Vodka dosing assistance.

GHL Advanced Technology
Jump to Last
jkef2010

jkef2010

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
229
Reaction score
1
Location
Baltimore,MD
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Hello everyone.

I'm looking for information on vodka dosing to lower phosphate as well as nitrates on a tank. I have a 40g breeder tank. At the moment I am having a rough time with GHA, it's to the point I'm considering selling off my tank and getting out the hobby. I've tryed everything but gfo or reactors. I've read that you could use vodka to lowers these levels and help combat nuisance algae. Now what I'm still trying to find out is

-how much do I dose for a 40g tank
- how often
- is there a particular vodka type
- any cons against dosing it aka horror stories.
- any valuable Info you can share.

Thanks

It's a 40b tank with a 20L sump/fuge
Evergrow led
65g rated skimmer

2 Orc clowns
2 lettuce slugs
Snails hermits
Pink pally
Watermelon mushrooms.
 
www.dinkinsaquaticgardens.com
Last edited:
Top Shelf Aquatics
Randy, hope this is not hijacking the thread, it seems on topic (ish), why do you prefer vinegar?

Reason I ask if, I am considering changing to vinegar, as it will be easier to keep the same size tubes for my peristaltic (its 8 channel but they are all part of the same pump, so I can't change the flow in any tube relative to the other tubes unless I use a different size tube). Because I can't dilute vodka below about 18% without it spoiling and eventually becoming vinegar, I have to use a very tiny tube which I can't get hold of any more. If I use vinegar, I can dilute it to suit the same size tubes I use for 2 part dosing.

So although I have read plenty of opinions on vodka vs vinegar, I would be interested in your view as to why vinegar is better. Is there a good scientific reason for this or just a personal preference? Do you believe the idea that different carbon sources really will result in significant differences in the bacteria that dominate the tank? And if so, do you think there is a difference in the effect that these different dominant bacteria cause on our tanks?

Thanks, Pete
 
UK_Pete said:
Randy, hope this is not hijacking the thread, it seems on topic (ish), why do you prefer vinegar?

Reason I ask if, I am considering changing to vinegar, as it will be easier to keep the same size tubes for my peristaltic (its 8 channel but they are all part of the same pump, so I can't change the flow in any tube relative to the other tubes unless I use a different size tube). Because I can't dilute vodka below about 18% without it spoiling and eventually becoming vinegar, I have to use a very tiny tube which I can't get hold of any more. If I use vinegar, I can dilute it to suit the same size tubes I use for 2 part dosing.

So although I have read plenty of opinions on vodka vs vinegar, I would be interested in your view as to why vinegar is better. Is there a good scientific reason for this or just a personal preference? Do you believe the idea that different carbon sources really will result in significant differences in the bacteria that dominate the tank? And if so, do you think there is a difference in the effect that these different dominant bacteria cause on our tanks?

Thanks, Pete
Click to expand...

I started with vodka and detected an increase in cyano.

So I switched to vinegar and the cyano backed off.

I think vinegar is somewhat less prone to cyano, but I also think it depends a lot on what species of cyano are present in your aquarium, so not all aquaria will respond as mine did. I also found, IIRC, numerous scientific references that showed how readily acetate was metabolized in the ocean.

FWIW, I presently have a pretty fair amount of cyano, but it doesn't bother me. It is a somewhat unusual type that grows as clumps/balls that hold together rather than as a film over stuff.

Many people also like a mix, al;though I've not seen convincing evidence that a mix is generally better than either alone.
 
Last edited:
Here's a cut and paste from an old thread:

Randy, why do you think the vinegar inhibits cyano growth versus vodka?


My guess is that the particular cyano species that I have may be a little less able to take up acetate, relative to the other bacteria and other organisms in the tank.


Acetate may just be metabolized faster than ethanol by some of the tank creatures, so is less available to cyano.


I was surprised as we recently dug further into the literatre of acetate in natural systems (in another thread) how fast and widespread it consumption is. For example:


Acetate cycling in the water column of the Cariaco Basin: seasonal and vertical variability and implication for carbon cycling. Ho, Tung-Yuan; Scranton, Mary I.; Taylor, Gordon T.; Varela, Ramon; Thunell, Robert C.; Muller-Karger, Frank. Marine Sciences Research Center, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY, USA. Limnology and Oceanography (2002), 47(4), 1119-1128. Publisher: American Society of Limnology and Oceanography,
Abstract


Acetate oxidn. frequently has been used as proxy of org. carbon decompn. in marine anoxic sediments. However, the importance of acetate uptake in carbon cycling in marine anoxic water columns is less well studied. Acetate concns. and uptake rate consts., together with total bacterial nos., primary and chemoautotrophic prodn. rates, and particulate org. carbon (POC) fluxes, were measured in the water column of the Cariaco Basin during upwelling and nonupwelling seasons between Nov. 1995 and May 1999 as part of the international CARIACO (Carbon Retention In A Colored Ocean) program. Acetate uptake was found to vary strongly with depth and season. Zones of elevated acetate uptake were found in the surface waters and near the suboxic/anoxic interface. High acetate uptake in the surface oxic layer suggests that acetate cycling may be an important component of org. carbon oxidn. in oxic environments as well as under anoxic conditions. Depth-integrated acetate uptake rates were correlated with the rates of org. carbon supply in the two zones (r2 = 0.37, P = 0.017). Comparisons of acetate oxidn. rates with rates of primary prodn., chemoautotrophic prodn., and POC flux show that, on av., acetate oxidn. can account for respiration of between 16 and 46% of the org. carbon fixed in the water column.
 
www.dinkinsaquaticgardens.com
Interesting thanks. I guess then, at this time, there is no really proven differences between them, and seeing how they interact with one particular tank is the only way to judge what works better for that tank. Did yoou notice any difference in any levels (phos, nitrate etc) you measured, or skimmate, etc, other than the cyano that differed between them?

