# Most Effective Method of Nitrate Reduction--Methanol Dosing



## longgonedaddy (Dec 9, 2012)

Very interesting, thanks for posting.


----------



## Vohlk (Apr 8, 2016)

I think the reason a lot of people don't do this is because while it may remove nitrates it adds a lot of unknown organics. Methanol which is "cheap" over the counter stuff is not very pure, and the methods used to produce it also produce a large amount of other organic byproducts. I am sure it works, and that it probably works really well. The issue is that people are scared of the _potential_ for the other organics to harm their: _see list of expensive fish/shrimp/whatever_. By the way this reaction can also be done with acetic acid (vinegar) the same way it is done with methanol. But again the same problem exists, over the counter acetic acid (vinegar) is very unpure.

For methanol, just a quick google searched showed me that most methanol products at about 8-10 dollars per gallon where about 99.8% pure. That may seem really pure to most people but in chemistry that .2% is huge. Especially because oftentimes its only ppm levels of materials that can be considered dangerous.

For the most part this isn't an issue in municipal water treatment because chlorine gas or UV light is used as well. Both of these will react with most large organic molecules and break them down into less harmful ones.


----------



## Mxx (Dec 29, 2010)

I thought it was effective in reef tanks because the organic carbon is being dosed in conjunction with using protein skimmers? 

I do wonder if the bacteria cells absorb those nitrates when they bloom with the introduction of the carbon source, but that once those bacterial cells themselves die the nutrients such as the nitrogen/nitrates will then be returned back into the water. And that will happen unless you continue dosing ever-larger amounts of carbon to feed an ever-increasing population of bacteria? And perhaps dosing carbon thus doesn't ever actually export the nitrogen out of the system if that is what is happening? 

This is just my speculation however, and it could be that if it really is anaerobic bacteria that are feeding on the carbon then the nitrates will just be converted to nitrogen gas and off-gassed into the atmosphere. But anaerobic bacteria I wouldn't think would be visible as a bacterial bloom or as cloudiness, as they'd have to be buried deep in the substrate where there is no oxygen. 

Food for thought...


----------



## crypticmonk (Sep 6, 2012)

I'll give a more thourough reply and give you my sources later, but for now, first of all, did you both actually read the whole post? This wasn't some random OTC thing of methanol I got at Walmart, I was using a product by Red Sea that is highly rated and has been used by advanced reef keepers for a long time. I have used it in my reef aquarium for about a year with no issues (and I don't use a skimmer). So no, Mxx, what you are saying about nutrients rising again is just not true. This is a long-term solution, and I have had zero fluctuations in my reef aquarium. I keep SPS coral, and I hardly do any water changes (probably not a good thing I admit, but the point is this is effective). Not to be offensive, but you obviously do not completely understand the Nitrogen cycle. In anaerobic bacteria, Nitrates are reduced back into Nitrogen gas. It completely leaves the system (of the aquarium).
For some reason, people think freshwater and saltwater aquariums are completely different and there is no overlap. This is not true. Many, if not most, of the same principles apply to both. I am not saying this just as someone new in the hobby, I have had over 15 years of experience keeping both fresh and saltwater and have my background in water resources and ecology. I've worked in several water quality labs and have done work with the FWS and Greater Gallatin Watershed Council doing stream and wetland analysis and assessment. I am not saying this to be arrogant, but I do have somewhat of an idea of what I'm talking about, and again, there are peer-reviewed studies that will back me up on this.
If you want to disagree with me on this, you can, but you'll need to base it off of something other than just your opinion. And when I was talking about the bacteria bloom, this also "feeds" aerobic bacteria, not just anaerobic.
And Vohlk, I am not lying when I say this is used extensively in water treatment and waste management. Much of the research done has been related to this. One of the initial and most important processes in treatment of waste water is biological.


----------



## Vohlk (Apr 8, 2016)

My intention was not to say you where lying about it being used in waste water treatment, quiet the opposite in fact. I am very familiar with the waste water treatment process and used to work for a company designing waste water treatment facilities. I understand what you are saying completely, I was simply supplying reasons as to why it *does* work in water treatment. Reasons why it is much safer to use in large scale waste water treatment. There is a lot of chemistry behind it, I do not know what your chemistry background is, I presume some based on your work history, chlorine (which is used very often in waste water management) or high intensity UV light, reacts to break down or "neutralize" lots of "heavy" organic matter. Large organic molecules that make it thruough all of the biological filtration and even the settling tanks are neutralized on the way out of the waste water facility.

The problem (concern whatever you want to call it) is that the chlorine treatment/UV light treatment doesn't exist in most (freshwater tanks (some UV light is used based on filter and whatnot (UV sterilizer))), I do not own saltwater tanks, and while they are similar there is very different chemistry going on in these, (ozone generators? are these still common practice? I do not know I tried my hand at saltwater many years ago but realized my passions lied elsewhere).

My previous post can basically be summed up as saying, over the counter products are relatively impure (unless it is costing somewhere around $400+ per gallon), the impurities in this could (or could not) be dangerous when dosed regularly. But there may be more than just methanol in these mixtures I do not know, maybe they themselves have already been exposed to UV light to break down those "large" organic molecules I do not know.


----------



## wastewater (Apr 5, 2010)

crypticmonk said:


> So I thought I'd share a bit of an experiment I did in my freshwater 75-gallon in regards to Nitrates that I hope other people will find helpful. I am going to try to share this in as many places as I can, as I think I'm the only one who's tried it, and it has been by far the most successful method in significantly reducing Nitrates. It's long, sorry, but I think it's really important. Basic point is that methanol is the best option if you are serious about reducing Nitrates in your freshwater aquarium long-term. So I have a pretty heavily stocked goldfish aquarium that is also planted. I was doing ok with Nitrates for a while, since the fish were small, I was siphoning out the waste about every other day, and the tank wasn't as heavily planted as it is now (contrary to popular opinion, a planted aquarium can in certain instances INCREASE Nitrates, since rooted plants are very efficient at trapping sediment and waste, thus making it difficult to siphon and for the filters to capture it). However, the fish have grown quickly, and I had to keep them well-fed, because they kept picking at the plants. I eventually moved a couple of the big ones out into the stock tank with the pond fish, but Nitrates were still way too high (like 80 ppm+). Some of you may have seen my previous argument about whether plants, water changes, or anaerobic bacteria are more efficient/effective for reducing Nitrates, and I said the anaerobic bacteria is what is most important. Going off of that, I attempted to increase my anaerobic bacteria population, both by creating more appropriate media for them to grow on, and more importantly, adding Red Sea NO3/Po4 Remover (methanol). I was using this in my reef aquarium, and it worked really well, almost too well (I lowered the dose, even though my bioload is bigger now). The idea behind methanol dosing is it gives the bacteria a source of inorganic carbon, which is often a limiting nutrient for them. It is used in wastewater treatment, and is the most effective and safe compound to use. Everywhere I read on forums said they either didn't know if it could be used in freshwater or said not to do it (but as usual, couldn't back up their statements with legitimate research). I read; however, that most fish and plants are quite tolerant of it, and plants even usually perform better with reasonable doses. If you are having a Nitrate problem, I can tell you this is by far the best way to reduce it. Aquariums are all about recreating natural processes as closely as possible. Most freshwater ecosystems have very effective Nitrate absorbtion through anaerobic bacteria found in the anoxic soils of wetlands. We need to try to recreate this as closely as possible.





Vohlk said:


> My intention was not to say you where lying about it being used in waste water treatment, quiet the opposite in fact. I am very familiar with the waste water treatment process and used to work for a company designing waste water treatment facilities. I understand what you are saying completely, I was simply supplying reasons as to why it *does* work in water treatment. Reasons why it is much safer to use in large scale waste water treatment. There is a lot of chemistry behind it, I do not know what your chemistry background is, I presume some based on your work history, chlorine (which is used very often in waste water management) or high intensity UV light, reacts to break down or "neutralize" lots of "heavy" organic matter. Large organic molecules that make it thruough all of the biological filtration and even the settling tanks are neutralized on the way out of the waste water facility.


