Red Sea Comparison of various methods for Nitrate and Phosphate Reduction Chart

[biom]

Can I tell you a joke? Do you know why RS don't compare vodka/vinegar mix with NOPOX in their chart? Because is hard to compare the same things.
Seriously, did you notice that? This tells you a lot. They compare NOPOX with vodka/sugar/vinegar, vodka OR vinegar, but not vodka /vinegar.

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

You say it makes sense to you, but you are not going to give any reason why on 1 and 2? Makes me skeptical.

On 3, the people with out of control refugia that you observed couldn't just light it fewer hours per day?

Randy I'm sorry, I'm done with you and your righteous crusade. I think this all stems from the fact you don't know what's in nopox, but you want to be right.
But you can't argue that we don't know what's in it, and there IS a few things that were not identifiable. But that does not mean they're "lying" or whatever it is you seem to be pushing.


You're a smart guy, but you sure don't know everything. I'm pretty tired of people who expect to be right all the time.
Just as you said above, I could say:

Here's what you replied with

1. VSV is a controlled nutrient reduction method, but vodka alone is not. Does that make any sense to you?

It certainly doesn't to me.

2. They claim that VSV reduces phosphate by vodka alone does not.

Again, do that make sense to you?

It certainly doesn't to me.

3. That a refugium results in uncontrolled nutrient reduction.

Maybe they just don't understand how to control it, but changing the lighting times and/or the amount of macroalgae present certainly allows for control.
Do you see people around with out of control refugia that are driving nutrients too low?

You say it doesn't make sense to you but you are not going to give any reason why on 1 and 2? MAKES ME SKEPTICAL!
On 3, the people with refugia that's under control, what did they actually DO? Plants can grow OUT OF CONTROL.....

Please move on Randy, if you have questions about that chart and it doesn't make sense to you, take it up with customer service instead of trying to poke holes blindly because of some preference to some other brand or such.

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

Can I tell you a joke? Do you know why RS don't compare vodka/vinegar mix with NOPOX in their chart? Because is hard to compare the same things.
Seriously, did you notice that? This tells you a lot. They compare NOPOX with vodka/sugar/vinegar, vodka OR vinegar, but not vodka /vinegar.

Methanol+ethanol+acetic acid (aside from other compounds) is not equal to ethanol+acetic acid. (get it right before you attempt to troll lol)

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

Ya, I'm out. Good luck fellas in your quest to dominate.
I think you should take it up with customer service since you don't understand their reasoning.

 

[jedimasterben]

[[edited to remove animation since some folks complained it was against the Terms of Service]]


Kungpaoshizi, your lack of evidence isn't evidence.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Randy I'm sorry, I'm done with you and your righteous crusade. I think this all stems from the fact you don't know what's in nopox, but you want to be right.
But you can't argue that we don't know what's in it, and there IS a few things that were not identifiable. But that does not mean they're "lying" or whatever it is you seem to be pushing.


You're a smart guy, but you sure don't know everything. I'm pretty tired of people who expect to be right all the time.
Just as you said above, I could say:

Here's what you replied with

1. VSV is a controlled nutrient reduction method, but vodka alone is not. Does that make any sense to you?

It certainly doesn't to me.

2. They claim that VSV reduces phosphate by vodka alone does not.

Again, do that make sense to you?

It certainly doesn't to me.

3. That a refugium results in uncontrolled nutrient reduction.

Maybe they just don't understand how to control it, but changing the lighting times and/or the amount of macroalgae present certainly allows for control.
Do you see people around with out of control refugia that are driving nutrients too low?

You say it doesn't make sense to you but you are not going to give any reason why on 1 and 2? MAKES ME SKEPTICAL!
On 3, the people with refugia that's under control, what did they actually DO? Plants can grow OUT OF CONTROL.....

Please move on Randy, if you have questions about that chart and it doesn't make sense to you, take it up with customer service instead of trying to poke holes blindly because of some preference to some other brand or such.

I'm taking it up because someone posted a Red Sea advertisement in my forum without comment.

Since I believe it wrong, it deserves comment.

I just don't understand how knowledge or lack thereof of the ingredients in NOPOX would change any of my comments, nor did I say anything about it in this thread.

I also don't see you posting anything to suggest they are right.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Ya, I'm out. Good luck fellas in your quest to dominate.
I think you should take it up with customer service since you don't understand their reasoning.

Thanks.

That is my goal: for rational thought to dominate manufacturer advertising.

