Persistent Phosphate levels despite Phosphate sponge/ Phosban

[[email protected]]

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?

[BigHaig]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>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?
>
Are you sure the test kit is good? Try a different one???

[Marc Levenson]

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


wrote:
> 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?
>

--
Personal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html
Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com
Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com

[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.

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

[CheezWiz]

>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 ass 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




"Mislav" > wrote in message ...
>>>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
>

[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 ass 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

I suggest you read the post before you flame someone.

Mislav

[Marc Levenson]

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


Mislav wrote:

> 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.


--
Personal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html
Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com
Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com

[Marc Levenson]

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


Mislav wrote:

> 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.


--
Personal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html
Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com
Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com

[CheezWiz]

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.
"Mislav" > wrote in message ...
>> 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 ass 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
>
> I suggest you read the post before you flame someone.
>
> Mislav
>

[CheezWiz]

You gonna try Vodka?

CW
"Marc Levenson" > wrote in message
. ..
> 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
>
>
> Mislav wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>
> --
> Personal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html
> Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com
> Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com

[Mislav]

"Marc Levenson" > wrote in message
...
>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
>

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



> --
> Personal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html
> Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com
> Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com

[Mislav]

"CheezWiz" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

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
> 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

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.
> "Mislav" > wrote in message ...
>>> 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 ass 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
>>
>> I suggest you read the post before you flame someone.
>>
>> Mislav
>>
>
>

[CheezWiz]

"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 Bull****!



CW

"Mislav" > wrote in message ...
>
> "CheezWiz" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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.
>
> 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
>> 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
>
> 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.
>> "Mislav" > wrote in message ...
>>>> 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 ass 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
>>>
>>> I suggest you read the post before you flame someone.
>>>
>>> Mislav
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Mislav]

"CheezWiz" > wrote in message
...
> "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.

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.
> 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.

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
>
> 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 Bull****!
>
>
>
> 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


> "Mislav" > wrote in message ...
>>
>> "CheezWiz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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
>>> 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
>>
>> 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.
>>> "Mislav" > wrote in message ...
>>>>> 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 ass 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
>>>>
>>>> I suggest you read the post before you flame someone.
>>>>
>>>> Mislav
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Boomer]

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


Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS

If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up

[Boomer]

Are either of you two using a Ca reactor and did you change media ?
--
Boomer

Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum
http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php


Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS

If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up

[CheezWiz]

> 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 ****es 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...

"Boomer" > wrote in message
...
> 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
>
>
> Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
> Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS
>
> If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up
>
>
>

[CheezWiz]

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 bull****. 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

[Marc Levenson]

Only for my sanity. LOL

Marc


CheezWiz wrote:
> You gonna try Vodka?
>
> CW
> "Marc Levenson" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>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



--
Personal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html
Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com
Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com

[Marc Levenson]

Yes, I have a Ca Reactor and the media is probably 2 months old.

Marc


Boomer wrote:
> Are either of you two using a Ca reactor and did you change media ?

--
Personal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html
Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com
Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com

[Mislav]

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


"CheezWiz" > wrote in message
...
> 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 bull****. 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
>
>

[Mislav]

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


"Boomer" > wrote in message
...
> 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
>
>
> Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
> Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS
>
> If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up
>
>
>

[CheezWiz]

For that I would stick to Bacardi 151.
Only takes a little for sanity to kick-in!

CW
"Marc Levenson" > wrote in message
...
> Only for my sanity. LOL
>
> Marc
>
>
> CheezWiz wrote:
>> You gonna try Vodka?
>>
>> CW
>> "Marc Levenson" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>
>>>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
>
>
>
> --
> Personal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html
> Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com
> Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com

[CheezWiz]

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 **** 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

"Mislav" > wrote in message ...
> 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
>
>
> "CheezWiz" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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 bull****. 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
>>
>>
>
>

[CheezWiz]

Marc,

You use RC, how about digging up some info on this Vodka method and posting
it here?

