Vinegar Dosing

[mcarroll]

He's a fine reference.

kalkwasser is another excellent article about vinegar, also addressing kalk (they go well together when the time is right).

Thing is, those are both articles like what I was referring to that make it sound like we know what's going on, but it's clear if you're paying attention that he glosses over these details as well. (Nobody seems to know this....so why would a phosphate specialist?)

-Matt

 

[marke]

Mr Mccaroll, You make some strong statements. They imply we are all stupid, and don't know what we are doing. Your implying the research presently available is flowed? Or maybe I misunderstood your statement. I have dosed vodka for any years, then switched to vinegar for many years and I am presently still dosing. I can say from experience it works! Others have stated the same. Maybe we dont know the exact chemical or molecular changes that are taking place, but we can measure nitrate and phosphate and the amount of algae growth in our system. Hence use brings positive results. It has been proven that increasing bacteria in a system seems to reduce nutrients, this is true in freshwater aquarium, saltwater aquarium, ponds and lakes, and sewage treatment water. They all add bacteria to consume or absorb nutrients which in aquariums can latter get skimmed out. Feeding these bacteria a carbon source (food) when levels get low (low nutrient system) seems to aid in growth. What we may not know yet, and would be good research for a college grad student, is weather having various strands of bacteria are better than just the predominate one in your system. We don't know enough about weather these bacteria consume better in early growth stages vs old age stage? So yes there is lots of room for beneficial research in this area, but it is still something that works and more people should look into it.

 

[Reefing Madness]

I Get It! Wait...
We all tend to talk about carbon dosing like we understand it (me too), but we really don't. So the surprising outcomes like blooms of algae or bacteria shouldn't really be surprising - they're just a reminder that we really don't understand what's going on.

You'll have to Google the sources on this, but: The one serious look into bio-pellets found there were no bacteria populating the pellets. The one or two serious looks into carbon dosing found no increase in bacteria in the water column. Everyone who messes with carbon dosing thinks both of those things are true, more or less. (You don't have to read many how-to articles to confirm this.) We really don't understand it.

So that doesn't mean pellets, vodka, etc don't work, but what are they really doing? No bacteria in the water column from carbon = no bacteria to skim, but we all more or less presume this is what's happening...and again, skimming really does seem to increase nutrient export while carbon dosing BUT WHY?

Another "why?" is inability of folks who carbon dose to keep their tanks with high alkalinity - problems with burned tips and sometime pH issues seem related...and again WHY?

We clearly need a lot more of those serious looks into carbon dosing if we're going to eventually understand it.

Just A Thought
Dunno if I'm the first to correlate carbon dosing with garden composting, but composting is another realm where results are highly variable depending on the carbon you put in the system. Folks who compost look at the carbon ratios of what they add to their compost pile to maintain an "optimum" ratio.

For Example
If you mis-use wood chips, which are a very concentrated form of carbon, and mix them into your garden topsoil before planting instead of only covering the soil with them, you will activate bacterial (and probably other microbial) processes that will consume every speck of nitrogen in the surrounding soil until they've completely digested the carbon source (wood chips).

Any plants in that ground usually wilt, or worse. Seedlings would die from the inability to compete with the microbes for nitrogen.

I figure somehow we're seeing parallel effects when we overdose our reefs. We just need something like C:N to go by when dosing our tanks....and I think some folks may have made some progress on this front (but I can't find the link).

$0.02

-Matt

Totally disagree with this. This implies that my 2 year stink with Vodka and Vinegar dosing means I know nothing about what its doing or what I am doing. Dont' think so. I can get anyones tank to 0 Nitrates very quickly based on water volume.
Also, in my experience, and I've done quite a bit of experimenting with this, it is extremely difficult to overdose your tank with either vodka or vinegar. the sheer volume that one would have to dump into their system, would be huge to mess it up. Unless we are talking about a 5g tank.
Carbon dosing allows us to keep nutrients where we want them, and not go chasing numbers. SPS would need a clean system, easily obtainable, while LPS you would leave a bit more in the system, while here again, is an easy feat to obtain, while not fretting about a sump removing those, you actually keep those numbers based on daily dosing to keep them not in check, but at a number of your choosing.

