Vodka Dosing vs Refugium/GFO Method
- Thread starter Chuck Spyropulos
- Start date
Liam
letting it grow
not sure on that,sorry
ReeferMedic
Non-member
Personal comments removed. Your personal observations are great, but you are yet another person who thinks that their experience is the only experience. Zooxanthellae are not the bright colors you see, they are in fact the brown algae the that live in every symbiotic coral we keep. Have you ever seen an acropora after it has been through trans shipping? They expel their zooxanthellae because of stress. That's why some of them come in with crazy colors and turn brown in our systems. Personal comments removed. I have a feeling that you and 2 other people here might be the same person. If not, then you should start your own club. You are the #2 person on my ignore list.
FWIW, I have dosed a carbon source with high salinity, high ca, and high alk, and guess what? NO SNOW. You might want to go get your money back for that little lesson also.
Last edited by a moderator:
ReeferMedic
Non-member
Another question for you. Why with the zeovit method do they suggest you feed your corals? I'll make it easy for you. It is in fact because they lack the zooxanthellae that would produce sugars that the coral would in turn feed off of, which produces those crazy colors. Yet another lesson missed I guess...
Shenlung
Tankless Wonder
Not to derail the thread, but I didn't feel this question deserved its own thread...
GFO targets Phosphate, removes it, correct?
So would gfo(not sure what that is, honestly) work better than a phosphate reactor with phos-zorb?
me2003
Non-member
mycosporine-like amino acids are responsible for UV protection. They are colorless.
They block UV. They need to both block UV and allow the zooanthellae access to light for photosynthesis. The coloration in corals is not well understood at this point but a great deal of research is being done. Florescent and colorful proteins are extremely important as biomarkers. This article goes through some details.
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2006/9/aafeature
Liam
letting it grow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carotenoid
his is a good line from that link
"Carotenoids serve two key roles in plants and algae: they absorb light energy for use in photosynthesis, and they protect chlorophyll from photodamage."
I started dosing vodka in January this year for a HA problem that was slowly getting worse.
A quick tank rundown -
40g breeder 1.5 ys. old
3-4" sandbed, 30+# LR, overstocked w/ mostly sps, and some lps.
No sump, Remora skimmer, C + gfo in reactor.
4 Koralia's totaling about 2200 - 2400 gph, and a closed loop plumbed to 7 hydor flo devices - about 1000 gph.
TX5 5 tube T-5 lighting.
O. Clown, Hippo, six line, Mandarin - fat and still growing
Tank has always been fed rather heavily - fish and corals.
This tanks corals took off like a rocket. I experienced very nice growth and color. As the HA came on, I noticed colors beginning to fade somewhat, but not on all corals... only a few. Soon after starting vodka dosing, more corals were fading (I am not attributing this to the vodka - just mentioning the observation). The LPS remained colored up, but a largish - 6" patch of rainbow montipora and same sz. superman monti, and more of the acros faded more as well.
To shorten this story up a bit, the HA is dieing off - about 60 - 70% gone, but I cannot attribute that fact to just vodka dosing, because, out of concern for my tank and it's inhabitants, I pretty much changed my husbandry practiced across the board around the same time, hence this in no way could be considered evidence that VD worked for me.
The things I did change, other than VD:
Went from 15% weekly water changes to about 30% (Tot. water volume, not tank capacity).
Every other water change, I vacuumed 10% - 20% of the substrate and am always astonished at the crap that comes out of it. - As a side note, since doing this, I have yet to have ANY nuisance algae or cyano grow on the substrate - none - nada - zilch. Another 40b of mine has constantly had this problem of red / brown / slime growing on substrate, but since vacuuming the substrate have had NO re-occurance.
Clean skimmer riser area and cup thoroughly weekly.
Change C and GFO every 3 weeks.
Daily blast rock w/ turkey baster - noticed that the worst of the HA has grown where the detritus tends to settle most.
Dosing 6ml Knop KoralVit trace elements weekly.
Made a nano reactor that is running w/ the PolyBio Marine Poly Filter material - changed at 2 week intervals - looks pretty nasty by then.
