 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Pet Forum / Aquaria / Marine Reef / July 2005Persistent Phosphate levels despite Phosphate sponge/ Phosban
I have a 150 gallon 5 year old reef tank. Every once in a while when I get motivated, I check the Nitrate, and phosphate level in the tank. The nitrates have been undetectable recently, but the phosphates have seemingly been stuck a .15 level for well over a year. I have tried a Phosphate sponge when I have had a problem with excessive algae growth which seemed to help with excess algae, although the measured phosphate level really did not budge. Recently, after renewing my clean-up crew, I have not had any problems with algae outbreaks. Mainly in an effort to improve my SPS growth and coloration I have attempted again to get my phosphates lower. I have used a phosphate sponge followed by installation of a fluidized filter using phosban for the past several days. Still it appears that my phosphates are holding steady at .15. I am using a Salifert test kit, and I did try the test on fresh RO water just to make sure that was zero and it was. How long should it take for phosban to work? I know that the Phosban fluidized filter says it can be used for up to a 150 gallon tank. Is it possible that I need to hook up two filters to help bring my phosphates down? >I have a 150 gallon 5 year old reef tank. Every once in a while when I > get motivated, I check the Nitrate, and phosphate level in the tank. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > gallon tank. Is it possible that I need to hook up two filters to help > bring my phosphates down? Are you sure the test kit is good? Try a different one??? I've been battling PO4 and .15 is nothing. I've had my tank as high as 3.0, and in an effort to get the numbers back down I've tried virtually everything on the market. Phosban (5 containers worth) ROWAphos (1.5 containers worth) Tunze's Silphos (2 containers worth) PuraPad filter pads (4) Water changes (50 to 80g at a time) Larger refugium with more macro algae (20g to a 29g packed with macros) Larger skimmer (Lifereef to a Euroreef 12-2) Larger sump (80g to a 150g) They went up and down. 10 days ago, I had them down to 0. A week later, it was around 1.0. I'm using something by CaribSea called Phosbuster Pro. It is a liquid additive that bonds PO4 and turns it into a flocculant. This dust can be exported by your skimmer, and probably collected via a filter sock in your sump. In an effort to get these numbers down after so many months of fighting it, I've lost SPS corals left and right. Honestly, I wouldn't have done it any differently because I think those corals have had enough. What lives lives, and what doesn't will be replaced with fresh corals that haven't suffered the water issues my tank has endured. I'm going to try using Phosbuster Pro to keep the numbers minimal, but dose it around 50% of what is recommended to avoid affecting the livestock. My hope is that will work. I only started this recently, so I can't report all that much at the moment. Marc > I have a 150 gallon 5 year old reef tank. Every once in a while when I > get motivated, I check the Nitrate, and phosphate level in the tank. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > gallon tank. Is it possible that I need to hook up two filters to help > bring my phosphates down?  SignaturePersonal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com >>What lives lives, and what doesn't will be replaced with fresh corals that >>haven't suffered the water issues my tank has endured. This is totaly irresponsible. You could also say when I get bored with my dog I'll just let it die and get me a new one. Theese corals are living creatures and we should try to do best for them so they live and thrive. With this liquid phosphate removers you are dosing iron to the water. No one really knows what happens with it and how it affects corals and fish. Taegu, safest way to lower phosphates (together with nitrates) assuming that you have good skimmer is adding vodka. Try gradualy adding vodka to your tank after the lights turn on. First add 1 ml, then 2 ml... but 10 ml should be the maximum of vodka for your tank. You'll notice slight turbidity of aquarium water. This is sign that bacteria have multiplied. This bacterioplankton is then skimmed out of the aquarium. Theese strains of bacteria use carbon from vodka, nitrate and phosphate for their growth and reproduction. On my 180 g I dose daily 7ml of vodka and have no problems with phosphate or nitrate. Mislav >With this liquid phosphate removers you are dosing iron to the water. No >one really knows what happens with it and how it affects corals and fish. Obviously the companies know and have tested the products before putting them to market. How do YOU know that these products are harmful? You do not. So you cannot pass judgment on someone as being irresponsible for trying everything they can to reduce the phosphates. You seem to have contributed very little to this group recently. Have you been reading the fanatical anti this and anti that posts on some of the "Expert" message boards to cause you to regurgitate a statement like that? A Quote from you after inaccurately making a statement about charged particles: "I'm not so good in chemistry" Yet you are good enough to judge the use of phosphate removers as bad? His statement may sound harsh, but what else can he do? A massive water change is just as harmful to corals. It shocks the hell out of them. Can you magically heal them? Got some magic Jesus powers to share? Anyone who takes the time to READ and PARTICIPATE in this newsgroup knows that Marc is very passionate about his tanks and animals and would understand that such a statement is simply one of frustration and disappointment. So I suggest you take your judgmental a.s back to wherever you have been and come back when you have a degree in chemistry and can explain why phosphate removers are bad, or back up your statement with more than anecdotal evidence. Making a statement such as yours is JUST as IRRESPONSIBLE as any other I have seen. CW >>>What lives lives, and what doesn't will be replaced with fresh corals >>>that haven't suffered the water issues my tank has endured. