vodka dosing??????
- Thread starter nkelr
- Start date
- Tagged users None
customcolor
The coRal nuT
thats some good stuff and i hope you dont tip it into the wrong direction 
take it slow thats all i got to say....watch for the first time you use it cuz it may suck all the oxygen out of your tank and your fish may suffocate..
take it slow thats all i got to say....watch for the first time you use it cuz it may suck all the oxygen out of your tank and your fish may suffocate..
kesslerkid01
Active Member
i would not use good stuff on a fish tank buy the real cheap stuff!!!!!!!!!!
customcolor
The coRal nuT
the more pure the vodka the better
Here is a great article if you are considering vodka dosing:
Vodka Dosing by 'Genetics' and 'Stony_Corals' - Reefkeeping.com
I have been dosing a over a year and half and all I can say is that it works. As stated above start low and go sloooowly. Monitor parameters often and a decent skimmer is a must.
Vodka Dosing by 'Genetics' and 'Stony_Corals' - Reefkeeping.com
I have been dosing a over a year and half and all I can say is that it works. As stated above start low and go sloooowly. Monitor parameters often and a decent skimmer is a must.
Last edited:
kesslerkid01
Active Member
Never did it my self I do know kass does it also jhilebrand was doing it don't know if he still is newmelle was people say is works but it is a slow process
I have tried the mixtures also like vodka/sugar/vinegar, vodka/vinegar, vitamin C. For me the vodka plus Biodigest works the best. I am going to try Microbacter-7 instead of Biodigest when I run out.
nkelr
Active Member
ill have to read in to it more. ive been hearing alot about it and was curious. maybe ill keep the good stuff for me and buy some other stuff. i also got a few bottles of absolute and i think i still got a bottle of stoli. il just have to make sure i dont drink too much of it myself before i go messing with my fish and getting them drink too :wink:
Definitely read up. I read up for several months before I fell off the wagon so to speak. Like Kessler said, get the cheap stuff for the tank and use the top shelf on yourself.... :xd:
Here's a bit of light reading for you from when I touched on carbon dosing in a previous thread:
Carbon dosing:
Bit of background:
I ran a 180 gal DT for over 3 years by using the most common nutrient management methods (skimmer, marcoalgea, carbon, and GFO). The tank was stocked with a moderate amount of various types of fish. Regardless of the amount of food I fed (or stopped feeding) I continued to have excessive algae growth and obvious excessive nutrient issues (stunted coral growth, browning of corals - excess zooxanthellae growth, etc....). In June of 2008 I started the zeo regimen after some VERY thorough research on bacterial proliferation for nutrient management. At that time I saw multiple occasions of people having coral health issues, but I also saw many beautiful tanks that used the zeo process with spectacular results. I couldn't resist trying to replicate those results. Within the first 8 weeks of starting the zeo process I saw spectacular improvement in coral coloration and new growth of corals that had been stunted for months (or even a year or more). Throughout the next several months the nuisance algae in my tank was entirely eradicated (with the exception of the bryopsis (bubble algea). During this time I also dealt with many negative issues such as a pastel color lightening of nearly all my corals and a few occurances of some strange brown baceterial growth on everything. This bacterial growth came as a web-like structure and grew very fast. During my experience with the zeo process the people on the zeo forum were spectacular at guiding my dosing regimen but lacked the ability to suggest treatements or changes to remedy the problems I ran into. They had many suggestions for dosing changes and supplement concoctions to treat the problems, but inevitably all the suggestions failed to cure any ailments I was having with my corals and other inverts (even Mr. Thomas Pohl - founder of KZ - reviewed my situation and was unable to explain the complications or provide a remedy to the chaos his products had caused). That's becuase there was no remedy, the damage was already done. Ultimately, the brown cobwebs were resolved by adding a $150 worth of a CUC focusing specifically on animals whose diets consisted of foraging predominanatly on bacterial growth like cyano. Let me be clear that what I was experiencing wasn't cyano but I thought if these critters ate cyano then thew would likely feed on the bacterial growth I was experiencing (it worked well). The thought from the zeo forums is that my growth was encouraged by my carbon dosing and after many adjustments to my carbon dosing (including ultimately stopping it all together). Since I still had this growth after stopping the carbon source for over many weeks it was clear to me that there was an excess build up of the carbon source or this stuff was being fueled by some other supplement within my dosing regimen (which was still entirely guided by the zeo experts).
After multiple episodes of STN, RTN, lack of PE, and overall poor looking coral health I decided to stop the zeo regimen in August of 2009. I then tried varying doses and varing supplements of other carbon dosing means and had less than desireable results (similar to what the zeo process was creating) so I stopped carbon dosing all together. I then reverted back to growing macroalgea and implemented the use of an algae turf scrubber (ATS). After continuing to do further research on bacterial proliferation being used as the "primary means of nutient management" (this is an important aspect to take notice of) I found many others experiencing the same issues I had experienced.
Ok, enough about my experience let me try to shed some light on the very detailed and in depth process of carbon source dosing for nutrient management:
Many reefers have been using vodka or other means of carbon source dosing for decades without trouble. There is, however, a very distinct difference between how carbon source dosing is used when it's implemented as a supplement to filtration and when it's used aggresively as the primary means of nutrient management. Many reefers who use a carbon source as a "supplement" to their current filtration have no issues with coral bleaching, tissue loss, or overgrowth of undesireable bacterial species (cyano). In nearly all of the instances I've reviewed which implement carbon dosing as a supplement to filtration, the reefers also utilize the growth of macroalgae, GFO, GAC, DSB's and other means of nutrient management in conjuction to the carbon dosing. In these situations, the bacterial growth is still limited by the carbon source being dosed. This is proven by the fact that the algea is still able to grow. If provided with enough of a carbon source, bacteria will continue to utilize nitrates and phosphates to the point at which the levels are so depleted that macro and microalgea don't have enough available nutrients to grow. This is shown in examples of people using the the "marketed bacterial proliferation processes" (zeo, prodibio, fuana marine regimen, neo zeo,etc....) and following their guidelines as recommended. Usually within a few weeks of following these dosing regimens it's required to remove any macroalgea as it will ultimately die off and further pollute the water as it decomposes.
