Vodka Dosing killing my entire tank!!!!

[Philipgonzales3]

What is your motivation for setting up a fish only tank using LR?

Starting simple. I enjoy fish, I used to have African cichlids with a similar setup. One day I plan to slowly add coral but this is still a maybe. For now all I care about is watching the fish.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Lowering nitrate should not be considered a problem in a closed aquarium system. The bio-load is very low.
Nitrate is a safe reserve of nitrogen which can be used as desired. The presence of nitrate is essential for a closed aquarium system.
Using a skimmer nitrate build up can not be avoided in a growing aquarium due the limited availability of other building materials. When essential building materials are used up nitrogen will still remain, a skimmer does not remove much nitrogen.
This should not be a problem as the availability of nitrate makes it possible to close the nitrogen cycle by the transition to nitrogen gas, a process taking place in any nitrifying biofilm. About 16% of the by nitrification produced nitrate will be used by the biofilm and transformed to nitrogen gas this way removing ammonium-nitrogen from the system. About 40% of the population of a nitrifying biofilm are using an anaerobic pathway.
Without messing up the entire existing biological balance, safely stored nitrogen may easily effectively be removed just by increasing the present autotrophic denitrification capacity of a nitrifying biofilm. This way the ammonium reduction rate and nitrate production can easily be managed and nitrate build up prevented.
I do not consider nitrate a problem in a reef aquarium as the presence of sufficient nitrification gives me the possibility to manage the nitrogen content in the system as desired.
Dosing Carbohydrates drastically lowers the previously installed nitrification capacity even may inhibit nitrification when a high C:N ratio is maintained . My biggest concern about carbon dosing are the consequences when for some reason the induced growth can not be maintained and suddenly stops. I would only consider carbon dosing for cultivating scrimp which may be harvested.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Starting simple. I enjoy fish, I used to have African cichlids with a similar setup. One day I plan to slowly add coral but this is still a maybe. For now all I care about is watching the fish.

Why using LR and not base rock which is a lot cheaper?

 

[Philipgonzales3]

Why using LR and not base rock which is a lot cheaper?

I started with Reef Saver Dry rock. I only recently became familiar with the term FOWLR. I assumed my setup is considered a FOWLR even though my rock is not live at this point.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Assimilation of ammonia does not create or deplete alk.

Ammonia is the product generated by fish waste. Some is converted into ammonium form, and that conversion adds alkalinity. If you then reverse that conversion to use ammonium, you deplete exactly what you added to produce the ammonium.. That part of the nitrogen cycle had no impact on alk and papers that claim it does are incorrect by focusing on only a part of the process. We (I and other members, maybe you too) have discussed these errors here before.

Correct, we have discussed the issue, which inspired me to do more research about the issue.
In a closed aquarium the cycles are not completed certainly not when using a skimmer.
Ebeling, J.M., Timmons, M.B., Bisogni, J.J., 2006. Engineering analysis of the stoichiometry of photoautotrophic, autotrophic, and heterotrophic removal of ammonia–nitrogen in aquaculture systems. Aquaculture 257, 346–358. This paper, includes the waste production, ammonia transition, growth, respiration, consumption and decay; Ebeling is a most respected researcher and a name in the research for aquaculture. Commercial aquaculture systems are buffered based on this paper and they have to add alkalinty, systems based on carbon dosing without any nitrification capacity. Practice proves that Ebeling En Co has correctly expressed the alkalinity consumption.
Claiming other papers are wrong or incorrect is not a good approach for any discussion when these papers prove otherwise.

 

[Gregg @ ADP]

Nature uses light (photosynthesis), water motion (wave and current action for nutrient delivery) and algae to capture nitrates. So yes, that the major reason why nitrates are low in the ocean is because of algae growth. An algae scrubber does use the same mechanisms as nature. The same thing happens in our aquariums, but with so many nutrients, the algae grows everywhere and stifles the corals or just plain looks bad. An algae scrubber focuses that growth in an area easily harvested, and significantly reduces growth elsewhere while controlling nitrates and phosphates.