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Mislav > Obviously the companies know and have tested the products before putting > them to market. > How do YOU know that these products are harmful? I don't know that. I'm just saying that even those companies that have "tested" the product know only that it binds with phosphates. What happens when someone uses it regulary they don't know. Find at least one scientific study about adding phosphate remover from any manufacterer and then we can say it is tested. > You do not. So you cannot pass judgment on someone as being irresponsible > for trying everything they can to reduce the phosphates. You seem to have > contributed very little to this group recently. Have you been reading the > fanatical anti this and anti that posts on some of the "Expert" message > boards to cause you to regurgitate a statement like that? I'm reading this group, internet forums, internet aquaristic magazines, books, everything I can and find time to do it for years. I'm not fanatical about anything except when peple make statements like I don't care this coral or fish died, I'll buy me another one. If someone is fanatical it is you, attacking me without reason, just because I've said that it is irresponsible not to care for organisms in aquarium. > A Quote from you after inaccurately making a statement about charged > particles: > "I'm not so good in chemistry" > > Yet you are good enough to judge the use of phosphate removers as bad? I didn't say that. Better read my post again and find those words you are aplying to me. > His statement may sound harsh, but what else can he do? A massive water > change is just as harmful to corals. It shocks the hell out of them. Can > you magically heal them? Got some magic Jesus powers to share? Anyone who > takes the time to READ and PARTICIPATE in this newsgroup knows that Marc > is very passionate about his tanks and animals and would understand that > such a statement is simply one of frustration and disappointment. I know who Marc is but it is still my opinion that when someone says: "Honestly, I wouldn't have done it any differently because I think those corals have had enough." it is very irresponsble. He is saying that even if he knew corals would die he would do it again. I wouldn't do that and that is the difference. > So I suggest you take your judgmental a.s back to wherever you have been > and come back when you have a degree in chemistry and can explain why [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > CW I suggest you read the post before you flame someone. Mislav That is the problem with my posting on this topic to the newsgroup that hasn't lived through this ongoing saga. My 280g reef thread on RC has lots and lots to say, and if you knew all the details, my statement wouldn't translate the way you read it. Trust me, I've done all that I can and there really wasn't a different approach I could have taken, other than setting up a second tank and paying to run two systems while I resolve the problem in the first. Marc > I know who Marc is but it is still my opinion that when someone says: > "Honestly, I > wouldn't have done it any differently because I think those corals have > had enough." it is very irresponsble. He is saying that even if he knew > corals would die he would do it again. I wouldn't do that and that is the > difference. SignaturePersonal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com You gonna try Vodka? CW > That is the problem with my posting on this topic to the newsgroup that > hasn't lived through this ongoing saga. My 280g reef thread on RC has [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> corals would die he would do it again. I wouldn't do that and that is the >> difference. Only for my sanity. LOL Marc > You gonna try Vodka? > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >>Marc SignaturePersonal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com For that I would stick to Bacardi 151. Only takes a little for sanity to kick-in! CW > Only for my sanity. LOL > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >>> >>>Marc Actually, Crown Royal is always on hand. :D Marc > For that I would stick to Bacardi 151. > Only takes a little for sanity to kick-in! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >>Marc SignaturePersonal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com Marc, You use RC, how about digging up some info on this Vodka method and posting it here? CW > Only for my sanity. LOL > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >>> >>>Marc I could, but it isn't even an interesting topic to me. I don't really want to allocate the time. I know that sounds rude, and it isn't meant that way. I'm just a busy guy. :) I think I read an article by Eric Borneman in Reefkeeping Online (reefkeeping.com) maybe three or four months ago, and he talked about Vodka. You don't have to be subscribed to read RKO, so take a look at the Previous Issues and you'll fine it easily. It was a great article, to me. Marc > Marc, > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >>>> >>>>Marc SignaturePersonal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com Just as an update, have been using phosban for the past two weeks. Phosphate level now undetectable. Only problem is that using the Kent Phos Reactor, the circular sponge filters that they supply to prevent the media from escaping from the reactor, don't work that well. The phosban media is small enough to get through the filter and get out of the reactor. Not a large amount, but little very small amounts now and then. I hope that this escaped media will not cause a problem in the future. Your post: "Taegu, safest way to lower phosphates (together with nitrates) assuming that you have good skimmer is adding vodka. Try gradualy adding vodka to your tank after the lights turn on. First add 1 ml, then 2 ml... but 10 ml should be the maximum of vodka for your tank. You'll notice slight turbidity of aquarium water. This is sign that bacteria have multiplied. This bacterioplankton is then skimmed out of the aquarium. Theese strains of bacteria use carbon from vodka, nitrate and phosphate for their growth and reproduction." You are clearly stating that your method is safer. Please show me the scientific study that proves it. As I said: >Making a statement such as yours is JUST as IRRESPONSIBLE as any other I >have seen. Also, do you know for a fact that the phosphate exportation method mentioned by Marc is iron based? The majority of iron or aluminum oxide media is just that, Media. Media that is removed once it has bound with the phosphate. Exactly how do you make the conclusion that iron is being added to the aquarium in significant quantities? Now adding steel wool to the sump as I saw someone here suggest would certainly do this and I could not recommend such behavior. Even if it is iron based, it could be bound with a polymer substrate that is so small that it stays suspended and exported via protein skimming. Or perhaps a million other ways! Chemists are very clever. Unlike you and your alcoholic beverage advice, these companies like SeaChem, CaribSea and Kent are staking the future of their product lines and business on the release of products that are tested to be safe. Should one of their product prove to be detrimental to consumers, then they have bit the dust. Just as you want scientific proof that they are safe, I want scientific proof they are bad. CW Please point me to a scientific study that proves your vodka method is less dangerous than phosphate removers on the market. >> Obviously the companies know and have tested the products before putting >> them to market. [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > Mislav > Your post: > "Taegu, safest way to lower phosphates (together with nitrates) assuming [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > You are clearly stating that your method is safer. > Please show me the scientific study that proves it. There isn't scientific study about that. That is just my opinion based on people experiencies with phosphate removers. I personaly use vodka and I have no negative effects. It helped reducing my phosphates and nitrate levels to levels that cannot