Another conversation about how to chemically reduce nitrates.

[hart24601]

I'm currently reaching out to Randy to discuss this and share some differences between ecoBAK and the polymers he is referring to.

Great! That will be interesting.

 

[Jon Warner]

Great! That will be interesting.

I hope he gets back to me. I've informally known him since the 1990's and he and Dr. Craig Bingman are the top voices in Marine and Aquarium Chemistry.

There are physical differences between ecoBAK and the polymers he's directly referring to. This difference is the number one thing that I can't disclose on a public forum because it is the essential and primary advantage that ecoBAK has over other similar products and is a central part of our patent application. Literally the crystalline structure of ecoBAK is radically different. EcoBAK does NOT break down without the aid of microbes in sea water.

 

[hart24601]

I hope he gets back to me. I've informally known him since the 1990's and he and Dr. Craig Bingman are the top voices in Marine and Aquarium Chemistry.

There are physical differences between ecoBAK and the polymers he's directly referring to. This difference is the number one thing that I can't disclose on a public forum because it is the essential and primary advantage that ecoBAK has over other similar products and is a central part of our patent application. Literally the crystalline structure of ecoBAK is radically different. EcoBAK does NOT break down without the aid of microbes in sea water.

That is interesting. I would have liked to try ecoBAK before I tore down my reactor and started liquid dosing. My biopellet comments were directed at the conventional varieties, I was unaware of the differences.

 

[Jon Warner]

That is interesting. I would have liked to try ecoBAK before I tore down my reactor and started liquid dosing. My biopellet comments were directed at the conventional varieties, I was unaware of the differences.

PM...

 

[Arnie]

oooppps

 

[Arnie]

He gives many reasons for not using pellets in that thread, as have many on rc. He really isn't someone to discount something just because he doesn't want to switch.

Each tank will not be the same as others, each tank is unique and each reefer will have a different experience. Hence why I ask questions so that you can try it on your own and fix it at the same time.

Trials and errors would be your key to your own system. Unlike members here and others as well, not all have the $$$$ to buy expensive equipment and expect their cheaper equipment would work out the same as the others. I am using a coralife protein skimmer, way way out of the league compared to someone that has an expensive reef octopus per say.

So I would try different means for my reef to thrive by reading and joining forums like this. Which helped me for the past 14 months... Now I finally bought a sump... its another challenge for me to make it work as I am back to square on with the experience.

Bottom line.... each way works... depending on your tank/equipment/husbandry/livestock/etc.

 

[mcarroll]

What about deep sand beds? That's a band aid?

Not a band-aid - that's a stunt! Technically, yes it functions as an anaerobic environment the same way live rock does. Sadly it's nothing short of a magic trick to get one to last. The best ones would be deployed in a separate tank from the display so they could be deconstructed and cleaned as needed.

Where does the bandaid metaphor come from? To my way of thinking that would mean you're covering something up or temporarily fixing something. (???) Carbon dosing is a nutrient export method that occurs by promoting the growth of beneficial bacteria that will convert nitrates into nitrogen (right?). So nothing is being covered up since the nutrients aren't masked...they're exported! It's also not a temporary fix since vodka dosing is not something that should be done short-term but rather would become a means of export that is part of regular husbandry (for those who choose to use it). Again, it's all about import and export...getting the garbage out that was put in.



Pete makes a great point here with his question. Live rock is simply a surface area for the growth of beneficial bacteria. This same thing is accomplished through a deep sand bed...or any other number of methods. In the end the beneficial bacteria is the "natural method" not the rock it lives on. Arguably, carbon dosing is another "natural means" since it promotes the growth of bb.

Band Aids?
I think the bandaid term is just used as a term for a temporary fix as opposed to a long-term one. People generally want to put more animals in a tank than they should...almost always requiring extensive band-aiding just to keep the system from crashing and killing the contents. A system designed from the outset for the number of animals in question would be sized appropriately and not require all the band aids. (It's too bad IMO that this is such an exotic idea....and band-aids the norm.)

Carbon dosing is not a nutrient export method.
Carbon dosing encourages bacteria to grow. During their itty-bitty lives they use up nutrients and sequester them within thier living cells. There is no conversion to gas - anaerobic conditions like inside live rock are required for that.

A secondary mechanism such as a skimmer or hungry coral is required for there to be any chance at export or productive use for the nutrients in that bacteria. If the bacteria dies a natural death, the nutrients would return to the water column.

And as mentioned before, based on this I think it's a bit of wishful thinking to imagine a skimmer catching even a majority of bacteria escaping a pellet reactor. We won't bring up the alkalinity issues or other hidden "costs" related to carbon dosing. It's not a method of nutrient export and it's not a free lunch either. There's always going to be a cost associated with overstocking.