I never did detect any phosphate or nitrate in this tank before doing all of this, using new Elos test kits. I know the VD threads say "Important to measure and record Po, N... etc.." Several of my tests always came up 0 ppm, so i have tossed these kits in a drawer and haven't considered testing again.
I guess my whole point in this too long note is to say, in my humble opinion, that the VD may have helped... but I kind of doubt that it helped more than changing to better, sound, proven? husbandry practices. Larger volume and / or frequency of your water changes, I believe, will get you there just as fast (few months).
It is more difficult than I would have ever imagined to scientifically verify that VD works. There are simply too many variables to contain this as a viable experiment. Variables caused by us, and others that may not be a direct result of our own actions. There are things we cannot test for, and the things we do test for, IMO sometimes have questionable results.
A quick tank rundown -
40g breeder 1.5 ys. old
3-4" sandbed, 30+# LR, overstocked w/ mostly sps, and some lps.
No sump, Remora skimmer, C + gfo in reactor.
4 Koralia's totaling about 2200 - 2400 gph, and a closed loop plumbed to 7 hydor flo devices - about 1000 gph.
TX5 5 tube T-5 lighting.
O. Clown, Hippo, six line, Mandarin - fat and still growing
Tank has always been fed rather heavily - fish and corals.
This tanks corals took off like a rocket. I experienced very nice growth and color. As the HA came on, I noticed colors beginning to fade somewhat, but not on all corals... only a few. Soon after starting vodka dosing, more corals were fading (I am not attributing this to the vodka - just mentioning the observation). The LPS remained colored up, but a largish - 6" patch of rainbow montipora and same sz. superman monti, and more of the acros faded more as well.
To shorten this story up a bit, the HA is dieing off - about 60 - 70% gone, but I cannot attribute that fact to just vodka dosing, because, out of concern for my tank and it's inhabitants, I pretty much changed my husbandry practiced across the board around the same time, hence this in no way could be considered evidence that VD worked for me.
The things I did change, other than VD:
Went from 15% weekly water changes to about 30% (Tot. water volume, not tank capacity).
Every other water change, I vacuumed 10% - 20% of the substrate and am always astonished at the crap that comes out of it. - As a side note, since doing this, I have yet to have ANY nuisance algae or cyano grow on the substrate - none - nada - zilch. Another 40b of mine has constantly had this problem of red / brown / slime growing on substrate, but since vacuuming the substrate have had NO re-occurance.
Clean skimmer riser area and cup thoroughly weekly.
Change C and GFO every 3 weeks.
Daily blast rock w/ turkey baster - noticed that the worst of the HA has grown where the detritus tends to settle most.
Dosing 6ml Knop KoralVit trace elements weekly.
Made a nano reactor that is running w/ the PolyBio Marine Poly Filter material - changed at 2 week intervals - looks pretty nasty by then.
I never did detect any phosphate or nitrate in this tank before doing all of this, using new Elos test kits. I know the VD threads say "Important to measure and record Po, N... etc.." Several of my tests always came up 0 ppm, so i have tossed these kits in a drawer and haven't considered testing again.
I guess my whole point in this too long note is to say, in my humble opinion, that the VD may have helped... but I kind of doubt that it helped more than changing to better, sound, proven? husbandry practices. Larger volume and / or frequency of your water changes, I believe, will get you there just as fast (few months).
It is more difficult than I would have ever imagined to scientifically verify that VD works. There are simply too many variables to contain this as a viable experiment. Variables caused by us, and others that may not be a direct result of our own actions. There are things we cannot test for, and the things we do test for, IMO sometimes have questionable results.
Last edited:
ReeferMedic
Non-member
GFO = granulated ferrous oxide. It's pretty expensive stuff unless you can find an online dealer that sells wholesale in bulk. IIRC, phos-zorb is alluminum oxide and is not advised for use in a reef tank by a lot of reefers, even though it says invert safe on the container. Also, phos-zorb may leach phosphates back into the system unlike gfo. I don't think it last nearly as long as gfo either.
This thread was derailed along time ago. Sorry Leroy.
me2003
Non-member
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carotenoid"
Corals are different from plants and algae.