be measured with salifert test kits. It is safer IMO 'cose you add it gradualy. That way stress on organisms is significanly reduced or even avoided. > As I said: >>Making a statement such as yours is JUST as IRRESPONSIBLE as any other I >>have seen. > > Also, do you know for a fact that the phosphate exportation method > mentioned by Marc is iron based? No I don't know. But AFAIK all those iron bonding liqids are iron based. > The majority of iron or aluminum oxide media is just that, Media. Media > that is removed once it has bound with the phosphate. Exactly how do you > make the conclusion that iron is being added to the aquarium in > significant quantities? You should read my post again. It is clearly you see something I didn't wrote. Where did I say that you add iron in s i g n i f i c a n t quantities? Media that you mention cannot be that easily removed. Yes, the major part will be removed but there is still dust from it that will get to display tank and settle somewhere or dissolve in water so that it can't be removed by skimming or mechanical filtration. >Now adding steel wool to the sump as I saw someone here suggest would >certainly do this and I could not recommend such behavior. > > Even if it is iron based, it could be bound with a polymer substrate that > is so small that it stays suspended and exported via protein skimming. Or > perhaps a million other ways! Chemists are very clever. Perhaps is the key word. And even those clever chemists cannot predict what will happen in all the biological procesess. > Unlike you and your alcoholic beverage advice, these companies like > SeaChem, CaribSea and Kent are staking the future of their product lines [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > scientific proof they are bad. > CW You have dozens of anectodal proof from people who used it and their corals died. Do you think ZEOVIT is proved and tested as stated in their adverts? Some people had succes with it but some people had losses even when using it in recomended quantities. Then they rewrote manuals and quantities and changed some key components. It is clearly being tested on aquarists and improved over time without scientific study but on anectodal experiences of many aquarists having problems with it. Mislav > Please point me to a scientific study that proves your vodka method is > less dangerous than phosphate removers on the market. [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] >> >> Mislav "There isn't scientific study about that. That is just my opinion based on people experiencies with phosphate removers. I personaly use vodka and I have no negative effects. It helped reducing my phosphates and nitrate levels to levels that cannot be measured with salifert test kits. It is safer IMO 'cose you add it gradualy. That way stress on organisms is significanly reduced or even avoided. " Well the only research that I can find about any bacteria metabolizing ethanol is its oxidation to acetic acid. That is if the ethanol actually stays in the water long enough to be metabolized by anything. I would guess that the turbidity you are seeing is due to the mass extinction of bacteria and other biological organisms that were killed in the localized area where you added the ethanol. Then, as their bodies decay, you end up with another bloom of bacteria trying to metabolize their remains. I would guess that this kind of action would only add injury to insult in any marine environment. http://scifun.chem.wisc.edu/chemweek/AceticAcid/AceticAcid.html As you can see, no nitrates, nitrites, or phosphates are used in the bacterial oxidation of ethanol. So what are the long term biological effects of this? PH reduction! You state: "With this liquid phosphate removers you are dosing iron to the water. No one really knows what happens with it and how it affects corals and fish. " Well you don't seem to know anything about your advice. How it might work, what the long term effects are. So again I say you are giving irresponsible advice. You called one person irresponsible for their statement, I am calling you irresponsible for yours. The addition of ethanol to a tank with no idea of what it is doing or what the results may be is one of the most irresponsible things you can do on a forum such as this! I did find this: Denitrification of Drinking Water Industrial and agricultural activities often result in the heavy contamination of groundwater with nitrates. Removal of nitrate can be carried out by certain microorganisms that, in the absence of oxygen, have the capacity to transform nitrate into nitrogen gas. Different sources of carbon and energy can be supplied to bacteria carrying out denitrification, and in recent years we have been studying the above-ground systems described below. Cellulose-rich substrates were investigated as inexpensive alternatives to the refined energy sources such as sucrose, acetate, and ethanol that are commonly used for water denitrification. Shredded newspaper, raw cotton and wheat straw were tested in laboratory reactors. Cotton was the most efficient substrate and was tried in a pilot plant. The overall quality of the treated water was good, with microbial counts of the same order of magnitude as that found with conventional treatment methods. Bacteria isolated from the reactors are being studied in order to clarify the complex metabolic processes occurring in the reactors. (Funding: US-AID/CDR; BMBF/MOSA). Hydrogen gas is an ideal substrate for the biological denitrification of drinking water, as it is completely harmless to potable water, and no further steps are required to remove either excess substrate or its derivatives. However, the use of hydrogen gas is limited by two of its inherent properties: it forms flammable and explosive mixtures with oxygen, and its solubility in water is extremely low. In this study, these disadvantages were overcome by producing the hydrogen gas by hydrolyses of the water to be treated, enabling the hydrogen to be immediately taken up by the denitrifying bacteria. Please note the "in the absence of oxygen" part of this. Adding ethanol to an anoxic nitrate reactor *could* aid in the denitrification of water. But you could as easily use sugar which is not going to kill organisims or harm the gills of your fish. I would guess that I have done more research on this subject now that you did before trying it. For someone so high and mighty in the care of their precios animals, I would consider that behavior quite irresponsible! I call BullShit! CW >> Your post: >> "Taegu, safest way to lower phosphates (together with nitrates) assuming [quoted text clipped - 133 lines] >>> >>> Mislav > "There isn't scientific study about that. That is just my opinion based on > people experiencies with phosphate removers. I personaly use vodka and I [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > guess that this kind of action would only add injury to insult in any > marine environment. Well your guess is wrong. > http://scifun.chem.wisc.edu/chemweek/AceticAcid/AceticAcid.html You really make me laugh. This article you posted has nothing to do with chemistry in marine aquaria. Quote: "Vinegar is formed from dilute solutions of alcohol, such as wine, by the action of certain bacteria in the presence of oxygen". To your knowlege are theese certain bacteria found in marine habitats?. Do they add salt when producing ethanol from vinegar? > As you can see, no nitrates, nitrites, or phosphates are used in the > bacterial oxidation of ethanol. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > irresponsible advice. You called one person irresponsible for their > statement, I am calling you irresponsible for yours. No, you don't have anything usefoul to say on this subject and trying to impress me and others with some articles that don't even tuch the subject. >The addition of ethanol to a tank with no idea of what it is doing or what >the results may be is one of the most irresponsible things you can do on a >forum such as this! FYI I do have a clue what is happening in my aquarium. I've explained it. Maybe you should once again read my post. Since I'm not chemistry expert I have to listen other people advices and experiences. That is the way everyone should learn. Listen, ask, think, criticise if you think it isn't true... Here, chemistry expert replied to question about vodka in reef aquaria. http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=621390 . If it is not enough for you type vodka in the search engine of reefcentral and read all posts. > I did find this: > Denitrification of Drinking Water [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > CW You are so strong on words, better to say insults but again so clueless about what you are saying. First of all read what is this newsgroup called. Maybe you'll notice the word "marine". So you found some article about denitrification in drinking water. Do you drink marine water? Have you asked yourself is everything in freshwater equal to marine water? Why don't you try then keeping your marine aquarium only in fresh water? Based on articles you are "researching" and things you say here it is possible. Now, you should again read my first post on this subject. I've suggested taegu to start dose vodka. The ammount of pure ethanol in vodka is cca 40%. So I suggested him to start slowly with 1 ml of vodka (that is 0.4 ml ethanol) on 150g aquarium. Maximum dose I suggested is 10 ml vodka (4 ml ethanol) but after slowly aclimatizing aquarium. 150g is about 567 l of water. That is 567.000,00 ml of water. If you add maximum dose of 4 ml ethanol you have added about 0.0000071% of ethanol in the water. Can it do harm to gills of fish? Can it cose local dying of bacteria or other organisms? Answer is simple NO. It is clearly that you don't know what you are saying. Do some real reasearch and then flame me. Mislav >>> Your post: >>> "Taegu, safest way to lower phosphates (together with nitrates) assuming [quoted text clipped - 133 lines] >>>> >>>> Mislav Many of the bacteria and algae that exist in freshwater can also survive in the marine environment. Try reading up on aquaculture of such organisms. A lot of the technology applied to marine aquarium husbandry is based on technology first explored as ways of treating fresh water and sewage. If you cannot explain it, then I do not feel that you are qualified to be telling people that it is safe and stating that it is better than other methods. I would visit that link, but I will not "register" to access "free" information. I can understand a need to register to post. Feel free to post it here so that we may all see the chemistry explanation behind your method. There are commercial and DIY nitrate reactors for marine aquariums that work by feeding alcohol or sugar (Carbon Chains), but they, just as the drinking water example, rely on an anoxic condition for it to work. The oxidation reduction of alcohol (which bacteria in an oxygen rich environment use) is the same no matter what environment it is in. So again, I state that you are just as irresponsible for throwing around advice that you have no real knowledge of (as in the chemistry behind it). You use the same logic to say that your method is safe as you do to say that the others are not. When people start using phosphate removers in out of control situations, the tank is already in a nose dive. Then when it crashes they often blame it on the last product they tried. That is the exact same as saying your method is safe cause it seems to be fine in your tank and others you know. That is anecdotal evidence. So please post the explanation that you reference for all to see. There is nothing wrong with sharing methods or experiences, but to state that one method is "The Safest" without being able to give a clear and concise explanation is irresponsible. Anyone who would follow your advice based on this thread would be an idiot IMO. I would love to read a real analysis of this method. But I feel that if it were the cure-all, as in no nitrates or phosphates, then it would be the biggest thing in the industry. Hell, for all I or you know, this Phosbuster could be alcohol in a fancy bottle! I just want to boil down my quirk with your post. You called someone else irresponsible (who is not), state that a particular product is bad, then state that the "Safest Way Is..." If you can show me the math, even someone elses, behind the method you mention and it seems reasonable, then I will gladly apologize for calling bullshit. I see that you apologized to Marc after he explained the situation and that is good. But that only takes care of quirk number one for me. You have no obligation to do any of this, but if what you mention is sound, then to not post it here is a disservice to all and a complete waste of a flame war. I considered your post "Knee-Jerkish" and responded in a "Knee-Jerkish" way. I find reefcentral offensive in its requirement to register to view the forums. So I will not go there for information. There is no need to register on such a forum unless you wish to post messages. This "Vodka Method" would be a great graduate level project for some people I know. If the science seems valid enough to do a study on it. Not to mention a great stock investment in Absolut should such a study be conclusively positive. CW It is really your problem if you don't want to see aditional and good information on reefcentral just 'cose you don't want to login. There are experts on reefcentral and they can give you their opinion based on their knowlege and experiments. I cannot do so. I can only try to reproduce what they have said and what I've learned from my own experience. Vodka method isn't without problems but I'm not here to sell vodka to aquarists. I have no financial interest in my postings. I didn't recomend any vodka brand because all of them will work good (just plain clear vodka). Since I'm not native english speaker I wrote wrong the word safest in my first post. It should stand safer. And it is IMO. I didn't say him you must use it, it is prooved the best or anything like that. I just tried to help him like everyone with their posts. I don't agree with using liquid or solid phosphate removers because they are primairly iron based. It is even worse when manufacterer won't say what is it made of so we can decide is it safe for us or not. They sey it is tested. I say where is your evidence that it is tested? Testing such a product in real scientific manner would