So let me reiterate, there is a huge difference in the common carbon source dosing that has been implemented for decades which is merely a supplement to existing filtration vs the new "marketed systems" that utilize bacterial proliferation aggresively and as the primary means of nutrient reduction. In the traditional means of dosing, other means of filtration essentially limit nutrients and therefore keep bacterial levels in check. In the new carbon dosing systems, the bacterial proliferation goes unchecked with the dosed carbon source being the only means of baceterial proliferation limitation (related to the nitrate and phosphate (almost always) found at much higher levels than NSW.
Let me explain some of the basics to help the above paragraph make more sense. In VERY basic terms, bacteria need three vital nutrients to thrive and proliferate. Those being Phosphate (P), Nitrate (N), and a carbon source (C). In the reefs around the world it's my understanding that these three nutrients are at relatively stable ranges with occasional fluctuations (yearly, seasonal, and daily) depending on the location. Each one of these nutrients can become a limiting factor in the growth of bacteria and the many other organisms that utilize these basic building blocks to grow and reproduce. The corals that grow within the natural reefs are adapted to the nutrient changes as these changes/fluctuations are either routinely very minimal or they are relatively predictable (seasonal). This is a very broad spectrum statement and doesn't encompass the spectacular variety of reef enviornments, but I believe it encompasses the great majoriy of the reefs at which the majority of our corals have originated. When I refer to the corals adaptation I'm also including the process in which the coral compensates for changes that occur with the symbiotic bacteria. This can be an increase or decrease in symbiotic bacterial growth and a resulting increase or decrease in the bacteria's metabolic byproducts. A simple example is zooxanthella producing oxygen as a byproduct. There is speculation that when zoox are exposed to unlimited nutrient sources and their populations go unchecked a side effect is the increased production of oxygen which is theorized to irritate corals at high levels related to it's oxidative properties. That is just one small example and doesn't nearly begin to encompass all the potential reactions that can occur when symbiotic bacterial populations go unchecked. It's my understanding that symbiotic bacteria grow on and within the corals tissue and there is a very delicate and complicated interaction between the corals and these bacteria. Unfortunatley there is little to no reseach (that I'm aware of) to show how corals react when these bacterial populations go unchecked (like when we dose a large amount of a carbon source).
Ok, now lets relate this to our home aquarium where circumstances are extremely different from nature. First of all, the amount of dissolved organic compounds (DOC's) is SIGNIFICATNLY higher in most aquariums in comparison to natural reefs. Becuase the DOC levels are at such a higher level (from nature) there are metabolic processes and chemical reactions that we expose our corals to that they normally wouldn't be exposed to in nature.
continued...
Carbon dosing:
Bit of background:
I ran a 180 gal DT for over 3 years by using the most common nutrient management methods (skimmer, marcoalgea, carbon, and GFO). The tank was stocked with a moderate amount of various types of fish. Regardless of the amount of food I fed (or stopped feeding) I continued to have excessive algae growth and obvious excessive nutrient issues (stunted coral growth, browning of corals - excess zooxanthellae growth, etc....). In June of 2008 I started the zeo regimen after some VERY thorough research on bacterial proliferation for nutrient management. At that time I saw multiple occasions of people having coral health issues, but I also saw many beautiful tanks that used the zeo process with spectacular results. I couldn't resist trying to replicate those results. Within the first 8 weeks of starting the zeo process I saw spectacular improvement in coral coloration and new growth of corals that had been stunted for months (or even a year or more). Throughout the next several months the nuisance algae in my tank was entirely eradicated (with the exception of the bryopsis (bubble algea). During this time I also dealt with many negative issues such as a pastel color lightening of nearly all my corals and a few occurances of some strange brown baceterial growth on everything. This bacterial growth came as a web-like structure and grew very fast. During my experience with the zeo process the people on the zeo forum were spectacular at guiding my dosing regimen but lacked the ability to suggest treatements or changes to remedy the problems I ran into. They had many suggestions for dosing changes and supplement concoctions to treat the problems, but inevitably all the suggestions failed to cure any ailments I was having with my corals and other inverts (even Mr. Thomas Pohl - founder of KZ - reviewed my situation and was unable to explain the complications or provide a remedy to the chaos his products had caused). That's becuase there was no remedy, the damage was already done. Ultimately, the brown cobwebs were resolved by adding a $150 worth of a CUC focusing specifically on animals whose diets consisted of foraging predominanatly on bacterial growth like cyano. Let me be clear that what I was experiencing wasn't cyano but I thought if these critters ate cyano then thew would likely feed on the bacterial growth I was experiencing (it worked well). The thought from the zeo forums is that my growth was encouraged by my carbon dosing and after many adjustments to my carbon dosing (including ultimately stopping it all together). Since I still had this growth after stopping the carbon source for over many weeks it was clear to me that there was an excess build up of the carbon source or this stuff was being fueled by some other supplement within my dosing regimen (which was still entirely guided by the zeo experts).
After multiple episodes of STN, RTN, lack of PE, and overall poor looking coral health I decided to stop the zeo regimen in August of 2009. I then tried varying doses and varing supplements of other carbon dosing means and had less than desireable results (similar to what the zeo process was creating) so I stopped carbon dosing all together. I then reverted back to growing macroalgea and implemented the use of an algae turf scrubber (ATS). After continuing to do further research on bacterial proliferation being used as the "primary means of nutient management" (this is an important aspect to take notice of) I found many others experiencing the same issues I had experienced.
