Safe carbon dosing?

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

If you did not advise to use carbohydrates, as a chemist, how would you define in one word the compounds only containing carbon, hydrogen and oxygen you did suggest to use?

lol

Why would I try to find or invent a one word term for a particular set of organic molecules?

I'd say exactly what I meant: vinegar, vodka, ethanol, acetic acid, whatever.

I use the term "organic carbon dosing" to refer to it generically, and the exact thing being dosed to refer to it more explicitly.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Ethanol, acetic acid ( vinegar) are the carbohydrates I am talking about!! Obviously we are talking about the same organic compounds.
Starch in food and the cellulose in grass is nearly pure carbohydrate. The word was originally used to describe glucose, Acetic acid C2H4O2 does fulfill the definition of a carbohydrate with the empirical formula CH2O, a hydrate of carbon. ( Chemical Principles The quest of inside Peter Atkins and Loretta Jones; CHEMISTERY by Mc Murray and Fay )
In English countries chemists are using the same manuals cited, used in universities all over the world , also published and used in the US .
Acetic acid, ethanol, sugar, are carbohydrates , the organic carbon compounds we talk about when talking about carbon dosing . Changing the terminology does not change a thing about the result and consequences of adding these compounds to a closed marine aquarium , a reef system.

I think we already had this discussion.

Carbon dosing does remove very little nitrate because when using nitrate as a nitrogen source heterotrophs can not grow fast and are not able to out-compete fast growing photo-autotrophs for nitrate-nitrogen. Fast growing heterotrophs use ammonia, not nitrate.
Suggesting adding carbohydrates is a fine way for removing nitrate is totally on your account , not on mine. How can this claim be scientifically substantiated not ignoring all the known side effects including killing corals ?

Growth removes N and P only if harvested, otherwise it will be recycled.
A skimmer is able to export some of the cultivated growth, about 1/3. About 2/3 will stay behind.

In time It may reduce the addition of food needed, but the total need will increase. The solution is harvesting.

Simple Carbon dosing is using carbohydrates .
There are better and less intrusive options to manage the availability of safely stored nitrogen and of other nutrients.

Which is exactly the reason to stop misusing the term carbohydrate and say what you actually mean.

Dosing actual carbohydrates might be very different than dosing acetic acid.

Your doomsday predictions of bad effects when dosing appropriate amounts of vinegar is not substantiated by real world results, nor have I EVER seen a scientific publication that shows that acetic acid/acetate has negative impacts on wild or captive corals (might be such a thing, but I've not seen it).

There certainly are many scenarios where I would not recommend any organic carbon dosing, but vague warnings of dire consequences in general is not experimentally supported.

 

[Lyss]

Which is exactly the reason to stop misusing the term carbohydrate and say what you actually mean.

Dosing actual carbohydrates might be very different than dosing acetic acid.

Your doomsday predictions of bad effects when dosing appropriate amounts of vinegar is not substantiated by real world results, nor have I EVER seen a scientific publication that shows that acetic acid/acetate has negative impacts on wild or captive corals (might be such a thing, but I've not seen it).

There certainly are many scenarios where I would not recommend any organic carbon dosing, but vague warnings of dire consequences in general is not experimentally supported.

I think this person genuinely believes that ethanol and acetic acid are carbs -- I got a similar string of comments on one of my threads.

Are you able to give some examples of scenarios where you would not recommend organic carbon dosing? I am actively looking for this type of information.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Are you able to give some examples of scenarios where you would not recommend organic carbon dosing? I am actively looking for this type of information.

Sure.

Unsightly bacteria are showing up (cloudiness in the water or globs of ugly bacteria in the display tank, clogging pumps and tubing, etc. Clearly the organics can be driving this.

Corals that have or are especially prone to bacteria diseases (possible brown jelly disease) or STN or RTN (tissue necrosis). Organics may (or may not) contribute.

Very low nitrate (say, less than 2 ppm). It may get too low and corals may suffer.

Very low phosphate (less than 0.02 ppm). Less likely to hit bottom than nitrate, but still possible if there is a lot of nitrate present.

There may be others I'm not thinking of.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Which is exactly the reason to stop misusing the term carbohydrate and say what you actually mean.

Dosing actual carbohydrates might be very different than dosing acetic acid.

Your doomsday predictions of bad effects when dosing appropriate amounts of vinegar is not substantiated by real world results, nor have I EVER seen a scientific publication that shows that acetic acid/acetate has negative impacts on wild or captive corals (might be such a thing, but I've not seen it).