A very interesting post (and experiment), along with some interesting comments. I guess I should keep my response to my opening sentence - but 'what the hey' - for what it is worth (hopefully my comments will not be misconstrued or considered disrespectful by anyone):

Most advanced Wastewater Treatment facilities (and their associated treatment processes) are based on desired goals. Removing (that important trio of initials) "TKN", is usually the main goal... along with the other goal of meeting permit compliance. In most instances, conventional secondary treatment (e.g., activated sludge basin & secondary clarifiers - biological nitrification in the activated sludge basin and suspended solids via the secondary clarifiers) provide adequate BOD and Suspended Solids removal. A well designed secondary treatment process will remove about 85-95% of the Biological Oxygen Demand & Suspended Solids, and about 65% Chemical Oxygen Demand from the original influent stream. Even though "considered adequate", the treated effluent still contains organic/inorganic materials, nitrogen, and phosphorus (and because of the nitrogen still present there is additional oxygen demand as a result). This could cause a Wastewater Treatment Plant to "not" meet basic compliance standards/regulations, along with permit violations.

If a higher quality effluent is needed to meet/exceed regulations, additional treatment is needed beyond secondary treatment (e.g., nutrient removal/ denitrification, tertiary). This is where *methanol* comes into play. Denitrification processes, usually incorporating some type of anoxic zone (e.g., basins/filters/reactors that can also include a fixed packing), are usually supplemented with a carbon source (more than often a dilute methanol solution is used, although ethanol is often used in anoxic rock tanks). Denitrification processes can become real 'gnarly' (in a hurry) for an operator. It's a difficult process and there are a lot of factors that come into play: like ph, temperature, methanol feed, etc.). Usually a well designed (municipal) wastewater treatment plant uses tertiary treatment for removing SS, COD, phosphorus, metals... while chlorine and UV are usually used for disinfection (Fecal Coliform). 

I've got a lot of respect for the OP thinking outside of the box (with your methanol experiment and giving it a try), but more importantly: sharing your observations and results.


----------



## Mxx (Dec 29, 2010)

Now slow down there, and if you don't want to discuss it or listen to the suggestions of other then don't post it in a forum, nor make presumptions of others knowledge.

Yes, read the entire post, and yes, do thoroughly understand the nitrogen cycle. 

I've done carbon dosing in my reef tank a few years back as well, both with vinegar and carbon pellets, although discontinued it when I wasn't happy with the side-effects. 

And I was trying it in my planted tank too then, although I wasn't seeing a change in nitrates. When I researched the use of carbon dosing in freshwater the indication I got from others was that it only works in conjunction with protein-skimming, and I didn't have a sufficiently deep sand-bed there to achieve denitrification either I realized, so I discontinued that as well. 

So how long have you been doing that carbon-dosing in your FW tank, how much have you been dosing, what have been your nitrate levels as a result, and have you seen any other side effects apart from a bit of cloudiness?

Many people do suggest that the Redsea product is a waste of money however, and to just use white vinegar which is a few dollars a gallon, or vodka.


----------



## gunnerthesnowman (May 28, 2016)

crypticmonk said:


> So I thought I'd share a bit of an experiment I did in my freshwater 75-gallon in regards to Nitrates that I hope other people will find helpful. I am going to try to share this in as many places as I can, as I think I'm the only one who's tried it, and it has been by far the most successful method in significantly reducing Nitrates. It's long, sorry, but I think it's really important. Basic point is that methanol is the best option if you are serious about reducing Nitrates in your freshwater aquarium long-term.
> So I have a pretty heavily stocked goldfish aquarium that is also planted. I was doing ok with Nitrates for a while, since the fish were small, I was siphoning out the waste about every other day, and the tank wasn't as heavily planted as it is now (contrary to popular opinion, a planted aquarium can in certain instances INCREASE Nitrates, since rooted plants are very efficient at trapping sediment and waste, thus making it difficult to siphon and for the filters to capture it). However, the fish have grown quickly, and I had to keep them well-fed, because they kept picking at the plants. I eventually moved a couple of the big ones out into the stock tank with the pond fish, but Nitrates were still way too high (like 80 ppm+). Some of you may have seen my previous argument about whether plants, water changes, or anaerobic bacteria are more efficient/effective for reducing Nitrates, and I said the anaerobic bacteria is what is most important. Going off of that, I attempted to increase my anaerobic bacteria population, both by creating more appropriate media for them to grow on, and more importantly, adding Red Sea NO3/Po4 Remover (methanol). I was using this in my reef aquarium, and it worked really well, almost too well (I lowered the dose, even though my bioload is bigger now). The idea behind methanol dosing is it gives the bacteria a source of inorganic carbon, which is often a limiting nutrient for them. It is used in wastewater treatment, and is the most effective and safe compound to use. Everywhere I read on forums said they either didn't know if it could be used in freshwater or said not to do it (but as usual, couldn't back up their statements with legitimate research). I read; however, that most fish and plants are quite tolerant of it, and plants even usually perform better with reasonable doses. So I decided to try it (by this point, I had tried basically every product out there for reducing Nitrates...most are junk, btw, Algone and API Nitrazorb were somewhat effective, but you need to use a lot of it, and it's probably better for more moderate NO3 levels). Nitrates steadily declined, and this morning, they were at zero. Keep in mind, this is with a heavily stocked tank with goldfish, which probably produce more waste than any other aquarium fish. I did get quite a bacterial bloom, but that's the point. I've had to clean out the filter intake tubes pretty regularly just to keep them working.
> If you are having a Nitrate problem, I can tell you this is by far the best way to reduce it. Aquariums are all about recreating natural processes as closely as possible. Most freshwater ecosystems have very effective Nitrate absorbtion through anaerobic bacteria found in the anoxic soils of wetlands. We need to try to recreate this as closely as possible. Water changes are NOT the best option, and can even be detrimental if you are doing large water changes frequently. It is impossible to get the parameters right each time, unless you are using pure RO or pure tap water, and if you dose CO2 (like me), you are going to have major CO2 and pH fluctuations. Plus, say you are doing 25% water changes. That means you are only reducing Nitrates by 25%, and the next day, they will most likely go back to the same levels they were before. Manually removing waste is a good idea though, but try to take out as little water as possible. If you want to use plants, you can do that, but they need to be fast-growing plants that feed from the water column (like hornwort), and you need to be using high light, high CO2, and regular dosing of Potassium and trace elements.





Mxx said:


> Now slow down there, and if you don't want to discuss it or listen to the suggestions of other then don't post it in a forum, nor make presumptions of others knowledge.
> 
> Yes, read the entire post, and yes, do thoroughly understand the nitrogen cycle.
> 
> ...




Good day , interesting test , I was thinking about trying this as well as I have high NO# levels in my planted tanks. I would also like some more info on your test , what was you NO3 level at start of test , what was the dosing schedule ( how many ML/Gallon X week ) how long did it take to get NO3 Level from ??ppm to where you are at now and how are you maintaining this NO3 Level , Did this affect your PO4 levels ????


----------



## crypticmonk (Sep 6, 2012)

Well here are a few of the sources I used, I can try to find more if people would like...

http://www.incda-fundulea.ro/rar/nr78/rar7_9.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15162848
Denitrification of nitrate and nitric acid with methanol as carbon source | SpringerLink
http://www.aidic.it/cet/13/32/054.pdf


----------



## gunnerthesnowman (May 28, 2016)

gunnerthesnowman said:


> Good day , interesting test , I was thinking about trying this as well as I have high NO# levels in my planted tanks. I would also like some more info on your test , what was you NO3 level at start of test , what was the dosing schedule ( how many ML/Gallon X week ) how long did it take to get NO3 Level from ??ppm to where you are at now and how are you maintaining this NO3 Level , Did this affect your PO4 levels ????




Do you have this info , would love to see more details on it, Thanks for taking the time to post your results.