I think this was a reason they were first thought to be
responsible in corals. Photodamage is different from UV protection.
Plants have to control the level of photosynthesis or products (singlet oxygen
and radicals) from the photosynthesis will damage the cells.(2)
If carotenoids were responsible for coral coloration they would be in the zooxanthellae
where the photosynthesis is taking place.
1. http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2006/9/aafeature
"Carotenoids serve two key roles in plants and algae: they absorb light energy for use in photosynthesis, and they protect chlorophyll from photodamage"
From the wikipedia reference.
2. Armstrong GA, Hearst JE (1996). "Carotenoids 2: Genetics and molecular biology of carotenoid pigment biosynthesis". Faseb J. 10 (2): 228–37. PMID 8641556. http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=8641556.
Corals are different from plants and algae.
I think this was a reason they were first thought to be
responsible in corals. Photodamage is different from UV protection.
Plants have to control the level of photosynthesis or products (singlet oxygen
and radicals) from the photosynthesis will damage the cells.(2)
If carotenoids were responsible for coral coloration they would be in the zooxanthellae
where the photosynthesis is taking place.
1. http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2006/9/aafeature
"Carotenoids serve two key roles in plants and algae: they absorb light energy for use in photosynthesis, and they protect chlorophyll from photodamage"
From the wikipedia reference.
2. Armstrong GA, Hearst JE (1996). "Carotenoids 2: Genetics and molecular biology of carotenoid pigment biosynthesis". Faseb J. 10 (2): 228–37. PMID 8641556. http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=8641556.
Chuck Spyropulos
Non-member
Yes I agree Don, that the GFO is really expensive even when you buy it from Bulk Reef Supply. I just bought a 5 gal bucket of the granular for almost $300.00!
That's why I am still considering the vodka....I am still too scared to try it
But the more I read, the more I think that vodka dosing will not hurt at least.
That's why I am still considering the vodka....I am still too scared to try itBut the more I read, the more I think that vodka dosing will not hurt at least.
"http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2008-08/nftt/index.php"
This article is like an infomercial. You know the ones where they describe
the scientific weight loss system and show picture of people that lost weight.
They then use a list of "Common Questions" like how will this increase my metabolism?
The only difference here is they show good looking corals or tanks instead of people who lost a 100 lbs.
I have seen several tanks that the corals have turned brown or faded in color because of dosing including my own. Why don't they show those pictures also?
They do mention the color loss and refer you to "amino acid addition"
Do I get 1 free bottle of "amino acids" with my dosing kit if I buy now?
There is more than enough carbon in your tank. If you want more feed your
fish more. Your corals are probably adding more sugars than dosing at those
levels. Just because you read it on the internet doesn't make it true.
Isn’t an infomercial where someone is trying to sell a product that turns a profit for the individual selling it? I promise you, I have no connections with the vodka market.
Most of the claims of the vodka dosing articles and threads are
just made up reasons to justify it. Just like an infomercial.
Ozone will kill bacteria. (no exceptions) It is better than bleach.
If you allow it into the tank it will irritate your corals.
I wonder if some of the "affects" of vodka dosing are from irritating corals.
This causes them to create mucus and could be a source of the string like
structures. If corals are expending energy producing more mucus, they are
not using it to grow. The loss of color or browning of corals caused by dosing
in some cases also indicates the zooxanthellae are involved in this process.
Many questions no real answers
Ummm, the claims were not made up. In fact the article was a summation of people’s experiences over the past few years. On this comment “ozone will not kill bacteria, no exceptions.” That’s like saying heat will cook humans, no exceptions. Ozone concentration plays a role in destruction and the ozone amounts we run and how they are usually used should not destroy bacteria considerably.
The loss of browning of corals by dosing could be a result of the dropping concentration of nitrate/ammonia and their availability to the respective corals. If you ever get bored there are many studies demonstrating this effect in the wild.
The science is not present as much of it has yet to be demonstrated in seawater. Also, there are potentially many processes going on that have yet to be elucidated. By placing science within the article, I would be slapping the face of my profession and disgracing RK. However, if you read through the threads listed I do believe scientific articles have been posted that clearly demonstrate the strong possibility that bacteria do what the article states.