There certainly are many scenarios where I would not recommend any organic carbon dosing, but vague warnings of dire consequences in general is not experimentally supported.

What would be the misuse of the term carbohydrate? Using the word carbohydrates most think about bread, spaghetti, rice, one does not think about meat.
In publications and research papers concerning carbon dosing, about managing the C/N ratio, the word carbohydrate is often used. Organic carbon is present in all organic matter (TOC), in most food. Speaking about organic carbon can be bread and meat. Products advised for dosing, acetic acid, sugar, alcohol ( Wodka) only contain Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen as do lipids, but it are not lipids. I call them carbohydrates.

What exactly is the problem using the name carbohydrate for acetic acid? Because for humans, for a dietician , vinegar is not considered to be a carbohydrate? Or because it has been shown carbohydrates may kill corals?

Managing the C/N ratio to manage the nitrate production rate can be done adjusting the protein content of the food source , nothing to dose, This way the safely stored nitrogen reserve can be managed in relation to the acceptable growth of producers. Nitrate availability is essential.

I am not against carbon dosing, it is an excellent way for managing the nitrate production in a closed aquarium system, if it is done correctly, Not by removing the nitrification capacity but by managing it!


What you call doomsday predicitions are proven facts, happening doing what is called appropriate dosing based on the nitrate level. The risk of overdose is overlooked. it is considered to be reef safe. We do know better. Acetic acid is a carbohydrate and is used this way by r-strategists for energy production, fast ATP production. In a coral holobiont and everywhere it may penatrate it may cause phosphorus starvation due the very high growth rates it may create ( Very fast growing bacteria not have to waste energy braking down organic waste to produce and use DOC , stealing all available nutrients to grow very fast) The presence may kill corals. ref: MB vodka CMF De Haes

All side effects mentioned have been shown and can be supported by proper research, experiments. All references are available and can be consulted in our wiki Makazi Baharini .

Till now I did not find proof for acetic acid ( a real carbohydrate) to be less problematic for corals compared to sugars, glucose, fructose. It does creates the same known general side effects , messing up the natural biological balance. About sugars and ethanol we do have a lot of information, but nobody seems to do appropriate research using vinegar. If you can provide references showing I am wrong I will gladly add them to my data base and change my present opinion based on information which is made available. I do not advise to use such products and compounds to lower the level of safely stored and harmless nitrate. There are better and safe ways for lowering the nitrate level if the nitrate level is considered a threat. ( meaning nothing was done to adjust the cause)

We do advise organic carbon dosing for the purpose of arranging the C/N ratio and nitrate production, not for lowering the nitrate level. This means in some cases we advise to use it to avoid nitrate accumulation, not for removing accumulated nitrate. We do try to manage the balance between reducers and producers.

In biofloc systems carbon dosing is used to eliminate nitrification and clear the water from inorganic nutrients, for the production of protein.

if nitrate accumulates there is a reason, removing the effects will do little to find and remove the cause.

The tread is about safe carbon dosing, which starts with using it for the right reason.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

If we are talking in this thread about the common additives for dosing organic carbons, alcohol, sugar and vinegar, then I use the collective name carbohydrate. Researchers use the name carbohydrate for carbohydrates such as glucose, glycerol, acetate, sucrose, molasses, tapioca flour and rice flour (Avnimelech, 1999; Burford et al., 2004; Hari et al., 2004; Ray et al., 2011; Emerenciano et al. ., 2012 ; Deb et al., 2017)

 

[JimmyV]

This is a purely hypothetical question. In case of!
I want to lower the nutrient content in a 2-year-old reef system, lower the nitrate availability. Nitrate is now 40ppm and phosphate is 0,4 ppm. The nitrate level now increases at a weekly rate of +- 4ppm, this since a few weeks. I have no real reason to do this as everything looks fine, I just want to prevent my nitrates will become sky-high.
If possible I would like to target a nitrate level of 2ppm.

I am aware of the fact dosing carbon can not be done without creating side effects and I want to do it as safe as possible, without changing too much as evering is going fine at the moment, except for the nitrate build-up.
Do I base the daily dose on the nitrate level and what should be the target daily nitrate removal rate? And why?
Or is it better to dose based on the phosphate level? And why?
Maybe it is best to dose based on the weekly nitrate accumulation rate?
What are the main caveats I should be aware of before starting dosing and what can I do for limiting the risk or to prevent them to happen?
I am going to use vodka 40%. I do know how much vodka I need to be able to remove 1mg nitrogen.