It is a fine idea to ask their customer service. I'll report back what they say about my points above.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

OK, here's the question I posted to Technical Support on the Red Sea web site:

I have some questions about some of your advertising material related to NO3PO4X.

Specifically, this web site of yours:

http://www.redseafish.com/blog/nitrate-phosphate-reduction-via-carbon-dosing/

As a start, can you explain why you think that "VSV" is a "controlled" nutrient reduction method, but vodka alone is not?

In the NO3PO4X section, you say this control comes about by monitored dosing. Couldn't vodka dosing be monitored just as well?

"The fine control of the nitrate and phosphate levels provided by monitored dosing of NO3PO4-X guarantees the gradual changes and accurate maintenance of the nutrient levels."

Thank you

Randy Holmes-Farley

 

[jcdeng]

1 thing you left out in the chart.

Does NOPOX fuel cyano? YES! Does Refugium fuel cyano? NO. Yay 1 up for refugiums

I say this b/c I have used both and I still am running a refugium.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

1 thing you left out in the chart.

Does NOPOX fuel cyano? YES! Does Refugium fuel cyano? NO. Yay 1 up for refugiums

I say this b/c I have used both and I still am running a refugium.

Yes, there are lots of ways to skew such a chart. That's why I blasted it as advertising and not a balanced presentation.

All methods have pros and cons. They list no cons for NO3PO4X when there could easily be some written in.

For example:

1. Organic carbon dosing of all types reduces oxygen. Lit refugia add oxygen, and can add it when most needed, at night. Binders are O2 neutral.

2, Organic carbon dosing produces CO2 and so tends to contribute to low pH. Lit refugia raise pH, and can be timed to do so when it is most needed, at night.

3. Organic carbon dosing can result in more lowering of N than P, leaving excess P around that may need to be taken up in others ways (such as a binder) or perhaps solved by dosing nitrate.

4. Organic carbon dosing, and most lit refugia do nothing to reduce silicate. Most phosphate binders also bind silicate.

5. Organic carbon dosing occasionally results in unsightly bacteria.

6. Organic carbon dosing has the potential to drive the growth of pathogenic bacteria, which have been implicated in coral problems in some aquaria.

7. Careful monitoring of nutrient levels may be required to prevent excessively low nutrients when organic carbon dosing.

 

[Reef_Hobbyist]

Yes, there are lots of ways to skew such a chart. That's why I blasted it as advertising and not a balanced presentation.

All methods have pros and cons. They list no cons for NO3PO4X when there could easily be some written in.

For example:

1. Organic carbon dosing of all types reduces oxygen. Lit refugia add oxygen, and can add it when most needed, at night. Binders are O2 neutral.

2, Organic carbon dosing produces CO2 and so tends to contribute to low pH. Lit refugia raise pH, and can be timed to do so when it is most needed, at night.

3. Organic carbon dosing can result in more lowering of N than P, leaving excess P around that may need to be taken up in others ways (such as a binder) or perhaps solved by dosing nitrate.

4. Organic carbon dosing, and most lit refugia do nothing to reduce silicate. Most phosphate binders also bind silicate.

5. Organic carbon dosing occasionally results in unsightly bacteria.

6. Organic carbon dosing has the potential to drive the growth of pathogenic bacteria, which have been implicated in coral problems in some aquaria.

7. Careful monitoring of nutrient levels may be required to prevent excessively low nutrients when organic carbon dosing.

It would be great if we could make our own chart and capture all of the various methods with the pros/cons and impacts along with other factors to consider. There is a lot of documentation and information available in this forum if you search for it. I have been taking notes of my own too but would love to have a chart or matrix that pulls it all together.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

It would be great if we could make our own chart and capture all of the various methods with the pros/cons and impacts along with other factors to consider. There is a lot of documentation and information available in this forum if you search for it. I have been taking notes of my own too but would love to have a chart or matrix that pulls it all together.

While it is not a chart, I summarize how most of the nitrate reduction methods work here, and give what I consider the pros and cons of each:

Nitrate in the Reef Aquarium - REEFEDITION
https://www.reef2reef.com/blog/nitrate-in-the-reef-aquarium

and I do the same for phosphate reduction methods here:

Phosphate In The Reef Aquarium
https://www.reef2reef.com/blog/?p=3184

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

OK, here's the question I posted to Technical Support on the Red Sea web site:

I have some questions about some of your advertising material related to NO3PO4X.

Specifically, this web site of yours:

http://www.redseafish.com/blog/nitrate-phosphate-reduction-via-carbon-dosing/

As a start, can you explain why you think that "VSV" is a "controlled" nutrient reduction method, but vodka alone is not?

