Concerns regarding carbon dosing.

[AaronM]

What type of system is carbon good for?

Is there any point in running both more macro algae more than natural and more bacteria than natural? Isn’t this just setting up a competition when the aim is to have an efficiently working winner? So, isn’t carbon dosing more of an option for tanks without macro algae as nutrient export? If so, why isn’t an explicit condition floating around. Infact, isn’t carbon dosing more of an option when no algae is acceptable?

When carbon dosing, all algae seems be out competed by bacteria – macro, hair, whatever. From what I gather, macro algae grow less well, and hair/on the rock algae is swiftly out competed. When 0 algae is the aim, this is great. When attempting to replicate natural conditions, including low nutrient levels, it seems to me that this isn’t necessarily great.

My concerns re. carbon dosing centre around cyanobacteria and replication of natural reef ecosystems. Re. cyano bacteria, I gather it is present in all tank systems, from problematic levels to a few hidden/possibly dormant patches. When carbon dosing cyano is favoured as much as other bacteria, so some people swap an algae battle for a cyano battle. There are pros and cons for battling one vs the other, but both battles boil down to the same thing: light and nutrients.

Assuming what I have gleaned from R.C is correct: that pretty much nothing eats cyano whereas lots eats algae, that cyano is toxic in its location for a period after death preventing other bacteria and algae growth, and that cyano displays characteristics of both algae and bacteria, e.g. photosynthetic, isn’t carbon dosing bringing on a battle with cyano harder than a battle with algae? The only difference I see is that cyano doesn’t like high flow. But isn’t high flow more of an SPS tank concern? In a FOWLR, are the flow rates and coverage required to impact cyano inline with a fish focused tank, even an LPS/mushroom type tank?

If there is some sort of carbon dosing and cyano tipping point...I haven’t read about it yet. Enlighten?

What is the impact of a bacteria based system on the rest of the tank? Do all the snails, slugs, even urchins eat the bacteria film instead of the algae layer? If so, is it as nutritious? Same goes for crabs, actually I tend to think they can’t take in bacteria, e.g. mithrax crab with evolved claw shape, so the point is highlighted. Do sponges grow as well in bacteria systems? From my experience algae in the tank is cut out very quickly when carbon dosing, and i think this will stress other levels of ecosystem. The natural balance is some bacteria and some algae (even low re. algae to the point where it’s thin, sparse and not unsightly). So isn’t the best solution here fuge and macro alage, and/or acceptance of some algae in the display tank?

I guess what i’m getting at, is carbon dosing really a method for purely SPS tanks, more specifically SPS tanks that don’t employ macro algae? SPS and fish focused tanks, with no (concern for) crabs, snails slugs, even blennys etc? If so, why isn’t this mentioned (as much as the benefits)?

Some of my points MIGHT be addressed by higher feeding, if so, shouldn’t higher feeding be mentioned as a requirement when carbon dosing, and not just a noticed side benefit for fish? Again, what about cyano...

From my experience carbon dosing has certainly lowered nutrient levels quickly, but cyano has increased. To maintain dosing seems to fuel cyano. I’ve been turning the lights off for periods...which helped. Could this be a good method for all when starting dosing? Lights off for the first 3 days? Tipping point(?).

When dosing here, I’m starting to worry about starving some levels out of the system. With cyano battle too, I’m wondering what carbon dosing is good for!? Just SPS? Wheres the disclaimer? If you say, what about my nute levels, i say, isn’t that a reason for carbon dosing? Again, disclaimer? Only recommend dosing when NO3 and PO4 is below a certain level and/or around a certain ratio?

Admitadly i have noticed some increased activity by some groups...but wondering if this is better achieved by other means...

Still dosed vinegar tonight.

Just some thoughts, why bottle them up, right?? I might be cut down, but if it resolves this for me, then carefactor = undetectable with standard kit.

[HighlandReefer]

The questions & concerns you raise regarding carbon dosing have been raised before and basically, at this time, are without definitive answers.

A reef tank is something we create to try and reproduce natural pristine reef conditions. However, even when one believes they have a ULN system, in reality, our reef systems more closely represent polluted reefs. Polluted natural reef systems are much more conducive to algal & cyano problems as is found throughout the world from man's influences. Our best scientists are working on correcting these problems and are beginning to understand why these pests are taking over in polluted waters. The research continues to find many reasons why.