----------



## Vohlk (Apr 8, 2016)

Just be be clear on myself if I wasn't from the beginning. I am not disagreeing with the chemistry of how methanol reacts to denitrify the water column. My *concern* would lie with the purity of the methanol and the other "free" organics that come with. It is just a concern, it does not mean that using methanol will not work (obviously it will) but it is also a potential risk. It's not the methanol I would worry about but potential other materials.
Its a bit of a luck of the draw with what exactly else is in there with the methanol, could be water, could be other materials. In the article you posted they where using analytical grade methanol. This is one of the most expensive methanol's you can buy. (about $84.80 for 2.5 liters from sigma aldrich, or that works out to about $128 a gallon(the really pure stuff is ridiculous(%12.70 a mL)) Most aquariast's I imagine would not be using that purity, and would likely be getting the much cheaper much less pure options.

It's probably not the fact that it doesn't work, but the fact that it has the potential to go wrong which would push people away from the idea. Probably the same reason why people probably wouldn't be comfortable pouring vinegar into their fish tanks. But alas, maybe times will change.


----------



## gunnerthesnowman (May 28, 2016)

Vohlk said:


> Just be be clear on myself if I wasn't from the beginning. I am not disagreeing with the chemistry of how methanol reacts to denitrify the water column. My *concern* would lie with the purity of the methanol and the other "free" organics that come with. It is just a concern, it does not mean that using methanol will not work (obviously it will) but it is also a potential risk. It's not the methanol I would worry about but potential other materials.
> Its a bit of a luck of the draw with what exactly else is in there with the methanol, could be water, could be other materials. In the article you posted they where using analytical grade methanol. This is one of the most expensive methanol's you can buy. (about $84.80 for 2.5 liters from sigma aldrich, or that works out to about $128 a gallon(the really pure stuff is ridiculous(%12.70 a mL)) Most aquariast's I imagine would not be using that purity, and would likely be getting the much cheaper much less pure options.
> 
> It's probably not the fact that it doesn't work, but the fact that it has the potential to go wrong which would push people away from the idea. Probably the same reason why people probably wouldn't be comfortable pouring vinegar into their fish tanks. But alas, maybe times will change.




From post #1 , in this test he was using Red Sea NO3/Po4 Remover , I would take it that since this is made for fish tanks that it would be safe to use, I watch a video on this product and it is made up of different compounds to do a complete job.
I have been having problems with high NO3 in all three of my planted tanks ( 230G // 72G & a 36 G ) I have tried different product to get the NO3 down, none work, I just redid my filters set up in all my tanks using Biohome Ultimate trying to get my filter doing what the tread is talking about.
Its funny as I had already placed an order for Red Sea NO3/Po4 Remover before seeing and reading this post, I will report back once I start using it .


----------



## jr125 (Mar 5, 2015)

The science of what you guys are discussing is way over my head, as are a lot of things. I'm just curious as to the motivation to control nitrates with an additive. Is it to reduce or eliminate the need to perform water changes? Is it to support a bio-load the tank wouldn't otherwise be able to handle even with regular water changes at a reasonable interval? Possibly the water source has a high level of nitrates to start with so additional reduction measures are needed? Just wondering.

There is much evidence that even low-tech, non-co2, low light set ups can be very efficient at removing nitrates as long as there is a manageable bio-load. Even with small and infrequent water changes in some cases. When I perform a water change that reduces nitrates by 25% they do not return to the starting point in one day, as you suggest. I can keep my nitrates in a fairly predictable range doing water changes every 2 weeks. In other words it takes about 2 weeks for the nitrates to return to the original level after a water change. If I change less water or wait longer nitrates build, if I change more water or do it at shorter intervals the nitrate level drops accordingly, all else remaining the same.


----------



## ichy (Apr 6, 2015)

Can't you accomplish Nitrate reduction by doing regular water changes?


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

ichy said:


> Can't you accomplish Nitrate reduction by doing regular water changes?


Maybe yes, maybe no..
Some of my tanks don't "behave" well. I can do a 50% water change and days later Nitrates are just as high..
Mostly heavily planted (to the point of choking) and heavy bioload..

This methanol thing is another "tool" basically like sugar and vodka and vinegar.... 

Unfortunately all seem to go through the bacterial bloom stage..which would be annoying to me..
I do plan to try something like this on a 40b though..

My biggest concern is how much of an "anaerobic zone" one has w/ shallow course substrate.
Seems sand or dirted would be preferred..
Vinegar is out due to low kH..


----------



## Mxx (Dec 29, 2010)

Personally I really like the science-based threads. And I'll look forward to reading through those links provided when I'm not on a deadline. 

The OP had explained that you can reduce nitrates through water changes, but unless you're doing a 100% water change then there are still nitrates there. And for some of us, like myself, our tapwater has more nitrates than I would prefer for my tank to have... So what he is talking about there is presumably a way to fully eliminate nitrates and therefore keep the parameters healthier for your fish. So it's not a thread about water changes or not, and there are certain reasons to be doing water changes, but to keep nitrates down shouldn't have to be one of them. It should be a very simply and effective method for denitrification in FW tanks if it works as described.

Are we hobbyists really worried that products intended for human consumption such as pure white vinegar or vodka aren't pure enough to put into our tanks?... (For full disclosure, I won't put that crap that comes out of my water faucets and which my family drinks into my aquariums, at least not before it has been 100% purified by my RODI filter.)


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

Hundred's of PPM Nitrates needed long term to have much of a negative affect on fauna.
Without calibrating hobbyist test kit's against known solution,one could easily have way more or way less nitrates than they think.
I'll see the OP's 75 gal heavily stocked goldfish tank and "Kick a buck ' raise him/her a 55 gal heavily stocked Pleco tank that 50 % weekly water change keeps fishes/plant's happy and nitrate level's around 60 ppm.
Tank is lousy with anubia,anacharis,duck weed,and one crypt.
Four Adult pleco's,gob's of cherry shrimp,a few dozen baby bristlenose,fancy guppies.all thrive and re-produce at all too regular intervals.(nitrates between 60 -80 ppm)
I might consider the methanol if source water was indeed unfit for drinking due to nitrate levels.
Telling folk's that large frequent water changes are not the answer and or could be harmful to ?? need's some proper context.
Nobody I know changes more water more often than I do ,and have yet to see any harmful effect's over some forty year's with nearly as many freshwater species.
Lot's of problem's arise with over stocked tanks which usually also result's in over feeding which is self induced problem.No need for chemical's to fix it.
Not to mention that both Nitrogen and PO4 are needed macro nutrient's by plant's.
I add both weekly to low tech NON CO2 and those running high tech ,dose them nearly every day .
If it is the anaerobic bacterium one wishes to cultivate for nitrogen reducing to methane gas,then simply make substrate deeper where less O2 will encourage them.


----------



## jr125 (Mar 5, 2015)

Mxx said:


> Personally I really like the science-based threads. And I'll look forward to reading through those links provided when I'm not on a deadline.
> 
> The OP had explained that you can reduce nitrates through water changes, but unless you're doing a 100% water change then there are still nitrates there. And for some of us, like myself, our tapwater has more nitrates than I would prefer for my tank to have... So what he is talking about there is presumably a way to fully eliminate nitrates and therefore keep the parameters healthier for your fish. So it's not a thread about water changes or not, and there are certain reasons to be doing water changes, but to keep nitrates down shouldn't have to be one of them. It should be a very simply and effective method for denitrification in FW tanks if it works as described.
> 
> Are we hobbyists really worried that products intended for human consumption such as pure white vinegar or vodka aren't pure enough to put into our tanks?... (For full disclosure, I won't put that crap that comes out of my water faucets and which my family drinks into my aquariums, at least not before it has been 100% purified by my RODI filter.)


In reference to my previous post I was certainly not trying to start a dialog on the pros and cons of water changes. I was simply asking about the reason(s) for using this method to reduce nitrates. Anyone trying to support plant growth in an aquarium probably isn't interested in fully eliminating nitrates, to the contrary some are adding nitrates to ensure the plants have an adequate source of this nutrient.