By no meaning you mean… none or lacking a definition?
If nitrate and phosphate molecules are uptaken where do they go if not converted into more complex molecular structures??
What role would autotrophic bacteria play in vodka dosing?
I’ve heard the argument that carbon is not a limiting element in reef tanks. My simplified answer would be that assimilation of these carbons must be at a slower pace then what is necessary to keep a well balanced system. Small molecules of carbon (ethanol, sugars, vinegar, vitamin C) may actually speed up the growth process of bacteria allowing quicker assimilation of N/P.
This would be an example where the authors noticed an increase in ribosomal production upon addition of a smaller more easily usable molecule:
http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/65/9/4108
I'd be more than happy to listen.
Interesting, to my knowledge I work at Nationwide Children’s, have a Masters, and was pursuing a PhD. Maybe I should speak with my old undergraduate professor and correct this issue as I haven’t worked in his lab since undergrad. Most-likely I was added to the roster when my name was published in a paper with them in 2008.
This is a great question (aside from the personal opinions). How does one improve upon something that is untested. Obviously, someone needs to setup a controlled experiment. For ~$800 this could be tested over the course of about a year. I’m rather pressed for cash and time at the moment but in the future I plan to visit this question in more detail.
Also, this is a hobby for me. I enjoy spending time reading through published articles trying to understand the intricacies of the microbial world of marine biology. However, I am not a marine biologist by trade and do not have all the answers.
The internet is rather vast with information. But I would caution believing everything you read on it (back to your first post
). However, the internet does allow for a more transparent means of communication. If you have any concerns you can email me or even post in RC about your worries. I would be more than happy to answer and/or discuss any question you have on the article.
me2003
Non-member
I am glad you agree that there is no science to back up the statements in the article.
I have commented on the RC on these issues and have meet with a fairly hostile response there and here. I have some response to your comments below. I understand that the resources are not available to test the theory. Many issues with aquariums are difficult to prove. My personal experience and background in biology make this a more difficult theory to accept than some others in the aquarium hobby.
My use of the infomercial analogy was in reference to the
use of pseudoscience to prove a product effectiveness.
As with many weight loss and nutritional ads, the vodka
dosing argument misrepresents the real science out there.
My belief is it was a very biased and unscientific summation.
I am not making a personal attack here. I don't believe it
is intentional on the part of the authors. The bias is from lack
of standards, no controls, no statistical measurements and
a reporting bias for example. Two of the biggest issues with
these types of processes are
1. people tend to report success and don't report failure/no results.
2. The measurement of success is my aquarium looks better. How is that quantifiable or repeatable?
I think we agree here. I believe in some of my comments, I have tried to state that many people discussing this process do not believe the science exist today to support the process.
I would disagree with your “strong possibility” statement. I have read most of the articles. There is a major flaw in logic using somewhat related articles to infer a correlation in an environment. This is difficult even in more direct studies.
“I’ve heard the argument that carbon is not a limiting element in reef tanks. My simplified answer would be that assimilation of these carbons must be at a slower pace then what is necessary to keep a well balanced system. Small molecules of carbon (ethanol, sugars, vinegar, vitamin C) may actually speed up the growth process of bacteria allowing quicker assimilation of N/P.
This would be an example where the authors noticed an increase in ribosomal production upon addition of a smaller more easily usable molecule:
http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/65/9/4108 “
“My simplified answer” This is not an answer it is a guess. The study indicates that sodium citrate increases ribosome concentration and cellular growth rate. Whether ethanol is a better substitute for sodium citrate is a major question. Ethanol can inhibit the growth of organisms using fermentation for respiration. I will use this as an example of one of the issues, I have been discussing. What is the hypothesis? Is it Ethanol through an alcohol dehydrogenase pathway into the citric acid cycle (Krebs) will improved bacteria growth in your aquarium? The bacteria uptake the nitrogen and phosphates. They are removed by protein skimming and thus reduce nitrogen and phosphates. “that carbon is not a limiting element in reef tanks.” The food you add to an aquarium is a substantial source of complex and small molecules of carbon compounds. How do you see your dosage of ethanol in comparison to these food additions? How do these dosing levels compare with the simple molecules provided by coral mucus in an aquarium.