 

[Daniel@R2R Verified Admin]

Seems like I've seen this discussion before...

 

[Ryan2428]

Seems like I've seen this discussion before...

Plus 1 here on this

 

[Reefing Madness]

Seems like I've seen this discussion before...

Yea, we gotta link em all together. Be one heck of a long read.

 

[mcarroll]

Strike a nerve?

I didn't say carbon dosing doesn't work (just has some known and unknown limits).

I certainly didn't question anyone's intelligence. Gawsh.

Now let's take a breath and reassess what I was talking about!

If you look up and read the two articles I mentioned, they say the things I was conveying: (Plus the links to save you the Googling)

• Pellets don't house bacterial matts. (a very nice, short post)
• Vodka/vinegar don't increase bacteria in the water column. (a deep read)

Those are just two aspects of carbon dosing, but if those two things don't happen, then that blows up most popular theories of how carbon dosing works.

So that's why I say we don't really understand how carbon dosing achieves the things we see it achieve. That lack of understanding has got to leave us at a disadvantage when it comes to making adjustments or maybe more importantly figuring things out when they go wrong.

It's just one idea, but going back to my earlier post, having a way to assess carbon ratios seems like it would help reduce the guesswork and vagaries a lot.

-Matt

P.S. If you want a pile more info on carbon dosing in general, there was another thread recently that accumulated some great info and links: https://www.reef2reef.com/forums/re...ion-about-how-chemically-reduce-nitrates.html

 

[_sludgefactory]

Once again, bacteria may not be increased in the water column but the bacterial mulm that forms of the rock and other substrate does. The bacteria that grows doesn't need to be in the water column to be beneficial. The Zeovit system relies specifics on this and is and had been proven for years.

 

[mcarroll]

I will surrender the thread on that one...

-Matt

 

[h2pvnus]

Haha these controversie is quiet interesting

 

[tinctorus]

Controversy or not I've noticed a difference in the color and growth of my corals since starting it over a year ago... That's all that matters to me...

 

[h2pvnus]

Mine start having dino dont know why but my N is .25 (red sea) P is 0.02 (red sea), phosphorus is 0.004 (hanna checker)

 

[marke]

The bottom line with respect to the carbon dosing hypothesis is clear; the basic tenets of this theory appear to hold up to experimental scrutiny; carbon dosing does increase water column bacteria populations, and skimming does remove some bacteria with their attendant nutrient loads. Thus, the underlying science behind this approach to nutrient export appears valid.


This quote is the final paragraph of the long read article referenced above. Mr mccarroll don't give up on us if we don't understand your stabs ar carbon dosing. Don't quit on us either. If you have valid point that will help us understand this better. Please keep sharing. Some of this maybe a replay for some but not for me or some others. So keep sharing the knowledge and facts. Now when you add your opinion and it's contrary to your own research, then....

 

[mcarroll]

Thanks for reading the articles....that one in particular is too deep for a casual read. I've re-read it a few times and still haven't gotten through 100% of it.

If you look through the charts, it does not raise levels above naturally occurring levels, which appear to adapt quicly to tank/reef conditions anyway....but it does trigger an increase, technically.

They also reiterate what's known about skimming and bacteria (but attach only a slightly higher success number - 40% - that prior research), that's it's not strongly skimmed out. It's at best a weak source of transport. If you increase bacteria in the water by 10, you're only going to skim 4 of them out, leaving the rest to cycle nutrients back to the tank. I guess some may consider this little bit an improvement, but I can't imagine it really helps anyone unless they have only a Nitrate problem. PO4 problems seem a lot more common to me in these discussions.

I think plain N2 denitrification is responsible for more of the effect we see. In the other thread I linked, Mr. Hart linked a study done on nitrogen removal in wastewater reclamation by way of methanol dosing. Interestingly, they only planned to use it as a spot-treatment. From what I can tell, increased rates of denitrification is the only goal they expected to see. I don't have a subscription for the whole article, but it sounds like they found what they were looking for, and that matches with the poor PO4-export results reefers often get. The carbon limit rapidly turns into a nitrogen limit - if that wasn't already the case before carbon dosing.