cost money and I realy doubt that those manufacteres do real testings. Why wouldn't they show then those experiments then? When adding vodka you are adding food to bacteria, and those bacteria will get skimmed out. Nothing else is left in aquarium like heavy metals. If you would read threads on reefcentral you would come to conclusion that there are strains of bacteria in marine habitat that don't need anaerobic conditions to use nitrate. If I understand it correctly theese strains of bacteria are not using nitrate to gain oxigen from it. They use it as a food for growth and reproduction. Theese bacteria use oxygen from water for breathig. Together with nitrate they also use phosphates for their growth. Vodka is fuel for them, the source of carbon that they use as energy. It is true that some bacteria need anaerobic conditions to use nitrate. But those bacteria are not only strain that live in marine habitat. I've also read on reefcentral anectodal evidence if I remember correctly from Habib (founder and owner of Salifert) that when using sugar instead of vodka there are more problems and corals become brown. Vodka is purer than sugar and that is one more reason why is it better to use vodka than sugar. This hoby is going forward, new things are discovered every day and you here are referencing to out of date articles. I realy hope that you'll find something to research from this discussion. You don't have to trust me do your own research on subject and then draw conclusions. Mislav > Many of the bacteria and algae that exist in freshwater can also survive > in [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > > CW Vodka is about as pure as it gets without going to PGA or Moonshine (A lot of this in the SE US). Especially brands like Sky which are heavily filtered to remove the by-products of the fermentation process. I really wish you would post some of those discussions here, or anyone with access for that matter. There is no reason to require a login to view that info, but they do. The politics of that piss me off. Nothing more than email harvesting! Their Text-only archives are free, can you give me the group and date of a good thread discussion on this? http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/archive/ Their user agreement states: "Reef Central makes no ownership claims to any material you post or transmit and agrees that all submitted materials, text, graphics and files remain the sole property of their creator, with individual exceptions such as contest entries specifically labeled as such when solicited." so there are no copyright issues with posting content from there, over here. DOC is present in all tanks and the source of our problems. Has anyone explained why these carbon eating bacteria do not thrive on the DOC already present in the tank? Is the alcohol chain just simpler to munch on than the DOC already there? Is everyone positive that it is bacteria that are experiencing the population explosion or single celled algae? Algae can use nitrates and phosphates for growth more readily than bacteria, I would think. Plus, many are free floating and removed from skimming. Has anyone identified these alcoholics under a microscope yet? CW > It is really your problem if you don't want to see aditional and good > information on reefcentral just 'cose you don't want to login. There are [quoted text clipped - 117 lines] >> >> CW CW It appears they only archive 2002. "Nothing more than email harvesting!" No and Marc will tell you the same we are both staff members.You rarely get any e-mail from RC an there is no spam. Its only purpose is that if you post to a thread and someone replies you are only notified that someone has replied to that thread since your last post. You can choose not to receive any such notices, in which case you may get 1-2 e-mails a year for some announcements, such as we will be down for 2 days for upgrades. We are the largest forum there is on reef tanks. 80,000 + members "There is no reason to require a login to view that info, but they do" I belong to 4 other large forums and they are all the same, it is not an issue with me. I have known you along time CW, trust me SignatureBoomer Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php WCWing@nospamChartermi.Net Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD) Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up > CW > > It appears they only archive 2002. Unless their dating is wrong, some are archived up to 2005: http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/archive/3/2005/07/1 But the archive cant be the whole BB it would seem. > "Nothing more than email harvesting!" > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > issue with me. I > have known you along time CW, trust me OK, drop me a hint. Tivo? Microwaves from the sky? MP3 players? EQuilizer posts? I once ran an active site with a BB, but never required a login to view info. I even allowed anonymous posts for a time, but that required too much work from myself and the mods. I prefer USENET because I can still be me, plus no politics and deleted posts. I read the user agreement which says they will not share info with a third party, but that is no guarantee. I have gotten more paranoid in the last few years.... Yes, but some of those only go to 2002, even 2005 is listed. The other thing is although they say 2005 when you click on it there is nothing there Example; Our chem forum is Randy Holmes-Farley Go to 2005 June, or newer, there is nothing there and the month of April has only 1 post. Same for many older months, it looks like 95 of our threads are missing. May 2004 nothing, only 1 post and in May we had like a 100 posts So the archives shows years, months and weeks, but 95 % is missing CW we do not have a few posts a day here like RAMR, it is a few hundred posts a day on RC :-) Our chem forum has more posts /day than RAMR SignatureBoomer Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php WCWing@nospamChartermi.Net Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD) Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up : > CW : > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] : party, but that is no guarantee. : I have gotten more paranoid in the last few years.... Hi Folks... I bought an Ebay 150G established reef a couple of months ago... all is doing well so far. Last night after lights out, I was watching a snail make his way up a large piece of live rock which is covered with the purple bumps of a Green Star Polyp mat. This rock has 3 large 2" holes in it forming a small cave/chamber with multiple entrances. The snail had just got as far as one of the holes when a large 2-3" very hairy brown crab rushed out of the hole, ejected the snail from the rock and then ran back I the hole again !... Scared the life out of me, as I had no idea he was there. I've watched him this evening and he seems to venture only a few inches out of the holes and only at night. As soon as I try to take a photo of him, the IR focusing light of the camera spooks him immediately, as does a small torchlight, and he immediately retreats to his lair. I managed to get a fairly poor picture of him here... http://www.teamparadise.org.uk/crab.jpg He's almost in the