Coral mucus functions as an energy carrier and particle trap in the reef ecosystem
Nature 428, 66-70 (4 March 2004)
Why not add sugar or sodium citrate?
The comment was Ozone will kill bacteria. (no exceptions) It is better than bleach. In the article ozone was described as having two benefits
1. Provide additional oxygen for the aquarium in of overdose
2. Break up organic molecules causing yellow color in the tank.
If you have good protein skimming your oxygen levels should reach saturation.
Add enough ozone to change this should be more than enough to have a major affect on bacteria and other organisms in your tank.
If it is enough to breakup organic molecules causing yellow color it should be enough to kill bacteria. Without rates of ozone addition and flow, this is a
difficult question.
From the article.
I have commented on the RC on these issues and have meet with a fairly hostile response there and here. I have some response to your comments below. I understand that the resources are not available to test the theory. Many issues with aquariums are difficult to prove. My personal experience and background in biology make this a more difficult theory to accept than some others in the aquarium hobby.
My use of the infomercial analogy was in reference to the
use of pseudoscience to prove a product effectiveness.
As with many weight loss and nutritional ads, the vodka
dosing argument misrepresents the real science out there.
My belief is it was a very biased and unscientific summation.
I am not making a personal attack here. I don't believe it
is intentional on the part of the authors. The bias is from lack
of standards, no controls, no statistical measurements and
a reporting bias for example. Two of the biggest issues with
these types of processes are
1. people tend to report success and don't report failure/no results.
2. The measurement of success is my aquarium looks better. How is that quantifiable or repeatable?
I think we agree here. I believe in some of my comments, I have tried to state that many people discussing this process do not believe the science exist today to support the process.
I would disagree with your “strong possibility” statement. I have read most of the articles. There is a major flaw in logic using somewhat related articles to infer a correlation in an environment. This is difficult even in more direct studies.
“I’ve heard the argument that carbon is not a limiting element in reef tanks. My simplified answer would be that assimilation of these carbons must be at a slower pace then what is necessary to keep a well balanced system. Small molecules of carbon (ethanol, sugars, vinegar, vitamin C) may actually speed up the growth process of bacteria allowing quicker assimilation of N/P.
This would be an example where the authors noticed an increase in ribosomal production upon addition of a smaller more easily usable molecule:
http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/65/9/4108 “
“My simplified answer” This is not an answer it is a guess. The study indicates that sodium citrate increases ribosome concentration and cellular growth rate. Whether ethanol is a better substitute for sodium citrate is a major question. Ethanol can inhibit the growth of organisms using fermentation for respiration. I will use this as an example of one of the issues, I have been discussing. What is the hypothesis? Is it Ethanol through an alcohol dehydrogenase pathway into the citric acid cycle (Krebs) will improved bacteria growth in your aquarium? The bacteria uptake the nitrogen and phosphates. They are removed by protein skimming and thus reduce nitrogen and phosphates. “that carbon is not a limiting element in reef tanks.” The food you add to an aquarium is a substantial source of complex and small molecules of carbon compounds. How do you see your dosage of ethanol in comparison to these food additions? How do these dosing levels compare with the simple molecules provided by coral mucus in an aquarium.
Coral mucus functions as an energy carrier and particle trap in the reef ecosystem
Nature 428, 66-70 (4 March 2004)
Why not add sugar or sodium citrate?
I am confused about this reply
The comment was Ozone will kill bacteria. (no exceptions) It is better than bleach. In the article ozone was described as having two benefits
1. Provide additional oxygen for the aquarium in of overdose
2. Break up organic molecules causing yellow color in the tank.
If you have good protein skimming your oxygen levels should reach saturation.
Add enough ozone to change this should be more than enough to have a major affect on bacteria and other organisms in your tank.
If it is enough to breakup organic molecules causing yellow color it should be enough to kill bacteria. Without rates of ozone addition and flow, this is a
difficult question.
From the article.