Robert, I'm really sorry to hear about your fish losses. The purpose of my original post was to share a method that worked really well for me, and doesn't carry a risk of overdosing.

Nature also uses organics to perform denitrification.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Claiming other papers are wrong or incorrect is not a good approach for any discussion when these papers prove otherwise.

Claiming they are wrong is appropriate when they are wrong. lol

More accurately, it is your usage and interpretation that is wrong. The actual text in the paper was ok.

Obviously, consuming ammonium depletes alkalinity. But to claim that means alkalinity gets depleted by taking up ammonium is wrong.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

This paper, includes the waste production, ammonia transition, growth, respiration, consumption and decay; Ebeling is a most respected researcher and a name in the research for aquaculture. Commercial aquaculture systems are buffered based on this paper and they have to add alkalinty, systems based on carbon dosing without any nitrification capacity. Practice proves that Ebeling En Co has correctly expressed the alkalinity consumption.

It is your interpretation of it that is wrong. The equations are correct, as I noted last time you brought this up.

Conversion of tissue (food) to ammonia and back to tissue (algae,, etc.) neither consumes nor adds alkalinity. The paper does not say otherwise.

What is does say is that if you start with ammonium and make tissue, you deplete alkalinity. Certainly true.

Here's the part you are ignoring:

1. Food ---> ammonia (no effect on alk)
2. Ammonia ---> ammonium (adds alkalinity)
3. Ammonium ---> tissue (depletes alkalinity)

Step 2 and 3 exactly offset in terms of alkalinity

one could also just rewrite it as:

1. Food ---> ammonia (no effect on alk)
2. Ammonia ---> tissue (no effect on alkalinity)

 

[Graffiti Spot]

When I was dosing vodka and vinegar was when my tank looked the best it ever had. When I stopped my nutrients went up some and the corals didn't like the tank as much, nothing died though, especially fish. I am working back to dosing again because I didn't want to stop. I was dosing 50ml of vinegar and 50 ml of vodka in a 200 gallon system. Everything benefited from it and I don't see how it could hurt fish other than stated above in a bacteria bloom situation.
In theory if a bad bacteria was the cause of the fish death, the bad bacteria was not created by the dosing and still would be a problem for the fish right?

It will not be the first nor the last time that adding vodka alcohol will kill fish. Poorly informed some will add the dose undiluted and in one go to the aquarium. The movement of the water surface is the signal for many fish that is being fed with all its consequences.

What are you saying that the fish are swimming into the vodka and being harmed? Thats not a thing is it? Also what are you worried about happening when the bacteria growth from carbon dosing is stoped? Ammonia? I can only see that being a problem if a persons tank was not capable of processing nutrients before carbon dosing even started.

 

[rkpetersen]

In theory if a bad bacteria was the cause of the fish death, the bad bacteria was not created by the dosing and still would be a problem for the fish right?

A vast number of different bacterial species, which will vary, are present in each aquarium. In small concentrations, many of these will likely have no appreciable effect on fish or other tank inhabitants. But if you supply food for those heterotrophs, one or more species could potentially proliferate exponentially until the food is gone. If that bacteria happens to be pathogenic to fish, anemone or corals, the increase in numbers could potentially overwhelm the animal's defenses. (Same thing happens in humans; breathe in a few toxic spores for example and nothing may happen, but breathe in a few million and it can kill you fast.) And even if the proliferating bacteria aren't directly pathogenic, their rapid growth can deplete oxygen levels acutely, potentially to the point where animals are getting hypoxic injury.

So, basically, carbon dosing can be highly dangerous if used incorrectly or you're just unlucky.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Claiming they are wrong is appropriate when they are wrong. lol

More accurately, it is your usage and interpretation that is wrong. The actual text in the paper was ok.

Obviously, consuming ammonium depletes alkalinity. But to claim that means alkalinity gets depleted by taking up ammonium is wrong.