middle of the picture dirctly below the large snail at the top and directly above egg shaped piece of rock/coral (and yes I know I have quite a few aiptasia and caulerpa !) Any idea what he is (besides a crab, that is) ?... Is he reef-safe ? Whilst I was trying to take the above photo, I was IR focusing on another piece of rock so as not to spook him, but was spooking something else instead... Every time the IR light came on, a 1" long pink worm would poke out vertically from the rock and eject some kind of brown cloud, shooting it straight up with some fair velocily. So I tried the same with another piece of rock and there again another worm did the same thing... Any idea what there are and what are they doing ?... They retreat way too fast to get a photo I'm afraid. Bets Regards... Steve The hairy crab is not reef-safe, and needs to go. Pulling the rock out that holds him and coaxing him out would be the easiest solution. You might even try pouring in peroxide in the hole to speed things up. The worm is bristleworm, and it sounds like you saw them spawning. This should not necessarily time with the IR of your camera every time, but.... ;) Marc > Hi Folks... > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Bets Regards... Steve SignaturePersonal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com I checked last week, and it is almost 98,000 now. Unbelievable. I think I joined RC when there were 32,000 members. Marc > We are the largest forum there is on reef tanks. 80,000 + members SignaturePersonal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com >CW > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >I belong to 4 other large forums and they are all the same, it is not an issue with me. I >have known you along time CW, trust me And here I thought you were going to chime in with some info on the ethanol phosphate removal system. So, which would you go with? Steel wool or everclear?? Check this out from reefs.org: "If you're interested in adding alcohol to your reef, check out the Mark Weiss line of products. Reef Vital and Reef DNA. IMO, they are nothing more than fermenting apple juice. Provide an AWSOME carbon source for all the beneficial bacteria. Party on!! " I think the poster meant coral vital and the LSB stuff. Should this be true, then I am already doing what you suggest to some degree. I have been using Coral Vital to boost my coraline algae growth and the stuff works great. More: "If you're looking for a source of liquid carbon, I've seen vinegar recommended fairly often as a carbon supplement for Kalk. The vodka appears to be used to eliminate a limiting nutrient for bacteria (carbon), presumably to increase skimmable bacterial populations and allow the trapped nutrients to be more easily removed from the aquarium. I would guess that if you don't mind the inevitable oxygen consumption as the alcohol or acedic acid is metabolized, either one may shift the nutrient balance in this way. The only problem I have with actually doing it is that there are a lot of assumptions that I'd want resolved before attempting to predict the effect that dosing a carbon source will have on the tank. Assumptions like, "Is carbon a limiting nutrient in reef tanks?" Things that need experimental verification to characterize when the carbon is more likely to make things better than worse. In general, the rule I follow is to not dose anything unless I can take a measurement to (1) be sure I need it (2) be sure I'm dosing enough of it and (3) know when I might be dosing too much of it. I just wouldn't have that information for carbon. Yet. " "- Growing excess bacteria using vinegar or vodka and then skimming the excess bacteria out is another. Zeovit users are claiming a lot of success with phosphate removal as well. " A good article on the subject with the skeptical view I approach this subject with.... http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-11/eb/feature/index.htm > It is really your problem if you don't want to see aditional and good > information on reefcentral just 'cose you don't want to login. There are [quoted text clipped - 117 lines] >> >> CW I'm not going to get into this thread it is going in the wrong direction but will say this; Many have used Vodka successfully, we have may threads and post on it on our chem. forum. It is just one method some like but is not by any means THE method, or the only method. Many choose not to use it and have little PO4 problems. Some reefers dose, PO4, Fe Nitrate, even Silica. Each system is different and dependant on how it is run and what the loading factor is. As far as PO4 removers we have endless threads on them.Yes, the liquid based is iron based and I do not think much of them, to much to go wrong IMHO. Can any of these PO4 binders cause problems, yes, to a point. The solubility of iron passed PO4 binders in seawater is small but still significant. Can there be problems with them ? Yes, they need to be removed shortly after their introduction, just like any PO4 remover. They are capable, if not done so, to release PO4 back into the water through normal biological and chemical reactions. They can just by their introduction release Fe. The amount is almost nil but leaving it in for long periods may be another matter. Their intended purpose is to remove PO4 when it gets out of hand, not IMHO a application means of permanent use. One needs to address the issue WHERE IS THE PO4 COMING FORM. There is not one post I have seen here that asks this question. PO4 does not just drop from the air :-) With all the water changes that appear to be going with Marc and Tauge and still high PO4 I would look to the tank bed/SB which is a PO4 sink to begin with. More than likely, for what ever reason, allot of PO4 has sinked out here and is going back into solution or being released. This is not the first time this has happen, it is quite common. Vodka, PO4 binders, water changes, etc. are really not going to fix the problem. It is just a band-aide for the problem. Boomer Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php WCWing@nospamChartermi.Net Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD) Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up Are either of you two using a Ca reactor and did you change media ? SignatureBoomer Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php WCWing@nospamChartermi.Net Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD) Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up Yes, I have a Ca Reactor and the media is probably 2 months old. Marc > Are either of you two using a Ca reactor and did you change media ? SignaturePersonal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com Marc What/who's kind is it and is this a different media than you used before? How porous is this media ? Some media may have PO4 pockets in them, especially if it some type of limestone. You could try this; take some fresh stuff and grind it up fine, put in a small glass and they add some of yourPO4 indicator and see if the water turns blue, the bluer it is the more PO4 there is. Or get some diluted HCl and dissolve some in a glass and then add the PO4 indicator. Have you read Randy's articles on Phosphate ? For all that you have done something