For example, take the heavy metals content in our tank systems, which is a pet interest of mine. Our tanks have a tremendous amount of heavy metals in them from the food we add, the alk & calcium supplements, the salt mixes.....etc. Our tanks are comparable to polluted reefs & in most cases the heavy metal content in our tanks are greater then found in many polluted reefs. All the research indicates that high heavy metal levels are conducive to algae, cyano and dinos and when the heavy metal levels absorbed in the zooxanthellae within coral increase to much, the coral expel them in self defense. IMHO, the levels of heavy metals found in our tank systems may be one of the biggest causes of cyano and algae problems. To complicate matters, the heavy metal problems are complicated by higher phosphate and nitrate levels, which are found in our systems. The phosphate level in natural reefs is very low, at around 0.005 ppm. Perhaps carbon dosing can reduce the phosphate levels to that of natural reefs, but my guess is that the level may be higher.

Another hot interest of scientific studies are the dissolved organics found in polluted areas of the world. All studies show that high levels of dissolved organics causes algae and cyano problems as well. We constantly add food to our tanks, which is a large source of dissolved organics. Nothing similar to the dissolved organics found in natural pristine reefs. The dissolved organic levels in our tanks certainly contributes to our algae and cyano problems as well and just how effective is GAC at removing them. We don't even know what GAC removes.

IMHO, the carbon sources added do increase bacterial populations which act on the heavy metals and dissolved organics found in our tank systems and thus may help with the above two areas. How effective the increased number of bacteria produced by dosing a carbon source is at removing problem chemicals and what other effects adding carbon sources have on our tank system is a big question. My guess is that dosing carbon sources does not restore our tanks to the pristine conditions found in natural reef ecosystems, hence the continual problems with algae, cyano and dinos.

I guess the bottom line is that our reefing hobby has come a long way since it first started, but when compared to natural pristine reef ecosystems, out tanks are still a polluted mess. We are able to grow some nice coral and other organisms in them.

[HighlandReefer]

To add to the above comment, the areas where live rock and live sand and coral are collected, are constantly becoming more polluted. Species of algae, bacteria and cyano evolve to meet the conditions they are taken from through mutations. The newly evolved organisms become more problems in even pristine reefs. These pests are being exported around the world and are becoming more and more of a problem everywhere. The likely-hood that you bring in these new super pests on the live rock, etc are becoming more likely everyday. We see this with Bryopsis, catalpa and other pests in natural reefs and with hobbyists who complain about them. The algae and cyano species that have become super pests are much harder to identify and consequently are being transported un-noticed. My suspicion is that many algae and cyano pests are being brought in on live rock, etc and end up in our tanks, which are much harder to control.

FWIW, we see this in my field of expertise every year. Take the common brown banded cockroach, gypsy moths, japanese beetles and the newly introduced Emerald Ash tree borer (just to name a few) which were introduced in the northeast and now are taking over the world. Eventually, new organisms such as bacteria & viruses are also introduced which help control these introduced pests, but they still remain a big problem to control once introduced even in presine homes as is the case of the brown banded cockroach. The old pests like bed bugs which were once pretty much wiped out, are a constant threat through the modern ease of transporation, hence the comeback of bedbugs in the US. The algae and cyano pests found throughout the world are no different then the insect pests.

[AaronM]

Thanks for your reply highland. You’ve thrown heavy metals into the mix, which I haven’t considered, and you’ve confused me a fair bit! Cheerz!
Regarding our replications, heavy metal doesn’t seem to be talked about when deciding on dosing an org. carb. source. My concerns are regarding what I have read and understand SO FAR.

The aim of org. carb. dosing is consumption of nuts by bacteria then export. The same can be achieved with macro algae out of the tank via growth and trim, and/or with low levels of smaller algae within the tank + algae eaters. When using macro algae as an export, it can be contained, reducing nutrient levels in the display tank whilst not competing for location. Bacteria and small algae will exist in the tank when macro algae is used out of the tank, but algae really won’t exist when bacteria is used. The bacteria can’t be contained. [Edit: and perhaps more importantly grow faster].

Not only this, it seems the most resilient and resourceful type of bacteria, cyano, is also the most ugly, harmful, and least consumed. No cleanup crew impacts cyano, but they do impact algae. Algae can be battled with interesting creatures, cyano can’t. So if the interesting creatures can’t battle cyano, is there a tipping point, or a bacteria equilibrium whereby the ‘invisible good’ bacteria starve out cyano? If so, how is this achieved? Maybe lights off for periods during the initial stages of dosing, or including regular lights out period would help. Now how is this different to battling algae? Lot’s of effort...

I think when a balance is desired throughout the organism levels org. carb. dosing doesn’t make sense. Bacteria will outcompete algae, therefore stressing anything that eats algae. Without o.c.d, bacteria still exist at nutrient reducing levels, e.g within the rocks. It seems like it’s not one or the other, its bacteria only, or algae and bacteria. Isn’t the latter more natural?
Do snails for example, as it’s the easiest example to envisage, when cruising along the glass consuming whatever they can suck up, get as much nutrients from bacteria as algae? Aren’t they sucking up a less complex food source, i.e haven’t they evolved to consume the end result of algae metabolism rather than bacteria metabolism?