Ok, enough about my experience let me try to shed some light on the very detailed and in depth process of carbon source dosing for nutrient management:
Many reefers have been using vodka or other means of carbon source dosing for decades without trouble. There is, however, a very distinct difference between how carbon source dosing is used when it's implemented as a supplement to filtration and when it's used aggresively as the primary means of nutrient management. Many reefers who use a carbon source as a "supplement" to their current filtration have no issues with coral bleaching, tissue loss, or overgrowth of undesireable bacterial species (cyano). In nearly all of the instances I've reviewed which implement carbon dosing as a supplement to filtration, the reefers also utilize the growth of macroalgae, GFO, GAC, DSB's and other means of nutrient management in conjuction to the carbon dosing. In these situations, the bacterial growth is still limited by the carbon source being dosed. This is proven by the fact that the algea is still able to grow. If provided with enough of a carbon source, bacteria will continue to utilize nitrates and phosphates to the point at which the levels are so depleted that macro and microalgea don't have enough available nutrients to grow. This is shown in examples of people using the the "marketed bacterial proliferation processes" (zeo, prodibio, fuana marine regimen, neo zeo,etc....) and following their guidelines as recommended. Usually within a few weeks of following these dosing regimens it's required to remove any macroalgea as it will ultimately die off and further pollute the water as it decomposes.
So let me reiterate, there is a huge difference in the common carbon source dosing that has been implemented for decades which is merely a supplement to existing filtration vs the new "marketed systems" that utilize bacterial proliferation aggresively and as the primary means of nutrient reduction. In the traditional means of dosing, other means of filtration essentially limit nutrients and therefore keep bacterial levels in check. In the new carbon dosing systems, the bacterial proliferation goes unchecked with the dosed carbon source being the only means of baceterial proliferation limitation (related to the nitrate and phosphate (almost always) found at much higher levels than NSW.
Let me explain some of the basics to help the above paragraph make more sense. In VERY basic terms, bacteria need three vital nutrients to thrive and proliferate. Those being Phosphate (P), Nitrate (N), and a carbon source (C). In the reefs around the world it's my understanding that these three nutrients are at relatively stable ranges with occasional fluctuations (yearly, seasonal, and daily) depending on the location. Each one of these nutrients can become a limiting factor in the growth of bacteria and the many other organisms that utilize these basic building blocks to grow and reproduce. The corals that grow within the natural reefs are adapted to the nutrient changes as these changes/fluctuations are either routinely very minimal or they are relatively predictable (seasonal). This is a very broad spectrum statement and doesn't encompass the spectacular variety of reef enviornments, but I believe it encompasses the great majoriy of the reefs at which the majority of our corals have originated. When I refer to the corals adaptation I'm also including the process in which the coral compensates for changes that occur with the symbiotic bacteria. This can be an increase or decrease in symbiotic bacterial growth and a resulting increase or decrease in the bacteria's metabolic byproducts. A simple example is zooxanthella producing oxygen as a byproduct. There is speculation that when zoox are exposed to unlimited nutrient sources and their populations go unchecked a side effect is the increased production of oxygen which is theorized to irritate corals at high levels related to it's oxidative properties. That is just one small example and doesn't nearly begin to encompass all the potential reactions that can occur when symbiotic bacterial populations go unchecked. It's my understanding that symbiotic bacteria grow on and within the corals tissue and there is a very delicate and complicated interaction between the corals and these bacteria. Unfortunatley there is little to no reseach (that I'm aware of) to show how corals react when these bacterial populations go unchecked (like when we dose a large amount of a carbon source).
Ok, now lets relate this to our home aquarium where circumstances are extremely different from nature. First of all, the amount of dissolved organic compounds (DOC's) is SIGNIFICATNLY higher in most aquariums in comparison to natural reefs. Becuase the DOC levels are at such a higher level (from nature) there are metabolic processes and chemical reactions that we expose our corals to that they normally wouldn't be exposed to in nature.
continued...
(a bit more info)
Let's just look at some basic DOC's to simplify this discussion. I'll only refer to N, P, and C since they are most pertinent and basic nutrient needs for bacterial proliferation. First of all, the test kits that we use to monitor N and P (including photometers) are grossly inaccurate when we need to look at these nutrients at very low levels. They are generally sufficient to give us an idea if N or P are very high, but are often poor at giving us accurate results at the low ranges. With this being said, when people reply "I've got major algea growth but my P and N are undetectable" I take the test readings with a grain of salt not only becuase what we have to measure these nutrients with are spectacularly inaccurate, but becuase there are many other reasons that our tests can legitimately show little to no N or P while the nutrients are truly very prevalent. A typical scenario, but not the only one, is a tank full of hair algae with no detectable N or P. The next legitimate question is how do we detect N and P levels if our tests are inaccurate or can be skewed for various reasons. I won't go into detail about that in this thread but if anyone is interested in hearing my opinion, feel free to strart a new thread and give me a heads up. In very simple terms, if there are excess nutrients present you'll have algae growing or very brown corals (zooxanthellae overgrowth is another common scenario in which nutrients are undetectable with test kits but there is definately a presence of excess nutrients. This isn't as extreme as the hair algea scenario, but zoox overgrowth can also skew test kit readings.)
The major difference to point out is that in a natural reef there are three major limiting factors to the growth of these symbiotic bacteria (N, P, and C). In 99% of hobbyists reef tanks the N and P aren't even close to levels at which they can be a limiting growth factor for bacteria therefore when we add a third critial nutrient to the equation (C) the symbiotic bacteria can grow far out of proportion than is likely in a natural reef setting. Again, there is no research so show exactly what occurs, but it's theorized and commonly accepted that the overgrowth of these symbiotic bacteria can be very harmful to the corals and cause illness/irritation significant enough to cause coral death.
Another downfall to aggressive carbon source dosing is it's potential to stimulate the growth of pathogenic bacteria. In a recent book I read, Tyree highlighted a scenario in 1996 in which many tanks were wiped out with total loss of all inverts and the cause was highly implicated (but not proven) to be a species of vibrio bacteria. Many tanks implementing ozone injection, UV sterilization, and high levels of sponge growth went unaffected becuase these means of filtration keep bacterial levels (in the water column) in check. This leads me to believe that there can certainly be pathogenic bacteria within our systems yet our current filtation/bacterial growth limiting methods may be preventing the pathogenic bacteria from causing any infections or outbreaks. Dosing a carbon source, at any dose, can certainly cause these bacteria to become prevalent enough to overcome the current bacteria growth limiting factors and cause widespread coral illness.