I mentioned a couple of possible scenarios that might be the reason for going about reducing nitrates as the OP is describing, one of them was an unacceptable level of nitrates in the source water, as in your situation.

The OP acknowledges the merit of manually removing wastes via water change but then goes on to state that in order for plants to be effective nitrate removers they must be fast growing, using high light and high co2. The rate of nitrate consumption will no doubt be increased in a high tech setup like this, sometimes to the point that additional nitrates need to be added.

I'd say there are probably some low tech tank keepers out there that would argue they are able to manage nitrates well in a planted tank with a reasonable bio-load by performing occasional water changes. There are some that manage this with no or very infrequent water changes.

Again, it was my curiosity as to why this method of nitrate removal was desired that prompted my original post. I'm all for people using whatever method the want, find most effective, easiest etc. to accomplish what they need to.

For as long as I have been a hobby aquarist I find it amazing how much there is yet to learn. Seems I learn something almost every time I visit this site.


----------



## Mxx (Dec 29, 2010)

roadmaster said:


> If it is the anaerobic bacterium one wishes to cultivate for nitrogen reducing to methane gas,then simply make substrate deeper where less O2 will encourage them.


That was one aspect of the carbon dosing that I don't understand actually. Is carbon dosing intended to assist denitrification happening in anaerobic conditions, by adding that nutrient so there is a non-limiting condition for it? IE; are areas of anaerobic filtration such as a deep sand bed necessary for carbon dosing to work, and the carbon dosing thus improves the rate of nitrate consumption of that process? I don't quite recall what the formulas for the chemical process were, although I should be able to look that up if I need to.


----------



## gunnerthesnowman (May 28, 2016)

crypticmonk said:


> So I thought I'd share a bit of an experiment I did in my freshwater 75-gallon in regards to Nitrates that I hope other people will find helpful. I am going to try to share this in as many places as I can, as I think I'm the only one who's tried it, and it has been by far the most successful method in significantly reducing Nitrates. It's long, sorry, but I think it's really important. Basic point is that methanol is the best option if you are serious about reducing Nitrates in your freshwater aquarium long-term.
> So I have a pretty heavily stocked goldfish aquarium that is also planted. I was doing ok with Nitrates for a while, since the fish were small, I was siphoning out the waste about every other day, and the tank wasn't as heavily planted as it is now (contrary to popular opinion, a planted aquarium can in certain instances INCREASE Nitrates, since rooted plants are very efficient at trapping sediment and waste, thus making it difficult to siphon and for the filters to capture it). However, the fish have grown quickly, and I had to keep them well-fed, because they kept picking at the plants. I eventually moved a couple of the big ones out into the stock tank with the pond fish, but Nitrates were still way too high (like 80 ppm+). Some of you may have seen my previous argument about whether plants, water changes, or anaerobic bacteria are more efficient/effective for reducing Nitrates, and I said the anaerobic bacteria is what is most important. Going off of that, I attempted to both increase my anaerobic bacteria population, h by creating more appropriate media for them to grow on, and more importantly, adding Red Sea NO3/Po4 Remover (methanol). I was using this in my reef aquarium, and it worked really well, almost too well (I lowered the dose, even though my bioload is bigger now). The idea behind methanol dosing is it gives the bacteria a source of inorganic carbon, which is often a limiting nutrient for them. It is used in wastewater treatment, and is the most effective and safe compound to use. Everywhere I read on forums said they either didn't know if it could be used in freshwater or said not to do it (but as usual, couldn't back up their statements with legitimate research). I read; however, that most fish and plants are quite tolerant of it, and plants even usually perform better with reasonable doses. So I decided to try it (by this point, I had tried basically every product out there for reducing Nitrates...most are junk, btw, Algone and API Nitrazorb were somewhat effective, but you need to use a lot of it, and it's probably better for more moderate NO3 levels). Nitrates steadily declined, and this morning, they were at zero. Keep in mind, this is with a heavily stocked tank with goldfish, which probably produce more waste than any other aquarium fish. I did get quite a bacterial bloom, but that's the point. I've had to clean out the filter intake tubes pretty regularly just to keep them working.
> If you are having a Nitrate problem, I can tell you this is by far the best way to reduce it. Aquariums are all about recreating natural processes as closely as possible. Most freshwater ecosystems have very effective Nitrate absorbtion through anaerobic bacteria found in the anoxic soils of wetlands. We need to try to recreate this as closely as possible. Water changes are NOT the best option, and can even be detrimental if you are doing large water changes frequently. It is impossible to get the parameters right each time, unless you are using pure RO or pure tap water, and if you dose CO2 (like me), you are going to have major CO2 and pH fluctuations. Plus, say you are doing 25% water changes. That means you are only reducing Nitrates by 25%, and the next day, they will most likely go back to the same levels they were before. Manually removing waste is a good idea though, but try to take out as little water as possible. If you want to use plants, you can do that, but they need to be fast-growing plants that feed from the water column (like hornwort), and you need to be using high light, high CO2, and regular dosing of Potassium and trace elements.




Good day , when you say (I did get quite a bacterial bloom ) What are you talking about , is this part of the process of feeding this chemical to increase the anaerobic bacteria population. Also would like to know how much Red Sea NO3/Po4 Remover you were dosing and how often, sorry for the ? , put would really like to try this , Thanks You could also PM me .


----------



## klibs (May 1, 2014)

jr125 said:


> The science of what you guys are discussing is way over my head, as are a lot of things. I'm just curious as to the motivation to control nitrates with an additive. Is it to reduce or eliminate the need to perform water changes? Is it to support a bio-load the tank wouldn't otherwise be able to handle even with regular water changes at a reasonable interval? Possibly the water source has a high level of nitrates to start with so additional reduction measures are needed? Just wondering.
> 
> There is much evidence that even low-tech, non-co2, low light set ups can be very efficient at removing nitrates as long as there is a manageable bio-load. Even with small and infrequent water changes in some cases. When I perform a water change that reduces nitrates by 25% they do not return to the starting point in one day, as you suggest. I can keep my nitrates in a fairly predictable range doing water changes every 2 weeks. In other words it takes about 2 weeks for the nitrates to return to the original level after a water change. If I change less water or wait longer nitrates build, if I change more water or do it at shorter intervals the nitrate level drops accordingly, all else remaining the same.





ichy said:


> Can't you accomplish Nitrate reduction by doing regular water changes?


Did not read the entire thread but am basically thinking along these lines... why is there a need to reduce nitrates via additives in the planted tank? do not interpret this as bashing your post - it seems like great info. just wondering why doing this is beneficial vs just doing water changes and keeping things balanced? would be interested to hear more people's experiences using these types of products / benefits they provide. balanced tank that is not overstocked with regular water changes can easily maintain nitrates in reasonable range (<30) that is perfectly fine for vast majority of fauna.

I see some posters claiming that they want to achieve ~0 nitrates. this is not what you want in the planted tank environment... is this what we are trying to achieve with these additives?

I will say though that IMO my tanks perform best when nitrates are kept low at <20

too much science talk / don't want to fan the flames and argue... does not surprise me that this is provoking debate though lol


----------



## PEdwards (Oct 31, 2016)

Thanks for the observations and experiment! Here are some things I gleaned from the OP and various responses. We've got similar backgrounds, but my focus ended up in biogeochemistry and aquatic plant ecology more than the straight out water resources side. Please don't take my reply the wrong way, I'm restating some things for the less scientifically inclined readers.


1. Goldfish are really messy.
2. Stem plants can trap detritus.
3. Anaerobic bacteria are good to have to reduce NO3.
4. Methanol can effectively help lower NO3 levels


1. Yes, goldfish are super messy and require a commensurate amount of maintenance. They're the crap factories of the fish world, no doubt about it.

2. Yes, thick groups of stems can and do trap detritus. That being said, careful siphoning will suck it out. Using a hose without the large siphon tube will do the trick. If not, swish the debris out with your hand or a powerhead and then siphon it out. Those have all worked for me in the past.