It seems to me o.c.d is only useful when its a coral and fish dominated tank where the other organism levels don’t matter, when low nutrient levels are more of a concern than links in the food chain, or when algae control is a primary concern above organism links. So is it fair to say o.c.d more for coral tanks, or when u prefer to battle cyano instead of algae, or when u don’t care about replicating as many levels as possible?
I am dosing atm btw...

[AaronM]

Certainly we are changing the environment to suit ouselves and other organisms are reacting and keeping pace.

But more away from philosphy...is my forming o.c.d (haha) perspective inacurate?

[AaronM]

Btw highland, you gave me some advice before and its worked well, Phos from 0.5 to 0.2ish within a week. Changed GFO after a week. Thanks for that good help

[bertoni]

Cyanobacteria can use carbon dioxide to provide its carbon needs, just like other autotrophic organisms. A bit of carbon dosing can cause some cyanobacteria, but not always, and the problem usually resolves itself.

Carbon dosing is useful when phosphorus and fixed nitrogen are available from the water column (often as phosphate and nitrate), but algae can't grow quickly enough to keep the levels down. That might happen for various reasons: insufficient area for an alga to grow, lack of lighting, lack of other nutrients (often iron), and probably others.

Feeding the organic carbon allows heterotrophic bacteria to consume the nitrogen and phosphorus from the water column. Our tanks often seem to be low in organic carbon, compared to the other macronutrients. I wouldn't assume that feeding organic carbon always leads to a significant increase in cyanobacteria: often cyanobacteria recedes after a while.

[HighlandReefer]

The aim of org. carb. dosing is consumption of nuts by bacteria then export. The same can be achieved with macro algae out of the tank via growth and trim, and/or with low levels of smaller algae within the tank + algae eaters. When using macro algae as an export, it can be contained, reducing nutrient levels in the display tank whilst not competing for location. Bacteria and small algae will exist in the tank when macro algae is used out of the tank, but algae really won’t exist when bacteria is used. The bacteria can’t be contained. [Edit: and perhaps more importantly grow faster].

Algae will exist in every tank even when carbon sources are used. In most cases the algae present are single celled in the water column, but many will also colonize on the glass. These type of algae don't seem to be a pest when proper filtration is used. In other words they are very controllable in a reef tank. These type of algae are a good food source for organisms living in an aquarium and do help export nutrients when cleaned from the glass and skimmed out. IMHO, proper carbon dosing should not eliminate all algae from growing on the glass. At the same time, bacterial growth on the glass is not bad either and can be easily exported by skimming & does provide a food source for other organisms including coral.

I agree that macroalgae are a good method for exporting nutrients if properly managed. One problem for many hobbyists is they don't have the space for a refugium. What do these hobbyists do to control nutrients economically if they don't have the space or money?

Not only this, it seems the most resilient and resourceful type of bacteria, cyano, is also the most ugly, harmful, and least consumed. No cleanup crew impacts cyano, but they do impact algae. Algae can be battled with interesting creatures, cyano can’t. So if the interesting creatures can’t battle cyano, is there a tipping point, or a bacteria equilibrium whereby the ‘invisible good’ bacteria starve out cyano? If so, how is this achieved? Maybe lights off for periods during the initial stages of dosing, or including regular lights out period would help. Now how is this different to battling algae? Lot’s of effort...

Yes, the cyanobacteria we see in tanks are ugly and do produce toxins which nothing seems to eat. There are algae that are ugly and produce toxins too, that fish will not eat. One reason why there problems in natural reef systems. Scientists are looking for organisms that will eat these problem algae and some animals have already been introduced into natural reefs to help control these pests. Many seem to be specific species of sea slugs for specific species of algae. Trying to buy these specific species is difficult. One problem with the pests we have in tanks (cyano, algae...etc) is that we don't have a wide assortment of natural animals that feed on them. If you starve your fish, perhaps they will eat them, but few hobbyists will do this. The fish are well fed.

I think when a balance is desired throughout the organism levels org. carb. dosing doesn’t make sense. Bacteria will outcompete algae, therefore stressing anything that eats algae. Without o.c.d, bacteria still exist at nutrient reducing levels, e.g within the rocks. It seems like it’s not one or the other, its bacteria only, or algae and bacteria. Isn’t the latter more natural?
Do snails for example, as it’s the easiest example to envisage, when cruising along the glass consuming whatever they can suck up, get as much nutrients from bacteria as algae? Aren’t they sucking up a less complex food source, i.e haven’t they evolved to consume the end result of algae metabolism rather than bacteria metabolism?