Good questions. I wish we had the answers to them. Then writing an article for reefkeeping would be rather easy and straightforward. I think though that we could go further. What if addition of ethanol is stimulating growth instead of inhibition? Yes that is a possibility too. What if ethanol works to enhance denitrification pathways? Is it possible an anoxic region is required to get the desired effects? What if ethanol is no more just an easy molecule for bacteria to work with and that they use other molecules such as sugars to actually produce the necessary energy for survival?
There is a good chance we will not get these answers anytime soon.
Actually you can. It may actually be more beneficial to the overall health of the reef to use multiple organics. Sucrose, glucose, acetic acid, vitamins, and amino acids to get the best results. For each additional organic added the potential for reaching a critical level that may cause coral mortality is reduced. The one reason I do not recommend use of sucrose is from studies where it leads to white band disease when added in high amounts. However, in lower concentrations it would be a fine addition. Remember though, for each new molecule you add there are many secondary effects you may be creating (some positive, some negative). I have a few citations if interested on this subject.
I am confused about this reply
The comment was Ozone will kill bacteria. (no exceptions) It is better than bleach. In the article ozone was described as having two benefits
1. Provide additional oxygen for the aquarium in of overdose
2. Break up organic molecules causing yellow color in the tank.
If you have good protein skimming your oxygen levels should reach saturation.
Add enough ozone to change this should be more than enough to have a major affect on bacteria and other organisms in your tank.
I see where you are confused. Your statement was ozone kills bacteria, no exceptions. I was merely trying to convey that it is a concentration dependant reaction. Heat would cook people if enough is applied in a given time. That was all I was trying to say.
As for the two examples given. An good sized skimmer should be able to provide enough oxygen to a reef without the need of ozone. However, people that have unsized skimmers would potentially have those two issues that could be slightly compensated for by using ozone.
No, this statement is terribly incorrect. Organic reaction with O3 and bacterial death would differ greatly with varying concentrations of ozone. Most bacteria would be unaltered at a level of ozone common within the hobby while organic molecules would be altered.
Microbial analysis of ozone disinfection in a recirculating seawater system. Hsieh, Jennifer L; Chikarmane, Hemant M; Smolowitz, Roxanna; Uhlinger, Kevin R; Mebane, W; Kuzirian, Alan M. Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543, USA. Biological bulletin (2002), 203(2), 266-7.
I should clarify something. The reason I had mentioned cooking people was because I had come down with a nasty flu virus that had me in bed for last week.
Chuck, I used vodka and kept the refugium intact. The amount of algae needed was much less. I was able to clear out enough room to divide the refugium into a frag tank also. There are many though that have issues where the algae will start dieing off completely on their system.
Chuck, I used vodka and kept the refugium intact. The amount of algae needed was much less. I was able to clear out enough room to divide the refugium into a frag tank also. There are many though that have issues where the algae will start dieing off completely on their system.
Alex
Non-member
Nice to see real debate on the subject. There are a lot of different ways to skin a cat and there are a lot of different ways to run a reef tank. Much of what we think we know ends up being crap or turning out to be detrimental in hind sight. I think it's just the nature of keeping animals that we have so little understanding of. I'm sure some of the things that are considered standard fare now will be laughed at in the future. You stick around in this hobby and things always seem to change. Whether its additives what you can keep or how you should keep it.
I never understood why people got so angry when debating things. The bare bottom deep sand bed debates on RC were practically gang warefare and got a lot of people banned. I wish people were one more consious of how they frame their opinions and two more open to hearing others opinions.
Just my thoughts. Oh and keep debating I want to learn more.
I never understood why people got so angry when debating things. The bare bottom deep sand bed debates on RC were practically gang warefare and got a lot of people banned. I wish people were one more consious of how they frame their opinions and two more open to hearing others opinions.
Just my thoughts. Oh and keep debating I want to learn more.
Alex, I think there are many that come onto forums is to have a discussion on reefkeeping. However, many do not detach themselves from their thoughts and personal attacks. While others subconsciously edge on others from inferred attacks.
The DSB convos were amusing to watch.