Thanks, Pete
 
Was going to edit my above post but I coulden't work out how to.

It just occured to me that in an environment where the bacteria to convert ethanol to acetate are readily available in the water and substrate, ethanol probably gets metabolised very rapidly once diluted to typical tank concentrations - thats assuming the salt water version of ethanol spoiling bacteria are as efficient as freshwater ones. Although I guess that means the first step in fully metabolising ethanol would be omitted if acetate was dosed instead, and the associated bacteria which are dominant for that conversion step (ethanol -> acetate) would not have a source of energy so would not exist in high numbers. But once that first step is out of the way then the remainder of the process to metabolise acetate to final products (ie inert substances no longer capable of 'feeding' anything) would be the same. Whether this is a single step performed by a single bacteria, or multiple steps by multiple bacteria, I have never read about, and I wonder.
 
UK_Pete said:
Interesting thanks. I guess then, at this time, there is no really proven differences between them, and seeing how they interact with one particular tank is the only way to judge what works better for that tank. Did yoou notice any difference in any levels (phos, nitrate etc) you measured, or skimmate, etc, other than the cyano that differed between them?
Click to expand...

I didn't track levels of nutrients when dosing. Aside from the cyano, I didn't see a difference. :)
 
ReefBot Lab, Automated Water Tester
UK_Pete said:
Was going to edit my above post but I coulden't work out how to.

It just occured to me that in an environment where the bacteria to convert ethanol to acetate are readily available in the water and substrate, ethanol probably gets metabolised very rapidly once diluted to typical tank concentrations - thats assuming the salt water version of ethanol spoiling bacteria are as efficient as freshwater ones. Although I guess that means the first step in fully metabolising ethanol would be omitted if acetate was dosed instead, and the associated bacteria which are dominant for that conversion step (ethanol -> acetate) would not have a source of energy so would not exist in high numbers. But once that first step is out of the way then the remainder of the process to metabolise acetate to final products (ie inert substances no longer capable of 'feeding' anything) would be the same. Whether this is a single step performed by a single bacteria, or multiple steps by multiple bacteria, I have never read about, and I wonder.
Click to expand...

I think that all, or almost all, creatures can use acetate internally, so I'd expect that if a bacteria produced acetate from ethanol metabolism internally, it likely wouldn't release the acetate, but that's just speculation. :)
 
Ah I see. So your feeling would be that any bacteria capable of metabolising ethanol would not be specialised at that particular conversion but would continue to recycle the products of the first step (ethanol -> acetate? Or another intermediate) and only finish with the resulting waste stream once all energy had been extracted from it?
 
I can't be sure, but since acetate is common to so very many pathways, once inside I'd expect it to be converted into something, or metabolized.

Here's from wikipedia with my bolding:

Citric acid cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The citric acid cycle – also known as the tricarboxylic acid cycle (TCA cycle), or the Krebs cycle,[1][2] – is a series of chemical reactions used by all aerobic organisms to generate energy through the oxidation of acetate derived fromcarbohydrates, fats and proteins into carbon dioxide and chemical energy in the form of adenosine triphosphate (ATP)
 
Tidal Gardens
I had the same problem with the nitrates but now i am below 10 and my soft and hard corals they love it.... i have a 65g tank with 20g sump... the things that i did are i did 2 big water changes of 25g in 2 weeks and 15g every week now.... and i used from Red Sea products the natural nitrate and phosphate reducer... the water changes are big help keep doing that every week and you will see the nitrates to go down.... and something else ckeck your return pump cause if the flow from thw water that goes in the main tank is low this is a big problem to.... i didnt used vodka and now i am fine with soft and hard coral and 15 fish in my tank....i hope my advises will help you...
 
BRS
Black Reefer said:
.... and something else ckeck your return pump cause if the flow from thw water that goes in the main tank is low this is a big problem to....
Click to expand...

I suppose that depends on what you do to the water in the sump, but what do you think you did that required a high flow?
 

IF YOU HAD TO TAKE A REEFING EXAM, WOULD YOU PASS?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 32 45.7%

  • Not yet, but I have one that I want to buy in mind!

    Votes: 9 12.9%

  • No.

    Votes: 26 37.1%

  • Other (please explain).

    Votes: 3 4.3%
See comments…

New Posts

Frag Farm
Chewy.com
Tidal Gardens
World Wide Corals
Dinkins Aquatic Gardens
Top Shelf Aquatics
Nutramar Foods
TCK Corals
Deltec
New Posts
Back
Top