TM carbon dosing products

[sneekapeek]

It's recommended by who? The company that sells it?

Yes exactly the case. I may revisit the method in the future. For now, I’m finding it more a pain just to setup and run a pellet or trickle or reef actif than it’s worth since I'm running the liquids anyways. I’m not knocking it, just wanted to see who uses the synergy and is it benefiting or not. Every tank is unique, and perhaps it may be awesome in someone’s tank.

 

[sneekapeek]

I don't think there is any evidence whatsoever to back those sorts of claims.

Unfortunately, I was under the impression that TM’s liquid and solid carbon dosing products are made of different carbon sources. And the general knowledge that bacteria prefer certain types of food over others. That’s why I have mentioned that detail. I’m not 100% sure if this is to be true or not. I just figured it was common knowledge. Perhaps bacteria don’t care where carbon comes from, as long as it’s available they will eat it. Perhaps bacteria and other organisms may prefer certain carbon sources (potato/corn). It must be me assuming so. However if it were true, then wouldn’t it be beneficial to diversify carbon sources to target feed the wanted
vs the unwanted.

Word for word from TM website “nitrates and phosphates can be stabilised especially effectively at the lowest level when Tropic Marin np bacto-balance is used in conjunction with Tropic Marin np-bacto-pellets or Tropic Marin np-bacto-tricks.”

This means to me that there is some type of synergy that reduces the overall ratio down, but still balances the ratio. So going from n03 1 p04 .1 to n03 0.6 p04 .06

This claim is the reason I implemented both solid and liquid carbon methods. I however didn’t see the drop and balance since I put both on at same time. That’s why I’m thinking to take one off because I could balance the ratio with 1 product instead of 2.

 

[sneekapeek]

Just pulled the npbacto trickle media and filter. Gonna see how things go. Probably test po4 and n03 in morning for baseline. Hope I see no difference over the next few weeks. Still dosing npbactobalance meanwhile.

 

[ingchr1]

It's recommended by who? The company that sells it?

Can you expand on this? Is it being implied that we should not follow/trust manufacturer recommendations? In this case TM.

 

[sneekapeek]

Ran test yesterday and been dosing the liquids plus np bacto balance eliminp previously with npbactotricks depending on p04. Over a year span already. I have noticed that when I use npbb/NpPlus in conjunction with nptricks my nutrients nearly bottom out but never to zero. Which is a good thing if I was looking for an ulns, but I’m trying to have my ratio higher and I truly believe it should be in the bactobalance range of p04 .06-1 n03 .6-1 instead of ulns. I’ve found even dosing plusNp in conjunction with solid carbon dosing that my numbers wouldn’t budge. In addition, I figured if I’m already carbon dosing with the liquid line, it wouldn’t be necessary to use their solid carbon line. I guess this would be a test for me, to see how the solid carbon dosing plays a role in conjunction with their liquids in my system.

Here are my readings:
NO3 .5 mg/l ppm
P04 .01-.02 mg/l ppm

We’ll see in the next few days how p04 responds when removing nptricks. Still will be dosing TM liquid carbon dosing line.

 

[Dan_P]

So TM produces carbon dosing products that target phosphate level ie eliminp bactobalance plusnp. Additionally, they produce carbon dosing products that don’t target phosphate (can be used at any level) ie reefactif, pellets, trickle. TM advertises the synergy of the phosphate ones and non phosphate ones ie bactobalance used in conjunction with their pellets.
I’m seeing most people run either liquid or pellets. Not both at the same time. It seems there are select few people who utilize the synergy.
I wanted to know if anyone has found that synergy to be beneficial? And those who don’t do you still find it troublesome, and if you were to utilize the pellets in conjunction with liquid dosing, vice versa, would it bring them the results they are looking for…increased pe, color, water clarity etc.
When you target bacteria with only one type of carbon source. It may be limiting. Not all carbon sources are the same. Thus ,diversify the type of carbon source by using multiple methods ie pellets and eliminp, vodka, vinegar, etc.
If using this logic, I assumed the benefits. But so far, I’m not seeing the benefits. So I was going to omit the use of pellet/tricks to see if it’ll make any difference at all. But before I did so, I wanted to see if anyone has experienced or had done exactly what I want to do.

The strategy might just be marketing hype to have you buy more than one product.

If you want to add a carbon source to lower nitrate, dose vinegar. If phosphate is too high, lower it with GFO. Keep things simple and don’t worry about bacterial diversity. There seems to be more conjecture than science in discussions about bacterial diversity in aquaria.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Unfortunately, I was under the impression that TM’s liquid and solid carbon dosing products are made of different carbon sources. And the general knowledge that bacteria prefer certain types of food over others. That’s why I have mentioned that detail. I’m not 100% sure if this is to be true or not. I just figured it was common knowledge. Perhaps bacteria don’t care where carbon comes from, as long as it’s available they will eat it. Perhaps bacteria and other organisms may prefer certain carbon sources (potato/corn). It must be me assuming so. However if it were true, then wouldn’t it be beneficial to diversify carbon sources to target feed the wanted
vs the unwanted.

Word for word from TM website “nitrates and phosphates can be stabilised especially effectively at the lowest level when Tropic Marin np bacto-balance is used in conjunction with Tropic Marin np-bacto-pellets or Tropic Marin np-bacto-tricks.”

This means to me that there is some type of synergy that reduces the overall ratio down, but still balances the ratio. So going from n03 1 p04 .1 to n03 0.6 p04 .06

This claim is the reason I implemented both solid and liquid carbon methods. I however didn’t see the drop and balance since I put both on at same time. That’s why I’m thinking to take one off because I could balance the ratio with 1 product instead of 2.

