor, so the double stage of aerobic/anoxic becomes irrelevant. When the bacterial population proliferates, bacterial flocks released to the water column are then taken out by the skimmer and therefore phosphates are stripped out of the system.
Red Sea’s NO3O4-X, encourages the proliferation of heterotrophic denitrifiers that have the biological capability to synthesize poly-p in anoxic conditions (that can be called PHB) upon other PHA bacteria by maintaining balanced reduction of both nitrate and phosphate. Rapid reduction of nitrate over phosphate will lead to a rapid proliferation of anaerobic PHA bacteria and cyano-bacteria outbreak that can assimilate atmospheric nitrogen to thrive.
The fourth group of bacteria is the SRB, these bacteria reduce sulfate to toxic sulfide in anaerobic conditions. Since sulfate is present in seawater at levels around 940 ppm, and carbon source and anaerobic conditions are also available, nothing can prevent sulfide production.
The proliferation of SRB’s will affect the other bacterial groups by competing for the carbon sources and by inhibiting their activities due to the toxic sulfide they release.
During our research we have found 3 elements that can inhibit the activity of SRB by competing with sulfate and breaking the intracellular respiratory complex thereby preventing the formation of hydrogen sulfide while still enhancing biological nutrient reduction in anoxic conditions.
Hope you enjoyed,
Aviad
__________________
~ ~ Red-Sea ~ ~
For perfect results!
Nitrate and Phosphate Reduction via Carbon Dosing
By
Sharon Ram
Chief Scientist, Red Sea
Fighting nutrient build up in the aquarium is one of the major struggles the common hobbyist must face on a daily basis. Today, there are several methods to reduce nutrient levels; some by resins (ad/absorbers) and other chemical filtration components, but the latest trends include “pro-biotic” and/or the enhancement of biological nutrient reduction by bacteria.
Most hobbyists that favor biological filtration are well aware that the limiting factor in these processes is the absence of low molecular weight carbon compounds, which act as the energy source for the reduction processes. In order to boost the biological activity, many hobbyists started to dose the tank with any available carbon sources such as vodka, vinegar and sugars or various mixtures of all three. Common knowledge suggests that by providing enough organic carbon sources, together with the availability of the anoxic areas in the tank (live rocks and sediment) will be enough to encourage proper denitrification and phosphate reduction activities. Theoretically this is true, however it may also encourage other biological activities that may lead to disaster if they are not controlled or prevented from becoming established. It is important to be aware that the dissimilation processes in the marine environment involves very complicated ecological interactions between several groups of bacteria. These groups include 2 groups of dissimilatory nitrate reducers, another group of POA’s (phosphate accumulating bacteria or PHA bacteria) and the SRB’s (Sulfate reducing bacteria).
Between these 4 groups there are continuous competition and inhibition relationships that are regulated by the concentrations, availability and ratios of nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus and sulfur), the availabilities of enzymatic co-factors and other biotic and abiotic factors.
When we investigate the dissimilatory pathways in the aquarium, we found the two major bacterial groups, the first group is the DNRA bacteria that reduces nitrate to either nitrite or ammonia, and the other group of heterotrophic denitrifiers that reduces nitrate via nitrite to gaseous nitrogen. Elemental nitrogen is the end product of this process, but intermediate accumulation of nitrite, nitric oxide and nitrous oxide may take place under certain conditions, usually in the absence of enzymatic co-factors.
Environmental factors, in particular the availability and type of organic carbon compounds, the C/N ratio, the availability of specific co-factors and the oxidation/reduction state of the aquatic environment, dictate to a large extent the occurrence of each dissimilatory group and the primary reduction pathway.
For example; an unbalanced C/N ratio will prevent full denitrification and will increase DNRA activity which leads to the accumulation of ammonia and nitrite. After the initial maturation cycle most hobbyist do not test for NH4+ and NO2- and therefore while dosing carbon sources they may observe a reduction in NO3- but will not notice any accumulation of ammonia or nitrite. Even when the C/N ratio is optimal for denitrification there are other obligatory factors that regulate the full denitrification of nitrate to free nitrogen.
