[jason@jasonsaquatics]

Hi guys

A good while back i was doing a lot of chat regarding food and Carbon source in a reef tank that i know a lot of you guys do yourselves now .

But one thing I'm not to sure on is how often you all dose ,how much and what you dose as your carbon source ?.

There are 3 main Types of carbon source that is widely used in the marine hobby and is talked about quite a bit these days

1: Sugar

2: Vodka

3: vinegar

I read and article asking why add all 3 rather than just sugar vodka or vinegar ,the answer was adding 3 types of carbon source will give you a more diverse bacteria population rather than one dominant strain of bacteria (monoculture).

There are different lengths you can go with dosing ,you can use it as a slight tweak to a system or a full on attempt as a ULNS .

Myself i like the idea of a little tweak once every week or two as dosing more will take away the sumps job and your alga's will struggle .
The idea of adding carbon sources to the system is to culture bacteria that will consume Nitrate and phosphate and the bacteria is then skimmed from the system so a good skimmer is a must before even thinking of adding a corbon source .

You will have to play with the dose your using as no 2 systems will be the same due to size of system your fish and stocking levels and the hardware like skimmers you are using .

The recipe for this method :
200ml Vodka 50ml vinegar and 1.5 tbsps sugar ,Silver spoon of fructose sugar
I would do a start dose at 1ml per 25 gallon and work up from there but please remember that if you get any bacterial bloom in the system you have added to much carbon source and could crash your tank .
The best time to dose is during the day while lights are on as you can keep an eye on the system for a bloom .Why don't you want a bloom ,well the bacteria will use up what oxygen there is in your system and will as they put it suffocate the system and kill the corals and fish hence the reason they say add a good skimmer if adding a carbon source .

The post I'm adding here is what i have read but i cant stress enough if your thinking or are adding a corbon source to your system be careful as you can cause unrepairable damage .Do your own homework on this and not from one area but loads to make sure your doing it right
If anyone has experiences with dosing this method and has more info to add please do so as the more info added will give others who read this a better chance of success


jas

[Social D]

I got drunk last friday and added 3 tablespoons to my 200g system it turned milky white the next day nothing was harmed tho and it really looked sparkling for the next week or so.

Now i add a small amount of voddy and sugar and try and avoid experimenting when pissed

Last night i added one teaspoon of sugar and a small amount of vodka my nitrate last night was around 5-10 i havent tested in over a year aswell

Now just tested and its 2 - 5

When i first set my tank up i used 8 tablespoons to bring down the nitrate of the tank in the maturing stage from 100 to 0 in under 2 days
Then added an acropora which is still alive now

If anybody is silly enough to copy me and you lose livestock dont quote what ive done ffs

Tbh tho i dont really use vodka and sugar much at all the tank is ok as it is, once in a while it gets a boost, To be dependant on its use all the time
is avoiding the problem and should really be sorted by more traditional methods like water changes.

My tank is now a year old + so will be adding more fish so i guess in the future i may rely on its use a bit more

[karnivor]

Tim, on Jan 17 2009, 05:40 PM, said:

I got drunk last friday and added 3 tablespoons to my 200g system it turned milky white the next day nothing was harmed tho and it really looked sparkling for the next week or so.

Now i add a small amount of voddy and sugar and try and avoid experimenting when pissed

Last night i added one teaspoon of sugar and a small amount of vodka my nitrate last night was around 5-10 i havent tested in over a year aswell

Now just tested and its 2 - 5

When i first set my tank up i used 8 tablespoons to bring down the nitrate of the tank in the maturing stage from 100 to 0 in under 2 days
Then added an acropora which is still alive now

If anybody is silly enough to copy me and you lose livestock dont quote what ive done ffs

Tbh tho i dont really use vodka and sugar much at all the tank is ok as it is, once in a while it gets a boost, To be dependant on its use all the time
is avoiding the problem and should really be sorted by more traditional methods like water changes.

My tank is now a year old + so will be adding more fish so i guess in the future i may rely on its use a bit more

I see you wasnt pissed enough to tip your Vodka in

[Social D]

.. Who would add precious vodka! .. Be good to see other post on this cant actually remember who locally adds sugar, But Simon reefyman - Andrew 30 (UR W.H.O.R.E.) and a a few more certainly do , Lets hear some results.

Dont be shy chaps with info, we wont look upon you as useless lazy reefers that reach for a teaspoon rather than lug 30 gallons of water around the house. Its all worth sharing

[dylan]

well i used to add sugar when i had a skimmer that was only rated for the actual amount of water i had my nitrates used to sit at around 20 , i used to add one teaspoon 3 times a week and it bought my nitrates down to 5, since adding the new skimmer my nitrates are 0 occasionally 2 so i dont really adds sugar anymore , didnt really think of adding it for water clarity

[jason@jasonsaquatics]

The idea of carbon dosing is a top idea but like anything how far do you want to push it . I a fashion if you dose every day as some guys do your running a ULNS and to be honest not my gig, but lets face facts if you run a ULNS right it works and works well as you can see by Simon.Cs Tank (Stunning is a word i would use).