In the NO3PO4X section, you say this control comes about by monitored dosing. Couldn't vodka dosing be monitored just as well?

"The fine control of the nitrate and phosphate levels provided by monitored dosing of NO3PO4-X guarantees the gradual changes and accurate maintenance of the nutrient levels."

Thank you

Randy Holmes-Farley

In addition to a quick auto response from the Red Sea web site, I got this response from Red Sea this morning:


Dear Mr. Holmes-Farley,

Thank you for your enquiry regarding Red Sea NO3PO4-X. Our product instructions and website are designed and managed by our parent company. I will forward your questions to the appropriate department and try to provide you with an answer as quickly as possible.

Best Regards

Customer Service
Red Sea North America

 

[omykiss001]

Randy I'm sorry, I'm done with you and your righteous crusade. I think this all stems from the fact you don't know what's in nopox, but you want to be right.
But you can't argue that we don't know what's in it, and there IS a few things that were not identifiable. But that does not mean they're "lying" or whatever it is you seem to be pushing.


You're a smart guy, but you sure don't know everything. I'm pretty tired of people who expect to be right all the time.
Just as you said above, I could say:

Here's what you replied with

1. VSV is a controlled nutrient reduction method, but vodka alone is not. Does that make any sense to you?

It certainly doesn't to me.

2. They claim that VSV reduces phosphate by vodka alone does not.

Again, do that make sense to you?

It certainly doesn't to me.

3. That a refugium results in uncontrolled nutrient reduction.

Maybe they just don't understand how to control it, but changing the lighting times and/or the amount of macroalgae present certainly allows for control.
Do you see people around with out of control refugia that are driving nutrients too low?

You say it doesn't make sense to you but you are not going to give any reason why on 1 and 2? MAKES ME SKEPTICAL!
On 3, the people with refugia that's under control, what did they actually DO? Plants can grow OUT OF CONTROL.....

Please move on Randy, if you have questions about that chart and it doesn't make sense to you, take it up with customer service instead of trying to poke holes blindly because of some preference to some other brand or such.

Thank you Randy for questioning this table and keeping your end of the forum open to rigorous scrutiny based on scientific principles.

To this point Randy is saying it does not make sense because the data is in and we know that when you dose carbon it is simply to add the limiting nutrient to fuel the growth of bacteria that will utilize the phosphate and nitrate in their growth, which are then exported from the system via skimming or some other method. Why Randy was saying it doesn't make sense is 1 & 2 are both are carbon dosing methods just differing carbon sources. In the end both are added to grow bacteria so it makes no sense that one would uptake only nitrate and ignore the phosphate. Living organisms needs phosphorous in some amount regardless as it is essential in building DNA and a cornerstone in how living cells utilize energy e.g. ATP (adenosine tri-phosphate) etc. I believe that is why Randy said it make no sense and most likely did not provide the reason as it is well established in the literature that if you are growing living organisms they will all use some amount of phosphorus, nitrogen, and carbon to grow and multiply. To say one of these methods does not use phosphate, but grows bacteria is just plain nonsense.

I also have advanced degrees in molecular biology, genetics, and microbiology so I also know a thing or two on the subject.

Thanks again Randy for keeping the science and evidence forefront. There is way to much snake oil in this hobby and IMO if you can't explain why the product works with data and you are posting info that is clearly erroneous the vendor should be asked tough questions to explain themselves, if they can back it up real controlled data then I might be the 1st in line to try said product. In this case the vendor tried to publish a table that was clearly not in line with known science and got called out for it. Just one of the many reasons I like your end of the forum so much and has helped relearn some of the chemistry of saltwater systems I've forgotten from my undergrad chem days.

P.S. I find it rather funny the vendor called into question Randy's credentials (ROFL), but has yet to come back with good information that would convince me anything he has claimed can be backed up with data.

Please keep doing what your are doing Randy!

 

[CastAway]

Can you tell me why you have your own thread and why you think you know so much about water chemistry? I just wanna know if you have a degree in it.

Do you reef?

 

[beaslbob]

The only thing that makes sense to me is using algae.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

The only thing that makes sense to me is using algae.

Yes, but be careful. You are playing with fire. Don't want another Chernobyl with an uncontrolled refugium.

 

[beaslbob]

Yes, but be careful. You are playing with fire. Don't want another Chernobyl with an uncontrolled refugium.

I didn't know they required control.

 

[beaslbob]

 

[Joeganja]

Do you reef?

Yes