Use this chart. Start from the very beginning for your tank size. Do not deviate or you will have issues. Use cheap vodka 80 proof. This is what I use .

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Dosing organic carbon, of carbohydrates, increases the existing natural C:N ratio and consequently shifts the balance between consumers, decomposers and producers, between CO2 producers and CO2 users. It has major consequences for the existing biological balance. Safe dosing concerns the prevention of overdosing, but in the first instance concerns the correct adjustment of the biological balance in the interest of the target groups. The first question we then ask ourselves is to what extent dosing organic carbon compounds, carbohydrates, improve the living conditions of the target groups. And what does that have to do with the nitrate content?
Since the consequences of some known side effects are known and can therefore be monitored and controlled with a correct dose, the question arises to what extent side effects can be used for the benefit, an assessment must be made per target group. It becomes more difficult dosing correctly, taking into account known side effects of which the possible consequences for the target groups in the short or long term are insufficient or unknown. Or does this fact make it very easy by deciding that correct dosing is too difficult or not possible? Or are we going to behave like a bad family man, what we don't want to know can't hurt us either.

How can one safely dose carbohydrate with only the nitrate content as a guideline as advised by many proponents?
Based on a nitrate level that has built up over a period of several months, over a period of several weeks, or over a period expressed in days?

Has it been established why useful nitrogen can accumulate in a well lit aquarium? Was anything done to prevent this and if so, what? It wasn't very successful, why not? If the small daily nitrogen surplus cannot be used up in a well lit aquarium, using energy supplied free to organisms, it is wise to set expectations in a method based on rapid growth and that this will happen to a certain extent without causing damage?
Are all the parameters for rapid growth sufficiently present to support sufficient growth? Very unlikely, in case no nitrogen build-up would have taken place.

Starting to administer carbohydrates sets expectations that cannot be met without major damage being done to everything that grows. If it turns out that expectations are not met, dosing is usually stopped abruptly, without taking into account the damage caused, with no opportunity for repair.

Nitraatophoping?
Correct dosing starts with considering how to do this without causing too much damage and especially, if damage has already been done, how dosing can be reduced without causing more damage.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Use this chart. Start from the very beginning for your tank size. Do not deviate or you will have issues. Use cheap vodka 80 proof. This is what I use .

Applying this chart may remove 40 ppm nitrate having a phosphorus availability of 0.4 ppm? I do not think so.
The chart is based on the nitrate level, not on the phosphate level. How overdosing is prevented? Growth rates will be limited by phosphorus availability, dosing will continue and be increased over a period of 16 weeks.
Looking for the essential parameters for fast growth:
Where all the phosphorus needed will be retrieved from? Increasing the dose the demand for nutrients will become higher and higher. Slower growing organisms where not able to do it , meaning other parameters and not nitrogen and phosphorus availability where limiting growth.

We do want to limit the risk for phosphorus starvation for the target groups which include slower growing organisms.

Already a lot has been said about the application of this chart, of which more later.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Safe dosing of organic carbon means adding only what is needed, what is needed to correct what was caused by poor management. Dosing organic carbon does not restore an existing imbalance and can create a phosphate deficiency with high nitrogen availability, something that has been shown to cause coral bleaching.
Safe dosing therefore starts with better management, with preventing the problem and that starts with what is introduced into the aquarium as food.

Let us start with quality flakes food, very easy to use and for this reason widely used.

It is not always easy to find out what exactly is in it. Usually flake food recommended for saltwater aquariums contains +- 40% protein ( nitrogen) to even more than 50%. Such a feed has a C/N ratio of 7.5/1 to 6/1 and sometimes some of the carbon is supplied by cellulose, is from land plants, and is not useful for most marine organisms. If a fish eats this food, +- 85% of the nitrogen is excreted as inorganic nitrogen and there is little usable organic carbon present, resulting in a very high nitrate production, which I consider a very good thing in this case (there is sufficient load-bearing capacity) The use of such feed is asking for sufficient algae growth to keep everything in balance. Algae growth in most systems is not part of nutrient management.

In order to keep dosing to a minimum, it is necessary to take into account the nutrition used from the start, correction must be made from the start so that the dose can be adjusted to what is really needed. Usually, however, people wait far too long to correct.

The contents of a flake food intended for marine aquariums of a well-known brand and as published by the manufacturer:

Composition:

fish meal, wheat flour, krill (12%), brewer's yeast, Ca caseinate, gammarus, red mosquito larvae (2.7%), daphnia (2.7%), spirulina algae, whole egg powder, marine algae, mannan oligosaccharides, cod liver oil (of which 34% omega fatty acids), herbs, alfalfa, nettle, Haematococcus algae, parsley, green-lipped mussel, paprika, spinach, carrots, garlic.