But i do like the idea of a once a week routine bacterial boost as part of a weekly maintenance on a system,One thing you have to keep in mind if you are dosing small as a part of the maintenance is that its not a sub for a waterchange but a tweak to the bacteria cultures in your tank.I know some do add a bacteria and the coarbon dose as this is said to give a huge bacterial boost .

Like Tim has asked ,if you have any info please post it up in detail as to how you go about it


jas

[karnivor]

Ive also been reading about Carbon Dosing. Its certainly an interesting subject and results seem to vary from tank to tank.

The problem i'm having with it is whether or not the carbon source has to be an organic one as in sugar etc or whether inorganic carbon is equally effective. In NSW the levels of Organic Carbon are extremely low but inorganic Carbon (CO2) is in low but constant supply.

Could the variation in results in captive systems be a function of the amount of CO2 available in the system?
Is Carbon dosing necessary in a system utilising a Calcium Reactor.

An interesting survey would be to see if those reefers whos PH is say 8.1 or less, with other parameters correct have an issue with Nitrates or Phosphates.

Low PH in a system with a good ALK reading suggests and abundance of CO2 which MAY act as a carbon source for the bacteria, leading to a reduction in organic waste.

I cant find any relevant writing on this subject, but as ive said, it could account for the variations.

[jason@jasonsaquatics]

Yes i agree Co2 is a carbon source but the issue is that would again give you a monoculture of bacteria with a dominant strain of bacteria in the system .The idea of adding a few different carbon sorces is to stay away from the monoculture and give a more diverse spectrun in your bacterial cultures in the system.

I would hazard a guess and say the Co2 from the calcium reactor would give you an extra boost with maybe even another strain of bacteria ,who knows .


I also read last night that keeping the Kh at say 8 to 8.5 is a good idea ,i will read more and post soon to get a better idea as to why.I think its to stop base and tip burn on sps but not to sure why



jas

[norman]

hello all, very interesting, i had/have trouble with nitrates in both tanks, as i understood it-- ammonia/nitrite/nitrate is cycle. ammonia & nitrate both zero, but could not get nitrate under 20ppm even with frequent water changes. monoculture could be possible explanation. i am very interested in dosage for 50 & 20 gal tanks, as i will try this & keep you posted. all fish, invertibrates,sea horses & pulse corals are healthy, 20ppm nitrates not affecting them, but would like to improve on this. both are reef tanks, external filters housing usual, lr, phos& nitrate remover, carbon pads . did see a biggggg drop in nitrates when lr replaced sponges in filters, but systems still need final push with nitrate removal. all comments awaited with anticipation[ exept for spelling mistakes ] , cheers, norman.

[karnivor]

I sort of egree with the monoculture idea, in that its probably better to produce a wider variety.

HOWEVER, whilst there is a lot of hot air talked about using Acid, Alchohol and Carbs as 3 different sources, I cant find any evidence, just loads of hearsay. What source encourages what bacteria?...who knows?

does each source encourage each stage of the Nitrogen cycle?.....you tell me!!
If I only used one source, would my nitrates stay high? if not, whats the benefit of encouraging multiple strains.

Sugar and Vodka, to my knowledge have been used as a carbon source in reef tanks for more years than I can remember. In fact, it was one of the earliest ways of keeping anything resembling a reef and even precedes live rock. It was always a case of sugar OR vodka (maybe vinegar, i cant remember) and yet after all this time, I still cant find any meaningful information as to why I should choose one source over another.

Lets bface it, its very easy to sit back and accept what is said, and just make a mix up, but it doesnt push the hobby forward.

It reminds me a little of a guy who goes down his local fish shop, buys himself a load of raw moluscs and decides to add some sugar to the mix, to save him having to add it seperatley. having found his tank loves it, and his nitrates stay low, he shares it on the net. Can anyone guess his name?

sorry for all the scepticism but at least it adds balance to the debate.

[bobba fett]

Tim for me to sound stupid....

Doesn't the bacteria find its own natural level based on the nutrients in the system?

Ie if you add sugar/vodka to the system then the bacteria multiply based on what you are adding. If you stopped then the levels of bacteria would drop off again.

This leads me to think that the natural level is achieved with no additions and the population boom is caused by adding foodstuffs for the bacteria to feed on which seems to lead into a chicken and egg situation..


Aside from that, check this out.

