When did you see results from carbon dosing?

[Belgian Anthias]

As the title suggests im trying to figure out when to expect to start seeing nitrate reduction from carbon dosing. I started a week ago at the starting ratio @Randy Holmes-Farley said he did at the start (.15mL vinegar per gallon). My nitrates seem to hover between 5-8 (I use nyos so its an estimate between 5-12, but much close to 5 than 12) and I would like to bring them down to 3 or less. I am growing GHA and film algae, not terrible but still would like to drop the nitrates. Water changes seem to only get me to ~5.

Tank: IM 20 (~14gal water volume)
Filtration: filter floss, passive carbon & gfo, passive purigen, IM nuvoskim DC skimmer
Light: NanoBox Duo (10hrs on, 6hrs midday)
Flow: Vortech MP-10
Dosing: Jaebo DP-4 Aquaforest 123 (diluted 50% w/ RODI, 16mL each) AcroPower 1mL every other day

Parameters as of 05/08/2019:
Alk: 8.0 (Hanna)
Cal: 425 (aquaforest)
Mag: 1475 (salifert)
Phos: 5ppb (Hanna)
Nitrate: 5-8 (estimate NYOS)

You have 0.005 ppm or 5ppb phosphorus reserve, this is +- 0.015ppm phosphate. How much nitrogen do you expect to assimilate in heterotrophic growth having a usable phosphate reserve of 0.015ppm? Max 0. 15 ppm nitrate!!!)
As adding carbohydrates favors very fast growth, the phosphorus needed must come from somewhere. The fast growth will outcompete everything else stealing nutrients otherwise used by other organisms. Knowing phosphorus starvation is known to be one of the main causes of coral bleaching and carbo hydrates may kill corals, (ref: MB CMF De Haes 2018) I would reconsider carbon dosing having only 0.015 ppm phosphate in reserve.
Dosing carbohydrates based on the nitrate level as the only parameter may kill!
Fast heterotrophic growth makes use of ammonium-nitrogen, not nitrate-nitrogen. If that growth steals most produced phosphate how much is left to lower the nitrate level?
You will also remove from the installed autotrophic carrying capacity by using up most ammonium for heterotrophic growth, it may take weeks to be reinstalled after stopping dosing.
How the growth of the algae filter will be supported? Algae may lose 60% of their biomass in an attempt for self-support, to survive.

To restore the nutrient balance you just have to feed your algae filter for the target nutrients-modified feed medium. (ref: MB Anthias 2020) This if your filter is big enough! If not too late?

In the case , not enough phosphate to use up the nitrate present, it may help to downsize the skim rate.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

You have 0.005 ppm or 5ppb phosphorus reserve, this is +- 0.015ppm phosphate. How much nitrogen do you expect to assimilate in heterotrophic growth having a usable phosphate reserve of 0.015ppm? Max 0. 15 ppm nitrate!!!)

Of course, there is denitrification to account for which can lower nitrate far more with very little phosphate needed.

As adding carbohydrates favors very fast growth,

He is not dosing a carbohydrate.

 

[Hunnie]

Lets grow seagrape. They will help you reduce nitrate naturally without any chemical

 

[Hunnie]

As the title suggests im trying to figure out when to expect to start seeing nitrate reduction from carbon dosing. I started a week ago at the starting ratio @Randy Holmes-Farley said he did at the start (.15mL vinegar per gallon). My nitrates seem to hover between 5-8 (I use nyos so its an estimate between 5-12, but much close to 5 than 12) and I would like to bring them down to 3 or less. I am growing GHA and film algae, not terrible but still would like to drop the nitrates. Water changes seem to only get me to ~5.

Tank: IM 20 (~14gal water volume)
Filtration: filter floss, passive carbon & gfo, passive purigen, IM nuvoskim DC skimmer
Light: NanoBox Duo (10hrs on, 6hrs midday)
Flow: Vortech MP-10
Dosing: Jaebo DP-4 Aquaforest 123 (diluted 50% w/ RODI, 16mL each) AcroPower 1mL every other day

Parameters as of 05/08/2019:
Alk: 8.0 (Hanna)
Cal: 425 (aquaforest)
Mag: 1475 (salifert)
Phos: 5ppb (Hanna)
Nitrate: 5-8 (estimate NYOS)

Let’s grow seagrape they will help you reduce No3 naturally without any chemical. The tank look like new and the nitrifying is not stable yet!

