dosing vodka to bring down N and P

[kmacartney]

Originally posted by recife111
Try isopropanol, it is better than Vodka .
I have had far less problems in the past using isopropanol,

That's rubbing alcohol right?

[WaterKeeper]

Yup, the type you get at the drug store. Usually 70% isopropanol.

[czerbe]

if it does not work at least your fish will go drunk

[recife111]

That's rubbing alcohol right?

I think so.

they also use it to clean the old music records.

I tested it for 6 months and did have better results than vodka,
With vodka many leathers and mushroom corals did not like it as they closed.

[SDguy]

Originally posted by recife111
I think so.

they also use it to clean the old music records.

I tested it for 6 months and did have better results than vodka,
With vodka many leathers and mushroom corals did not like it as they closed.

Anyone care to take a stab at a chemically based explanantion for this? You're adding more C (by volume), I know that much....

[acrylic_300]

Don't they put something in rubbing alcohol to make it poison so that humans can not consume it?

[hahnmeister]

Thats true. Its a different type of alchohol... not safe for human consumption. You want to use ethanol.

[SDguy]

I think it metabolizes into acetone or something like that (which would not be good )

[DrBDC]

Drink some of that and you won't see the algae anymore! You may not see anyone or anything again.

[IndyReefMan]

Well... I dosed too much and now I have a huge bacterial bloom. To make matters worse, the bloom overflowed my skimmer and my auto top-off kept pouring kalk in. By the time I found it when I got home from work, The SG was down to 1.022 and pH was at 8.7. I immediately shut off the skimmer, mixed some salt water and got the SG back up to 1.026. Fortunately, the trash can that the auto top-off feeds from wasn't full so this could have been much worse. I hope I don't lose anything!

[SDguy]

I would personally keep the skimmer on...let it pull out that excess bacteria...perhaps just lower the head on it, so it skims really dry....

[bergzy]

now...before everyone starts freaking out about this study not conducted on seawater bacteria...you're right!!! it is a study done on bacteria. do all bacteria metabolize...nope...but, hoepfully, this may end some speculation...


a little bit of digging and a little bit of scientific experience in skimming through a lot of research...


here's the whole thing if you want to skip my skimming...plus, i may have missed something...

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...i?artid=387754


ABSTRACT:

We have discovered a microbial interaction between yeast, bacteria, and nematodes.


several natural isolates of Acinetobacter. This enhanced growth was due to a diffusible factor that was shown to be ethanol by chemical assays and evaluation of strains lacking ADH1, ADH3, and ADH5, as all three genes are involved in ethanol production by yeast. This effect is specific to ethanol: methanol, butanol, and dimethyl sulfoxide were unable to stimulate growth to any appreciable level. Low doses of ethanol not only stimulated growth to a higher cell density but also served as a signaling molecule: in the presence of ethanol,


Our results are consistent with the concept that ethanol can serve as a signaling molecule which can affect bacterial physiology and survival.



RESULTS:


The enhanced growth factor is ethanol. One compound that possesses all of the properties of the growth-enhancing factor (produced by late-log cultures of yeast, small, heat and protease resistant, volatile) is ethanol. Thus, we tested the ability of ethanol to affect the growth of AD321 (Fig. 3). A 95% ethanol solution was diluted in YPAD to various concentrations ranging from 0 to 9.5%. Acinetobacter strain AD321 growth was enhanced by 50% in medium containing low levels of ethanol (0.1%), and the bacterial cell density more than doubled in medium containing between 1 and 4% ethanol;







This enhanced-growth effect appears to be specific to ethanol, in that dimethyl sulfoxide or methanol did not enhance bacterial growth. In fact, these latter solvents inhibited bacterial growth by 8.5 to 17.9% at concentrations of up to 5%



We reasoned that if ethanol concentration were the primary determinant for enhancement of bacterial growth, then increasing the amount of ethanol produced by yeast should also result in an increase in bacterial growth enhancement up to a certain percentage,



YJM835 grown in the fermentable sugars glucose, fructose, or sucrose produced 0.93% ± 0.2% ethanol and enhanced bacterial growth by 53.6% ± 6.3%. Cells grown in glycerol neither produced significant amounts of ethanol (0.03% ± 0.1% ethanol) nor enhanced bacterial growth (−2.54% ± 2.97% growth enhancement), suggesting that yeast-derived ethanol may be the stimulatory component.