These factors include specific chemical elements that act as co-factors in each stage of the denitrification process. The absence or unbalanced levels of these elements may end the denitrification process in any of the early stages and will lead to the accumulation of toxic N2O and NO.
Therefore, one of the important aspects of biological nutrient reduction is to encourage specific dissimilatory pathway of heterotrophic bacteria and to ensure a complete process. This is what Red Sea’s NO3
O4-X was developed for.Red Sea’s NO3
O4-X provides stoichiometricaly balanced levels of several carbon compounds, which we found encourage heterotrophic denitrifiers upon the DNRA bacteria and by that it prevents the accumulation of ammonia or nitrite. NO3O4-X also provides 7 enzymatic co-factors to insure complete denitrification to nitrogen gas and prevent the probability for N2O and NO formation.Usually under denitrifying conditions with the availability of a sufficient carbon source, another 2 groups of nutrient reduction bacteria will start to thrive; the poly-phosphate accumulating bacteria and the sulfate reducing bacteria. These two groups have significant impact on the overall nutrient reduction processes in the aquarium.
The most common PAO’s or Poly-P bacteria are the PHA’s that accumulate phosphate in a two stage process of aerobic / anoxic and anaerobic conditions. These bacteria compete with the denitrifiers for the carbon source and in anaerobic conditions they may release PO4-3 back to the water. We have found that specific strains of heterotrophic denitrifiers are capable of accumulating phosphate and synthesize poly-P during the process of nitrate reduction with nitrate instead of oxygen serving as the terminal electron acceptor, so the double stage of aerobic/anoxic becomes irrelevant. When the bacterial population proliferates, bacterial flocks released to the water column are then taken out by the skimmer and therefore phosphates are stripped out of the system.
Red Sea’s NO3
O4-X, encourages the proliferation of heterotrophic denitrifiers that have the biological capability to synthesize poly-p in anoxic conditions (that can be called PHB) upon other PHA bacteria by maintaining balanced reduction of both nitrate and phosphate. Rapid reduction of nitrate over phosphate will lead to a rapid proliferation of anaerobic PHA bacteria and cyano-bacteria outbreak that can assimilate atmospheric nitrogen to thrive.The fourth group of bacteria is the SRB, these bacteria reduce sulfate to toxic sulfide in anaerobic conditions. Since sulfate is present in seawater at levels around 940 ppm, and carbon source and anaerobic conditions are also available, nothing can prevent sulfide production.
The proliferation of SRB’s will affect the other bacterial groups by competing for the carbon sources and by inhibiting their activities due to the toxic sulfide they release.
During our research we have found 3 elements that can inhibit the activity of SRB by competing with sulfate and breaking the intracellular respiratory complex thereby preventing the formation of hydrogen sulfide while still enhancing biological nutrient reduction in anoxic conditions.
Hope you enjoyed,
Aviad
__________________
~ ~ Red-Sea ~ ~
For perfect results!
Interesting read! The article does shed some light on how phosphate is processed which is very useful.
Last edited:
Randy Holmes-Farley
Reef Chemist
Staff member
Super Moderator
Excellence Award
Expert Contributor
Article Contributor
R2R Research
My Tank Thread
IMO, most of that is them asserting an opinion without any evidence provided while trying to get people to use what is mostly an expensive combination of vinegar and vodka.
Since the one clearly testable part of that article (the sulfate concentration in seawater) is given incorrectly, that doesn't give me confidence in the entire opinion piece.
Overall, I've not seen any evidence that using their product gives better results than vinegar and/or vodka.
Since the one clearly testable part of that article (the sulfate concentration in seawater) is given incorrectly, that doesn't give me confidence in the entire opinion piece.
Overall, I've not seen any evidence that using their product gives better results than vinegar and/or vodka.