 

[schooncw]

This Saturday will be 4 weeks since I started dosing NOPOX. My starting conditions were far worse than yours - my nitrates are off scale on the Salifert test (>100 ppm). They are still not within the upper test limit, so I do not know if they are improving or not. I'm doing water changes, reduced feedings, vacuuming sand, growing/removing chaeto, etc. They tell me patience is key. So I'm waiting...patiently...but at some point I'm going to have to try something else if I don't start seeing results.

Nitrates in my 120 have always been off the chart. No positive, discernable changes from nopox but my tank is overstocked and I do overfeed. Am adding 2 liters of SeaChem denitrate in a media reactor, as soon as my bacter gen md arrives and I seed the denitrate.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Of course, there is denitrification to account for which can lower nitrate far more with very little phosphate needed.



He is not dosing a carbohydrate.

Heterotrophic Denitrification is anaerobic remineralization, producing phosphate, which may in this case help to restore the nutrient balance.

Using aerobic remineralization filters, to keep DOC low, +- 15% of the produced nitrate-nitrogen may be exported due to natural denitrification. This may be enough to restore the created nutrient unbalance.
The nitrogen export rate of a remineralization filter may be increased by adding some elemental sulfur to the filter substrate.

In this case, it is certainly not nitrate which may cause problems. Nitrate is safely stored nitrogen, it does not harm a thing. it never does exempt at very high levels. ( +200ppm) In this case, the cure may be a lot worse than the disease. What is the disease which should be treated?

What may be a good reason for trying to remove safely stored nitrogen by adding vinegar, vodka?

A Carbohydrate is a biomolecule consisting of carbon (C), hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O) atoms. Vinegar is acetic acid. The conversion of ethanol (CH3CH2OH) and oxygen (O2) to acetic acid (CH3COOH)
For me, vinegar is a carbohydrate! The kind which may kill corals if overdosed!

Maybe not enough phosphorus can be made available to use up all organic carbon added if doses are based on the nitrate level, a nitrate level which can not descend in the relation of the dose due to unavailability of other essentials, which may lead to an overdose. Some users even will start to add more in an attempt to lower the level. Once phosphate becomes available sufficiently growth of r-strategists may become explosive, using up most oxygen, starving everything else in the battle for essentials. Hopefully, the skimmer removes most of the added organic carbon.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

What may be a good reason for trying to remove safely stored nitrogen by adding vinegar, vodka?

A Carbohydrate is a biomolecule consisting of carbon (C), hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O) atoms. Vinegar is acetic acid. The conversion of ethanol (CH3CH2OH) and oxygen (O2) to acetic acid (CH3COOH)
For me, vinegar is a carbohydrate! The kind which may kill corals if overdosed!

Acetic acid is not be any stretch of the imagination a carbohydrate.

If you had read the wikipedia definition that you posted a little further you would see it read: " nor are all chemicals that do conform to this definition automatically classified as carbohydrates (e.g. formaldehyde)."

By your reasoning, bicarbonate would be a carbohydrate too.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Acetic acid is not be any stretch of the imagination a carbohydrate.

If you had read the wikipedia definition that you posted a little further you would see it read: " nor are all chemicals that do conform to this definition automatically classified as carbohydrates (e.g. formaldehyde)."

By your reasoning, bicarbonate would be a carbohydrate too.

Not automatically, as in the case of bicarbonate. As not all compounds containing carbon and hydrogen automatically are organic.

Vinegar, sugar, ethanol, vodka are organic compounds people add to a marine aquarium and are carbohydrates. They all may support very high growth rates by providing cheap organic carbon, a cheap energy source. They all will mess up the coral holobiont if overdosed and may kill corals!

There are other and safe ways. Adjusting the C/N ratio by managing the protein content of the feed may be a good start.

Why not add hydrocarbons?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Not automatically, as in the case of bicarbonate. As not all compounds containing carbon and hydrogen automatically are organic.

Vinegar, sugar, ethanol, vodka are organic compounds people add to a marine aquarium and are carbohydrates. They all may support very high growth rates by providing cheap organic carbon, a cheap energy source. They all will mess up the coral holobiont if overdosed and may kill corals!

There are other and safe ways. Adjusting the C/N ratio by managing the protein content of the feed may be a good start.

Why not add hydrocarbons?

I'm not going to continue debate chemical terminology with you. You are incorrectly applying the definition of what is a carbohydrate. Crack open any organic chemistry book, and the first page on carbohydrates will say that the simplest carbohydrates are monosaccharides, molecules that are far more complex than ethanol or acetic acid.

https://chemistry.ucr.edu/sites/g/files/rcwecm2681/files/2019-10/Chapter20.pdf

"The simplest carbohydrates are monosaccharides"

Why not add hydrocarbons?

