Do those questions seem too familiar? I think most of you will find them to be frequently asked on reef forums. Sometimes at ad nauseum. So then what are the answers to those familiar questions?

While blog hunting not too long ago, I found a site that not only covers these types of topics, but is detailed in presenting its point across. The site? Joe Jaworski’s Weblog. Fortunately for our topic today, he doesn’t hold any detail to himself.

Here is one excerpt:

When it comes to organics, the world’s oceans maintain a perfect balance of metabolic waste removal through a series of natural recycling systems. Both the volume of water and the immense surface area provides a home for tens of thousands of species of macro and micro organisms that process these wastes. In the home aquarium, just a small fraction of these organisms can survive. Coupled with an extremely high specimen to water ratio, organics tend to accumulate in closed systems, and can reach concentrations orders of magnitude beyond natural ocean levels. Even with aggressive water changes, these organics can never be diluted enough to mimic the natural levels where our livestock has lived for thousands of years.

Joe’s post continued to explain how, why, and for how long we need to use carbon.  You seriously need to give his highly enlightening and informative blog post on carbon a read. It will definitely want to make you change your carbon canister today.

…his discovery that sponges have one of the fastest cell division rates ever measured, and instead of growing they discard the cells. Essentially, the sponges recycle carbon that would otherwise be lost to the reef.

The sponge was able to take up the colossal amounts of organic carbon that De Goeij had measured, but where was the carbon going: the sponges weren’t growing. De Goeij tested to see if the cells were dying and being lost, but he couldn’t find any evidence of cell death.

This article focused on Jasper De Goeij’s, a former student of Marine biologist Fleur Van Duyl from the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, which lab tests showed how quickly sponges replicated their cells, and their ability to consume organic carbon. For the rest of the article, you can visit it here.

So lets continue talking about this ‘hot new method’ of supposedly reducing PO4s and NO3s.

While researching this topic, I stumbled upon Eric Borneman’s 2004 ReefKeeping article, which goes in depth covering this exact topic. In Eric’s words, this ‘new’ concept was titled ‘The Old Becomes New, Yet Again”, five years ago. Why are we revisiting this now? In time, you will see..

In this article, Eric uses a German reef magazine’s ‘experiments’ (as he called them in quotations) to explain his displeasure of applying this theory in practice.

German magazine recently published an article suggesting and recommending the dosing of ethanol (as vodka) to reef tanks as a carbon source for marine heterotrophic bacteria in order to increase denitrification rates and bacterial biomass production (Mrutzek and Kokott 2004). Further, they claimed that additions cause rapid declines in nitrogen and phosphorus produced by fish, invertebrates, and algal metabolism (ironic, since many aquarium invertebrates and algae are sinks, not sources, for nitrogen and phosphorus). In turn, the bacteria provide a food source for corals and other filter feeders. The method is recommended particularly for those tanks that are highly skimmed (and probably lack particulate material) and which lack sand beds. Tanks with sand beds or other sediment-based systems, they mention, react unusually and may have adverse effects to ethanol additions.

He continues to elaborate on what this experiment managed to do.

“Experiments” were performed (and I use the term experiment loosely to mean the typical uncontrolled, unreplicated, statistically insignificant sort of “let’s add it, see what happens, and produce results that show how my tank never looked better” sort of trials that are often found in aquarium literature). The results showed a precipitous decline in nitrogen and phosphorus levels over approximately one month with increasing doses of vodka. The sample size for the experimental procedure was one (n=1), consisting of a single person’s personal home aquarium. There were no controls in the experiment (i.e. an identical tank without vodka being added to see if there actually were results from the treatment). In fact, the sample tank received an increasing dose of vodka during the treatment, making any dosing effect impossible to determine. Additional support for the “experiment” was collected by casual replication in completely different trials in even less controlled conditions; that is, other aquarists began adding vodka and claimed similar “results.”

Side effects of this experiment?

Results of this work also showed a number of other effects. A large “bloom” occurred which clouded the test tank, an occurrence that could and often does kill tank inhabitants. It was assumed the bloom was bacterial, but no mention was made if and how the cloudiness in the tanks was determined to be bacterial. Given what I will offer below, it may also have simply been carbonate precipitation brought about by additional carbon addition and possibly microbial mediation. Having fortuitously escaped tank mortalities, the tank cleared and the authors literally state how “the tank water had never been clearer, the coral polyp extension was better, and the coral coloration was more intense.” Where have I heard this before?

To prove his point, he broke down all possible avenues in denitrification within the walls of your tank.

First, no denitrification rates, to my knowledge, have been measured in aquarium sediments or substrates outside those provided by Toonen (although they have been measured often in the field, as discussed below).