I never maid that claim! It is not wrong and Ebeling proves it. Assimilating nitrate-nitrogen will not deplete alkalinity, but it will not be assimilated without first depleting ammonium. Nitrate-nitrogen will not be used for fast growth.
For most reefers alkalinity is the result of the test, the combination of all processes taking place in the aquarium which all may be influenced by dosing carbon.
It was claimed that carbon dosing does not influences alkalinity in the system which is obviously not correct. My interpretation may not have been completely correct but it was not wrong as carbon dosing does influences alkalinity in the system a lot.
As carbon dosing not only assimilates ammonium-nitrogen but also removes the nitrification capacity and nitrification may have a huge effect on alkalinity or no effect at all, depending of the surface where nitrification takes place. . The removal of nitrification will also remove the heterotrophic and autotrophic denitrification capacity of the nitrifying biofilm which means a lot more ammonium has to be assimilated. One may conclude the total effect on alkalinity is difficult to predict when starting dosing carbon.
As alkalinity is not much an issue in a marine aquarium as correcting alkalinity is standard operation the issue has minor importance, doses for correction may be based on the result of the reading and must not be predicted to keep the alkalinity stable. It may be good practice to follow the evolution of alkalinity the first weeks of dosing!

 

[Belgian Anthias]

When I was dosing vodka and vinegar was when my tank looked the best it ever had. When I stopped my nutrients went up some and the corals didn't like the tank as much, nothing died though, especially fish. I am working back to dosing again because I didn't want to stop. I was dosing 50ml of vinegar and 50 ml of vodka in a 200 gallon system. Everything benefited from it and I don't see how it could hurt fish other than stated above in a bacteria bloom situation.
In theory if a bad bacteria was the cause of the fish death, the bad bacteria was not created by the dosing and still would be a problem for the fish right?


What are you saying that the fish are swimming into the vodka and being harmed? Thats not a thing is it? Also what are you worried about happening when the bacteria growth from carbon dosing is stoped? Ammonia? I can only see that being a problem if a persons tank was not capable of processing nutrients before carbon dosing even started.

On what parameter this dose is based? The daily nitrate overproduction?

What do you think what may happen when a fish drinks 40% proof alcohol or it comes in its gills. A marine fish drinks continuously. Depending of the temp the vodka may not immediately dilute in the water. The daily dose should be diluted before adding and spread over the day.
Personally I am not a fan of carbon dosing as it messes up the balance in the system.
Carbon dosing removes nitrification capacity, also when the bacteria are not blooming. Blooming bacteria take away all ammonium-nitrogen and most oxygen and will not only harm fish. Fast growing bacteria use ammonium-nitrogen, not nitrate-nitrogen.

An ammonia problem start the moment the fish is caught. Ammonium will build up slowly in the cell membranes during transport , during conditioning after long transport, etc.... when a fish dies of ammonia poisoning it may be of just that little bit to much. Ammonia may pass membranes but in the cell it will become ammonium which can not pass the membranes any more. For example after each dose nitrification may be inhibited as ammonium-nitrogen is used up by fast growth. If this takes to long the nitrifying biofilm may die off partially or even completely. To restore this capacity it may take days, even weeks.
In a marine aquarium ammonium and ammonia is present and is used very fast. When the fast growth stops suddenly ammonia may be left over as not enough of the slower nitrifiers may be present or ready to use it up if they are dormant. It may be that little to much!?

I prefer the stability of a system of which the carrying capacity is based on nitrification as the production of nitrate makes it easy to close the nitrogen cycle and the safely stored nitrogen can easily be managed without messing up the balance in the system.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Why nitrate and phosphate may build up in a well-lit aquarium?
Because these substances are the basis for growth, why they where not used up by photo-autotrophic growth and may build up? Maybe they are produced more rapidly as they can be consumed? Removed by the skimmer and used up by the organisms present. As they may build up slowly means they are not needed at that moment or can not be used because other basic materials for growth are not available. These basic, so called "nutrients", are considered a threat for the system and must be removed. Correction, the level must be lowered wich is not exatcly the same. Some advice to dose carbohydrates. Carbohydrates provides the carbon source for heterotrophic growth which is limited by nature during the remineralisation processes by heterotrophs producing CO2 to close the carbon cycle. This means that in a closed system an unlimited source for heterotrophic growth may be provided and slow autotrophic growth is inhibited as there food source will be removed.