Ok, let me recap some points and address a few comments posted.
1) Low amounts of carbon dosing to induce bacterial proliferation used as a means to "supplement" existing filtration creates an entirely different enrironment than when carbon dosing is used in large quantities to be the primary means of nutrient management (these systems often lower nutrients so low that marcoralgea and microalgea cannot grow). With aggressive bacterial growth, it's hypothesized that there is an imbalance created between the corals and their symbiotic bacteria or the bacteria's metabolic byproducts. This is only a hypothesis and essentially cannot be proven (at this point) due to the intricate and delicate relationships between the corals and the symbiotic bacteria.
2) A major difference between symbiotic bacterial growth in a natural reef vs our reef aquarium is that essentially a carbon source is the only limiting growth factor in an aquarium, while in nature, N, P, and C levels are all limiting factors. In nature there is a level of equilibrium and in our reef tanks (99% of them) there is a much larger amount of N and P therefore when we introduce a carbon source there are no other significant factors to keep the symbiotic bacterial levels in check.
Even though a level of carbon dosing has been around for years, it's predominatly been used to supplement filtration as opposed to being the primary means of filtation. When its used as a primary means of filtration there is much more potential for negative outcomes like what I've discussed. As for the examples of crashes, it only takes a few minutes to search "carbon dosing" or "vodka dosing" threads to find examples of people having widespread comlications often leading to coral death. If you check out the zeo forum and actually read some of the 40+ page threads that are generated when a person implements the zeo process, it will be very hard to find any thread that hasn't had an episode of coral death, bleaching, or major complication related to the dosing process. Keep in mind, these people are also following the strict guidance of the dosing suggestions provided by the zeo experts. Take a look at the zeo forum and you'll see what I mean if you spend the time to read the long threads. Bill's (siropa's) tank is a perfect example of a major crash after following strict guidance and dosing routines provided by the zeo experts. His tank was spectacular until he implemented bacterial proliferation as the primary means of nutrient reduction and aggressively dosed a carbon source as indicated by the zeo process.
A major part of the problem with significant carbon dosing is that by the time a coral reacts negatively and tells us something is wrong, the bacterial growth is already too intense and will likley be several days or weeks before we are able to limit the damage and do anything to improve the corals health. This essentially means there is a usually a snowball effect once a negative reaction is observed and there will likely be further stress and and illness before things improve. (This is relating to tanks dosing high amounts of a carbon source as the primary means of nutrient reduction. This usually isn't seen when using carbon dosing as a supplement to filtration because the bacterial levels are kept in check by various factors).
Yes it is very cheap but not always safe. I've posted enough above to emphasize my point on this subject but it essentially comes down to the amount of carbon being dosed and the way that bacterial proliferation is implemented. As far as the tank crashes, there are plenty. If you still don't believe me then do some of the searches I suggested and you'll find plenty of examples in which carbon dosing has caused coral illness and death (sometimes on a large scale) "when used aggressively as the primary means of nutrient management" (that's the key). You are definately correct that many troubles come from misguided and haphazard dosing. That will, inevitably lead to trouble.
Dan this is a spectacular observation and I have a theory about it not too far off from yours. When we dose a carbon source to a tank we proliferate the growth of any bacteria within the tank. By mixing the sugar with the food we may be creating some bacterial proliferation within the food mixture which is an excellent source of food for many inverts (as you indicated). The catch here is that the amount of sugar dosed and the fact that it is mixed "in with the food". This leads me to believe it doesn't provide a significant amount of bacterial proliferation within the tank but a larger amount of bacterial proliferation within the food concoction itsself . This partially negates the sugars potential effects on the corals symbiotic bacteria (becuase it's partially used up by the time the food is fed to the tank) and primarily acts as a fuel source for bacteria growing within the food mix (which will then also become a food source).
continued....
Let's just look at some basic DOC's to simplify this discussion. I'll only refer to N, P, and C since they are most pertinent and basic nutrient needs for bacterial proliferation. First of all, the test kits that we use to monitor N and P (including photometers) are grossly inaccurate when we need to look at these nutrients at very low levels. They are generally sufficient to give us an idea if N or P are very high, but are often poor at giving us accurate results at the low ranges. With this being said, when people reply "I've got major algea growth but my P and N are undetectable" I take the test readings with a grain of salt not only becuase what we have to measure these nutrients with are spectacularly inaccurate, but becuase there are many other reasons that our tests can legitimately show little to no N or P while the nutrients are truly very prevalent. A typical scenario, but not the only one, is a tank full of hair algae with no detectable N or P. The next legitimate question is how do we detect N and P levels if our tests are inaccurate or can be skewed for various reasons. I won't go into detail about that in this thread but if anyone is interested in hearing my opinion, feel free to strart a new thread and give me a heads up. In very simple terms, if there are excess nutrients present you'll have algae growing or very brown corals (zooxanthellae overgrowth is another common scenario in which nutrients are undetectable with test kits but there is definately a presence of excess nutrients. This isn't as extreme as the hair algea scenario, but zoox overgrowth can also skew test kit readings.)
The major difference to point out is that in a natural reef there are three major limiting factors to the growth of these symbiotic bacteria (N, P, and C). In 99% of hobbyists reef tanks the N and P aren't even close to levels at which they can be a limiting growth factor for bacteria therefore when we add a third critial nutrient to the equation (C) the symbiotic bacteria can grow far out of proportion than is likely in a natural reef setting. Again, there is no research so show exactly what occurs, but it's theorized and commonly accepted that the overgrowth of these symbiotic bacteria can be very harmful to the corals and cause illness/irritation significant enough to cause coral death.