Anyways, going back to bacterial biomass assimilation and the magical complex molecule synthesis. I believe this paper is an excellent article that would answer many questions.
http://nospam.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_42/issue_4/0730.pdf
From the article;
"Although bacteria must assimilate organic carbon, they can use both inorganic and organic nitrogen and phosphorus and frequently account for a large fraction of PO, and NH4, uptake in both freshwater and marine habitats (Currie et al. 1986; Currie 1990; Kirchman 1994)."
That would be reference to that line in the RK article. Happy Reefing.
The DSB convos were amusing to watch.
Anyways, going back to bacterial biomass assimilation and the magical complex molecule synthesis. I believe this paper is an excellent article that would answer many questions.
http://nospam.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_42/issue_4/0730.pdf
From the article;
"Although bacteria must assimilate organic carbon, they can use both inorganic and organic nitrogen and phosphorus and frequently account for a large fraction of PO, and NH4, uptake in both freshwater and marine habitats (Currie et al. 1986; Currie 1990; Kirchman 1994)."
That would be reference to that line in the RK article. Happy Reefing.
me2003
Non-member
I don't believe this paper answers any questions related to this thread.
Glucose is not ethanol. Even if it was there is no correlation to your aquarium and it is major error to assume there is.
See chart on page 736 given the sample size PO4 addition looks to have the greatest
influence in all environments. That is why the article is called
I
The paper looks at PO4,NH3 and Glucose in bacterial production in the
Caribbean (Sta. 8) and Sargasso (Sta. 9) pelagic seas and in the Gulf Stream (Sta. 10)
The chart on page 736 and text indicates that phosphate is limiting is every environment
studied except the pelagic sea in the Caribbean in July. Your aquarium is not even close
to that environment.
Also I don't believe your aquarium is carbon limited. I am not sure what the
LDOC measure in an aquarium but don't believe it is close to the pelagic Caribbean.
gobyvin
Non-member
KISS, not the band.
I have realized the wisdom of this acronym many times in my relatively short life.
KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID = KISS
I am by no means implying any stupidity. I am in the same boat with my 180 mixed reef as those in the thread find themselves. I am sharing my thoughts here to attempt to help those appreciate my revelation and success with something simple.
HUSBANDRY
I increased the quality of my source water RO/DI improvements... namely better cartridges, more resins, looking into catalyzed carbon now...
This improvement was cheap compared to GFO by the 5 gal bucket. Cartridge life is long in comparison to GFO's efficiency over time.
Increase volume of water changes / algae removal / refugium and total system water volume was increased by 40%. The skimmer is cleaned every three days or so along with sand bed vacuums weekly with water changes.
I also increased water movement in the display with two 5 gallon Borneman Surge Devices and a couple of Koralias along with my original Rio 3100 and double 600 gph returns. Orig. system water movement was 1800 gph and is now around 4200 gph (depending on surge waves). I like the Borneman buckets and they don't put out microbubbles, just some larger ones in the beginning and end of a surge.
So, in short... I almost used GFO until I rinsed it to put it in a filter bag and it looked like the Rio Grande during flood season. I used seachem phosguard and that made my corals (leathers and zoos unhappy and grow slow) I removed both and used Carbon only.
Natural seems best and is cheaper, in my opinion. When I get a chance, I will post pics on the system and it's parts. I am a reefer on a budget, a tight budget expecting a little one. Everything I do must pass a max. efficiency test. So, I hope my words help with your decisions. I am not saying Vodka is bad, it livens up some nice drinks at my bar next to the tank, but I am skeptical as to whether my Paracanthurus wants to indulge in a daily shot. I say step up the basics of aquarium keeping first to get to where you want to be. If that is not enough, start a Vodka experiment.
I say all of this with the utmost respect, and want those to know that I am not just a hack, I am an ecologist and have professional experience with some of the same issues, on a much larger scale.
I have realized the wisdom of this acronym many times in my relatively short life.
KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID = KISS
I am by no means implying any stupidity. I am in the same boat with my 180 mixed reef as those in the thread find themselves. I am sharing my thoughts here to attempt to help those appreciate my revelation and success with something simple.