Most pathogens are heterotrophs and a skimmer removes live bacteria very selectively. This means that pathogens may be left untouched and can develop. That is why we use a UV before the skimmer, to prevent selectivity.

It is simple to claim that it is not a problem because most problems are not recognised by the user. The same can be said about ammonia poisoning as it is impossible to prove it was because of carbon dosing but carbon dosing will certainly contribute.

 

[Graffiti Spot]

Wont a systems ballance

On what parameter this dose is based? The daily nitrate overproduction?

What do you think what may happen when a fish drinks 40% proof alcohol or it comes in its gills. A marine fish drinks continuously. Depending of the temp the vodka may not immediately dilute in the water. The daily dose should be diluted before adding and spread over the day.
Personally I am not a fan of carbon dosing as it messes up the balance in the system.
Carbon dosing removes nitrification capacity, also when the bacteria are not blooming. Blooming bacteria take away all ammonium-nitrogen and most oxygen and will not only harm fish. Fast growing bacteria use ammonium-nitrogen, not nitrate-nitrogen.

An ammonia problem start the moment the fish is caught. Ammonium will build up slowly in the cell membranes during transport , during conditioning after long transport, etc.... when a fish dies of ammonia poisoning it may be of just that little bit to much. Ammonia may pass membranes but in the cell it will become ammonium which can not pass the membranes any more. For example after each dose nitrification may be inhibited as ammonium-nitrogen is used up by fast growth. If this takes to long the nitrifying biofilm may die off partially or even completely. To restore this capacity it may take days, even weeks.
In a marine aquarium ammonium and ammonia is present and is used very fast. When the fast growth stops suddenly ammonia may be left over as not enough of the slower nitrifiers may be present or ready to use it up if they are dormant. It may be that little to much!?

I prefer the stability of a system of which the carrying capacity is based on nitrification as the production of nitrate makes it easy to close the nitrogen cycle and the safely stored nitrogen can easily be managed without messing up the balance in the system.

I don't base the dose on anything, I just work my way up till nitrates become near seawater and leave me the opportunity to dose some to reduce phosphates. One of the best parts about carbon dosing along with the faster growth of filter feeders in the tank. I had a rock tank specifically for carbon sources to enter the tank where sponges and other filter feeders grew and flow was just trickle through. I would let the bacteria form large matts and pull them out every now and then so they didn't break up into the system. Having this tank really helped me have a higher daily dose without the bacteria becoming a problem in the display.
I see what your saying about the break in cycles but its not a issue in my view. Its not really a break in cycles its just a change in where things go. If the cycle was broken the tank would crash. I am trying to understand everything you say and why your saying it, but its a little to advanced for me to get all of it.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I never maid that claim! It is not wrong and Ebeling proves it. Assimilating nitrate-nitrogen will not deplete alkalinity, but it will not be assimilated without first depleting ammonium. Nitrate-nitrogen will not be used for fast growth.
For most reefers alkalinity is the result of the test, the combination of all processes taking place in the aquarium which all may be influenced by dosing carbon.
It was claimed that carbon dosing does not influences alkalinity in the system which is obviously not correct. My interpretation may not have been completely correct but it was not wrong as carbon dosing does influences alkalinity in the system a lot.
As carbon dosing not only assimilates ammonium-nitrogen but also removes the nitrification capacity and nitrification may have a huge effect on alkalinity or no effect at all, depending of the surface where nitrification takes place. . The removal of nitrification will also remove the heterotrophic and autotrophic denitrification capacity of the nitrifying biofilm which means a lot more ammonium has to be assimilated. One may conclude the total effect on alkalinity is difficult to predict when starting dosing carbon.
As alkalinity is not much an issue in a marine aquarium as correcting alkalinity is standard operation the issue has minor importance, doses for correction may be based on the result of the reading and must not be predicted to keep the alkalinity stable. It may be good practice to follow the evolution of alkalinity the first weeks of dosing!