is releasing PO4. I know you are using a RO/DI so I won't go there, but how does a fresh sea mix show PO4 ? What about that stuff you added to your tank awhile back ? Do not forget that any dying animals or plants are going to release tons of PO4 SignatureBoomer Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php WCWing@nospamChartermi.Net Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD) Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up : Yes, I have a Ca Reactor and the media is probably 2 months old. : : Marc : : > Are either of you two using a Ca reactor and did you change media ? The media in the Calcium Reactor is ARM. I'd have to actually get up to look at the label, but perhaps that will suffice for now. ;) It looks like small rocks, nothing I'd want in my shoe if I had to walk anywhere. I could try testing it like you suggested. That never even occured to me. Yes, I've read Randy's articles on PO4. Not memorized, but defintitely read closely. My RO/DI water is PO4 free, as it newly mixed saltwater. I tested that when my tanks kept testing for PO4. I thought my kit was bad. Turns out I was wrong about that one. Dosing Phytoplankton surely didn't help. I probably was putting in too much. Not too much has died because SPS frags and some small 'colonies'. Plants don't die in my tank. I've had very few fish losses, ever. I really think my skimmer was under-powered, my sump was too small, and the PO4 was amassing due to this. The newer setup should really get this thing under control now that my numbers are lower finally. I need to test my tank today to get this week's readings. Marc > Marc > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Do not forget that any dying animals or plants are going to release tons of PO4 SignaturePersonal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com > As far as PO4 removers we have endless threads on them.Yes, the liquid > based is iron based > and I do not think much of them, to much to go wrong IMHO. Boomer, How do you know that PhosBuster is Iron Based? I have found references such as this one: "If you're feeling adventurous, I e-mailed CaribSea about their Phosbuster a while back when it came out and they asured me it contained neither iron or aluminum but would not expand on it's properties. I have not used it myself so I cannot comment on it's safety or effectiveness. " That is what pisses me off about threads like this, people assume that they know the specifics of everything, but never have any proof to back it up. Has there been an outside party who chemically analyzed Phosbuster to prove that it contains iron? Perhaps they have figured out an enzyme based solution like AZN04? I agree that the root of the problem should be the focus, but if phosphate is leeching from the substrate, then it will be necessary to continue using phosphate export methods while introducing as little additional PO4 back into the system. I prefer the use of Macro/Micro Algae growth in my refugium that is allowed to go out of control and removed to export excess nutrients... > I'm not going to get into this thread it is going in the wrong direction > but will say [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up CW There are more than 1 liquid based PO4 removes and they are iron base and Marc has used at least one of them and is why his tank turned red.. More than likely PhosBuster is lanthanum chloride we are not sure yet but most indications show it is. It produces a whitish cloud. It is easy to test for chloride with hobby kits, if it has chloride. It is a well know fact that lanthanum chloride is used to remove PO4 :-) You do not needs specs to know what some things are always. Lanthanum chloride, is used to remove (flocculate) phosphate from, lakes, ponds etc. to control algae blooms . In short, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck more than likely it is a duck. By the way do not be jumping to conclusions on things yourself . Please show me where I said PhosBuster, you assumed that. Sorry I left that one out. Boomer Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php WCWing@nospamChartermi.Net Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD) Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up I emailed them and got this: Thank you for your inquiry. I can assure you that there is NO iron in Phosbuster, and it IS NOT enzyme based. It puts phosphate into a permanently insoluble form, and is completely reef safe. We are re-doing our web site, and will have plenty of information about Phosbuster in the web pages. In the meanwhile, if anyone has questions about it or any CaribSea products, we welcome your contact by e-mail or call us toll free at 1-888-461-1113. Sincerely, Betsey Moore CaribSea Inc "puts phosphate into a permanently insoluble form" What do you make of that? CW > CW > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up lol Go back and read that post. Here I will help you :-) "There are more than 1 liquid based PO4 removes and they are iron base and Marc has used at least one of them and is why his tank turned red.." It was not Phosbuster Marc also used Phosbuster "More than likely *PhosBuster* is **lanthanum chloride** we are not sure yet but most indications show it is." The lanthanum chloride formulation is more efficient and removes 1,000 to 1,500 ppb phosphate for 32 ounces in 20,000 gallons of water. Lab studies prove the lanthanum chloride formulation removes higher levels of phosphate faster than a lanthanum carbonate compound. Lanthanum chloride also doesn't interfere with hardness or alkalinity but lanthanum carbonate does. But this is only for FW. You end up with lanthanum phosphate, as a prcip, which is not very soluble.The problem is that lanthanum will build up each time you issue it.. And if some animals pic it up and through normal biochem dissolution or replacement for a Ca++, Mg++ or Sr ++ ions into the calcium carbonate structure of corals and coralline algae, who knows as it is toxic. You do not believe they are going to tell you what it is do you ? Even if you knew what it was many aquarium companies often deny it. But it may also be lanthanum carbonate, that could be tested with HCL. This would not be as much as a problem. "puts phosphate into a permanently insoluble form" That is a line of BS if you believe it. SignatureBoomer Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php WCWing@nospamChartermi.Net Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD) Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up :I emailed them and got this: : [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] : > : > If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up > "puts phosphate into a permanently insoluble form" > > That is a line of BS if you believe it. Thats the part I was curious about.... In a dynamic chemical environment, few things (if any) are " permanent" .. They claim it forms a "Clay-Like" precipitate. Is that what happens with known lanthanum based treatments? "Clay-like" is an awful open ended description.. I suppose any small particle precipitate can be described that way. CW "They claim it forms a "Clay-Like" precipitate. Is that what happens with known lanthanum based treatments? "Clay-like" is