There may be other factors at work too, but I don't think they account for a lot of the effect we see at the end-user level. And look out for words in the conclusion like "presumably" that probably are better off in the theory section at the beginning.

Again, thanks for reading.

-Matt

 

[mcarroll]

Does this quote from the article make anyone else curious?

[...] it may be inappropriate to describe marine bacteria as being limited by a single nutrient.

 

[mcarroll]

You may also find it interesting that some (maybe all) folks who dose CO2 (mainly calcium reactors) experience at least some of the same non-positive side effects as carbon dosers.

Most folks, including people you've heard of before, will tell you CO2 - which is an inorganic carbon - and its "lifecycle" aren't related to the organic carbons (pellets, methanol, vinegar,...) we dose. Usually the end of the discussion, but I've finally got a couple links to share that show why I remain so curious.

Consider the relationship of inorganic carbon to our discussion. (Or...how it becomes organic!)
"Carbonic anhydrase in vertebrates, plants, algae and bacteria" : Map of Life

Now consider the links between the carbon cycle - including organic and inorganic sources - and the nitrogen cycle.
Chelation, Uptake, and Intracellular binding -- Key quote:

Once taken up and bound to microorganisms, some trace metals are incorporated in enzymes that catalyze biochemical transformations at key points in the carbon and nitrogen cycles.

If all we seek are affirmations that carbon dosing "works", then that's all we'll see...and that may be fine.

(Follow me on this.) You have a nail and someone hands you a hammer - that may be the end of it. However, some people want to know if the nail is the right size and if a screw or glue might be better. Others think you're using the hammer wrong or using the wrong kind of hammer.

There are lots of people that still experience inexplicable problems with carbon dosing, and that's because there's A TON that we don't know about what's going on....tons of questions brought up in all four of the articles I've linked so far...almost in spite of the answers they do give. There are even more questions that we haven't thought of yet.

I'm in the second camp - I know "it works", but that only makes the rest of these questions (and the finding of them) more interesting to me.

Your mileage may vary, as the saying goes.

-Matt

 

[h2pvnus]

Anyine using microbacter7 while dosing vinegar

 

[marke]

Thanks Matt for those articles, and others you maintain for us! Thank you again! Even after reading through some of those articles they,you,me,others believe vinegar dosing works. As to the exact science that is or might be occurring, yes that may be questionable. But even if the scientist could explain it, I am not sure that I would understand the explanation having never taken more than chemistry in high school. Hence we think in terms of cause and effect. That is. If I add vinegar via dosing pump and slowly ramp up the additions.......we will see.....lower nutrients that is po4 and nitrate, less algae growth,better sps growth and color, better skimmer performance, and an overall more pleasant experience with our systems!!!!!! That's what 90% of the people trying it have experienced. As we hear from these threads. So my question is......why not try it if you have high nutrients,algae,and brown sps corals? We have all heard of some of the super stuff in a bottle people try in their tanks. Try what others are having success with, not the newest prettiest bottle at the mega fish store.

Now as to the microbacter 7 question....Matt and many who study this in the scientific community will say something like this. Since adequate research has not been performed by an accredited institution with the most expensive analytical tools then we have no basis to now? From the articles above the scientist don't even know or agree if or how bacteria and carbon feeding works? Let alone different stands of bacteria? Who said more than one bacteria strand will stay alive in a system? What's the age or growth stage of that bacteria and do they help our systems differently. Hence I agree a million unknowns! Now here is my and only my opinion, I am an aquarists not a scientist. I strongly believe bacteria and feeding them vinegar can be beneficial to most of us. So consider dosing vinegar. I also think adding bacteria like micro7 or many others including some zeovit and like products is beneficial. Especially for a new system that has very little. For developed systems a monthly addition of different strands of bacteria is a good thing. I can't quote where but I have read that with time bacteria compete and only one dominant remains, hence I believe adding others benefits our system. Not sure scientifically why? But. Makes you wonder....if I manufactured mico7, could enough money be donated to the best accredited research univ and have them do a study on why the stuff works? Welcome to America Now the scientist will believe....and I'm going back to my cocktail.