I'm sorry, but I think that you are just not understanding the chemistry correctly.

They showed something unrelated to YOUR claim that organic carbon dosing causes alk depletion.

Please identify any (ANY) process or reaction caused by organic carbon dosing to a reef tank the causes depletion of alkalinity. I am not aware of any and think you are unlikely to be able to come up with one.

The only remotely possible one I can devise is to dose an organic acid (such as vinegar), and then do a water change quickly before the acetate is consumed by bacteria or other organisms.

In that case:

CH3COOH ---> H+ + CH3COO-

H+ + HCO3- ---> H2CO3 ---> H2O + CO2

Then you remove the acetate (CH3COO-) by water change before it can be used.

If it is used by bacteria or organisms to make tissue or to get energy, it adds back the alkalinity lost in the second line.

 

[Lasse]

IMO dosing DOC will supress the pH because a large part of it will end up as CO2 sooner or later if not the extra CO2 will be aerated out or bound in primary production (read photosynthesis). IMO - DOC is the limited factor for heterotrophic bacteria growth in most reef systems and adding DOC speed up the bacterial breakdown of organic matter and hence the bacterial respiration (respiration in this case - transfer oxygen to CO2 with help of organic carbon). However - production/consumption or add / remove CO2 will not effect the total alkalinity - IMO.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Dosing carbon is making choices. Do I want the system's carrying capacity to be based on heterotrophic growth and daily intervention or do I want to keep the previously installed autotrophic ammonium-reduction capacity? To make the best choice for the situation one must be informed correctly!
Why making such a decision just to remove some safely stored nitrogen, safely stored nitrogen which photo-autotrophs where not able to use up for some reason.
It seems that banning the BIO did change a lot but not in a good sense!. Despite the very low bio-load and carrying capacity of modern reef aquaria managing nitrate is a subject of many discussion.
Weird evolution, as a BIO was banned because it transforms toxic ammonia into harmless nitrate but creating more toxic ammonia seems not to be a problem for removing safely stored nitrogen.
My opinion banning bio-filters has created management problems instead of solving some. Obviously nitrogen management has not improved since the BIO is banned.

I don't base the dose on anything, I just work my way up till nitrates become near seawater and leave me the opportunity to dose some to reduce phosphates. One of the best parts about carbon dosing along with the faster growth of filter feeders in the tank. I had a rock tank specifically for carbon sources to enter the tank where sponges and other filter feeders grew and flow was just trickle through. I would let the bacteria form large matts and pull them out every now and then so they didn't break up into the system. Having this tank really helped me have a higher daily dose without the bacteria becoming a problem in the display.
I see what your saying about the break in cycles but its not a issue in my view. Its not really a break in cycles its just a change in where things go. If the cycle was broken the tank would crash. I am trying to understand everything you say and why your saying it, but its a little to advanced for me to get all of it.

Correct, it is just a change in where things go! The cycle is not broken but changed, most of the the nitrogen becomes part of the food chain instead of being exported !
If one wants to keep the nitrogen in the system why photo-autotrophs may or can not use up CO2, nitrate and phosphate? Why messing up the entire balance of the system? Maybe adjusting the skimming rate may solve the problem of nitrate build up?


The risk for a crash due to carbon dosing is limited but may occur when dosing is stopped suddenly if a high C:N ratio was maintained for a long period of time, depending of the daily ammonium production. A lot of reefers dose carbon daily without knowing the daily nitrogen overproduction in the system The daily ammonium production may be considered to be very low in LNS and VLNS. The nitrate level has an impact on this daily ammonium production. When the nitrate-nitrogen overproduction is not exported but assimilated most of this nitrogen will be recycled and more ammonium will be produced in total. As the nitrification capacity is reduced or removed also the denitrification capacity present in every nitrifying biofilm will be reduced or removed. This means more nitrogen is available for assimilation .