~

Second, most aquarists using live sand beds believe that top aerobic (oxic) layers overlay the anoxic layers where denitrification takes place. However, denitrification can also take place in oxic areas, and some of the highest rates of denitrification have been found in the top 1 cm of sediments where nitrate and oxygen levels are highest (Oren and Blackburn 1979).

~

Moreover, denitrification has been shown to be a nitrogen-limited and not a carbon-limited process, though carbon limitation is central to the premise of the vodka-addition treatment. Without question, the denitrification process is microbially mediated, but unfortunately little, if any, evidence exists that microbial populations in aquariums are carbon-limited.

~

Because of hydrodynamics across surfaces, microbial community dynamics, and other biotic and abiotic influences, oxic/anoxic zones can be found virtually everywhere in an aquarium. Denitrification has been found to exist on the surface of detrital particles, on the surface of corals, and on the surface of sand grains that are found in oxic environments. Therefore, denitrification and even sulfate reduction can be considered microaerophilic processes that do not depend on anoxia to take place.

~

Furthermore, plants are able to utilize denitrification pathways, and aquariums contain high numbers of these; macroalgae and photosynthetic single-celled organisms, endolithic fungi, bacteria, coralline algae, and highly grazed turf species are among those functional biotic components present but remaining largely unseen or not considered in such speculations on nitrogen dynamics in tanks, and none of which are requisite to the presence of a sand bed. Sponges have been found to be able to denitrify, too, through their association with endosymbiotic bacteria. Corals are covered with a rich microbial surface community that includes many alpha- and gamma-proteobacteria that are known to be denitrifiers. In fact, anoxia is now known to exist within coral tissues at night, and studies are underway to determine how corals are able to survive this environment (Kulhanek, et al. 2004).

In other words, there are numerous areas of denitrification within your tank. Within your rocks, your sand, your plants, your corals, in oxic (oxygen rich) & anoxic (oxygen poor) areas, and even on detritus.

So if a lot of things that are in your tank already denitrify, then why do we even bother with this possibly dangerous process? Why do we risk dosing ethanol (carbon) into our systems? Is it a less involved process of removing nutrients? Is it a faster method of eliminating your nuisance algae? Eric wrote:

Now, I may not know much, but I do know that in the twenty or so years that we have been keeping corals alive, it has become obvious that the apparatus that was so heavily depended upon in the early years to simply maintain corals, such as denitrators, bioballs, phosphate removal media, and others, is no longer required. John Tullock (1997) stated eloquently that we needed “more biology and less technology.”

Wouldn’t a very simple water change accomplish a lot more than dosing yesterdays hot new cure-all item? Lets get back to roots people! Less is ALWAYS more in this hobby.

Before you purchase any fish, you should have a QT (Quarantine Tank) already setup. This way if any disease becomes known to you, you can apply medication without any hassle.

The pre-QT way of treating fish would have been to catch all the fish in your tank, dump them in a 40-50 gallon tank, and go crazy with medicating them. A reactionary method of eradicating fish disease. A proactive approach would have been with a QT already there. Ready for a parts list? Here you go…

Basic Setup Needs are:

1. Trickle filter

2. Airstone/Powerhead at the water surface

3. Fluorescent Light w/ timer

4. Different sized PVC pipe, cut in different lengths

5. Carbon, but taken out if medicating the tank

6. Minimum 10 gallon tank

7. Ammonia Detector, made by SeaChem

8. Weekly 10%-15% water changes

9. Patience

Note: No gravel/substrate or live rock/dead rock of any sort will be used in this setup. Gravel/rock acts as a sponge when medicating. A no-no.

Carbon is often used to improve water quality and clarity. Once you begin to medicate the animal, you are supposed to take the carbon out. Carbon neutralizes the effectiveness of your medication. The airstone is not necessary as long as your have surface agitation in the QT. This will allow gas exchange, and will oxygenate the QT. This is extremely important if you medicate the tank, as the fish will consume more oxygen during this time.

The PVC is for shelter. It provides hiding area for recently introduced fish or for those which are very shy. Also, water changes are necessary to maintain water quality, as it is the only method to remove nutrients from an enclosed system.

There aren’t any negatives in using this setup. Not only can you assure yourself of having a disease free fish, but you can also teach it to eat prepared foods. This is known in cases with finicky eaters, such as Copperband Butterflies.

So next time you are ready for a fish, ask yourself if you have one of these setups ready. With a little effort, and most importantly money, you are saving yourself from much heartache and frustration. You will quickly find yourself, once you realize how much help this little setup can really be, trying to get other reefers on the bandwagon. You can book it!