I don't believe that bacteria can necessarily outcompete the algae when there is a lack of carbon sources provided by carbon dosing. Algae can use light (photosynthesis) to produce food in low nutrient situations. Bacteria have to depend on what is available in the water column. This is an advantage for the algae. I believe that carbon dosing helps to tip the scales in the bacteria's favor. Many coral may not be able to directly derive their food from the larger algae, but certain inly can derive food from captured smaller bacteria and dinos. Fish can derive food from eating algae more so then bacteria. The bacteria are the bottom of the food chain and everything else either directly or indirectly depends on their existence for food.

It seems to me o.c.d is only useful when its a coral and fish dominated tank where the other organism levels don’t matter, when low nutrient levels are more of a concern than links in the food chain, or when algae control is a primary concern above organism links. So is it fair to say o.c.d more for coral tanks, or when u prefer to battle cyano instead of algae, or when u don’t care about replicating as many levels as possible?
I am dosing atm btw...

Bacteria are very important to every type of aquarium system to help brake down the waste products. Algae will be there too, not matter what you do. They both help in reducing wastes. The concerns are when either bacteria or algae get out of hand and become a nuisance in whatever tank you have. Certainly if algae is out of control then dosing a carbon source makes sense to me to help tip the water parameters in favor of the bacteria. If there are no algae problems or waste problems then I don't see the need for carbon dosing. If they hobbyists can add a refugium with macro, I would try this first before carbon dosing. If the macro will not keep up, then perhaps carbon dosing is the answer unless they want to buy more expensive equipment.

FWIW, cyano are half algae and half bacteria in their biology. This means no matter what you do to your tank they are quite happy. They are the king when it comes to surviving. Cyano have also developed some of the most effective warfare agents out there, much better then most algae and bacteria. These make cyano the Ultimate Beast to try and control.

[HighlandReefer]

A good article explaining how bacteria, other micro-organisms, macroalgae, viruses, parasites.....etc. work to control algal/cyano problems in the ocean. They have found biological control agents produced by bacteria...etc that are natural algaecides which are host specific. The same with cyanobacterial blooms. This could explain why some tanks have more algal/cyano problems then others. In this scenario it would depend on exactly what species of bacteria.......etc one might have their tank. Hopefully down the road scientists will be able to synthesis the natural algaecides produced in nature, which could be used in reef aquariums.

Biological Strategies in controlling or mitigating marine harmful algal blooms (HABS)
http://www.plant-ecology.com/qikan/m...ang/s04115.pdf

[AaronM]

Thanks for replys.

Feeding the organic carbon allows heterotrophic bacteria to consume the nitrogen and phosphorus from the water column. Our tanks often seem to be low in organic carbon, compared to the other macronutrients. I wouldn't assume that feeding organic carbon always leads to a significant increase in cyanobacteria: often cyanobacteria recedes after a while.

The bacteria trap nutrients from the water colomn, which is great for water quality, but the bacteria live on the surfaces inside the tank too. You can see this on the glass and it'd be the same on the rocks. I assume bacteria and algae can't grow in the same place, so what happens to the organisms which graze on algae inside the tank?

What causes the cyano to recede after a while? Won't its progress pretty much match the other bacteria being fed by the o.c.d?This is the tipping point i'm asking about.

Algae will exist in every tank even when carbon sources are used. In most cases the algae present are single celled in the water column, but many will also colonize on the glass. These type of algae don't seem to be a pest when proper filtration is used. In other words they are very controllable in a reef tank. These type of algae are a good food source for organisms living in an aquarium and do help export nutrients when cleaned from the glass and skimmed out. IMHO, proper carbon dosing should not eliminate all algae from growing on the glass. At the same time, bacterial growth on the glass is not bad either and can be easily exported by skimming & does provide a food source for other organisms including coral.

Great, this is helping, i can't say much to that, except what happens over time? How would any useful amounts of algae survive in a ULN system where bacteria become so dominant in number that they can capture virtually all nutrients from the water immediately? The trend will be reduction of algae until its pretty much all gone. Once algae is reduced significantly below natural levels, then the organisms which have evolved to eat algae will become stressed, and either die or survive on another food source. For. eg. do the snails gain sufficient nutrients from bacteria film? When crabs grind off the outer layer of the rocks and scoop it into there mouths, is the bacteria film sufficient?

I guess it puts you more in control, as the algae eaters will probably end up relying on the foods we add as primary, not supplimentary.

I agree that macroalgae are a good method for exporting nutrients if properly managed. One problem for many hobbyists is they don't have the space for a refugium. What do these hobbyists do to control nutrients economically if they don't have the space or money?

Thats me: no room for macro algae atm and this is why i started dosing. Instead of huge water changes and being annoyed with high nutrients, i'm now concerned with cyano spreading, and that dosing will cut out algae eaters.

There are algae that are ugly and produce toxins too

Hadn't thought about that.