Analytical Constituents:

Crude Protein 47.3%, Crude Fat 7.0%, Crude Fiber 4.0%, Moisture 5.0%, Crude Ash 11.8%.

From the above it appears that in the composition of the feed little or no account is taken of the fact that many marine organisms produce enzymes suitable for breaking down marine waste. It can be expected that when using this feed not only a lot of nitrate will be formed due to the high protein content, but also a relatively large amount of detritus.

The above is the general rule and no exception. However, it is an example of how it should be, giving 'correct' information. Many flake foods don't even list what's in them.

Good nitrogen management and correct carbon dosing starts with correct nutrition!

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Safe dosing of organic carbon means adding only what is needed, what is needed to correct what was caused by poor management.

Or, maybe it means adding what is desired for a particular outcome, and attaining that outcome successfully and safely. That's why I recommend it.

I think carbon dosing (vinegar) was a great addition to my system from the standpoint of available particulate food for filter feeders, and used it primarily for that reason. It was both safe and successful in that application.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Or, maybe it means adding what is desired for a particular outcome, and attaining that outcome successfully and safely. That's why I recommend it.

I think carbon dosing (vinegar) was a great addition to my system from the standpoint of available particulate food for filter feeders, and used it primarily for that reason. It was both safe and successful in that application.

Why only treating the symptoms of a known disease using medication with known side effects if not dosed correctly if we could easily prevent the disease if we wanted to?

A balanced system will produce its own food, periphyton, a mix of everything which may grow in a balanced system. Periphyton has a C/N ratio of 10 ( (Azim en Asaeda, 2005) . Adding organic carbon prevents the production of periphyton, by preventing the growth of producers, the consumers of CO2, The result is food production ( biofloc) having a C/N ratio of about 9.
It is not correct to say adding organic carbon wiil increase the availabilty of food for filter feeders because the growth of basic food , phythoplankton, is prevented. Periphyton is replaced by biofloc.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

It is not correct to say adding organic carbon wiil increase the availabilty of food for filter feeders because the growth of basic food , phythoplankton, is prevented. Periphyton is replaced by biofloc.

Speaking from a result, or mere speculation?

It is abundantly obvious in my tank that very high doses of vinegar spurred more planktonic growth because the water can become visibly hazy with bacteria.

It is also obvious that after a significant period of dosing vinegar, sponges were more abundant in my system than in the many years before it that I did not dose vinegar.

I detected no drawback to dosing vinegar in my system, and did see benefits, and I would do it again on a new tank, were I to set one up.

I have no understanding of what you are trying to say about the C/N ratio of particulates in the water, or why a C/N of 10 is better than a C/N of 9.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Speaking from a result, or mere speculation?

It is abundantly obvious in my tank that very high doses of vinegar spurred more planktonic growth because the water can become visibly hazy with bacteria.

It is also obvious that after a significant period of dosing vinegar, sponges were more abundant in my system than in the many years before it that I did not dose vinegar.

I detected no drawback to dosing vinegar in my system, and did see benefits, and I would do it again on a new tank, were I to set one up.

I have no understanding of what you are trying to say about the C/N ratio of particulates in the water, or why a C/N of 10 is better than a C/N of 9.

Safe carbon dosing is about managing the C/N ratio of feed. The importance of the difference between food with a C/N ratio of 10 or 9 ? Having a ratio of 10 the feed can be broken down completely reusing all nitrogen present, the other will be broken down leaving nitrogen and other nutrients for slower growing organisms .

Biofloc produced by adding organic carbon may have a protein content between 35% and 50% ( C/N between 9 and 6), depending on the carbon source used. Using acetate it is about 35% ( unlimited availability of nutrients)
They both, biofloc and periphython, may contain the same amount of nitrogen taken up from the environment but peryphyton also has stored energy provided by light ( CO2 take up). What is best? Good question for a new threat.

There should be no problem managing a systems C/N ratio using organic carbon supplementation, this if it is done correctly and the risk for overdosing is limited to the minimum.
I don't see any problem with the dosing of organic carbon, carbohydrates, for controlling the C/N ratio, especially if dosing is based on the diet, and or with correct nitrogen management in mind.

I do believe that dosing carbohydrates, organic carbon, should be strongly discouraged in an environment where corals grow, if the dosing is based on the nitrate level. The same applies to the addition of vinegar to lime water, unless other possible consequences than just the improvement of the lime dosage are taken into account.