I agree that while some of the assertions may or may not be valid, they do provide a direction to investigate. The information regarding PHAs is of particular interest to me as I would like to gain a more complete understanding of how phosphate (in all it's forms) is cycled in my aquarium.
As for the products mentioned, can't say if they are effective or not. They are not needed in my system that maintains low NO3 and PO4.
As for the products mentioned, can't say if they are effective or not. They are not needed in my system that maintains low NO3 and PO4.
Randy Holmes-Farley
Reef Chemist
Staff member
Super Moderator
Excellence Award
Expert Contributor
Article Contributor
R2R Research
My Tank Thread
That's a good point, although I'm not sure how one would go about investigating without it being a big research project identifying the mass and turnover of different bacteria species growing in our tanks.
That's a good point, although I'm not sure how one would go about investigating without it being a big research project identifying the mass and turnover of different bacteria species growing in our tanks.
No problem. Let me redirect my multi-million dollar research grant to study the mating rituals of the Hobbersnobble beetle of south-west Patagonia towards 'phosphate cycling in the reef aquarium'
Interesting question is when a company such as Red Sea distributes this type of information are they relying on scientific research studies or their own in-house research...or possibly a combination of both? If it is the former, then there should be something to read to double-check the article's content for accuracy.
Randy Holmes-Farley
Reef Chemist
Staff member
Super Moderator
Excellence Award
Expert Contributor
Article Contributor
R2R Research
My Tank Thread
My expectation is that they read papers that showed what happens in parts of the ocean, and try to extrapolate to the reef tank.
While I do not claim to be any sort of microbiologist, that write up seems lacking in several respects. Notably, they have no mention of simple aerobic growth of heterotrophic bacteria that consume organics and simply use the N and P they take up to grow and multiply. All of the processes they mention result in what I'd call unusual endproducts for the N and P, and not simply increased biomass.
While I do not claim to be any sort of microbiologist, that write up seems lacking in several respects. Notably, they have no mention of simple aerobic growth of heterotrophic bacteria that consume organics and simply use the N and P they take up to grow and multiply. All of the processes they mention result in what I'd call unusual endproducts for the N and P, and not simply increased biomass.
Good point, but I wonder if they are just assumed that the reader would have an understanding that organism growth takes up N and P?
The difficulty for me as a reef hobbyist is that I can describe how I create conditions that produce a stable low N and P system without using commercially available products, but describing in rational, scientific detail exactly why the system works the way it does is daunting. Articles such as this I find interesting and have the potential to further that undertanding (assuming the information is accurate).
Randy Holmes-Farley
Reef Chemist
Staff member
Super Moderator
Excellence Award
Expert Contributor
Article Contributor
R2R Research
My Tank Thread
Maybe, but IMO, the average reefer reading the above passage would assume the bacteria mentioned predominate the consumption of N and P in a reef tank. And they might dominate, under at least some circumstances, but I've never seen any evidence on what processes are really taking place in reef tanks with carbon dosing.
Maybe, but IMO, the average reefer reading the above passage would assume the bacteria mentioned predominate the consumption of N and P in a reef tank. And they might dominate, under at least some circumstances, but I've never seen any evidence on what processes are really taking place in reef tanks with carbon dosing.
Or even a system that doesn't specifically dose carbon, yet is able to supply enough via feeding to maintain consistently low N and P.
From my experience with my small system, N and P utilization via growth may possibly be secondary to bacterial utilization. For example, if I neglect regular substrate cleaning, I will see a sharp rise in N and P after maybe a month or two as the substrate becomes saturated with detritus. The likely reasons for the rise are, I believe, the lack of regular detrital/bacterial removal from the system and reduced bacterial efficiency as well as the eventual reduction in the numbers of these bacteria.
Kungpaoshizi
Valuable Member
Sorry Randy but compared to many explanations of how things work in our tanks and the ocean, that writeup is quite good.