Another downfall to aggressive carbon source dosing is it's potential to stimulate the growth of pathogenic bacteria. In a recent book I read, Tyree highlighted a scenario in 1996 in which many tanks were wiped out with total loss of all inverts and the cause was highly implicated (but not proven) to be a species of vibrio bacteria. Many tanks implementing ozone injection, UV sterilization, and high levels of sponge growth went unaffected becuase these means of filtration keep bacterial levels (in the water column) in check. This leads me to believe that there can certainly be pathogenic bacteria within our systems yet our current filtation/bacterial growth limiting methods may be preventing the pathogenic bacteria from causing any infections or outbreaks. Dosing a carbon source, at any dose, can certainly cause these bacteria to become prevalent enough to overcome the current bacteria growth limiting factors and cause widespread coral illness.
Ok, let me recap some points and address a few comments posted.
1) Low amounts of carbon dosing to induce bacterial proliferation used as a means to "supplement" existing filtration creates an entirely different enrironment than when carbon dosing is used in large quantities to be the primary means of nutrient management (these systems often lower nutrients so low that marcoralgea and microalgea cannot grow). With aggressive bacterial growth, it's hypothesized that there is an imbalance created between the corals and their symbiotic bacteria or the bacteria's metabolic byproducts. This is only a hypothesis and essentially cannot be proven (at this point) due to the intricate and delicate relationships between the corals and the symbiotic bacteria.
2) A major difference between symbiotic bacterial growth in a natural reef vs our reef aquarium is that essentially a carbon source is the only limiting growth factor in an aquarium, while in nature, N, P, and C levels are all limiting factors. In nature there is a level of equilibrium and in our reef tanks (99% of them) there is a much larger amount of N and P therefore when we introduce a carbon source there are no other significant factors to keep the symbiotic bacterial levels in check.
Even though a level of carbon dosing has been around for years, it's predominatly been used to supplement filtration as opposed to being the primary means of filtation. When its used as a primary means of filtration there is much more potential for negative outcomes like what I've discussed. As for the examples of crashes, it only takes a few minutes to search "carbon dosing" or "vodka dosing" threads to find examples of people having widespread comlications often leading to coral death. If you check out the zeo forum and actually read some of the 40+ page threads that are generated when a person implements the zeo process, it will be very hard to find any thread that hasn't had an episode of coral death, bleaching, or major complication related to the dosing process. Keep in mind, these people are also following the strict guidance of the dosing suggestions provided by the zeo experts. Take a look at the zeo forum and you'll see what I mean if you spend the time to read the long threads. Bill's (siropa's) tank is a perfect example of a major crash after following strict guidance and dosing routines provided by the zeo experts. His tank was spectacular until he implemented bacterial proliferation as the primary means of nutrient reduction and aggressively dosed a carbon source as indicated by the zeo process.
A major part of the problem with significant carbon dosing is that by the time a coral reacts negatively and tells us something is wrong, the bacterial growth is already too intense and will likley be several days or weeks before we are able to limit the damage and do anything to improve the corals health. This essentially means there is a usually a snowball effect once a negative reaction is observed and there will likely be further stress and and illness before things improve. (This is relating to tanks dosing high amounts of a carbon source as the primary means of nutrient reduction. This usually isn't seen when using carbon dosing as a supplement to filtration because the bacterial levels are kept in check by various factors).
Yes it is very cheap but not always safe. I've posted enough above to emphasize my point on this subject but it essentially comes down to the amount of carbon being dosed and the way that bacterial proliferation is implemented. As far as the tank crashes, there are plenty. If you still don't believe me then do some of the searches I suggested and you'll find plenty of examples in which carbon dosing has caused coral illness and death (sometimes on a large scale) "when used aggressively as the primary means of nutrient management" (that's the key). You are definately correct that many troubles come from misguided and haphazard dosing. That will, inevitably lead to trouble.
Dan this is a spectacular observation and I have a theory about it not too far off from yours. When we dose a carbon source to a tank we proliferate the growth of any bacteria within the tank. By mixing the sugar with the food we may be creating some bacterial proliferation within the food mixture which is an excellent source of food for many inverts (as you indicated). The catch here is that the amount of sugar dosed and the fact that it is mixed "in with the food". This leads me to believe it doesn't provide a significant amount of bacterial proliferation within the tank but a larger amount of bacterial proliferation within the food concoction itsself . This partially negates the sugars potential effects on the corals symbiotic bacteria (becuase it's partially used up by the time the food is fed to the tank) and primarily acts as a fuel source for bacteria growing within the food mix (which will then also become a food source).
continued....
(and a bit more)
Oh the potassium concept!!! I'm not going to go into much detail on this becuase that discussion can be a thread of it's own (if anyone wants to hear my perspective start a thread and give me jingle). Essentially there are no studies or literature to show potassium is or is not an important aspect in coral tissue or skeletal growth. The only information out there on this topic is the marketing information that the companies (which are trying to sell potassium supplements and potassium test kits) have posted. Another round of applause for marketing which has made reefers spend more money on rediculous tests and supplements. There are reefers that have dosed potassium and claim to have seen every reaction under the sun (increased growth, better coloration, lower nutrients, better skimming, better polyp ext, less PE, decreased skimming, so on and so on). People will see what they want to see. If good marketing has convinced you a product will do what you want it to do, then your far more prone to convince yourself that you see those results (basic psychology). If a placebo test was performed I'm sure you'd see the same replies as those making claims about what potassium dosing has done for their tank. There may be some study that comes out in the future indicating that potassium is a critical element to be dosing but I doubt it. A point of mention is that the companies pushing potassium dosing and testing are the same ones with regimens for strong bacterial proliferation for nutrient management. In those systems, there have been claims that potassium has an affinity for zeolites, that bacterial metabolic processes deplete potassium levels, and a hundred other unsubstantiated claims. I'll reiterate that there is no evidence to show corals are healthier or grow better when potassium is maintained at NSW values (380-400) or when they are kept far lower (100-200) or far higher (500-600).