FIG. 5.

Ethanol is required for bacterial growth enhancement. (A) YJM835 cells were grown in YPAD or YP plus each of the carbon sources listed to a cell density of 5 × 107 to 7 × 107 cells/ml. Media were sterilized, and ethanol concentration was determined as described in Materialsand Methods. Bacteria were grown overnight in CY medium at room temperature, and cell densities were measured by the OD600. Cell densities are shown as the percent enhancement or inhibition compared to that of cells grown in YPAD alone. (B) Gene deletions were performed as described in Materials and Methods. Cells were grown in YPAD, conditioned media were sterilized, ethanol concentrations were determined, and bacteria were cultured as described above. (C) YJM835 cells were grown in YPAD or YP plus glucose at the concentrations listed to a cell density of 5× 107 to 7 × 107 cells/ml. Conditioned media were sterilized, ethanol concentrations were determined, and bacteria were cultured as described above. For all panels, columns represent bacterial growth enhancement and lines indicate ethanol concentration.



To determine if the ethanol produced by YJM835 is necessary to enhance the growth of AD321, we disrupted the genes responsible for ethanol production in an attempt to specifically remove ethanol from yeast-conditioned medium........

ADH1 is the cytoplasmic isoform of alcohol dehydrogenase and the major enzyme required for the conversion of acetaldehyde to ethanol ........

In our study, deletion of ADH1 resulted in a 50% decrease in the amount of ethanol produced and a reduction in bacterial growth-enhancing capacity




Ethanol induces a specific cell tolerance response. Along with salt and heat, ethanol is a commonly used stimulus to induce the general stress response in many bacteria (14, 30, 32). While the typical ethanol concentrations used for general stress stimulation are considerably higher than the concentrations produced by yeast in YPAD (4 versus 1%), it is possible that low concentrations of ethanol can also elicit a stress response. In low doses, ethanol might serve a signaling role by specifically altering the physiology of the bacterial cells.




To test this hypothesis directly, we incubated Acinetobacter cells in the presence of ethanol or butanol and challenged these cells with salt stress. As shown above, bacteria grown in 2.5% NaCl (or KCl) were inhibited from growing by 44.2%. However, medium supplemented with 0.1% ethanol resulted in a 196% increase in bacterial growth. In contrast, addition of 0.01% butanol (a concentration that induces a similar amount of plasma membrane desaturation as 0.1% ethanol in Acinetobacter spp. [19]) resulted in only a 59% increase in growth over cells grown in salt alone.




DISCUSSION:


Ethanol stimulates acinetobacters to grow to higher cell density, as measured both by optical density and by counting the number of CFU. Since ethanol is consumed by these bacteria (unpublished observation), it is likely utilized as a carbon source (albeit a poor one, since it is present at low levels). However, the benefit of ethanol to acinetobacters extends beyond increasing cell number. Ethanol stimulates salt tolerance but not thermotolerance or resistance to oxidative damage in acinetobacters. Ethanol-fed acinetobacters can also kill a natural predator more efficiently than bacteria fed other carbon sources. These data indicate that ethanol also induces signaling pathways required for specific stress tolerance and virulence.



Although our studies were confined to the laboratory, we expect them to be pertinent to nature, as they involve organisms that we predict to interact in nature.




It is possible that the relationship between the two microbes is proto-commensalistic. That is, in certain environments the bacteria benefit, while in others the yeast benefit. The preferred carbon source for the yeast Saccharomyces is sugar, as its name indicates. Yeast typically ferment sugar into ethanol and carbon dioxide, even in the presence of oxygen,




Thus, many acinetobacters would be dependent on yeast to convert a plentiful sugar source into a more readily catabolized one, namely ethanol. The reciprocal situation may also exist, in which acinetobacters metabolize compounds that yeast cannot and provide yeast with a more suitable metabolite.



hope this was helpful in a little way!!!