I don't believe that bacteria can necessarily outcompete the algae when there is a lack of carbon sources provided by carbon dosing. Algae can use light (photosynthesis) to produce food in low nutrient situations. Bacteria have to depend on what is available in the water column. This is an advantage for the algae. I believe that carbon dosing helps to tip the scales in the bacteria's favor. Many coral may not be able to directly derive their food from the larger algae, but certain inly can derive food from captured smaller bacteria and dinos. Fish can derive food from eating algae more so then bacteria. The bacteria are the bottom of the food chain and everything else either directly or indirectly depends on their existence for food.

Thats what i'm saying, i probably just mangled my sentences a little. Without carbon dosing theres a balance between bacteria and algae. Macro algae can be used as nutrient control without impacting this balance. On the other hand using bacteria as nutrient control through carbon dosing pretty much whipes out algae. I'm worried long term this will create a desert inbetween the bacteria organism level, and the coral and fish level, esp. regarding algae eaters. If ones aim is just for coral and fish, then this probably won't matter, but shouldn't this be made more explicit when talking about carbon dosing?

Bacteria are very important to every type of aquarium system to help brake down the waste products. Algae will be there too, not matter what you do. They both help in reducing wastes. The concerns are when either bacteria or algae get out of hand and become a nuisance in whatever tank you have. Certainly if algae is out of control then dosing a carbon source makes sense to me to help tip the water parameters in favor of the bacteria. If there are no algae problems or waste problems then I don't see the need for carbon dosing. If they hobbyists can add a refugium with macro, I would try this first before carbon dosing. If the macro will not keep up, then perhaps carbon dosing is the answer unless they want to buy more expensive equipment.

1) bacteria are more likely to become out of hand when o.c.d. For e.g cyano.
2) Would you recomend periodic dosing to cut down algae levels? If not and its recomended as a long term solution, then i worry about gaps in the ecosystem developing within our replications...maybe for some tanks this is desired.

What about FOWLR tanks, where rock living diversity is desired, of which algae eaters make up a large chunk?

I guess my main concerns are cyano, cutting out algae eaters... and maybe that o.c.d recomendation should be narrowed more to particular types of tanks.

Thanks alot for your reply, you're definately helping!

Better get back to work.

[HighlandReefer]

1) bacteria are more likely to become out of hand when o.c.d. For e.g cyano.

Like I said before, cyano are in a group of their own. They are not true bacteria and not true algae, they are able to photosynthesize like algae and brake down chemical components like bacteria. The true bacteria should not get out of hand when doing proper carbon dosing. Overdosing carbon sources will cause bacteria blooms and masses to form. I don't see the evidence from what has been posted on RC that indicates cyano are any more of a problem in tanks that do dose carbon sources then that don't.

IMHO, algae, for the most part, are easier to control by limiting phosphate & other nutrients in the water column and on/in rock and sand beds. Once hobbyists get control of their algal problem then they are left with cyanobacteria.

Studies have demonstrated that cyano are able to get their Phosphorus needs directly from dissolved organic P unlike algae (as well as from inorganic phosphate). Most algae need to get their P from inorganic phosphate which can be controlled in a reef tank by running GFO and/or dosing carbon sources. Sand beds and rock capture organic matter, which will contain the organic P that cyano can use before it becomes available to the algae. Hence, the difficulty in controlling cyano more so then algae.

How do we use this to our advantage? Well, constantly cleaning the sand bed and rock of organic debris will limit the amount of organic P available to the cyano. Removing the cyano will serve two purposes. One, to remove the cyano before it brakes down and two, to remove the cyano to allow other organisms to settle in their place considering the toxins they produce are gone.

Then we have the organic P in the water column to deal with, which many believe is the best way to attack cyano problems. The dissolved organic P is a direct food source to cyano unlike algae and we don't measure the amount of it. How can we lower this organic P dissolved and suspended in the water column? Well, we can run GAC, install a better skimmer, install a diatom filter which will remove very small size organic P particles, run filter bags which will remove the larger organic P particles and do water changes which remove everything that is removed.

Unfortunately, there is no one answer to cyano problems. Instead, using all the methods available to us as noted above, combined together to help control cyano in a reef tank would be my best answer to a cyano problem.

[HighlandReefer]

What about FOWLR tanks, where rock living diversity is desired, of which algae eaters make up a large chunk?

Most hobbyists do not like to see growing algae in their tanks. For the ones that don't mind algae growing then I do see this as an advanate for the fish as long as they will eat what algae is growing on the rock. Some algae species are toxic and fish will not eat them. Sea slugs actually use the toxins found in many algae to their advantage and use the algae toxin as a defense weapon.

For those hobbyists that don't want to see algae in their tanks, then perhaps feeding dried algae or other sources is the answer.

[HighlandReefer]

Would you recomend periodic dosing to cut down algae levels? If not and its recomended as a long term solution, then i worry about gaps in the ecosystem developing within our replications...maybe for some tanks this is desired.