3. Aerobic, not anaerobic bacteria benefit most from organic carbon supplementation. Aerobic metabolism is much more efficient than anaerobic metabolism so the buggers will take up more NO3 and PO4 than their anaerobic cousins. On the flip side, that doesn't permanently remove NO3 and PO4 from the system like denitrification does. It's just a temporary sink, however long-term, as the buggers assimilate N and P into their bodies. 

4aa. Yes, NO-POx is a safe and effective means of adding dissolved organic carbon (DOC) to aquariums. Some folks may not think it's worth the price and choose to use other materials, but the product itself is safe and reliable; moreso than non-denatured alcohols and potentially vinegar. 

4a. The supplementation of organic carbon will stimulate bacterial proliferation only when DOC is limiting. This is particularly true in reef systems with a good protein skimmer and/or limited feeding. With all of that fish waste in your Goldie tank I'm skeptical that there's a DOC limitation, but that doesn't mean there isn't. The flip side of the coin could be that there's that much NO3 because there's a lack of DOC and for the bacteria to effectively take up the NO3. Again, I'm open minded but skeptical as Bill Nye likes to say. The same could be said of PO4. DOC, NO3, and PO4 are all legs on the three-legged stool. When they're in balance bacteria do well. When one's limiting then the other two legs get longer and the whole stool tips over.

4b. Yes, anaerobiosis does reduce NO3 levels. That's why people used to use denitrators on reef tanks and is how Seachem's Matrix accomplishes the same. As Wastewater stated, this is also quite effective in large scale water treatment. 

To compare aquariums to wetlands is a bit of a stretch as there are seasonal effects, water level fluctuations, and nutrient input variables that make wetlands the important sink they are. In an aquarium environment things are a bit different. Firstly, there's no drainage or significant subsurface water movement to transport nutrients like there are in wetlands. Stimulating anaerobic zones can quickly cause problems in a planted tank. This is different than a reef system where the rock is full of small holes and crevices that get good water circulation/nutrient input and become anaerobic in their depths. I'm a firm believer that this is the main source of denitrification in most reef tanks as the typical substrate material is far too small-grained to allow sufficient diffusion of NO3 to be a significant sink. Polychaete worms and other burrowing critters may add enough crap to keep it going, but that's not NO3 coming from the water column.

Another point going along with the above; in order to distribute the DOC/alcohol to the bacteria in a planted tank in the first place there would have to be enough water movement to the area to accomplish this, and that means concurrent distribution of O2. Therefore, at best (as far as denitrification is concerned) you'll have the facultative buggers getting short bursts of growth and NO3 uptake then going back to their usual slow anaerobic metabolism. The previous statement discounts possible preferential flow paths around plant roots that may distribute the DOC to hypoxic or anoxic areas in the rooting zone. There again though, you have a source O2 and DOC exuded from roots so you've got a source of both for at least a portion of the day.

5. Heavily stocked tanks will have higher levels of waste byproducts. This is especially true of the fish are crap factories.

6. The best way to lower NO3 and PO4 in a planted tank is robust plant growth and removal of waste/detritus. If levels are too high for your liking many of the larger floating plants are excellent sponges for these, grow quickly, and are easily removed. Plus, your Goldies might like eating them too. If that doesn't work well enough for your liking or you can't stand the floaters then perhaps DOC addition is the right method for you. 

I'll be happy to go into more detail on specifics if anyone has questions. Constructive and respectful debate is good too. 

Cheers,
Phil


----------



## Mxx (Dec 29, 2010)

Did we lose the OP here? 

Some have commented whether dosing carbon is really necessary for nitrate control? Seems simple enough, if you don't need it then don't do it!

To best balance the requirements of say delicate fish and delicate plants, what should be the target level for nitrates? 5? 10? Even if you occasionally do zero your nitrates I wouldn't expect most plants would suffer immediately. 

For my drinking water I am however looking into adding a water filter which has a stage for nitrate removal resin...


----------



## gunnerthesnowman (May 28, 2016)

I was hoping the crypticmonk would answer some ? for me , I asked on here a couple times sent a PM with no reply , I hate it when a guy comes on here with something that works for him and everyone picks the idea a part , and then the tread starter will not answer anything .

Thanks


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

Can only speak for myself, and took issue only with the title to the thread "Most effective way of nitrate reduction "
It is not any more effective than regular weekly water changes,not overstocking,overfeeding.
Folks looking to avoid regular maint /water changes mostly seem interested.
Same folks that maybe stay with the hobby a year to eighteen month's. IMHO


----------



## Nordic (Nov 11, 2003)

If you are hitting high nitrates faster than your water change regime can knock back, it is time to invest in a bigger/extra filter. 
The increased flow will also deposit more of the nitrate forming detritus in the filter for easy removal.
Depending on the age of the fish (it's a bad idea with growing fish), they can be quite tolerant of high nitrates for a while.

I just do filter clean, vacuum and water change and about 1tsp of salt /10g after the water change if I let nitrates get too high to combat toxicity.

I put the salt in the filter, and you will immediately see the fish head straight for the inflow.


----------



## gunnerthesnowman (May 28, 2016)

roadmaster said:


> Can only speak for myself, and took issue only with the title to the thread "Most effective way of nitrate reduction "
> It is not any more effective than regular weekly water changes,not overstocking,overfeeding.
> Folks looking to avoid regular maint /water changes mostly seem interested.
> Same folks that maybe stay with the hobby a year to eighteen month's. IMHO





Nordic said:


> If you are hitting high nitrates faster than your water change regime can knock back, it is time to invest in a bigger/extra filter.
> The increased flow will also deposit more of the nitrate forming detritus in the filter for easy removal.
> Depending on the age of the fish (it's a bad idea with growing fish), they can be quite tolerant of high nitrates for a while.
> 
> ...




I for one have been having problems with high nitrate in all three of my tanks ( all three tanks are planted tanks with CO2 injection(ph controller set for low ph protection on all three tanks)The 230G is a planted discus tank with a sump , it has a little giant that circulates the water from the sump though the CO2 rector back to tank, then I have a Vectra L1 circulates the water from sump back to tank, with some take of water flowing though two sand reactors back to sump , another take of flows though a Purigen rector back to sump and another take of flows though a ocean clear canister filter back to sump. the sump and ocean clear filter has 20kgs of Biohome Maxi and ultimate media in them. I could not get my NO3 down to 15-30 ppm by doing one 35-40% water change a week , If I did 4 water changes a week I could get it down, but when using R/O water that to much. So I was thinking of giving this Red Sea NO3O4 remover a try and had already placed a order when I seen this tread , ( got Red Sea NO3 test kit to ) so the tank tested NO3 higher than 64ppm, started using Red Sea NO3O4 remover a week ago , tested today and NO3 are at 25ppm,( cutting daily dose back now ) with in a day or two my water looked a lot clearer and had a sparkle to it and my discus are coming out of hiding, getting the same results with the 72G and 36G tanks, started back up using NilocG Aquatic Thrive+, Not doing this to be lazy on maintenance , I will still do my weekly water changes/cleaning and filter cleaning , but I was ready to take tanks down until now, things are looking good so far.


----------



## Nordic (Nov 11, 2003)

Please provide more info, like dosage etc....
If it works, it will be a godsend for my fish over winter.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

The more Bio media one has in the filter the bigger Nitrate factory it can become with poor/infrequent maint.(not eyeballin anybody)
Might consider using just mechanical media (foam,floss,pad's,etc) and just leave a pad or two alone while cleaning other's, so as not to remove too much of bacterial colony.
Or just the fluidized sand filtration (works for largest aquarium in U.S. at Atlanta)
Some say biomedia competes with plant's for same food's (ammonia,nitrogen).
If one weekly water change of 35 to 40 % does not bring the nitrate level's down to your comfort with calibrated test kit??, then one can easily change 50 to 60% of the water assuming they already have hoses out.?(find ways to make it easier)
I have changed as much as 70 % three times a week while caring for young Discus and other larger cichlids.(feeding juveniles three or four times a day)
Would be no big shock to tanks/or fishes already getting regular weekly water changes of slightly less,and one might also see improvement with overall water quality.
I just don't see NO3/PO4 remover as very useful in the planted aquarium from plant's perspective .