By contrast...
Live rock can convert nitrate to nitrogen gas.
Water changes remove a specific percentage of waste according to how much water is removed.
A skimmer is a source of nutrient export....probably on par with a ~20% weekly water change schedule if you skim wet and keep the skimmer clean religiously.
An algae scrubber or macro-algae refugium is a source of nutrient export as long as algae is regularly harvested.

I hope this helps!

-Matt

 

[Pete polyp]

You can say carbon dosing is not nutrient export because it the bacteria have to me removed. And in the same post you say macro is nutrient export. This is completely contradictory because macro as well as carbon use the same principles. It absorbs the nitrates until its removed. The only difference would be manual removal vs mechanical.

 

[Daniel@R2R]

You can say carbon dosing is not nutrient export because it the bacteria have to me removed. And in the same post you say macro is nutrient export. This is completely contradictory because macro as well as carbon use the same principles. It absorbs the nitrates until its removed. The only difference would be manual removal vs mechanical.

+1. I agree with this completely. It's contradictory to say that macro algae IS nutrient export but carbon dosing isn't...it's the same principle.

In the end, this is just a question of preference in nutrient export methodology. Calling one person's method a "bandaid" and touting one's own method as the "correct" way of reef keeping denies the fact that there are multiple proven ways to accomplish the same goals. There are plenty of successful reef keepers who utilize carbon dosing as part of their nutrient export strategy.

No one is calling carbon dosing the only method necessary for nutrient export, but neither is it a "bandaid" (since it's not a "temporary fix" anymore than a water change or a refugium)...it's just another tool in the toolbelt for successful reef keeping. Use it or don't.

 

[mcarroll]

+1. I agree with this completely. It's contradictory to say that macro algae IS nutrient export but carbon dosing isn't...it's the same principle.[...]

It should be able to go without saying, but we (the tank owners) are a primary mechanism in everything about the tank. We are required for the tank to be there, the fish to get in it, daily feedings, water changes, dosing, havesting macro algae, cleaning skimmers.....everything. I woudn't confuse the issue by trying to think of yourself otherwise.

Again, carbon dosing requires a second mechanism for export. We cannot help in this role - another mechanism is required.

Does this make sense?

-Matt

 

[Pete polyp]

No it doesn't make sense because its using a second mechanism that you have listed as being nutrient export.

And for that matter growing algae also requires a separate mechanism as well, light

 

[Daniel@R2R]

It should be able to go without saying, but we (the tank owners) are a primary mechanism in everything about the tank. We are required for the tank to be there, the fish to get in it, daily feedings, water changes, dosing, havesting macro algae, cleaning skimmers.....everything. I woudn't confuse the issue by trying to think of yourself otherwise.

Again, carbon dosing requires a second mechanism for export. We cannot help in this role - another mechanism is required.

Does this make sense?

-Matt

I get what you are saying here, but my point is that in the same way that the bacteria binds up nutrients and then is exported (or consumed), macro is the same. So there is this very strong similarity in the two methods. I guess I would answer your statement that while manual export is required for macro, export of the bacteria fed through carbon dosing is handled automatically by the skimmer. I understand why you're wanting to differentiate, but from my perspective there are far more similarities than differences...too many to call one a bandaid and the other natural/healthy/correct. Both are very viable/sustainable ways for export and both are commonly employed by experienced successful reefers, so they should be viewed as different means to the same end.

Some of us will choose macro, some will choose carbon dosing, and some may even use a combination of the two (and other methods as well). My argument is simply that we shouldn't tout one as being wrong/irresponsible/bandaid when both are useful tools in one's toolkit for maintenance.

 

[mcarroll]

I guess my point is just that it's not a good excuse to overstock...and it's frequently used as such. (You only need this if you overstock.) It's not a system without costs and risks as it is usually made out to be - with the caveats poorly understood, forgotten or glossed over. In theory this isn't a problem...just in practice.

-Matt

 

[H2O]

Ok everyone is looking to cut corners with the chemicals but in the long run the tank will just get polluted and crash what ever happened to keeping up with water changes if u can't do that then cut the bio load sell some fish feed less and problem solved or keep adding chemicals and hope all goes well

 

[Daniel@R2R]

I guess my point is just that it's not a good excuse to overstock...and it's frequently used as such. (You only need this if you overstock.) It's not a system without costs and risks as it is usually made out to be - with the caveats poorly understood, forgotten or glossed over. In theory this isn't a problem...just in practice.