In hind sight, I now know that the initial results I saw after starting the zeo process were related to the major reduction in bound and free nutrients. The increase in coloration was nothing more than a slight degree of bleaching (which ultimately continued to progress and killed many of my corals). I was a victim of falling into the trap of good marketing. I saw what I wanted to see because the marketing told me what I wanted to hear. I now realize that what I was really seeing was unnatural coral coloration and a slow downward spiral of my many of my corals health.
Hope all this info was beneficial. I'll be happy to discuss or clarify any aspect further. I can also site sources for the facts I've claimed however the majority of what I've written cannot be proven, but is widely accepted as legitimate theories in the reefing community (that is unless you talk to the people/companies marketing the products. LOL!!)
Jeremy
Oh the potassium concept!!! I'm not going to go into much detail on this becuase that discussion can be a thread of it's own (if anyone wants to hear my perspective start a thread and give me jingle). Essentially there are no studies or literature to show potassium is or is not an important aspect in coral tissue or skeletal growth. The only information out there on this topic is the marketing information that the companies (which are trying to sell potassium supplements and potassium test kits) have posted. Another round of applause for marketing which has made reefers spend more money on rediculous tests and supplements. There are reefers that have dosed potassium and claim to have seen every reaction under the sun (increased growth, better coloration, lower nutrients, better skimming, better polyp ext, less PE, decreased skimming, so on and so on). People will see what they want to see. If good marketing has convinced you a product will do what you want it to do, then your far more prone to convince yourself that you see those results (basic psychology). If a placebo test was performed I'm sure you'd see the same replies as those making claims about what potassium dosing has done for their tank. There may be some study that comes out in the future indicating that potassium is a critical element to be dosing but I doubt it. A point of mention is that the companies pushing potassium dosing and testing are the same ones with regimens for strong bacterial proliferation for nutrient management. In those systems, there have been claims that potassium has an affinity for zeolites, that bacterial metabolic processes deplete potassium levels, and a hundred other unsubstantiated claims. I'll reiterate that there is no evidence to show corals are healthier or grow better when potassium is maintained at NSW values (380-400) or when they are kept far lower (100-200) or far higher (500-600).
In hind sight, I now know that the initial results I saw after starting the zeo process were related to the major reduction in bound and free nutrients. The increase in coloration was nothing more than a slight degree of bleaching (which ultimately continued to progress and killed many of my corals). I was a victim of falling into the trap of good marketing. I saw what I wanted to see because the marketing told me what I wanted to hear. I now realize that what I was really seeing was unnatural coral coloration and a slow downward spiral of my many of my corals health.
Hope all this info was beneficial. I'll be happy to discuss or clarify any aspect further. I can also site sources for the facts I've claimed however the majority of what I've written cannot be proven, but is widely accepted as legitimate theories in the reefing community (that is unless you talk to the people/companies marketing the products. LOL!!)
Jeremy
Oh yeah, here's a bit more I found stored away in my own little archives. Again, comments and info I posted on various carbon dosing threads.
These burnt tips usually occur when there is extensive dosing occuring or carbon dosing is the primary means of nutrient export. In most cases that I've read, people who use carbon dosing as a small addition to filtration don't have trouble maintaining proper coral health with alk levels upwards of even 10-12 dkh.
I personally won't dose a carbon source (even supplementally) until there is further research done. I think since there are so many major marketed carbon dosing systems there will likely be some research down the road. These companies can't continue on selling their products saying it does what it does becuase I say it does and have no evidence to support their statements.
In my response, I was very much trying to imply that dosing as a supplement to filtration is generally safer than a stand alone means of filtration. As a supplement to filtration, carbon dosing can still encourage the growth of unwanted or harmful bacteria as well as disrupt the balance between the corals and their symbiotic bacteria.
The long term effects of carbon dosing hasn't been studied nor will there ever be any applicable studies for us reefers to use as a guide becuase each reef tank is so different in animal diversity and nutrient load (both stored and immediately present). There is a fine line when you get to the upper limits of dosing and great caution must be taken. Even if all the caution in the world was taken you will still be adding to the levels TOC's (total organic compounds) and this can create a wide variety of good and bad reactions depending on the type of compounds and the animals that may be using them as a nutrient source. Do you really know if all the vodka your dosing is being used up or is it possibly accumulating to some degree?? Could it be bound to another molecule creating a molecular chain that can be broken in the future re-releasing the bound carbon?? I sure don't know, nobody knows at this point since there has been so little research that has been done on dosing a carbon source into a reef microcosm. Unfortuanately there is no test to check your carbon levels. There is a way to test total DOC's in your water column, but it's a test that needs to be done by a laboratory (unfortunately no little hobby test kit) and I'm sure it's very expensive and also (most importantly) doesn't account for the nutrients bound to the aragonite or LR.
We want the bacteria to work for us however, we have no control over what species of bacteria we're feeding with the carbon source.
Kalk isn't a really good comparison to carbon dosing becuase there has been so much research done on the exact chemistry of kalk and how it interacts with our tanks inhabitants and how it directly affects our water chemistry. I see your point though and it is easy to get carried away with dosing "stuff". "Hmm wonder if I could get a little better growth if I dosed just a bit more of ???this????". Then a few days later your dealing with an algae bloom and STN!! Been there done that. LOL!!
Thanks for the further detail Dan. I agree. I was leaving K+ out to simplify things a bit.
In regards to K+ levels in a tank being a limiting growth factor, I'd really be interested if you could find me some research. Myself and many others have seached extensively and found no hard core facts surrounding the subject, only assumptions. If a person thinks K+ may be a limiting health factor, I would suggest buying one of the two crappy hobby kits available to us and measure where your water is currently at (ignore the numerical factor that the kit gives you - it means nothing since the validity of the tests have had no evaluation - at all) then increase the levels incrementally and simply observe the animals reactions. I should have clarified, I'm not against K+ dosing, but wanted to make the point that there is no sound literature to prove any benefit to dosing into a reef tank (only marketing hype).