Also, I recall seeing the chemical analysis thread of nopox someone did, I think you were in that... I very much enjoyed the breakdown, but was let down by the complete write-off of the 'impurities' that were unidentified. Given this article and the descriptions in the product info, nopox is not at all just vinegar or vodka. Theres more to it, it was identified as being present, you just don't what it is..
I'm all for advancing the hobby, but to say the article is only asserting an opinion is pretty weak. I can say from personal observations they're pretty much spot on with their 'opinions'.
Its also curious how the product works. In my experiences, and reading a lot on the net about vinegar and vodka, most people seem to have to dose, increase doses, and then keep it there. Nopox you dose, increase dose, and then have to decrease the dose, and keep it there.
I think this in itself also describes the fundamentals in an entirely different light.
Also from 20$, 1000 ml bottles, my dose for a 75 gallon tank came to .5 ml a day. That is far less than the same amount of vinegar or vodka, therefore much, much, much cheaper and not expensive at all.
Otherwise to fully be able to judge the product aside from personal use, there needs to be some elements of its composition that need to be identified, otherwise we're jumping the gun saying 'we don't fully know what's in it, but we know its just like this thing!'
Also, I recall seeing the chemical analysis thread of nopox someone did, I think you were in that... I very much enjoyed the breakdown, but was let down by the complete write-off of the 'impurities' that were unidentified. Given this article and the descriptions in the product info, nopox is not at all just vinegar or vodka. Theres more to it, it was identified as being present, you just don't what it is..
I'm all for advancing the hobby, but to say the article is only asserting an opinion is pretty weak. I can say from personal observations they're pretty much spot on with their 'opinions'.
Its also curious how the product works. In my experiences, and reading a lot on the net about vinegar and vodka, most people seem to have to dose, increase doses, and then keep it there. Nopox you dose, increase dose, and then have to decrease the dose, and keep it there.
I think this in itself also describes the fundamentals in an entirely different light.
Also from 20$, 1000 ml bottles, my dose for a 75 gallon tank came to .5 ml a day. That is far less than the same amount of vinegar or vodka, therefore much, much, much cheaper and not expensive at all.
Otherwise to fully be able to judge the product aside from personal use, there needs to be some elements of its composition that need to be identified, otherwise we're jumping the gun saying 'we don't fully know what's in it, but we know its just like this thing!'
Randy Holmes-Farley
Reef Chemist
Staff member
Super Moderator
Excellence Award
Expert Contributor
Article Contributor
R2R Research
My Tank Thread
It is only good if it is accurate. Without any evidence at all, it is just a marketing claim that their secret ingredients make all the difference. Companies who sell trace element cocktails make such claims all the time for their special ratios of ingredients. I tend to not believe marketing assertions that are not accompanied by the slightest bit of evidence. Perhaps they have it and do not share it. Why not? Side by side tests of their product vs the things they claim are not as good would at least be some evidence. They must have done it to make the claims they do. Why not show it?
I agree that Red Sea claims to have other stuff in the product and the other stuff may be useful, or it may not be. I've not actually seen any convincing evidence that NOPOX gives functionally different or better results than vodka or vinegar after seeing many discussions of all three. I have not noticed the things you state, such as NOPOX needs to be reduced over time while vodka and vinegar do not.
FWIW, both vodka and vinegar will have lots of impurities that would show up by NMR but are not necessarily key to its function.
Kungpaoshizi
Valuable Member
To expect companies to share ALL of their ingredients is folly, you wouldn't if you produced something that made a huge leap in the hobby.
And to say it's no good or exactly the same as something else is either arrogance or ignorance, especially when we know it's not, though unidentified, it's not. Mathematics and chemistry are almost a hand-in-hand type of relation. You cannot compare multiple different elements and then say they're the same, that's not how chemistry works. Once you get to the base, there's no more comparison to other elements, hence, the periodic table.
I suggest you try it. Heck, I'll even send you a bottle. But don't tell me it's the same as vodka or vinegar when I've tried them both and notice significantly different results.