----------



## Nordic (Nov 11, 2003)

The problem with fluidised filters is, they only work right when they are BIG.
For the most part, you are better off just using quality ceramic media, with a bit of floss on top to keep the dirt off.
I use the cylindrical tube type and arrange them like straws, I never touch the media after putting it in the filter, only the floss on top gets dirty and replaced.


----------



## PEdwards (Oct 31, 2016)

Since the OP is on hiatus I'll be happy to answer any technical/scientific questions I can. Hopefully wastewater will chime in too, he/she seems to know a lot in this realm too.

One thing I'd like to point out about "biomedia being a nitrate factory". That's -EXACTLY- it's purpose (conversion of ammonia to nitrate) and if it's doing that then it's doing its job well. Removing biomedia in exchange for physical media isn't usually a good thing for an established system as you'll potentially lose a lot of nitrification potential and possibly start seeing ammonia levels increase. Instead of exchanging media try cleaning the substrate as well and as deeply as possible whenever possible. That can help solve a lot of nutrient issues. 

Gunnerthesnowman,

Can you post some pics of your big tank and the filtration system? It's a bit difficult to get a feel for just by the verbal description.

In addition to the NO3 test I'd recommend getting a PO4 kit too. I'd be interested to see what the levels are relative to each other. I got skyrocketing NO3 and PO4 in my tank when I added the discus. All that meaty food puts out a metric assload of N, P, and organic C. There may be other solutions to your nutrient issue than NO-POx addition. Not saying it's bad (I think it's a great product for its intended purpose), but simpler is better when it comes to dosing and getting your tank's ecosystem balanced is the ultimate goal.


----------



## PEdwards (Oct 31, 2016)

I forgot to add some things and think they're worthy of a separate post.

NOTE: In scientific terms, REDUCTION means the chemical change of one element/compound into a different form or the breakdown of said compound. For example, in anaerobic environments Fe+3 gets reduced to Fe+2 (gained an electron). Denitrification is the biological reduction of NO3 to N2 gas through various biochemical reactions. The OP may have been using reduction in scientific terms instead of "decrease", which can cause some confusion. 

1. Supplements like NO-POx are designed for, and intended to be used in, saltwater systems that are DOC limited due to protein skimming and chemical filtration. Please see my above post for a brief discussion of C/N/P balance. 

2. Products like this don't address the cause (other than DOC limitation mentioned above), they address the symptoms and are like a band-aid on a wound that really needs stitches. DOC limitation as it pertains to bacterial growth is *exceedingly rare* in normal freshwater systems. I've only seen it in barebottom discus systems that are heavily cleaned and get large frequent water changes. 

3. If NO3 is high that means the input of NH3/NH4 is equally high. Rather than address NO3, one needs to address the source (NH3/NH4) and remedy that first. Feeding less, feeding foods that are not high in raw/unprocessed proteins, cleaning filters frequently, and regularly cleaning the substrate well are all effective ways to remove the sources of NH3/NH4. 

4. Increasing CO2 and PO4 to boost plant growth and balance out the C/N/P levels for filter bacteria may help naturally decrease NO3 in the water.

Cheers,
Phil


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

PEdwards said:


> Since the OP is on hiatus I'll be happy to answer any technical/scientific questions I can. Hopefully wastewater will chime in too, he/she seems to know a lot in this realm too.
> 
> One thing I'd like to point out about "biomedia being a nitrate factory". That's -EXACTLY- it's purpose (conversion of ammonia to nitrate) and if it's doing that then it's doing its job well. Removing biomedia in exchange for physical media isn't usually a good thing for an established system as you'll potentially lose a lot of nitrification potential and possibly start seeing ammonia levels increase. Instead of exchanging media try cleaning the substrate as well and as deeply as possible whenever possible. That can help solve a lot of nutrient issues.
> 
> ...


 Am well aware of biomedia and it's purpose's and also aware of most effective way to keep nitrates under control.
Stock less fish,feed less food's,keep filter's cleaned regularly,and change water regularly.(cheaper and faster also)
If one does these thing's,then nitrate's are of little concern and might even need to add KNO3 to feed the plant's.
Plant's are best biofilter's ,for they much prefer ammonia/ammonium over nitrogen 
As for vaccuming the substrate, I could not if I wanted to, without pulling out near all of the plant's/hardscape but did it religiously in fish only tanks for year's.
Bacteria colony exists on all hard surfaces in the tank.
The glass ,the substrate(large surface area here),plant leaves,wood,rock's,inside wall's of filter's,inside hoses on filter's .as well as the biomedia used in filtration.
Yes, by removing the biomedia all in one go and just using mechanical media such as foam,one might could see brief ammonia spike, but removing the biomedia a little at a time over a few week's, replacing it with foam pad's,and moderate to large plant mass,one could just as easily see ZERO ammonia spikes.


----------



## PEdwards (Oct 31, 2016)

I disagree about bio media being the most effective way to keep nitrates under control. The whole purpose of bio media is to convert ammonia into nitrate, and as such is a source of nitrate, not a sink. Plants and water changes are the most effective non-chemical means of decreasing NO3 present in the water column. Reducing feeding/stocking, physical removal of organic debris (food, feces, etc), and keeping the tank and filter clean are the best methods of controlling input of ammonia. 

In my time doing research, lecturing on the topic, and doing technical support for a company that makes a DOC supplement, my First Rule was (and still is) Biology Before Chemistry. Biology addresses the cause while chemistry addresses the symptoms. Aquariums can, and do, become dependent on chemical supplementation (ferts or what have you) as the ecosystem adjusts according to chemical addition. When that chemical is taken away things can quickly get out of whack and problems occur. Getting an aquatic system as biologically balanced as possible prior to the use of chemical filtration or supplements creates a much more stable system that can handle variation in supplementation better.

If one can't or doesn't want to reduce bioload and/or feeding and good husbandry practices aren't fixing the problem, then it may be time to start looking at chemical ways of addressing issues.


Cheers,
Phil


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

PEdwards said:


> I disagree about bio media being the most effective way to keep nitrates under control. The whole purpose of bio media is to convert ammonia into nitrate, and as such is a source of nitrate, not a sink. Plants and water changes are the most effective non-chemical means of decreasing NO3 present in the water column. Reducing feeding/stocking, physical removal of organic debris (food, feces, etc), and keeping the tank and filter clean are the best methods of controlling input of ammonia.
> 
> In my time doing research, lecturing on the topic, and doing technical support for a company that makes a DOC supplement, my First Rule was (and still is) Biology Before Chemistry. Biology addresses the cause while chemistry addresses the symptoms. Aquariums can, and do, become dependent on chemical supplementation (ferts or what have you) as the ecosystem adjusts according to chemical addition. When that chemical is taken away things can quickly get out of whack and problems occur. Getting an aquatic system as biologically balanced as possible prior to the use of chemical filtration or supplements creates a much more stable system that can handle variation in supplementation better.
> 
> ...


 
Completely agree with ^ 
Most issues with excess organic matter which in turn result's in excess nitrates (can't have one without the other) are self inflicted.:wink2:


----------



## Nordic (Nov 11, 2003)

Yes, bacteria live on all hard surfaces, but I believe they are much more effective where they are provided with a constant stream of food and other elements required.
Which is why it grows so well inside pipes and on ceramic media (INSIDE A FILTER). The same media sitting in the corner of a tank is not going to be nearly as effective.


----------



## jr125 (Mar 5, 2015)

I wonder how many of us would do water changes if it wasn't necessary to remove anything excess in the tank. If I had a tank that was so called "balanced" I would take it to mean that anything I put in the tank, fish food, fertilizers etc. is virtually being used up in the tank(plants). Any ammonia is at a level that when converted to nitrate is being used up. Anything else I put in as nutrient is being used up. The variables here would seem to be amount food(eaten or not by the fish) and capability of whatever plant population to eliminate any resulting toxins to protect fish health. Even if it was necessary to supplement plant growth with additional nutrients as long as they were utilized wouldn't the tank still be in "balance"?