Again, it will depend on the specie of algae in the tank. No all algal species are bad IMHO. If the fish eat your algae and keep it at a desirable level (your preference) then I see this as an overall benefit to a reef tank. I would not carbon dose unless you have no other choice to either help control pest problem or help remove waste products.

What is the definition of a weed? A weed is simply a plant growing in a place you don't want it. I like wild flowers which many consider weeds as long as they don't take over everything in a garden, which many do. I don't look at a reef tank any different then I look at a flower garden. Some gardeners like a jumbled asortment (more natural) whereas others want everything nice and neat (far from natural).

[AaronM]

Firstly, thank you very much for putting effort into helping me (and others too i reckon and hope).

I am somewhat playing devils advocate here.

I get the gist from you that there is more algae than i think surviving in a bacteria based (intake + export) system.

The true bacteria should not get out of hand when doing proper carbon dosing.

I agree with that. TBO my LFS advised my first vodka schedule, which was 1ml for approx my water volume, say 40ish gallons, increase by 1ml per week until nitrate = 0, then halve and maintain. This was before I found http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/20...nftt/index.php. White film worried me at first, but no, it’s desired. I believe I slightly overdosed at one point, or more accurately didn’t have the input/export levels correct. What worried me more was the rapid increase in cyano.

A quick question: Do you think straying from genetics method towards lower level of OCD and slower increase make cyano problems more likely?

I don't see the evidence from what has been posted on RC that indicates cyano are any more of a problem in tanks that do dose carbon sources then that don't.

From my scanning of RC i think there is an increased incidence of cyano problems when dosing OCD. I may be wrong, maybe my searches have been too selective. Unfortunately for me, this is my experience thus far. IME certainly OCD has lead to increased cyano. Bertoni said don’t assume OCD = increased cyano, but if your liverock is genuine liverock from reef(ish) areas, then i assume it more likely than not has some cyano on it. If OCD aids cyano growth as much as other bacteria, isn’t it fair to say when OCD, assuming then that your LR is the real deal, you’ll probably run into cyano problems?

IMHO, algae, for the most part, are easier to control by limiting phosphate & other nutrients in the water column and on/in rock and sand beds. Once hobbyists get control of their algal problem then they are left with cyanobacteria.

So OCD will control algae and lead to cyano problems?

How do we use this to our advantage? Well, constantly cleaning the sand bed and rock of organic debris will limit the amount of organic P available to the cyano. Removing the cyano will serve two purposes. One, to remove the cyano before it brakes down and two, to remove the cyano to allow other organisms to settle in their place considering the toxins they produce are gone.

I am becoming more diligent in blowing detritus off the rocks. Cyphoning the sand bed was passed on to me. Strangely i have noticed more dustlike detritus on the rocks and less bundles of detritus on the sand/gravel since OCD (Why?). Re 2), doesn’t cyano manifest in various forms? My cyano seems to be a slime like layer on the rocks only. I don’t see how i can manually remove it without spreading it. Btw, how long do local cyano toxins last?

Then we have the organic P in the water column to deal with, which many believe is the best way to attack cyano problems. The dissolved organic P is a direct food source to cyano unlike algae and we don't measure the amount of it.

Now we’re talking about uneaten fish food and (mainly) fish Feces, right? I’m becoming confused by what we can and can’t measure, but does this mean if phosphate is high in the tank when OCD, then cyano problems are more likely?

How can we lower this organic P dissolved and suspended in the water column? Well, we can run GAC, install a better skimmer, install a diatom filter which will remove very small size organic P particles, run filter bags which will remove the larger organic P particles and do water changes which remove everything that is removed.

I am doing all this bar the diatom part, hastened by your advice. Doing most of this plus OCD seems to have resulted in less frequent water changes needed.

Yeah i’m seeing battling cyano is multi pronged..and hard!

For me so far, OCD has definately resulted in a quick decrease of nitrate, from 0.5ish to close to 0. Algae has decreased alot, esp. less algae on the glass. This has been replaced by white film, which is easier to see through, dosen't seem to build up as much, and is easier to clean.

I still have some (a bit less now) concerns re. algae eaters, but i reckon this can be solved by certain feeding scheduele.

Oh! i only just saw 2 more posts! I like contained caos myself. Definately local wildflowers. Wow...i feel a like my voice just raised a tone lol!

Btw you recomended vinegar over vodka when cyano is involved. I have still noticed cyano increase when i started dosing vinegar, but i do think it is ever so slightly less than with vodka so far.

I'm wondering about this often cyanobacteria recedes after a while.

Mr. Babcock, you've been a great help and chat so far, and my tank and I thank youy muchly!