Your point about K+ being a basic building block is an important note and likely why there are so many claims that tanks with high levels of bacterial proliferation claaim to be K+ deficient. The bacteria are using it up and then they are being exported through the skimmer.
Not trying to argue, but are all tanks K+ levels far below normal?? How do you know that?? The validity of the two hobby kits is pathetic and the only reputable laboratory K+ test is included in a $75 array of trace element testing. Do you know that K+ levels below NSW levels are truly inhibiting any metabolic processes?? I'd love to read about that if you have any links.
continued.....(big surprise huh!)
..Originally Posted by Jhildebrand
To address the last question first, the alk is kept at 7-8 dkh due to what I've read about burnt tips on SPS with carbon dosing and high alk. Before dosing my alk was normally 10-11 dkh. A good majority of what I have are small colonies and frags and for now it's just a caution.
These burnt tips usually occur when there is extensive dosing occuring or carbon dosing is the primary means of nutrient export. In most cases that I've read, people who use carbon dosing as a small addition to filtration don't have trouble maintaining proper coral health with alk levels upwards of even 10-12 dkh.
Originally Posted by Jhildebrand
What really got me thinking and starting this thread was the comment made on being against the carbon dosing. If I'm understanding correctly though I think you're saying that it's not a bad additional method, but not advised to be the only method of ridding the tank of excess nutrients?
I personally won't dose a carbon source (even supplementally) until there is further research done. I think since there are so many major marketed carbon dosing systems there will likely be some research down the road. These companies can't continue on selling their products saying it does what it does becuase I say it does and have no evidence to support their statements.
In my response, I was very much trying to imply that dosing as a supplement to filtration is generally safer than a stand alone means of filtration. As a supplement to filtration, carbon dosing can still encourage the growth of unwanted or harmful bacteria as well as disrupt the balance between the corals and their symbiotic bacteria.
Originally Posted by Jhildebrand
Which leads me to my next question: After all the research you've done, is there any reason why one shouldn't dose small amounts of vodka long-term in addition to the other methods of controlling nutrient build up? I couldn't find any cases showing this to be detrimental when used with common sense as part of a bigger filtering picture. I've read plenty of cautionary tales about the evils of carbon dosing, but in almost every case, the doser was the cause of the problem. We're our reef's own worst enemy.
The long term effects of carbon dosing hasn't been studied nor will there ever be any applicable studies for us reefers to use as a guide becuase each reef tank is so different in animal diversity and nutrient load (both stored and immediately present). There is a fine line when you get to the upper limits of dosing and great caution must be taken. Even if all the caution in the world was taken you will still be adding to the levels TOC's (total organic compounds) and this can create a wide variety of good and bad reactions depending on the type of compounds and the animals that may be using them as a nutrient source. Do you really know if all the vodka your dosing is being used up or is it possibly accumulating to some degree?? Could it be bound to another molecule creating a molecular chain that can be broken in the future re-releasing the bound carbon?? I sure don't know, nobody knows at this point since there has been so little research that has been done on dosing a carbon source into a reef microcosm. Unfortuanately there is no test to check your carbon levels. There is a way to test total DOC's in your water column, but it's a test that needs to be done by a laboratory (unfortunately no little hobby test kit) and I'm sure it's very expensive and also (most importantly) doesn't account for the nutrients bound to the aragonite or LR.
Originally Posted by Jhildebrand
Might as well make the bacteria work for us if they're in there, right? I can see the results in my skimmer and I'd be hard pressed to turn back now. You can overdose kalk too, but that's not a good reason to not dose it. Too much of almost any additive can cause irreversible harm to a reef...
We want the bacteria to work for us however, we have no control over what species of bacteria we're feeding with the carbon source.
Kalk isn't a really good comparison to carbon dosing becuase there has been so much research done on the exact chemistry of kalk and how it interacts with our tanks inhabitants and how it directly affects our water chemistry. I see your point though and it is easy to get carried away with dosing "stuff". "Hmm wonder if I could get a little better growth if I dosed just a bit more of ???this????". Then a few days later your dealing with an algae bloom and STN!! Been there done that. LOL!!
Originally Posted by daddavis1
Just real quick, NPK are the major nutrients utilized by both plants and animals for growth C is the fuel and also a key component in cellular structure. Sources of carbon for tissue development animal matter food, Plant matter food or sugar. The CO2 <> CO3 in the marine environment is mainly utilized in calcification as a waste product of oxygen production by the zooanthae.
Cellular membranes cellular functions cellular nutrient requirements are the same you need fuel and the building blocks for protiens and enzymes. In most instances NPK are not balanced and growth is limited.
Thanks for the further detail Dan. I agree. I was leaving K+ out to simplify things a bit.
In regards to K+ levels in a tank being a limiting growth factor, I'd really be interested if you could find me some research. Myself and many others have seached extensively and found no hard core facts surrounding the subject, only assumptions. If a person thinks K+ may be a limiting health factor, I would suggest buying one of the two crappy hobby kits available to us and measure where your water is currently at (ignore the numerical factor that the kit gives you - it means nothing since the validity of the tests have had no evaluation - at all) then increase the levels incrementally and simply observe the animals reactions. I should have clarified, I'm not against K+ dosing, but wanted to make the point that there is no sound literature to prove any benefit to dosing into a reef tank (only marketing hype).
Your point about K+ being a basic building block is an important note and likely why there are so many claims that tanks with high levels of bacterial proliferation claaim to be K+ deficient. The bacteria are using it up and then they are being exported through the skimmer.
Originally Posted by daddavis1
there is certainly well below natural amounts of Potassium disolved in the water column.
Not trying to argue, but are all tanks K+ levels far below normal?? How do you know that?? The validity of the two hobby kits is pathetic and the only reputable laboratory K+ test is included in a $75 array of trace element testing. Do you know that K+ levels below NSW levels are truly inhibiting any metabolic processes?? I'd love to read about that if you have any links.
continued.....(big surprise huh!)