One can also approach all the positive from the other side, looking for the right balance. How comes available nitrogen can be used for producing biofloc adding organic carbon but is not used up in a well lit aquarium producing periphyton the natural way ?

 

[Reefahholic]

I didn’t read the whole thread, but Tropic Marin “Reef Actif” is a very gentle form of Carbon Dosing. Lou can explain this very well. He’s got some great videos out on all their forms of carbon dosing that they offer.

This was an excellent live stream that highlights some of those products and how they work.

Also…short version:

 

[TheBiochemist]

Interesting discussion. By the way, in Czech Republic, alcohols are considered carbohydrate hydroxyderivatives. Nevertheless, this is absolutely not important for the topic you are discussing.
I have only great experiences with carbon dosing (have tried vinegar and NOPOX). In my reef, I carbon-dose to control nitrates levels (with only limited effects on phosphates level) and it works great without any observable detrimental effects. It is worth to note that without regular measurements, carbon dosing can rapidly eliminate nutrients and cause several issues - this could make carbon dosing dangerous. But with a proper regular control of parameters, I do consider carbon dosing safe.

 

[Reefahholic]

Speaking from a result, or mere speculation?

It is abundantly obvious in my tank that very high doses of vinegar spurred more planktonic growth because the water can become visibly hazy with bacteria.

It is also obvious that after a significant period of dosing vinegar, sponges were more abundant in my system than in the many years before it that I did not dose vinegar.

I detected no drawback to dosing vinegar in my system, and did see benefits, and I would do it again on a new tank, were I to set one up.

I have no understanding of what you are trying to say about the C/N ratio of particulates in the water, or why a C/N of 10 is better than a C/N of 9.

Kinda like this:

 

[Belgian Anthias]

As explained safe carbon dosing starts with managing the C/N ratio of feed. The food added but also about the food produced by the system. The carbon content influences the amount of nutrients left over for slower growing organisms using CO2, importing organic carbon.
Correcting the C/N ratio may have a huge influence on the C/N ratio of the food produced within the tank and the carbon and nitrogen cycling in the tank. Not only by the amount organic carbon added. Also the source of organic carbon supplemented is important for the protein content of in the system produced feed and the nitrogen production after consumption by the target organisms. Wodka, sugar, vinegar, amino acids, what difference does it make? Adding enough organic carbon makes any discussion about the source used superfluous.

The ineffective way ( compared to most organisms) fish use food ( retrieve energy) and release nitrogen is very important in a closed system in which a skimmer is used, the production of inorganic nitrogen and what is released by the fish and removed by the skimmer. This makes it very difficult to mange the nitrogen content based only on the C/N ratio of feed because it is based on availability of all nutrients, also important for the production of periphyton without adding organic carbon supplements.

A fish consuming periphyton or biofloc, what difference will it make for the amount of inorganic nutrients released directly in the environment not removed by a skimmer, not contributing to the growth of the fish?

 

[Belgian Anthias]

I didn’t read the whole thread, but Tropic Marin “Reef Actif” is a very gentle form of Carbon Dosing. Lou can explain this very well. He’s got some great videos out on all their forms of carbon dosing that they offer.

This was an excellent live stream that highlights some of those products and how they work.

Also…short version:

probably it is an other biodegradable polymer ( biopellets)

Biological polymers, from which biopellets are made, can be produced by bacteria that produce Polyhydroxyalkanoates, PHA.

For the administration of organic carbon, the use of hydroxybutyrate-hydroxyvalerate/LP (PHBVL) and Poly(butylene succinate)/LP (PBSL) was tested.
Good bio-pellets are relatively safe to use in saltwater aquariums ( in a reactor?) The quality, the natural degradability without spreading in the water column is important. The consequences of the presence of an unlimited source of organic carbon for heterotrophic bacterial growth, in a closed system containing corals, for reef aquaria, my opinion is something that has not been sufficiently well researched. I do know what may happen if such polymers end up on your privat reef, claiming all nutrients present in the environment.

I do not know what it is made off and do not know it may or may not spread in the water column.

Safe carbon dosing is about knowing how things work, starting with the content of what is added.

It is not the intention to discus the quality of commercial products.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

As explained safe carbon dosing starts with managing the C/N ratio of feed. The food added but also about the food produced by the system. The carbon content influences the amount of nutrients left over for slower growing organisms using CO2, importing organic carbon.

I just don't see the C/N ratio in the water being of any importance at all.

Why would it be?