I do not believe their product line is based on any sort of public evidence that different bacteria prefer anything, or that different bacteria use more N or P.

It is based on using mixtures that contain organics and inorganics that contain N or P. In that sense, it can accomplish what is claimed, but is not necessarily different than just adding the N or P yourself.

 

[sneekapeek]

The strategy might just be marketing hype to have you buy more than one product.

If you want to add a carbon source to lower nitrate, dose vinegar. If phosphate is too high, lower it with GFO. Keep things simple and don’t worry about bacterial diversity. There seems to be more conjecture than science in discussions about bacterial diversity in aquaria.

I’m still running a gfo reactor in conjunction with a liquid. I don’t see the point of changing one reactor for another.
My overall intention of this thread was to find out people’s thoughts, and it seems there are those who use liquids solely and there are others who need a reactor in conjunction. Im one of those guys who setup both. And I want to be the guy who only needs the liquid. For many reasons.
I appreciate your response nevertheless.

 

[sneekapeek]

I do not believe their product line is based on any sort of public evidence that different bacteria prefer anything, or that different bacteria use more N or P.

It is based on using mixtures that contain organics and inorganics that contain N or P. In that sense, it can accomplish what is claimed, but is not necessarily different than just adding the N or P yourself.

That’s why I’m on this forum asking others what they have found to be true in their experience so that I can have a more well rounded opinion on why I should omit the use of solid carbon dosing when I’m using the liquids.
So far since removing the solid, all I can foresee is less headache and less time wasted from having to deal with one extra variable in the tank.

 

[Hans-Werner]

When you target bacteria with only one type of carbon source. It may be limiting. Not all carbon sources are the same. Thus ,diversify the type of carbon source by using multiple methods ie pellets and eliminp, vodka, vinegar, etc.

I am doing the R&D at Tropic Marin. When developing Reef Actif with a set of natural biopolymers I nearly instantly saw a difference in polyp expansion, coral colors and coral growth. My conclusion was that this is caused by altered nutrient availabilities and also by altered microbial communities. Since this time I have intensified my interest in microbiology of marine environments and reef tanks and try to get deeper into this subject matter.

I think the new analyses AquaBiomics offers has opended new gates in the understanding of reef aquaria. You can find these following statements in their articles on "The Core Microbiome of a Saltwater Aquarium" and "How Aquarium Microbiomes Differ" (excerpts):

2	Pelagibacteraceae	Gram-negative, rod-shaped, free-living Bacteria (Alphaproteobacteria)	Aerobic & chemoheterotrophic	Previously called SAR11, this is thought to be the most abundant bacterial group in the ocean worldwide. Well-adapted for life in the low-nutrient waters of the open ocean. Require reduced sulfur compounds, glycine, and dissolved organic carbon for growth.
5	Alteromonadaceae	Gram-negative, rod-shaped, motile Bacteria (Gammaproteobacteria)	Aerobic & chemoheterotrophic	Widely observed in seawater samples. Can use a broad range of dissolved nutrients including sugars and amino acids, and blooms in high glucose conditions.
8	Pseudoalteromonadaceae	Gram-negative, rod-shaped or round, motile Bacteria (Gammaproteobacteria)	Aerobic & chemoheterotrophic	Ecologically important in a wide variety of marine habitats. Produce a variety of bioactive compounds, including many antimicrobial or antiviral comounds. Plays important roles in the formatin of biofilms. Can inhibit establishment and growth of algae. High molecular weight DOM promotes growth of this family.
9	Mycobacteriaceae	Not truly Gram-positive or negative, rod-shaped, non-motile Bacteria (Actinobacteria)	Aerobic; mostly chemoheterorophic	Grows on a variety of simple sugars, alcohols, or hydrocarbons. Growth is promoted by addition of fatty acids. Not generally pathogenic or symbiotic, but includes a few very important human pathogens (leprosy, tuberculosis). Includes the aquarium-related pathogen M. marinum (‘fish-tank granuloma’).
11	Hyphomicrobiaceae	Gram-negative Bacteria (Alphaproteobacteria) with round to rod-shaped cells, some motile	Includes chemoheterotrophic, methylotrophic, chemolitoautotrophic, and photosynthetic	Found in essentially every habitat. Grows on organic acids and sugars.
12	Saprospiraceae	Gram-negative rod-shaped Bacteria (Bacteroidetes), some show gliding motility	Aerobic & chemoheterotrophic	Primarily marine, some freshwater. Typically associated with sediments, multicellular organisms, or other surfaces. Capable of breaking down and living on complex macromolecules (e.g. polysaccharides, proteins). Some prey on other bacteria or algae, suggesting a role for this group in controlling algal growth on surfaces.
14	Bacillaceae	Gram-positive, rod-shaped, motile Bacteria (Firmicutes)	Aerobic or anaerobic; chemoheterotrophic	The hardiest and most widely distributed group of bacteria. Spore-forming. Found throughout aquatic and terrestrial habitats, often in association with plants or animals. Primarily saprophytic. Plays important roles in nutrient cycling. Capable of degrading and living on complex macromolecules or simple sugars. Blooms rapidly in response to nutrient addition.

"Now that microbiome testing is readily available for aquariums, it will be interesting to learn how deliberate manipulation of the nutrient profiles in aquariums can be used to adjust their microbiomes."

I am very interested how dosing the Tropic Marin biopolymers is reflected by the microbiomes of these aquaria. So if anyone using these products has or will be doing an AquaBiomics microbiome analysis I would be very keen to see these results.