Originally Posted by daddavis1
Just Coral is designed for live food capture in an environment where that is principally where all the nutrients reside, Not much is disolved in the water. So it makes sense to encourage growth of live food inside the tank itself to prevent nutrient availability to algae and present it to corals as readily available living food.
Yes corals are designed to capture live prey, but they also have the ability to absorb nutrients directly from the water column.
Can corals really pull AA's directly from the water column?? - Reef Central Online Community
Limiting the nutrients in the water column that algea will use to grow will be more beneficial then limiting all nutrients since corals do derive a great deal of nutrition through absorption from the water column. A good example of this is if we limit PO4 very significantly. Po4 is a vital nutrient in the growth of many types of nuisance algae yet it inhibits calcification of corals at even low levels. By limiting this one nutrient we can have a big impact on undesireable algea growth while leaving other nutrients in the water for the other fauna to consume. ***This is just a very basic example and many details and possibile effects were left out for the sake of simplicity***
I very much agree that encouraging the growth of live food is very beneficial. Growing live foods (pods or algea) is also great for nutrient export.
Originally Posted by Jhildebrand
One thing is for sure: On a big system, a mistake can mean a big mess. I can't imagine a major disease outbreak, pest issue, or algae explosion on this volume of water. I've torn down more than one tank in the past 16 years, but 20 to 55 gallons pales in comparison...
This is partly why I'm staying away from any carbon dosing. I don't want 700 gallons of vibrio or any other pathogenic bacterial proliferation.
Originally Posted by Paul_PSU
I think the one main thing that people need to understand besides being patient and taking it slowly is that no two systems are alike. What dosage works for one doesn't work for others. You can even have the same size system with similar bioloads and the dosage could still be different.
+1 I agree!!
Originally Posted by customcolor
granted its good to go big but you need to know where your limits are....look what happened to bill.....if he would have had his frag pond on a separate system his tank could have ben saved
Not necessarily. There could have already been significant damage done before the corals showed any signs. The carbon dosing could have increased symbioitic bacterial levels to dangerous levels before the excessive growth or release of their byproducts is evidenced as illness in the corals. In my battles throughout my zeo days, I often experienced troubles primarily relating to the excess start2 (carbon source) dosing. Nearly every time this occurred I continued to see increased coral illness and health degeneration up to 2 weeks after the last dose of start2. I can't say for sure if this was related to the overgrowth of symbiotic bacteria or if it was related to severely depleted nutrient levels but when this occurred I dose AA's heavily (as directed by the zeo experts) to limit any harm from excessive nutrient depletion. I would then have increased algae growth related to the AA's leading me to believe there was yet another factor continuing to harm the corals (symbiotic bacteria overgrowth??? Who knows.)
Yes absolutely. Wet skimming would be the very first means of nutrient management I would suggest. I didn't recommend that to John thinking he likely already maxed out what his skimmer can do.
Wet skimming is highly suggested in the "marketed bacterial proliferation systems" because it helps export the bacteria that have consumed the nutrients.
Jeremy
nkelr
Active Member
wow thanks for all the info jeremy. it will take me about a week to read all of what you posted. just out of curiousity how long did it take you to type all that stuff 
im just trying to find different ideas of keeping my trates in check. got them down to about 60 or so, by just doing 10 gal water changes every other day, but thats where they stay. briguy suggested taking out all the rock and washing it in tank water and putting it back in, but i think that would stress out my tank too much and i really dont want to rearange my tank. i finally got it to where everything fits nicely. ill save that for a last resort. maybe ill try another 2 weeks of water changes.
im just trying to find different ideas of keeping my trates in check. got them down to about 60 or so, by just doing 10 gal water changes every other day, but thats where they stay. briguy suggested taking out all the rock and washing it in tank water and putting it back in, but i think that would stress out my tank too much and i really dont want to rearange my tank. i finally got it to where everything fits nicely. ill save that for a last resort. maybe ill try another 2 weeks of water changes.
It initially took a while to type all that, but today I just copied and pasted from my personal info archives.
I've got lots of ideas on managing your nitrates, but I'm at work right now and don't have much time. I'll check back tonight with some suggestions.
To give you suggestions, it will help if you give us as much info as possible about your system:
feeding regimen
exact n and P levels
previous water change routine
amount and sizes of fish
total volume
current means of filtration
amount of algae growth and type/description of algea
macroalgae growth
etc.... (the more info the better)
Jeremy
I've got lots of ideas on managing your nitrates, but I'm at work right now and don't have much time. I'll check back tonight with some suggestions.
To give you suggestions, it will help if you give us as much info as possible about your system:
feeding regimen
exact n and P levels
previous water change routine
amount and sizes of fish
total volume
current means of filtration
amount of algae growth and type/description of algea
macroalgae growth
etc.... (the more info the better)
Jeremy
If you want to learn about "carbon source dosing" then read the artical that PaulPSU linked to and read the info that I posted. If you just want to focus on managing nitrates then these articles will help.
Nitrite and the Reef Aquarium by Randy Holmes-Farley - Reefkeeping.com
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/august2003/chem.htm
Aquarium Frontiers Library
The “How To†Guide to Reef Aquarium Chemistry for Beginners Part 4: What Chemicals May Detrimentally Accumulate by Randy Holmes-Farley - Reefkeeping.com
Chemistry and the Aquarium
Organic Compounds in the Reef Aquarium by Randy Holmes-Farley - Reefkeeping.com
Skimming by RHF
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/sept2002/chem.htm
Just a little more light reading. LOL!!
Jeremy
Nitrite and the Reef Aquarium by Randy Holmes-Farley - Reefkeeping.com
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/august2003/chem.htm
Aquarium Frontiers Library
The “How To†Guide to Reef Aquarium Chemistry for Beginners Part 4: What Chemicals May Detrimentally Accumulate by Randy Holmes-Farley - Reefkeeping.com
Chemistry and the Aquarium
Organic Compounds in the Reef Aquarium by Randy Holmes-Farley - Reefkeeping.com
Skimming by RHF
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/sept2002/chem.htm
Just a little more light reading. LOL!!
Jeremy