-Matt

Ok. I agree with you here for sure that carbon dosing is not a magic bullet...I don't believe one exists. All nutrient export systems (and husbandry period) should be viewed realistically so that you recognize what it CAN do and what it CANNOT do. I do believe it to be a solid tool for use in reef keeping, but only if it is properly researched and understood. The same can be said for all other types of nutrient export as well...water changes, refugiums, dsbs, rdsbs, and even live rock all have limitations that need to be understood. Whatever your reef keeping philosophy works out to be, there always has to be a balance of nutrient import and export so that all the waste that gets into the water also gets out, and that can only happen successfully (whether you overstock or understock, feed lightly or heavily) if you do the due diligence to know what's going on in your tank. Know that for every action taken, one should know why it was taken and what effects it will have on possible needs for other types of maintenance. We should all be responsible with whatever husbandry practices we use.

 

[Daniel@R2R]

Ok everyone is looking to cut corners with the chemicals but in the long run the tank will just get polluted and crash what ever happened to keeping up with water changes if u can't do that then cut the bio load sell some fish feed less and problem solved or keep adding chemicals and hope all goes well

LOL be sure and read this whole conversation as that's exactly what we're talking about. Chemicals aren't always about cutting corners, and are used frequently and successfully by even the most advanced reefers. If it's not your thing, that's cool, but don't prophecy doom on all who do. All chemicals don't lead to crashes or water pollution. However, as we have just been saying, all husbandry practices (whether we're talking about water changes, deep sandbeds, or carbon dosing) all need to be researched, understood, and used responsibly.

 

[Pete polyp]

I guess my point is just that it's not a good excuse to overstock...and it's frequently used as such. (You only need this if you overstock.) It's not a system without costs and risks as it is usually made out to be - with the caveats poorly understood, forgotten or glossed over. In theory this isn't a problem...just in practice.

-Matt

I can agree with this.

For my new setup I have chosen more than one method of nutrient export, biopellets being one of them. Being a barebottom I wanted to be certain nutrients would not be a problem. I also have an efficient skimmer, and macroalgae. With the 10 or so fish I want to have it would be considered by most as overstocked for a 40. In reality my total system volume is near 70 gallons, so it could also be considered heavily stocked.

The point is to have the capability of exporting the amount of import. I believe my system will be capable of this with the assistance of the carbon.

 

[Pete polyp]

Ok. I agree with you here for sure that carbon dosing is not a magic bullet...I don't believe one exists. All nutrient export systems (and husbandry period) should be viewed realistically so that you recognize what it CAN do and what it CANNOT do. I do believe it to be a solid tool for use in reef keeping, but only if it is properly researched and understood. The same can be said for all other types of nutrient export as well...water changes, refugiums, dsbs, rdsbs, and even live rock all have limitations that need to be understood. Whatever your reef keeping philosophy works out to be, there always has to be a balance of nutrient import and export so that all the waste that gets into the water also gets out, and that can only happen successfully (whether you overstock or understock, feed lightly or heavily) if you do the due diligence to know what's going on in your tank. Know that for every action taken, one should know why it was taken and what effects it will have on possible needs for other types of maintenance. We should all be responsible with whatever husbandry practices we use.

Well said

 

[mcarroll]

[...]I do believe it to be a solid tool for use in reef keeping, but only if it is properly researched and understood. The same can be said for all other types of nutrient export as well...water changes, refugiums, dsbs, rdsbs, and even live rock all have limitations that need to be understood[...].

All the other methods are far better understood (the good and bad) than carbon dosing.

For one aspect of this, "burnt tips" is the closest anyone has come to explaining one of the caveats of carbon dosing...but it's an entirely unscientific explanation that's really only valuable in explaining the known hack/workaround of keeping your alkalinity low to avoid the problem.

Relative to the other options - which also includes proper stocking levels - carbon dosing is a pure hack, not a full-fledged tool every ReefKeeper should use.

IMO a suitable use might be as a stop-gap used on your way to a tank upgrade - an actual solution.

To need it day to day indicates an unbalanced reef.

Unbalanced reefs can still grow fish and coral, but are more susceptible to bad luck, among other things.

-Matt

 

[Daniel@R2R]

All the other methods are far better understood (the good and bad) than carbon dosing.

For one aspect of this, "burnt tips" is the closest anyone has come to explaining one of the caveats of carbon dosing...but it's an entirely unscientific explanation that's really only valuable in explaining the known hack/workaround of keeping your alkalinity low to avoid the problem.

Relative to the other options - which also includes proper stocking levels - carbon dosing is a pure hack, not a full-fledged tool every ReefKeeper should use.

IMO a suitable use might be as a stop-gap used on your way to a tank upgrade - an actual solution.

To need one day to day indicates an unbalanced reef.

Unbalanced reefs can still grow fish and coral, but are more susceptible to bad luck, among other things.

-Matt

I think instead of beating a dead horse, I'm just going to agree to disagree with you on this point. I think you understand my opinion at this point.