Hydrocarbons? Like what? Hexane? Gasoline? Crude oil? The reasons to not dose them are many. They are pretty insoluble in water, toxic, and very few organisms can metabolize them. It makes the news if scientists find a bacteria species that can consume the hydrocarbons in an oil spill. Not something most folks want to experiment with in their tanks.

Acetate is naturally present in the marine environment and a huge number of organisms can take it up and metabolize it, including bacteria, corals, sponges, etc.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018GB006129

" At some sites, acetate carbon may have accounted for up to 50.4% of the bacterial carbon production. These results suggest that acetate may serve as an important carbon and energy source for heterotrophic bacteria thus revealing a potentially significant role of acetate for dissolved organic carbon cycling in the ocean."

I see no downside at all to appropriate doses of acetic acid/acetate as long as nutrients are not driven too low, and your assertion that it kills corals does not change my mind.

I dosed vinegar for a long time at pretty high doses, and would do so again. IMO, it is a win-win all around.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

I'm not going to continue debate chemical terminology with you. You are incorrectly applying the definition of what is a carbohydrate. Crack open any organic chemistry book, and the first page on carbohydrates will say that the simplest carbohydrates are monosaccharides, molecules that are far more complex than ethanol or acetic acid.

https://chemistry.ucr.edu/sites/g/files/rcwecm2681/files/2019-10/Chapter20.pdf

"The simplest carbohydrates are monosaccharides"

Hydrocarbons? Like what? Hexane? Gasoline? Crude oil? The reasons to not dose them are many. They are pretty insoluble in water, toxic, and very few organisms can metabolize them. It makes the news if scientists find a bacteria species that can consume the hydrocarbons in an oil spill. Not something most folks want to experiment with in their tanks.

Acetate is naturally present in the marine environment and a huge number of organisms can take it up and metabolize it, including bacteria, corals, sponges, etc.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018GB006129

" At some sites, acetate carbon may have accounted for up to 50.4% of the bacterial carbon production. These results suggest that acetate may serve as an important carbon and energy source for heterotrophic bacteria thus revealing a potentially significant role of acetate for dissolved organic carbon cycling in the ocean."

I see no downside at all to appropriate doses of acetic acid/acetate as long as nutrients are not driven too low, and your assertion that it kills corals does not change my mind.

I dosed vinegar for a long time at pretty high doses, and would do so again. IMO, it is a win-win all around.

We name them carbohydrates just to point out the compounds we add only contain carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, nothing else. Adding organic carbon can mean anything.
Of course we do not add hydrocarbons, but what is the difference as a carbon source.

The problem is not adding carbohydrates, acetate, the problem is the reason why and how. This case is an example.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Of course, there is denitrification to account for which can lower nitrate far more with very little phosphate needed.

How adding acetic acid may increase the total denitrification rate in a closed life support system?

De reduction of nitrate to nitrogen gas.
Denitrification is performed by heterotrophs needing organic carbon and by autotrophs, not needing organic carbon.

Most heterotrophic denitrification needs anoxic conditions. In such conditions, no nitrate is produced. Denitrifying autotrophs do not need anoxic conditions ( - 0.5pppm DO) for using their anaerobic pathway.
If the C/N ratio in the system water is increased the aerobic remineralization activities will increase which means less ammonia becomes available for autotrophic nitrification resulting in less nitrate production which means less nitrate becomes available in anoxic zones. Ammonia will be produced!!!!
In zones where anaerobic remineralization takes place also DNRA takes place. If in the anoxic zone the C/N ratio increases, also DNRA, the production of ammonia, increases.
In remineralization biofilms, responsible for most denitrification taking place, nitrate produced is released, nitrate penetrating the biofilm is produced in the film and used up by autotrophs in the transition zones to reduce HS produced in anoxic zones. In the anoxic zones, nitrate is limited availability, not sufficient to use up all organic carbon present in biowaste, most anaerobic remineralization uses sulfate instead of nitrate which produces ammonia. If the C/N ratio in such zone increases not only DNRA will increase ( removing nitrate, producing ammonia) but also the sulfate reduction rate will increase, producing more ammonia, and HS.
Increasing the C/N ratio in anoxic zones will remove all nitrate in these zones but also increase the sulfate reduction rate and the ammonia production rate.
In practice, to be able to make a difference and influencing anaerobic remineralization, organic carbon added to the system must be able to reach the anoxic zones. If not overdosed, organic carbon present in the water column will be used up for aerobic remineralization, limiting nitrate production needing ammonium and the autotrophic HS removal rate needing nitrate.