HUSBANDRY
I increased the quality of my source water RO/DI improvements... namely better cartridges, more resins, looking into catalyzed carbon now...
This improvement was cheap compared to GFO by the 5 gal bucket. Cartridge life is long in comparison to GFO's efficiency over time.
Increase volume of water changes / algae removal / refugium and total system water volume was increased by 40%. The skimmer is cleaned every three days or so along with sand bed vacuums weekly with water changes.
I also increased water movement in the display with two 5 gallon Borneman Surge Devices and a couple of Koralias along with my original Rio 3100 and double 600 gph returns. Orig. system water movement was 1800 gph and is now around 4200 gph (depending on surge waves). I like the Borneman buckets and they don't put out microbubbles, just some larger ones in the beginning and end of a surge.
So, in short... I almost used GFO until I rinsed it to put it in a filter bag and it looked like the Rio Grande during flood season. I used seachem phosguard and that made my corals (leathers and zoos unhappy and grow slow) I removed both and used Carbon only.
Natural seems best and is cheaper, in my opinion. When I get a chance, I will post pics on the system and it's parts. I am a reefer on a budget, a tight budget expecting a little one. Everything I do must pass a max. efficiency test. So, I hope my words help with your decisions. I am not saying Vodka is bad, it livens up some nice drinks at my bar next to the tank, but I am skeptical as to whether my Paracanthurus wants to indulge in a daily shot. I say step up the basics of aquarium keeping first to get to where you want to be. If that is not enough, start a Vodka experiment.
I say all of this with the utmost respect, and want those to know that I am not just a hack, I am an ecologist and have professional experience with some of the same issues, on a much larger scale.
Chuck Spyropulos
Non-member
The only thing I'll say here is that everything in our tanks is artificial and depending on your tank, fish population, corals, etc different subsystems can work differently in one tank than in another. Many reefers use GFO along with macroalgaes to uptake phosphates and have found that these work well. In many cases these DO work but using GFO and lighting a fuge is expensive and many have searched for more efficient and less expensive methods to run their systems. If indeed ethanol additions encourages bacterial blooms that in turn out-compete nuisance algae then this could be a more efficient, less expensive option - vodka is cheap!
I have realized the wisdom of this acronym many times in my relatively short life.
KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID = KISS
I am by no means implying any stupidity. I am in the same boat with my 180 mixed reef as those in the thread find themselves. I am sharing my thoughts here to attempt to help those appreciate my revelation and success with something simple.
HUSBANDRY
I increased the quality of my source water RO/DI improvements... namely better cartridges, more resins, looking into catalyzed carbon now...
This improvement was cheap compared to GFO by the 5 gal bucket. Cartridge life is long in comparison to GFO's efficiency over time.
Increase volume of water changes / algae removal / refugium and total system water volume was increased by 40%. The skimmer is cleaned every three days or so along with sand bed vacuums weekly with water changes.
I also increased water movement in the display with two 5 gallon Borneman Surge Devices and a couple of Koralias along with my original Rio 3100 and double 600 gph returns. Orig. system water movement was 1800 gph and is now around 4200 gph (depending on surge waves). I like the Borneman buckets and they don't put out microbubbles, just some larger ones in the beginning and end of a surge.
So, in short... I almost used GFO until I rinsed it to put it in a filter bag and it looked like the Rio Grande during flood season. I used seachem phosguard and that made my corals (leathers and zoos unhappy and grow slow) I removed both and used Carbon only.
Natural seems best and is cheaper, in my opinion. When I get a chance, I will post pics on the system and it's parts. I am a reefer on a budget, a tight budget expecting a little one. Everything I do must pass a max. efficiency test. So, I hope my words help with your decisions. I am not saying Vodka is bad, it livens up some nice drinks at my bar next to the tank, but I am skeptical as to whether my Paracanthurus wants to indulge in a daily shot. I say step up the basics of aquarium keeping first to get to where you want to be. If that is not enough, start a Vodka experiment.
I say all of this with the utmost respect, and want those to know that I am not just a hack, I am an ecologist and have professional experience with some of the same issues, on a much larger scale.