Wouldn't the question then be is there anything else present that is at a level or could build to a level to be a detriment to the fish or plant health? Does water "wear out" and need to be replaced or is it just that levels of things in the water need to be reduced or eliminated?

If the answer is we just have to remove or eliminate things that create an unhealthy environment for the flora and fauna does it really mater how this is achieved as long as the healthy environment is maintained?

So most of us probably have a tank that isn't in "balance" and we have to maintain a healthy environment for the livestock in it. I personally don't get any enjoyment out of doing water changes and cleaning filters. If something came along that relieved me of this chore I'd take a good, long look at it. 

Makes me think of the Rock Hudson-Doris Day movie where they stumble onto something that mimics alcohol without any of the negative side effects. There must be a catch.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

Nordic said:


> Yes, bacteria live on all hard surfaces, but I believe they are much more effective where they are provided with a constant stream of food and other elements required.
> Which is why it grows so well inside pipes and on ceramic media (INSIDE A FILTER). The same media sitting in the corner of a tank is not going to be nearly as effective.


 Oxygen levels are much more important than organic matter in the way of fish poo.fish food's,plant matter,detritus,allowed to accumulate inside a sealed canister.(can create anaerobic condition's)
Less O2 inside dirty sealed canister than say HOB filter or Wet dry sump type filtration.
So long as one has good O2 level's the bacterial colony will thrive anywhere/everywhere.


----------



## PEdwards (Oct 31, 2016)

jr125 said:


> I wonder how many of us would do water changes if it wasn't necessary to remove anything excess in the tank. If I had a tank that was so called "balanced" I would take it to mean that anything I put in the tank, fish food, fertilizers etc. is virtually being used up in the tank(plants). Any ammonia is at a level that when converted to nitrate is being used up. Anything else I put in as nutrient is being used up. The variables here would seem to be amount food(eaten or not by the fish) and capability of whatever plant population to eliminate any resulting toxins to protect fish health. Even if it was necessary to supplement plant growth with additional nutrients as long as they were utilized wouldn't the tank still be in "balance"?


Balanced is different than being in equilibrium. A system where the inputs = consumption would be in equilibrium or homeostasis. It's theoretically possible, but difficult to achieve from a practical standpoint. The closest thing I've seen to a tank in equilibrium was a really old school and ooooold tank that just got top offs and fish food. However, even then, there were mineral and nutrient inputs from water and food. Since our aquariums aren't closed systems and get regular input of food, nutrients, etc the best we can achieve is balance. Good balance is when the ecosystem has developed enough to handle the inputs we give it with little to no negative impact. Some elements of balance would be sufficient filtration to handle and process the majority of waste, lighting and CO2 adjusted so there's not too much of one or the other, enough fertilizer to grow plants without causing issues, and sufficient export (water changes) to reduce levels of unwanted chemicals to tolerable levels. Another way to say balance might be buffer. The whole system is stable and mature enough to handle minor variations or temporary neglect without negative effect. 



> Wouldn't the question then be is there anything else present that is at a level or could build to a level to be a detriment to the fish or plant health? Does water "wear out" and need to be replaced or is it just that levels of things in the water need to be reduced or eliminated?


No, water doesn't wear out. It's a matter of concentrations of dissolved materials in the water that need to be diminished or eliminated. Good filtration can process a lot, but there's always going to be a build up of byproducts that need to be removed.



> If the answer is we just have to remove or eliminate things that create an unhealthy environment for the flora and fauna does it really mater how this is achieved as long as the healthy environment is maintained?


In theory, with enough mechanical, biological, and chemical filtration it's possible to create a healthy environment that requires little work. The problem is it won't be stable/balanced over the long term as the chemical media will lose effectiveness over time and the stuff it was removing will start building up again. Water changes and filter cleaning are still the best ways of exporting physical debris and dissolved chemicals.



> So most of us probably have a tank that isn't in "balance" and we have to maintain a healthy environment for the livestock in it. I personally don't get any enjoyment out of doing water changes and cleaning filters. If something came along that relieved me of this chore I'd take a good, long look at it.


I would disagree with that. Anyone with a mature system more than likely has a balanced/stable system. It's just not in true equilibrium. There's no magic bullet that will remove the need for good husbandry, regardless of what some supplement manufacturers claim. The very best we can achieve is reducing the time between maintenances, but that comes at the cost of purchasing lots of chemical additives and filtration media. 

Cheers,
Phil


----------



## klibs (May 1, 2014)

@PEdwards making some really good points here...


----------



## PEdwards (Oct 31, 2016)

@klibs

I'm glad to hear all the money and years spent gathering fancy pieces of paper related to this topic hasn't totally gone to waste.


----------



## Mxx (Dec 29, 2010)

PEdwards said:


> 1. Supplements like NO-POx are designed for, and intended to be used in, saltwater systems that are DOC limited due to protein skimming and chemical filtration. Please see my above post for a brief discussion of C/N/P balance.
> 2. Products like this don't address the cause (other than DOC limitation mentioned above), they address the symptoms and are like a band-aid on a wound that really needs stitches. DOC limitation as it pertains to bacterial growth is *exceedingly rare* in normal freshwater systems. I've only seen it in barebottom discus systems that are heavily cleaned and get large frequent water changes.
> Cheers,
> Phil


If a decently balanced planted tank isn't DOC limited then does that suggest that dosing additional organic carbon would not be likely to result in lower nitrate levels? 

Do you happen to know by the way the chemical formula by which anaerobic reduce nitrates to nitrate gas? I wasn't sure how or where the organic carbon comes to play in that, or if that carbon is instead necessary for a different process such as feeding the bacteria the other nutrients they require apart from that, (to put it imprecisely).


----------



## PEdwards (Oct 31, 2016)

Mxx,

Before I get going, in the interest of full disclosure, organic chemistry and the specifics of microbiology aren't areas I'm particularly well-versed in. I remember enough of the general concepts to explain the basics, but I would have to research the details to address specifics. My knowledge is more along the macro scale of how nutrients, microbes, plants, and water/soil interact; not biochemistry.

To briefly answer your question, yes, if a system is not limited in labile (easily accessed) DOC/POC then addition of extra will theoretically not increase the amount or metabolism of microbes. What I forgot about in previous posts is lability. If you add a source of DOC that is more easily used than say, proteins, microbes will likely preferentially use that instead. Adding a little may also be enough to stimulate growth of bacteria to the point where, as a whole, they're more able to break down more complex molecules. This may be why one of the previous posters noticed increased clarity in his water. I can't be certain though, I'm just taking a SWAG (Scientific Wild A$$ Guess) here. 










That's a basic diagram of denitrification. Carboniferous molecules are broken down for energy and the nitrogenous materials are the electron acceptor. (gross oversimplification) We do the same thing with carbohydrates and O2.

Here's a diagram of anaerobic metabolism in humans, specifically during exercise. When you "Feel the Burn" that's anaerobic and results in lactic acid.









Organic molecules are Carbon (usually more than one, but not always) atoms typically with Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Nitrogen attached. Some examples are Excel, alcohols, sugars and startches, lignins (structural carbohydrates), proteins, amino acids, Chlorophyll, and humic acids. The brown tint released by new wood is an organic molecule, but it doesn't have much in the way of things that might cause us problems like Nitrogen or Phosphorus. It's a great source of carbon for bacteria and fungi though. That's why we see slime and such growing on new wood. 

Here's the structure of Methanol (NO-POx):







Notice the lack of N and P? It's a very simple organic molecule and is easily used by microbes.

Here's the structure of a protein (I have no idea which one), notice all those Ns? That's a lot of Nitrogen that will be added to the system on a molecular level when it's broken down.







Without getting into details, some of that N will be released into the water and bind with free Hydrogen atoms to form Ammonia (NH3). The rest will be used by the microbes.