[AaronM]

oh, re. periodic dosing, i reckon rapid changes wouldn't work. You posted a study that suggested org c fluctuates with season (i think this was the gist). Maybe this is a direction for better algae/bacteria balance when OCD...

[blasterman789]

Not an expert in carbon dosing, and not sure if this has been covered or not:

Carbon dosing is most effective when nitrogen levels are already rather low, and an even lower lever is desired. The addition of carbon then causes a 'tipping' point in the ratio of nitrogen consuming/competiting organisms and the balance rapidly shifts from nuisance algaes to the ramped up population of carbon consuming bacteria.

A tank with a large surplus of nitrate isn't going to respond much to carbon dosing because all organisms are already getting as much nitrogen as they can 'fix' out of the water. The addition of carbon then is more likely to contribute to an additional undesired population of either cyano, or the white slime like bacteria that shows up. This reflects my experience with carbon dosing in that it works best with low nitrate levels (<10ppm), but has either no or negative effect on higher levels. It also confirms my experience in that low nutrient systems can be more volatile in regards to minor changes in nutrient levels than higher nutrient tanks.

[HighlandReefer]

Aaron,

You ask some good questions.

A quick question: Do you think straying from genetics method toward lower level of OCD and slower increase make cyano problems more likely?

I don't have an answer to this. Genetics vodka method is designed to be safe for all occupants in the tank. If one were to suddenly add large amounts of vodka this can result in bacterial blooms in the water column, which can rob oxygen from the tank which fish need. However, with the new threads regarding solid carbon sources, in some cases hobbyists are experiencing bacterial blooms which cloud the water, no doubt from bacterial blooms, from too much solid carbon to start with. These hobbyists wait till the clouding (bacterial blooms) clear and they then state that their water is better (clearer) then ever before. Perhaps there is a chance that causing a bacterial bloom by overdosing carbon will help with cyano problems, I don't know, but would not recommend this procedure at this point. I have seen no lost fish or occupants from overdosing carbon sources so far that I recall, from overdosing carbon sources. I don't know what effect overdosing really has on the entire system.

So OCD will control algae and lead to cyano problems?

OCD will not necessarily lead to cyano problems. If the conditions are right for cyano and they are present, then their growths will become a problem IMHO.

Perhaps comparing a reef tank to a garden will help. Do you get weeds in every garden? Pretty much. If you continually rake the surface once a week in a garden this will control the annual weeds, but will not control the perennial weeds which spread and grow back from roots and runners. To get the perennial weeds you have to go down deeper in the soil to get to their root system. We can compare algae to the annual weeds (easier to control) and the cyanobacteria to the perennial weeds (harder to control). Cyanobacteria will live down deeper in rock and sand, since they can survive without light. Undisturbed, the cyano can grow out like the perennials. If algae cover the rock, then the cyano are forced to live down inside the rock below the algae. Once the algae are gone, then the cyano can bloom out.

When one first starts a reef aquarium it is much like starting a new flower garden. You have to clear the land first of all unwanted weeds. The better job you do at the beginning the easier it will be down the road. Hence my dislike of using live rock with lots of weeds on it. I would much prefer to start a tank with dead bleached/acid dipped rock then the live stuff. The bleach/acid is like using a ground sterilant on the site you want to start a garden. If you don't use a sterilent then you will have to do a lot of hand pulling of weeds for quite a while before you get control of them and we don't have the luxury of using a 6" bed of mulch to smother out the weeds. Instead we have the bare soil to work with. After you get your flower garden going and pretty much weed free, you have to constantly monitor for new weeds developing. If they do, you want to jump on the site their growing and dig deep to get rid of them. The same applies to a reef tank. You want to clean deep. If you let the weeds go to long, then you have twice the effort or more to get rid of them (the same with a reef tank & its pests).

I am becoming more diligent in blowing detritus off the rocks. Cyphoning the sand bed was passed on to me. Strangely i have noticed more dustlike detritus on the rocks and less bundles of detritus on the sand/gravel since OCD (Why?). Re 2), doesn’t cyano manifest in various forms? My cyano seems to be a slime like layer on the rocks only. I don’t see how i can manually remove it without spreading it. Btw, how long do local cyano toxins last?

The fact that you are now just blowing rock debris off your rock is a good sign that you are getting control of the cyano, which is what your want. Keep at it.

Yes you can spread cyano around. There is no way of avoiding it. You need to maintain all areas in your tank such that the cyano can't grow, kind of like raking a garden continuously, which does not allow the cyano to get a foot hold. How long do cyano toxins last in a tank is a good question, which I have no answer.

Now we’re talking about uneaten fish food and (mainly) fish Feces, right? I’m becoming confused by what we can and can’t measure, but does this mean if phosphate is high in the tank when OCD, then cyano problems are more likely?