[ME2003]

Reading through this thread and others on dosing I have
only seen two basic theories
1. Adding a carbon source increases certain bacteria, this improves
coral growth .....
2. Ethanol is a better carbon source ....

The literature supporting either assumption is questionable.
I believe that your tank is producing more than enough carbohydrates to produce the ethanol or carbon source you would ever need. The last thread indicate that alcohol or adding yeast may
be preferred as a method. Every tank is different and dosing may
change the balance. Without knowing the current balance in your
tank all of this information has no scientific value. The article below
and other articles on carbon sources for corals would indicate a disconnect between dosing theories and reality. Also most scientists recognize the danger in using in vitro evidence to claim an in vivo result.


Mucus trap in coral reefs: formation and temporal
evolution of particle aggregates caused by coral mucus
Markus Huettel
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture02344.html
"The mucus is a carbohydrate complex (Coffroth
1990), containing also lipids (Benson & Muscatin 1974,
Crossland et al. 1980) and proteins (Krupp 1985,
Vacelet & Thomassin 1991). Wild et al. (2005) reported
that the C/N ratios of freshly released mucus from
Acropora spp. ranged from 8 to 14, suggesting that the
mucus may be a potential food source."

"In the Great Barrier Reef, the dominant genus of hard corals,
Acropora, exudes up to 4.8 litres of mucus per square metre of
reef area per day."

[SDguy]

Originally posted by ME2003
Reading through this thread and others on dosing I have
only seen two basic theories
1. Adding a carbon source increases certain bacteria, this improves
coral growth .....
2. Ethanol is a better carbon source ....

Hmmm, that's not at all the theory I'm working with.

Simply, I think vodka dosing *basically* encourage bacterial growth, which consume C N and P, by introducing a source of C (the limiting element in our closed system). This allows the N and P to be consumed and removed via the skimmer.

[ME2003]

Actually I believe that is the first idea with a different detail.
I should have not used the word theory. This would indicate
there was some evidence to support the idea.

The article I posted disputes the statement below
C" (the limiting element in our closed system)"
This is the correct link. I can not post the article because of copyright issues. You can get it from your local library.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture02344.html

[SDguy]

I'll read the article after eating turkey, as I am headed out ...but it is well known that bacteria feed off alcohol. Why these bacteria would grow without the alcohol in your tank, as they do during the addition of it, am am unsure ofthen.

My point with your #1 was that vodka dosing has little/nothing to do with "improving coral growth". And perhaps I should say "C in a usable form"....

PS - The link didn't work for me....

[ME2003]

I reposted the link. The article will give information on the
composition of the mucus. The level they were dealing with
is under more stressful conditions but it it generated in your
aquarium at what I believe is substantial levels. The carbon would be in usable form. Bacteria have many food sources. Many bacteria
also create alcohol.
It has been awhile since I done research into the bacteria in a
reef tank and their interactions. The reading I recall was much was still unknown.

[bergzy]

If I had to guess to save my life. I would say that the ethanol in vodka (or any other ethanol) fuels bacterioplanktonic populations. Where and how it decreases n and p, well, it's been a long time since I did any biochem and micro.

IF increasing bacterioplanktonic population is what zeovit does, then it would make sense that ethanol increasing population would lead to coral growth. Bacteria do have lots of food sources for growth but like with any other food, some will elicit greater growth than others. I am disappointed with the article that doesn't address HOW ethanol increases bacterial growthm. Perhaps I skimmed over it and I am on my blackberry right now.

As for n and p reduction...beats me. All I was posting was a research paper to show ethanol might have a positive effect on bacterioplanktonic levels.

Voodoo as zeovit seems to some people, I have used it for 1 1/2 years with great results. What is in the stuff? Beats me and none of my business. If they spent research dollars and distribution capital on their product and it does what it does, then good for them. Why do some people want to know what is in zeovit? Yep, to obtain the components at wholesale to bypass all their r and d.

[ME2003]

Biochemistry, microbiology, biology, ecology and several other areas of science are required to understand this issue. The zeovit system requires high lighting, good circulation, protein skimming and constant care of your tank. I believe that anyone who did this has a great chance for success even with no additives.