Ammonia poisoning of fish seems to be a slow killer, is specimen related and as the ammonia history of a fish is unknown. Sometimes very little is needed to become to much. As carbon dosing may create ammonia spikes after each dose , when induced fast ammonium take up is stopped, it may contribute in building up the ammonium content in cell membranes but also a lot of other events may create ammonia spikes, not only carbon dosing. But carbon dosing may make it a regular event. A heavily loaded fish during transport and during acclimatization may not survive long in a carbon dosed system but this does not mean there is a link to carbon dosing, anyway carbon dosing may not help the prospect of a long life as do a lot of other factors.

If dosing is stopped for some reason it is better to build of doses gradually to make it possible to reinstall autotrophic carrying capacity, which may take some time. Cutting doses by half when the desired level is reached as sometimes advised is something I would not consider . Think for a moment how this will again mess up everything as the carrying capacity may suddenly be decreased by half . The same daily ammonia production must be removed, also at the desired level. Most users of carbohydrate dosing have no clue of the daily nitrogen overproduction in the system and have no idea of how much of a carbohydrate must be dosed daily to remove the daily overproduction.
For safely dosing carbon and for to keep some of the previously installed autotrophic based carrying capacity the dose should be based on a known parameter. For example based on the daily nitrate overproduction. Also the daily added protein in food may be used as a guide line.

If the installed autotrophic carrying capacity is of no importance than one may create a situation for starting a treat:
Vodka Dosing killing my entire tank!!!!

 

[Belgian Anthias]

I'm sorry, but I think that you are just not understanding the chemistry correctly.

They showed something unrelated to YOUR claim that organic carbon dosing causes alk depletion.

Please identify any (ANY) process or reaction caused by organic carbon dosing to a reef tank the causes depletion of alkalinity. I am not aware of any and think you are unlikely to be able to come up with one.

The only remotely possible one I can devise is to dose an organic acid (such as vinegar), and then do a water change quickly before the acetate is consumed by bacteria or other organisms.

In that case:

CH3COOH ---> H+ + CH3COO-

H+ + HCO3- ---> H2CO3 ---> H2O + CO2

Then you remove the acetate (CH3COO-) by water change before it can be used.

If it is used by bacteria or organisms to make tissue or to get energy, it adds back the alkalinity lost in the second line.

Most probably I am not understanding the chemistry correctly as I am not a chemist. But what I do know is that in carbon based ZMAS systems alkalinity is depleted and it is a fact such zero emission marine systems are to be buffered. Ebeling explains why and how much. Based on this publication and not on my knowledge of chemics I wrote that dosing carbon does deplete alkalinity in a closed system.
The total picture in an aquarium where a skimmer removes organics continuously ( and for this is not a ZMAS) is not only about the chemical and bio-chemical reaction when a carbon hydrate is added but also all the other bio-chemical processes induced by the fact carbon is dosed, for example nitrification is replaced by assimilation. In a calcium carbonate loaded aquarium the fact that nitrification , producing a lot of acids, is removed indirectly due to carbon dosing , it will make a difference if the removed nitrifying biofilm was growing on glass or on calcium carbonate media, lowering or not lowering the total alkalinity. The removal of denitrification capacity of the nitrifying biofilm replaced by ammonium-assimilation ( not nitrate- assimilation) end so on!
This includes the possibility carbon dosing also does effect the calcium availability.
Alkalinity is not really my main concern about carbon dosing.

 

[Sarah24!]

Hello,

So I read the thread and it is very interesting. In following Randy’s equations they make since and I get that. But my question is (if mentioned already I missed it) why do this vodka dosing in the first place? Yes, Randy has proven that won’t crash a tank (think on page 2 and 3), but we all know several things will crash tanks. My question is why even do any of this at all?