My brother works for Tesco head office, a few years ago he had a sample of Vodka which was produced in Hungary I believe, it was being considered for thei Blue/white range and had a label to that effect. WHen he showed me the bottle you could actually see bits floating in it like a proper scrumpy.
Probably make you go blind but think of feeding that to the tank!!!

[norman]

hello all, been on several sugar websites, cannot find any referance to fructose sugar. can someone expand on this ? ie, what it is, where to buy, brand names etc, cheers, norman.

[lindsay]

I would say that the carbon source from the calcium reactor is different from the SVV as a tank with a reactor on it still shows a reaction ,if the SVV is added .

[karnivor]

lindsay, on Jan 18 2009, 02:53 PM, said:

I would say that the carbon source from the calcium reactor is different from the SVV as a tank with a reactor on it still shows a reaction ,if the SVV is added .

I disagree.
Could it be that it simply represents an increase in carbon to a system that can handle more. In other words, wouldnt an increase in CO2 show the same reaction.

Furthermore, by adding sugar, you are adding an easily available source of carbohydrate which may actually be what the bacteria are feeding on directly without the need to manufacture anything. Feed bacteria and bacteria will grow. Feed it with everything it needs and it will grow without removing anything from its environment.

In other words, bacteria will grow in RO water and Vinegar....or Sugar and RO water.

All of this is pure conjecture from me, but it seems to me that this subject is already heavily burdened with it.

[lindsay]

Cant really say for sure but if i go from 70 bubbles of C02 to 140 bubbles a minute on the reactor the water quality shows no change from the extra C02 .I know off a guy running the same reactor who found an improvement in the system by adding a small dose of SVV so i think that the reactors affect is different from the SVV .

[karnivor]

lindsay, on Jan 18 2009, 03:28 PM, said:

Cant really say for sure but if i go from 70 bubbles of C02 to 140 bubbles a minute on the reactor the water quality shows no change from the extra C02 .I know off a guy running the same reactor who found an improvement in the system by adding a small dose of SVV so i think that the reactors affect is different from the SVV .

Ahh but there lies the complication. Just because you increase the bubbles, you dont necessarily incease the CO2 in the tank. If the PH of the effluent doesnt decrease, then you are not adding any more, just producing more Calcium.

I'm not saying you are wrong, i'm just not prepared to say you are right yet.

[lindsay]

Gonna get you at dinnertime Karnivor .

[karnivor]

lindsay, on Jan 18 2009, 04:36 PM, said:

Gonna get you at dinnertime Karnivor .

my dad's bigger than your dad.

[jason@jasonsaquatics]

If adding VSV to a system once a week over a period of say a month will make the water in your tank Gin clear even if feeding heavy why don't you get the same results adding Co2 to your system through a reactor 24/7 .
I would hazard a guess and say if Co2 did the same job as VSV then adding 24/7 rather than once a week would produce the same results .

I have tryed to find a post i found on a forum but cant find now as it was some time back when i was feeding the pepone. A guy found if he were to add sugar once a week for an extra bacterial boost after a while of initial dosing he found the skimmer to drop off ,but on adding vodka he found that his skimmer would pick up again .
Would this not point out that the vodka is producing and alternative to be pulled out via the skimmer rather than what the sugar did .

Found this on RC

one guy posts: It is believed (not proven) that each of the carbon sources in VSV will fuel a different strand of bacteria preventing a monoculture.

This is the reply: Multiple carbon sources promote bacterial strain diversity within a biofilm. There's nothing theoretical about this ... the documentation in the literature is quite extensive, and crystal clear. What is utter nonsense is the notion that a single carbon source will generate a competitive exclusion dynamic that will ultimately result in the survival of a single bacterial strain (i.e., a monoculture). Long term dosing of a single carbon source will tend to produce a single dominant strain within the bioflim ... but not to the extinction of all other strains.

Not JMO ... this is the science.

Adding certain bacterias to your system like http://www.prodibio.fr/ will add some bacteria's that we may find hard to culture even with dosing

Now as most of you know i would not run this as a alternative to ULNS as im not a ULNS fan as i like the refuge idea to much with a more natural colour to my corals and this attitude we adopt in the shop. Also this idea should not be used as a quick fix to an underlying problem as the problem should be sorted out first.But i do believe that good bacteria is a plus and the idea of this bacteria grabbing Nutrients from the water column ready to be skimmed out must be a plus as a now and then boost .


Jas

[bobba fett]

Just watching a program on Sky about "Killer lakes"

They have just sasid at the bottom of a lake, hundreds of meters down is a vent which releases 1000 tonnes of CO2 into the lake each year.

Around that vent is a bacteria growth that scientists say can only be getting their "food" from the CO2 and the bacteria are 100 times denser in population than they are at the surface.


Might back up some opinions on this post?