CW
"Marc Levenson" > wrote in message
...
> Only for my sanity. LOL
>
> Marc
>
>
> CheezWiz wrote:
>> You gonna try Vodka?
>>
>> CW
>> "Marc Levenson" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>
>>>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
>
>
>
> --
> Personal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html
> Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com
> Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com

[Marc Levenson]

Actually, Crown Royal is always on hand. :D

Marc


CheezWiz wrote:
> For that I would stick to Bacardi 151.
> Only takes a little for sanity to kick-in!
>
> CW
> "Marc Levenson" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Only for my sanity. LOL
>>
>>Marc

--
Personal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html
Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com
Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com

[Ray Martini]

But do you have alcoholic fish? Do they get drunk and rowdy and start
fights? (just kidding).


"Mislav" > wrote in message ...
>>>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
>

[Marc Levenson]

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


CheezWiz wrote:
> Marc,
>
> You use RC, how about digging up some info on this Vodka method and posting
> it here?
>
> CW
> "Marc Levenson" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Only for my sanity. LOL
>>
>>Marc
>>
>>
>>CheezWiz wrote:
>>
>>>You gonna try Vodka?
>>>
>>>CW
>>>"Marc Levenson" > wrote in message
. ..
>>>
>>>
>>>>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
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Personal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html
>>Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com
>>Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com
>
>
>

--
Personal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html
Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com
Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com

[Boomer]

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

--
Boomer

Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum
http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php


Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS

If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up

[Boomer]

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
--
Boomer

Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum
http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php


Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS

If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up


"Marc Levenson" > wrote in message
...
: Yes, I have a Ca Reactor and the media is probably 2 months old.
:
: Marc
:
:
: Boomer wrote:
: > Are either of you two using a Ca reactor and did you change media ?
:
: --
: Personal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html
: Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com
: Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com

[Boomer]

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


Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS

If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up

[Boomer]

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


Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS

If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up

[CheezWiz]

"Boomer" > wrote in message
...
> 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!"
>
> 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
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....

>
> --
> Boomer
>
> Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum
> http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php
>
>
> Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
> Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS
>
> If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up
>
>
>
>

[CheezWiz]

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





"Mislav" > wrote in message ...
> 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
>
>
> "CheezWiz" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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 bull****. 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
>>
>>
>
>

[CheezWiz]

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

"Boomer" > wrote in message
...
> 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
>
>
> Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
> Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS
>
> If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up
>
>

[Marc Levenson]

I checked last week, and it is almost 98,000 now. Unbelievable. I
think I joined RC when there were 32,000 members.

Marc


Boomer wrote:
> We are the largest forum there is on reef tanks. 80,000 + members
>
>

--
Personal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html
Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com
Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com

[Marc Levenson]

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 sal****er. 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


Boomer wrote:
> 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

--
Personal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html
Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com
Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com

[Boomer]

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.
--
Boomer

Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum
http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php


Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS

If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up


"CheezWiz" > wrote in message ...
: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
:
: "Boomer" > wrote in message
: ...
: > 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
: >
: >
: > Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
: > Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS
: >
: > If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up
: >
: >
:
:

[Boomer]

I forgot


There are some seawater facilities that use LaCl2 -7H2O ( Lanthanum Chloride Heptahydrate)
for phosphate removal
--
Boomer

Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum
http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php


Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS

If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up


"Boomer" > wrote in message ...
: 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
:
:
: Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
: Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS
:
: If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up
:
:

[Boomer]

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



--
Boomer

Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum
http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php


Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS

If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up


"CheezWiz" > wrote in message ...
:
: "Boomer" > wrote in message
: ...
: > 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!"
: >
: > 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
: 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....
:
: >
: > --
: > Boomer
: >
: > Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum
: > http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php
: >
: >
: > Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
: > Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS
: >
: > If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up
: >
: >
: >
: >
:
:

[Steve]

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

[Marc Levenson]

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


Steve wrote:
> 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
>

--
Personal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html
Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com
Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com

[CheezWiz]

> "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

[Mislav]

"Ray Martini" > wrote in message
...
> 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

[Boomer]

"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



--
Boomer

Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum
http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php


Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS

If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up


"CheezWiz" > wrote in message ...
:> "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
:
:

[CheezWiz]

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

"kryppy" <kryppy@.> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:09:44 +0200, "Mislav" > wrote:
>
>>>>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
>>
>
>
>
> Finally, something I like!!! My fish are having a party tonight!!!
> I was going to buy steel wool today!! Amazing, I love this newsgroup.
>
>
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

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.