What will be the profit in heterotrophic denitrification there is to account for, due to dosing vinegar?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

You can point to theoretical problems forever, but many of us have dosed vinegar for long periods of time (years) at high doses with no apparent drawbacks and, in my case, clear apparent benefits.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

We name them carbohydrates just to point out the compounds we add only contain carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, nothing else. Adding organic carbon can mean anything.

Not sure who is "we", but I suggest in a chemistry forum you use correct terminology. What you wrote above is clearly wrong.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Not sure who is "we", but I suggest in a chemistry forum you use correct terminology. What you wrote above is clearly wrong.

We try to! We are those who are not chemists!
If I do not know I try to find out. It is not my fault Wikipedia does not explain it the same way. As far as I know, acetic acid has twice as much hydrogen atoms as oxygen atoms and contains only carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, the perfect description of a carbohydrate !
Mc Murray and Fay 4th edition 2004, describes it as follows in section 24.7 p 1047: The word carbohydrates was used originally to describe glucose, C6H12O6, and was once thought to be a "hydrate of carbon" C6(H2O)6. Although this view was soon abandoned, the word persisted and is now used to refer to a large class of polyhydroxylated aldehydes and ketones. Carbohydrates are classified as either simple or complex. Monosaccharides and Polysacharides.
Peter Atkins and Loretta Jones Chemical principles "The quest for insight" section 19.14 p 894 Organic Chemistry, Functional groups: carbohydrates are so-called because they often have the empirical formula CH2O.

If chemists disagree about a simple definition for a carbohydrate!?

If the chemists explain it to a non-chemist, we assume it is correct. I think I am getting too old as I may not see it clearly!
But I think there is nothing wrong with my explanation! Discussion closed.

 

[Silent]

Poor OP, asking when to see results from carbon dosing gets thread taken over by opinions over the definition of a carbohydrate. Fact, Randy is the most knowledgeable chemist on the forum and says it's not a carb then it's not a carb. Move on, THIS thread is about the OP's question.
Now I have just added to it ,sorry OP.

 

[schooncw]

Poor OP, asking when to see results from carbon dosing gets thread taken over by opinions over the definition of a carbohydrate. Fact, Randy is the most knowledgeable chemist on the forum and says it's not a carb then it's not a carb. Move on, THIS thread is about the OP's question.
Now I have just added to it ,sorry OP.

I am interested in the OP’s question!

 

[schooncw]

This Saturday will be 4 weeks since I started dosing NOPOX. My starting conditions were far worse than yours - my nitrates are off scale on the Salifert test (>100 ppm). They are still not within the upper test limit, so I do not know if they are improving or not. I'm doing water changes, reduced feedings, vacuuming sand, growing/removing chaeto, etc. They tell me patience is key. So I'm waiting...patiently...but at some point I'm going to have to try something else if I don't start seeing results.

I've done everything you have and my nitrate is off the salifert chart-tank looks great but this is war. I am awaiting a bottle of Continuum Aquatics, Bacter gen MD, which is designed to establish anaerobic bacteria. I plan on seeding SeaChem denitrate in a media reactor.
Continuum Aquatics | bacter gen•MD

 

[Belgian Anthias]

You can point to theoretical problems forever, but many of us have dosed vinegar for long periods of time (years) at high doses with no apparent drawbacks and, in my case, clear apparent benefits.

No " apparent" drawbacks? Really! How do you know? Compared to what?
What are the benefits of stimulating heterotrophic growth for removing safely stored nitrogen and messing up the existing balance, not knowing what may be the result?
Nitrate is easily removed or exported without the drawbacks of carbon dosing.
Plenty of Published papers are showing the drawbacks. They can be consulted!
Plenty of reefers have stopped the hobby very disappointed, following the rules of influencers, not knowing what they did wrong! There was no proof for what may have gone wrong.

Concerning carbon dosing, most drawbacks and benefits are known for more than a few decades. Everything is known about carbon dosing, biofloc technology has become very popular in marine aquaculture and evolved. Carbon dosing has been subject to a lot of recent research. ( ref: MB CMF de Haes 2019)

Good management is based on both experience and propper research. Limiting the risks as much as possible taking into account the latest available knowledge.

One should warn people about the many drawbacks of carbon dosing and advise them on how to avoid them, use the influence for better reefing.

Propper dosing may avoid or limit the many drawbacks. Warning people about what may happen when (over) dosing is suddenly stopped for any reason should be standard procedure, one should always build of dosing very slowly, the time needed to reinstall the autotrophic carrying capacity needed.
We try to learn people how to dose carbon to limit the risks as much as possible taking into account the latest knowledge made available. Dosing carbon is NOT always safe! We know! It has been shown! Limiting the risks is what good management is about.