Here's the structure of an Amino Acid, so named for the Amine (NH2) group. Sounds a lot like Ammonia, doesn't it?  http://www.nutrientsreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Amino-Acid-Structure.jpg

Getting back to the original topic: In the presence of oxygen (electron acceptor) bacteria will take an electron from methanol to provide an electron for metabolism which results in the breakdown of the molecule and nets a Carbon atom. In systems lacking dissolved (DOC) or particulate (POC/POM) organic carbon/material, aerobic and anaerobic microbes are C limited, meaning they lack the carbon needed to metabolize. Because our plants are exuding complex acids, dead leaves are decomposing (source of C, N, and P), excess food and feces are present (rich source of proteins with N and P), and "mulm" is generally abundant there are tons of sources of labile carbon. 

Diagram of aerobic, anaerobic, and chemical processes going on in aquatic soils, and to some extent filters.









Time to get ready for work. Hope this makes things as clear as mud.


----------



## PEdwards (Oct 31, 2016)

Wastewater,

Would you pop in and clarify/correct anything I got wrong? You seem to know a lot more about this than I do.


----------



## jr125 (Mar 5, 2015)

PEdwards said:


> Balanced is different than being in equilibrium. A system where the inputs = consumption would be in equilibrium or homeostasis. It's theoretically possible, but difficult to achieve from a practical standpoint. The closest thing I've seen to a tank in equilibrium was a really old school and ooooold tank that just got top offs and fish food. However, even then, there were mineral and nutrient inputs from water and food. Since our aquariums aren't closed systems and get regular input of food, nutrients, etc the best we can achieve is balance. Good balance is when the ecosystem has developed enough to handle the inputs we give it with little to no negative impact. Some elements of balance would be sufficient filtration to handle and process the majority of waste, lighting and CO2 adjusted so there's not too much of one or the other, enough fertilizer to grow plants without causing issues, and sufficient export (water changes) to reduce levels of unwanted chemicals to tolerable levels. Another way to say balance might be buffer. The whole system is stable and mature enough to handle minor variations or temporary neglect without negative effect.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, I agree that equilibrium is a better term to describe what I am defining as "balanced", although balance is a synonym of equilibrium. We might be kinda splitting hairs here.

e·qui·lib·ri·um

[ˌēkwəˈlibrēəm, ˌekwəˈlibrēəm] 



* NOUN

*
a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced: 
"the maintenance of social equilibrium"
*synonyms:* balance · symmetry · equipoise · parity · equality · [more]
stability



*antonyms:* imbalance





 a state of physical balance: 
"I stumbled over a rock and recovered my equilibrium"

 a calm state of mind: 
"his intensity could unsettle his equilibrium"
*synonyms:* composure · calm · equanimity · sangfroid · [more]
level-headedness · coolheadedness · imperturbability · poise · presence of mind · self-possession · self-command · impassivity · placidity · tranquility · serenity · cool



*antonyms:* nervousness · agitation



 chemistry

a state in which a process and its reverse are occurring at equal rates so that no overall change is taking place: 
"ice is in equilibrium with water"

 economics

a situation in which supply and demand are matched and prices stable.


What you are describing as balanced I would be more inclined to call stable.


sta·ble1
[ˈstābəl] 



* ADJECTIVE

*


 not likely to change or fail; firmly established: 
"a stable relationship" ·  [more]
"prices have remained relatively stable"


*synonyms:* secure · solid · strong · steady · firm · sure · steadfast · [more]





It doesn't really matter, the point I was trying to make was that if the tank is not in equilibrium, does it make any difference how we deal with the concentrations of dissolved materials in the water that need to be diminished or eliminated, as long as they are kept at a level that maintains a healthy environment for the various life forms in the tank? If some or all of these can be dealt with by using an additive or additives vs. water changes isn't that an acceptable way to reduce the need for water changes? Is that any different than say using Prime to remove harmful elements in tap water when we do water changes so we don't kill our fish.

I still think that most of us probably have a tank that is not in equilibrium, or balance. The fact that most of us(I think) have to perform regular water changes at whatever frequency is evidence of that. It might be stable, in that it has the ability to resist large or rapid condition changes. There are other measures that can be utilized besides purchasing lots of chemical additives and filtration media to reduce the time between water changes. We can stop overstocking fish, overfeeding fish and over fertilizing plants. We can provide more plants etc. that work to keep the tank closer to a state of equilibrium.

I wonder how many scientists out there are trying to come up with just such a "magic bullet". I'm pretty sure if it could be done based on the science you guys like to talk about someone would have done it already. I think there would be an eager market for such a product. I'm not knocking science, I'm just not smart enough to participate in the discussion.

Hey, on a lighter note, when I first saw your response to my post it reminded me of something just by it's appearance. That's what my assignments in English Comp used to look like when I got them back from my teacher in High School. I think he was trying to tell me I needed to spend more time on English Comp and less time playing foosball.


----------



## PEdwards (Oct 31, 2016)

In the end, no, it doesn't really matter how the water gets cleaned of whatever you want to remove as long as you're willing to spend the money on the media and any containers/reactors required and replace/dose it regularly. The problem with this method is all of the stuff that creates the things one might want to remove stay in the tank and keep making more and more and more until the concentrations outweigh what the media is able to take up. This is how aquarium companies stay in business. Never underestimate the money making power of lazy aquarists in large numbers. I can't tell you how many times I've been asked "will this make it so I don't have to do water changes?".

I can tell you from an aquatics industry insider's perspective that there is no silver bullet or cure-all for aquariums and there will never be one. Aquarium systems are too complex and have too many unique variables to be able to effectively make a cure-all. To be honest, Chemi Pure is the closest thing I've seen so far to a cure-all, but that's only because it takes a shotgun approach rather than a precision rifle one, if the analogy makes sense. Having multiple products that are really good at doing one or two things is better than having something that does a lot of things not aswell. There's the sales factor too. If someone comes into a store with multiple issues and a retailer can say "You need X and Y and Z" that's more sales. 


Water changes, debris vacuuming, and filter cleaning are more effective and cheaper.

On a lighter note, I didn't have time to write up a nicely reviewed "report" this morning and sadly, most folks these days prefer a blurb-and-picture approach to a massive wall of text. It's nice to have an image to refer to as well.  I can't tell you how many papers my teachers have bled all over with red ink. My MS thesis was the worst of them. I think the first couple of revisions had more red ink that type....

Oh, and jr, you probably know a hell of a lot more about a lot of other things than I do. This just happens to be a subject I've got experience in.

Cheers,
Phil


----------



## jr125 (Mar 5, 2015)

PEdwards said:


> In the end, no, it doesn't really matter how the water gets cleaned of whatever you want to remove as long as you're willing to spend the money on the media and any containers/reactors required and replace/dose it regularly. The problem with this method is all of the stuff that creates the things one might want to remove stay in the tank and keep making more and more and more until the concentrations outweigh what the media is able to take up. This is how aquarium companies stay in business. Never underestimate the money making power of lazy aquarists in large numbers. I can't tell you how many times I've been asked "will this make it so I don't have to do water changes?".
> 
> I can tell you from an aquatics industry insider's perspective that there is no silver bullet or cure-all for aquariums and there will never be one. Aquarium systems are too complex and have too many unique variables to be able to effectively make a cure-all. To be honest, Chemi Pure is the closest thing I've seen so far to a cure-all, but that's only because it takes a shotgun approach rather than a precision rifle one, if the analogy makes sense. Having multiple products that are really good at doing one or two things is better than having something that does a lot of things not aswell. There's the sales factor too. If someone comes into a store with multiple issues and a retailer can say "You need X and Y and Z" that's more sales.
> 
> ...


Yeah, still gotta deal with all the gunk. Filters gotta flow etc., and most of us are at least a little concerned with tank aesthetics, if not OCD.

I tell you what, it's just nice to be able to learn a little bit from others. It seems no matter how much you think you know about something, no matter what it is, someone will come along and remind you how much you still don't know. 

For some reason for me it happens to be my wife quite often.:confused1:


----------



## PEdwards (Oct 31, 2016)

jr125 said:


> For some reason for me it happens to be my wife quite often.:confused1:


Amen brother, amen.


----------