We are talking about uneaten fish food, feces, organic products produced by cyano, bacteria, coral & other living organisms. There is quite an organic soup in a tank, which we know little about how it brakes down, how long toxic forms last and how they interact together. Fish food for example will be acted on by some bacteria, then other bacteria will act on what is left and the bacteria will produce other organic chemicals in the process of braking down others. It is just an unending cycle of organic brake down until we remove the stuff by mechanical means. Some organics have been around in the ocean for 10's of thousands of years, since there is nothing left that can brake it down further.

Btw you recomended vinegar over vodka when cyano is involved. I have still noticed cyano increase when i started dosing vinegar, but i do think it is ever so slightly less than with vodka so far.

I'm on Randy's side on the vodka/vinegar issue.

My cyano pretty much disappeared when dosing vinegar.

However, I have seen no definitive evidence that it is true.


I'm wondering about this often cyanobacteria recedes after a while.

Mr. Babcock, you've been a great help and chat so far, and my tank and I thank youy muchly!

I believe that getting cyano under control in a reef tank takes effort and there is no easy solution. It takes time too. So, yes, I believe the hard effort that many hobbyists put out to control cyano will cause it to eventually recede.

Your very welcome.

[bertoni]

All tanks will have some cyanobacteria in them. There are no exceptions. Various mechanisms tend to keep them under control in many tanks.

There are a large number of tradeoffs when setting up a tank, and choosing carbon dosing vs some other nutrient control mechanisms involves a lot of personal choices, including esthetics.

It's possible that cyanobacteria can outcompete true bacteria for resource, but one of their mainstays is the ability to grow via photosynthesis, and I'm not convinced that they always will outcompete other bacteria when organic carbon reduces the need for carbon from the atmosphere.

[tmz]

There is no reason to assume carbon dosing is all or nothing with a winner and a looser but rather a balance. Macroalgae in addition to nutrient export duties is useful for nightime photosynthetic activity when run on opposite photo and helps offset potential nightime hypoxic conditions brought on by respiration. Macroalgae (chaetomporpha ) does well in my system and I've been dosing vodka and vinegar at moderate amounts( about .06ml per gallon in vokda equivalents) for 18 mos.

There is virtually no nuisance algae nor cyano in the system and there was a good bit before dosing. This is the case even though two chaetomorpha refugia on opposite photo period , a remote deep sand bed and several cryptic zones with extra live rock are and were in use along with gfo and gac as well as heavy skimming. PO4 holds under .05ppm and nitrates at 0.2 to 0.5ppm in the well fed system which also houses over 40 fish and a wide variety of corals including: discoma, grogonia, non photsynthetics, xenia,zoanthidae, lots of sps , et alia.


I agree with Jonathan that cyano really doesn't need the organic carbon and in my experience it flourishes more without carbon dosing and does quite well in high flow .

I do keep some snails(trochus, cerith and turbo) but not crabs or many other typical cleanup crew type organisms.

Sponge growth seems enhanced since carbon dosing as does growth by zoanthus.

FWIW this link has a few pictures of the set up and tanks that have been carbon dosed for the last 18mos.Adding organic carbon was the missing ingredient for me but I did not abandon the other filtration methods. The filtration system can be found in post 27:

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh....php?t=1872264

[AaronM]

Nice garden analogy. That did help.

O.k, one more thing. If the below is wrong, just tell me which parts and i'll research myself.

Hopefully i'm understanding better.

1) Re. OCD and cyano. The link between OCD and increased cyano is less direct than I thought. OCD doesn’t always fuel cyano. OCD may benefit some cyano types directly, but this leading to ongoing problems tends to be minority scenario. Apart from the above, cyano may increase when OCD because of the reduction in algae. This happens when bacteria masses have grown to the point where they are outcompeting nuisance algae for nutrients and space, but before they have grown to the point where ULN is achieved. For a period here, cyano can take advantage of the freed up space and access to light (and maybe better acces to airated water for co2). Before OCD, C was limiting the good bacteria, during OCD these bacteria bloom and nutrients begin to limit cyano. I think this is the tipping point part. At this, point giving cyano access to nutrients, like leaving detritus on and around the cyano, will counteract the limiting nutrients effect of the ULN water.


2) Re. algae and OCD, my concerns were a little disproportionate for what’s actually happening. Looking at the tank, I see all the algae are gone, which was my reason for thinking it was a competition to completion. ACtually, there is algae still in there but mostly of the less visible variety (I should have realized that. Macro algae, as opposed to....micro.). This change in appearance reflects a new balance of bacteria/algae, and is what most people want when OCD, including myself. Less glass cleaning. I’m still not sure if the organisms which eat algae, e.g cleanup crew put in there for that purpose, become stressed when there is so much less algae esp. forms they’ve evolved to feed on. Adding algae food for them would deal with this concern anyway.

Thanks for your help.

[HighlandReefer]