The interaction of a community of bacteria in a tank is quite complex.
There is a lot of research in this area currently in the ocean.
This was an interesting article on sugar additions.
Not sure if it has any helpful conclusions.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/biosci/C...l_2000_AME.pdf
Ocean surveys
http://icomm.mbl.edu/microbis/

[hahnmeister]

Originally posted by SDguy
I would personally keep the skimmer on...let it pull out that excess bacteria...perhaps just lower the head on it, so it skims really dry....

It is believed that some small polyp SPS corals, like montipora, feed more on bacterioplankton than phytoplankton (most phyto is too large). In general, most corals show greater polyp extension with ethanol... so its safe to say that dosing ethanol benefits the corals as well. So I wouldnt worry too much about not getting all the bacteria out.

[bergzy]

Originally posted by ME2003
Not sure if it has any helpful conclusions.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/biosci/C...l_2000_AME.pdf
Ocean surveys
http://icomm.mbl.edu/microbis/

here were some interesting items i gleaned from it...




We expected that the addition of a labile, nutrient free
carbon source for the bacteria (glucose) might
stimulate bacterial competition for dissolved inorganic
nutrients and thus lower phytoplankton growth rates.
Phytoplankton growth rates in the unamended treatments
apparently were already quite low (see paragraph
above), and thus the addition of glucose did not
lead consistently to decreases in these rates in excess
of the decreases observed in the controls.



Competition between bacteria and phytoplankton
for a growth-limiting nutrient would be expected to intensify
as nutrient limitation becomes more severe. For
this reason, one might expect highly nutrient impoverished
environments to have bacterial assemblages that
are often limited by the availability of nitrogen or
phosphorus, while less nutrient-stressed communities
might be characterized by bacterial assemblages limited
by the availability of organic carbon. The results of
several of the experiments performed in this study,
particularly in the 1 μm filtrates, appear to lend support
to our speculation.



what i did find interesting from the article i posted was:

YJM835 grown in the fermentable sugars glucose, fructose, or sucrose produced 0.93% ± 0.2% ethanol and enhanced bacterial growth by 53.6% ± 6.3%. Cells grown in glycerol neither produced significant amounts of ethanol (0.03% ± 0.1% ethanol) nor enhanced bacterial growth (−2.54% ± 2.97% growth enhancement), suggesting that yeast-derived ethanol may be the stimulatory component.



thus...could it be that there is a yeast/bacteria symbiotic relationship? if one doses sugar, the yeast converts it to ethanol to be utilized by the bacteria. but if you dose ethanol directly, you skip the yeast part and go straight to the bacterial increase.

all i know is that i ate wayyyyy too much today!!! *burp*

[SDguy]

Originally posted by hahnmeister
It is believed that some small polyp SPS corals, like montipora, feed more on bacterioplankton than phytoplankton (most phyto is too large). In general, most corals show greater polyp extension with ethanol... so its safe to say that dosing ethanol benefits the corals as well. So I wouldnt worry too much about not getting all the bacteria out.

While I see this point, I got the impression that the person was having an excessive bloom/cloudy water due to overdosing ("huge bacterial bloom"). At that point feeding my polyps would be pretty low on my list of concenrns.

[hahnmeister]

I see what you are saying DSguy, I can see where you are coming from on that one. Im 50/50 on that as well. When I had a bloom, sure, it lasted a couple days before it was 100% clear again, but nothing seemed to mind. My skimmer was oversized by 2x easily, so in the end, Im sure its what helped. Within the first 1/2 day, most of the 'cloud' was gone, and there was just a haze for the remainder. Everything got light and still lived.

[LISound]

Originally posted by hahnmeister
I see what you are saying DSguy, I can see where you are coming from on that one. Im 50/50 on that as well. When I had a bloom, sure, it lasted a couple days before it was 100% clear again, but nothing seemed to mind. My skimmer was oversized by 2x easily, so in the end, Im sure its what helped. Within the first 1/2 day, most of the 'cloud' was gone, and there was just a haze for the remainder. Everything got light and still lived.

What are you keeping your DKH and CA at?
Do you feed a lot?

[JohnL]

This thread was automatically split due to performance issues. You can find the rest of the thread here: http://archive.reefcentral.com/forum...readid=1260492