When it goes wrong, it often will not be linked to carbon dosing, it is still promoted as safe and harmless. It is NOT!
It has been shown dosing organic carbon will have a huge influence on corals and may kill them if not done correctly. Dosing carbon based on the nitrate level as the only parameter, influencers promote it as harmless. We know better!
Those who have influence should use that influence to improve reefing and limit the risks of mismanagement. If needed I will repeat it forever!
It is not about theoretical problems! It is about problems occurring in practice, that have shown in practice and in experiments, and have been described and published peer-reviewed. I assume you must be well aware of the many possible drawbacks of overdosing organic carbon, carbohydrates. We often had this discussion.
How do you link "apparent" to drawbacks which are not recognized?

In the case, If it goes wrong, it is explained why!
There is nothing wrong with managing the nitrogen content using the C/N ratio. This if overdosing of what I call carbohydrates, vinegar, vodka, sugars, is avoided at all times, if it is done correctly to keep it safe. Avoiding overdosing is not difficult at all.
This case is an example of how a system may be overdosed by not taking into account all known parameters, by following incorrect are incomplete guidelines promoted as safe to use. Will there be any "apparent" drawbacks?

Happy reefing.

 

[schooncw]

No " apparent" drawbacks? Really! How do you know? Compared to what?
What are the benefits of stimulating heterotrophic growth for removing safely stored nitrogen and messing up the existing balance, not knowing what may be the result?
Nitrate is easily removed or exported without the drawbacks of carbon dosing.
Plenty of Published papers are showing the drawbacks. They can be consulted!
Plenty of reefers have stopped the hobby very disappointed, following the rules of influencers, not knowing what they did wrong! There was no proof for what may have gone wrong.

Concerning carbon dosing, most drawbacks and benefits are known for more than a few decades. Everything is known about carbon dosing, biofloc technology has become very popular in marine aquaculture and evolved. Carbon dosing has been subject to a lot of recent research. ( ref: MB CMF de Haes 2019)

Good management is based on both experience and propper research. Limiting the risks as much as possible taking into account the latest available knowledge.

One should warn people about the many drawbacks of carbon dosing and advise them on how to avoid them, use the influence for better reefing.

Propper dosing may avoid or limit the many drawbacks. Warning people about what may happen when (over) dosing is suddenly stopped for any reason should be standard procedure, one should always build of dosing very slowly, the time needed to reinstall the autotrophic carrying capacity needed.
We try to learn people how to dose carbon to limit the risks as much as possible taking into account the latest knowledge made available. Dosing carbon is NOT always safe! We know! It has been shown! Limiting the risks is what good management is about.

When it goes wrong, it often will not be linked to carbon dosing, it is still promoted as safe and harmless. It is NOT!
It has been shown dosing organic carbon will have a huge influence on corals and may kill them if not done correctly. Dosing carbon based on the nitrate level as the only parameter, influencers promote it as harmless. We know better!
Those who have influence should use that influence to improve reefing and limit the risks of mismanagement. If needed I will repeat it forever!
It is not about theoretical problems! It is about problems occurring in practice, that have shown in practice and in experiments, and have been described and published peer-reviewed. I assume you must be well aware of the many possible drawbacks of overdosing organic carbon, carbohydrates. We often had this discussion.
How do you link "apparent" to drawbacks which are not recognized?

In the case, If it goes wrong, it is explained why!
There is nothing wrong with managing the nitrogen content using the C/N ratio. This if overdosing of what I call carbohydrates, vinegar, vodka, sugars, is avoided at all times, if it is done correctly to keep it safe. Avoiding overdosing is not difficult at all.
This case is an example of how a system may be overdosed by not taking into account all known parameters, by following incorrect are incomplete guidelines promoted as safe to use. Will there be any "apparent" drawbacks?

Happy reefing.

Please start your own thread. This is way off the OP topic

 

[clm65]

I've done everything you have and my nitrate is off the salifert chart-tank looks great but this is war. I am awaiting a bottle of Continuum Aquatics, Bacter gen MD, which is designed to establish anaerobic bacteria. I plan on seeding SeaChem denitrate in a media reactor.
Continuum Aquatics | bacter gen•MD

I added matrix to my sump and switched to vinegar dosing. I forget how long it took, but it did finally come down. Make sure you keep an eye on how fast nitrate is falling. I wasn’t paying close enough attention and ended up bottoming out my nitrate. I also used Phosphate Rx for phosphate. Good luck!