Now I’m not a naturalist etc etc etc but in the ocean etc it doesn’t dose vodka lol. I’m not quite sure what we accomplish by doing this. (Maybe I missed it if so sorry) but if the loads are correct most don’t have issues. I have had my nitrates spike and I did lots of water changes on a large system. Now the highest mine ever spiked to was probably 40 ppm. I allowed this because I was mis lead to believe that 20-40 ppm nitrate would give more color to coral. Well my coral hated it and I went back to 2-5 ppm. To drop this daily and not do damage I used the Red Sea no3/no4 mix. Tested daily and reduced the dosage or tapped it off to my desired level.

Now working with medicine (sorry it’s not off topic promise) certain meds even in humans must be tappersd off. Some even after being tappered off still must be induced or taking by the patient. Two meds come to mind Xanax or aka short a benzodiazepines. Even if a patient is placed on these, and wants to get off one would tapper it slowly. Now because it’s a benzodiazepine even after the tapper is done the chances of the person going through severe withdrawal is high, not just for a week but for life. Another med not quite as bad is like prednisone, it starts large and is tappered. Stopping it suddenly will drastically affect said patient. If it’s tappered off then no big deal, but can cause other life long problems etc.

So where does my point lead to, if we are medicating our tanks we need to understand clearly the medicine we are using. Even though my nitrates stay at 2-5 ppm my tank gets a very small dosage of the no3/no4 noprox. It clearly states that once levels are reached to dose a tiny amount daily, this is similar to a benzodiazepine. You can take a larger dosage to get symptoms under control, and tapper off but you risk major probelms if you stop all together. The other reason I bring this up and is similar to benzodiazepine for humans is that once you start this, vodka dosing you can’t really stop. We have all agreed that having zero nitrates and or zero phosphates can crash a tank, the water is stripped to clean. Yes it depletes nitrates, but once one starts one by theory has to dose to increase nitrates and phosphates to prevent the water being stripped.

Now from reading what Randy has written dosing this vodka has been shown to not kill fish crash tanks etc. but what I would like to ask is, have we tested this vodka dosing with every option? Example with medicine certain meds will not work with others. Is it possible, that if said person was dosing vodka and something else, it would cause a possible toxin?

When it comes to dosing I try and keep things simple because when things go wrong, I have less to figure out in the short time we have. If one is vodka dosing, and using gfo, who knows what that’s just more risky in my opinion.

So what is the actual benefit of vodka dosing? Do the benefits out weigh the risks? Why would one result to this type of dosing? Now I’m not saying it’s bad, Randy has proven it’s not bad etc. But I’m afraid that most people simply don’t understand it. With Randy being a Chemist or scientist (sorry if I labeled that wrong in advance going off your labels). I’m pretty sure he is dead on accurate with how he mixes things for his tank. Now compared to the standard person, with or with out experience, how well do they understand it?

Again sorry if I missed a few things was try to remember what everyone said and some posts were long like mine. Also I have no experience with any dosing other than general like alk, calcium, and the basic no3/4 for nitrates and phosphate. I use a protein skimmer and two uvs in my sump. I do use the filter socks, and then microfiber pads before the returns. But I havnt had any issues with algae or much of anything else. I have had some cyano break out, which drove me nuts. But when I added a sand sifting goby it had all but gone away. I have a tiny bit but the goby is making short work my sand bed and keeping it clean.

 

[Graffiti Spot]

Most of the people who are successfully using carbon sources in their system are not worried about alk or calcium depletion. It seems your main concern though is the loss of nutrient removal when dosing is stopped and I don't think any of the people successfully using a carbon source are worried about that either. I think most find if they slowly reduce the carbon input into their tanks to stop dosing things balance out quite normally and go back to where most started at, with higher nutrient levels that the tank could not naturally lower itself. I really don't believe a tank is going to completely or mostly loose its ability to reduce nutrients naturally just because it was using bacteria as nutrient removal, which is what your trying to say your main concern is right?