One big factor that you omit is the very basis of the liquid. Vodka/acetic acid vs methanol. There's your proof, it's not the same. There is some acetic acid in there, but I think you're still suffering from the mindset I once did, thinking it's all "just carbon dosing". And after having used it and paid attention to the results, it's not at all JUST carbon dosing. It contains carbon sources yes, but different from the current one's and it also contains things that other carbon dosing solutions just can't match.
And as far as the reducing dosage, yes, I was surprised as well, but you HAVE TO reduce dosage after the 'ball gets rolling' otherwise you're going to kill the tank.(which I think many have done and then turn around and call it too effective) I believe this in itself proves as well it's not just a carbon dosing solution, it's following the descriptors in the article, you're provoking something else in the tank. So I would imagine they're a bit more spot-on in their article than you give them credit for.
After all, I would bet they have more money than any of us combined on the forums, and they have the numerous phd's to satisfy the science behind it. Unless you would like to share some observations from some research grant you've received?
And to say it's no good or exactly the same as something else is either arrogance or ignorance, especially when we know it's not, though unidentified, it's not. Mathematics and chemistry are almost a hand-in-hand type of relation. You cannot compare multiple different elements and then say they're the same, that's not how chemistry works. Once you get to the base, there's no more comparison to other elements, hence, the periodic table.
I suggest you try it. Heck, I'll even send you a bottle. But don't tell me it's the same as vodka or vinegar when I've tried them both and notice significantly different results.
One big factor that you omit is the very basis of the liquid. Vodka/acetic acid vs methanol. There's your proof, it's not the same. There is some acetic acid in there, but I think you're still suffering from the mindset I once did, thinking it's all "just carbon dosing". And after having used it and paid attention to the results, it's not at all JUST carbon dosing. It contains carbon sources yes, but different from the current one's and it also contains things that other carbon dosing solutions just can't match.
And as far as the reducing dosage, yes, I was surprised as well, but you HAVE TO reduce dosage after the 'ball gets rolling' otherwise you're going to kill the tank.(which I think many have done and then turn around and call it too effective) I believe this in itself proves as well it's not just a carbon dosing solution, it's following the descriptors in the article, you're provoking something else in the tank. So I would imagine they're a bit more spot-on in their article than you give them credit for.
After all, I would bet they have more money than any of us combined on the forums, and they have the numerous phd's to satisfy the science behind it. Unless you would like to share some observations from some research grant you've received?
Last edited:
Randy Holmes-Farley
Reef Chemist
Staff member
Super Moderator
Excellence Award
Expert Contributor
Article Contributor
R2R Research
My Tank Thread
Actually, I have invented products that have sold billions of dollars of worth of chemicals. And I revealed EXACTLY what was in them. I protected them by patenting them. And I showed through extensive testing that they worked exactly as claimed and published the results.
That said, I realize that reefing is a different industry than pharmaceuticals. Protecting a patent is often not going to be worthwhile in the reef hobby.
So, if you have a product that includes secret ingredients (which is reasonable, IMO), I think it only reasonable that you be asked to show that the product works, and if you are claiming it works better than similar products with the same primary ingredients (which they did in that write up), then IMO, you should show some data to support that claim. If they actually tested it, then they have the data and they would not be in the slightest hurt by publishing it. In fact, it would be a GREAT sales tool. If the results were less than convincing, or imaginary, then of course they wouldn't show it.
They didn't show any results. Why do you think they choose to not do so?
Randy Holmes-Farley
Reef Chemist
Staff member
Super Moderator
Excellence Award
Expert Contributor
Article Contributor
R2R Research
My Tank Thread
I'm not sure why you are so worked up by an independent assessment of the product ingredients. Why do you think it has substantial methanol? The independent analytical testing at a US university showed it to be nearly all acetic acid (vinegar) and ethanol (vodka) with a small amount of methanol and isopropanol (which, it was suggested by the chemistry professor, may not even be actual additions but simple impurities in the two main ingredients.
I'm glad you like the product and I'm certainly not suggesting you stop.