an awful open ended description.. I suppose any small particle precipitate can be described that way." Form a geologic sense that would even be a bigger line of BS. I think they are saying it makes a sticky precip, which is about what they get in FW as it acts so like flloculant. By no means a clay though, anymore than the dirt in your back yard is a clay when it gets wet and turns to mud SignatureBoomer Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php WCWing@nospamChartermi.Net Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD) Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up :> "puts phosphate into a permanently insoluble form" : > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] : : CW I forgot There are some seawater facilities that use LaCl2 -7H2O ( Lanthanum Chloride Heptahydrate) for phosphate removal SignatureBoomer Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php WCWing@nospamChartermi.Net Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD) Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up : CW : [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] : : If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up Boomer, I totaly agree when you say that phosphate removers and vodka arent't the magic cure. One should realy find what is the main source of phosphate and nitrate pollution and remove it. But sometimes LR is leeching phosphate, sometimes bioload is too heavy for aquarium filtration, sometimes even barebottom tanks have PO4 problems. It is very costly, time consuming and stressfoul to organisms wee keep taking out LR, cooking them or replacing them with new ones. I've just said why not use biological means of exporting phosphate and nitrate instead of using iron or aluminium based removers that can cause short and long term problems. Vodka has it's own problems. The main problem is oxygen depletion from multiplying bacteria. This problem is IMO easily avoided when using small doses and gradualy increasing them, good water circulation and effective skimming. Of course one should observe aquarium and stop dosing it whenever there is suspicion something could go wrong. Other reported problem is yelowing of water when using vodka for longer periods of time. This problem IMO can be avoided in many ways and some of them are activated carbon, ozone, water changes... I use vodka in small doses 8 months. I didn't experience yelowing of water and I don't use ozone or activated carbon. Just good skimming, good water circulation, LR and regular water changes that I've been doing before vodka (once in 3 weeks 10%). I don't see in my tank any drawback from using it, it keeps my nitrate and phosphate levels undetectable, nuissance algae are history. This is why I still use it and am happy with it. Mislav > I'm not going to get into this thread it is going in the wrong direction > but will say [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up Mislav "But sometimes LR is leeching phosphate, sometimes bioload is too heavy for aquarium filtration, sometimes even barebottom tanks have PO4 problems. It is very costly, time consuming and stressfoul to organisms wee keep taking out LR, cooking them or replacing them with new ones." Yes at times that can be a problem but I do not think it is Marc's problem. Marc has been fighting this "bad thing" for some time and IMHO to many PO4 removers have been added, which make everything even worse. His tank turned red from the application of a liquid iron based PO4 remover, Silphos, then he used another one, which more than likely is lanthanum chloride, Phosbuster. Marc can speak more of what happen from the beginning. I have know Marc for a long time and have great respect for him. I think Marc fell to the problem I have a slight PO4 problem, where are the PO removers an poof things went really bad I have no problem with someone using Vodka, that is not the issue. First, one needs to get ahold of the problem, then go to say the Vodka method, if he or one chooses but not now. Boomer Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php WCWing@nospamChartermi.Net Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD) Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up I realize you are taking that totally out of context, but what I'm stating is that the majority of my SPS are virtually dead at this point, after all my efforts to provide them with a good home. I hate each and every loss. I'm at the point where I will have to replace them with some new pieces. This has been a tough 60 to 90 days, and my log goes into some of these details if you feel like reading them. Marc > This is totaly irresponsible. You could also say when I get bored with my > dog I'll just let it die and get me a new one. > Theese corals are living creatures and we should try to do best for them so > they live and thrive. SignaturePersonal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com >I realize you are taking that totally out of context, but what I'm stating >is that the majority of my SPS are virtually dead at this point, after all [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Marc Marc, I appologize if I missunderstood you. I just get very angry when I get the feeling pepole don't care for deaths of their livestock. Everyone who had reef aquarium for some time surly had losses but I hope that they learned somethig from it not to repeat same mistake again. Mislav But do you have alcoholic fish? Do they get drunk and rowdy and start fights? (just kidding). >>>What lives lives, and what doesn't will be replaced with fresh corals >>>that haven't suffered the water issues my tank has endured. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Mislav > But do you have alcoholic fish? Do they get drunk and rowdy and start > fights? (just kidding). Yes, they have red noses and swim funny when I pour it! I even think they are addicted. Every time they see me they get in the front and wait for me to put vodka! LOL :-) Mislav >>>What lives lives, and what doesn't will be replaced with fresh corals that >>>haven't suffered the water issues my tank has endured. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >Mislav Finally, something I like!!! My fish are having a party tonight!!! I was going to buy steel wool today!! Amazing, I love this newsgroup. Just remember, Everclear is a bit too strong. So pour it in a shot glass. Shoot it with a coke chaser. Wait one hour for it to dilute and dispense it into the aquarium when the urge hits... Repeat as necessary.. No reason why you both cant enjoy it! really though, I am not playing with either of those until more research is done on it. I have been using Kent, Coralife, and Seachem phosphate removers for many, many years. Never had any problems here. I just rinse the stuff in RO/DI H2O until all the dust has cleared.... Change every three months... I also trim algae in the refugium as an export.. CW >>>>What lives lives, and what doesn't will be replaced with fresh corals >>>>that [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Finally, something I like!!! My fish are having a party tonight!!! > I was going to buy steel wool today!! Amazing, I love this newsgroup. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.