vodka bez odpieniacza

[thomas kay]

czy wódkę można stosować w akwa bez odpieniacza??

[Włodzimierz]

Raczej nie. Bo co zrobisz z nadwyżką namnożonych bakterii?

[thomas kay]

okej, dlatego właśnie zadałem to pytanie, a druga sprawa od jakiej dawki wodki można by zaczac dozowanie w 40litrach? rozumiem że byłaby to jakaś dawka mikro a potem już na bazie obserwacji? Ją sie podaje codziennie czy raz na kilka dni?

[Stani]

Codziennie 0,1 ml  , ale bez odpieniacza nie ma sensu.

[thomas kay]

okej w takim razie odpuszczam ten temat

[Grzegorz Dyzma]

Teoretycznie mozna brakuje tylko odwaznego Kiedy skonczy sie No3 i Po4 bakterie nie beda sie w nieskonczonosc namnazac. Bakterie sa potrzebne dla wszystkich organizmow z grupy "suspension feeders" i przy duzej obsadzie bakterie beda konsumowane na biezaco. (duza ilosc gabek zalatwi sprawe) Na odpieniaczu bez ciaglego karmienia sa wrecz nie do utrzymania. Przy napowietrzaniu i stosowaniu wegla mysle ze sa szanse powodzenia sa naprawde duze.

[thomas kay]

Teoretycznie mozna brakuje tylko odwaznego Kiedy skonczy sie No3 i Po4 bakterie nie beda sie w nieskonczonosc namnazac. Bakterie sa potrzebne dla wszystkich organizmow z grupy "suspension feeders" i przy duzej obsadzie bakterie beda konsumowane na biezaco. (duza ilosc gabek zalatwi sprawe) Na odpieniaczu bez ciaglego karmienia sa wrecz nie do utrzymania. Przy napowietrzaniu i stosowaniu wegla mysle ze sa szanse powodzenia sa naprawde duze.

okej to mi trochę ułatwiłeś decyzję, kusi mnie żeby spróbować ale nie wiem czy ktoś już vodke bez odpienka dozował.

[Peniek]

Nie ma takiej opcji nawet nie probuj.Rozmnazajace sie bakterie zużyją tlen z wody i po ptokach.

[Grzegorz Dyzma]

Peniek jestes pewien ze napowietrzanie nie wyrobi?

[Peniek]

Nadmiar bakterii musi byc usuwany inaczej metoda nie ma sensu.

[KIDULT]

przeciez PO4 nie wyparuje, a jedyna droga usuwania go z systemu opartego o filtracje bakteryjna jest odpieniacz!

[seb]

Peniek ma rację, ja równiez bym nie ryzykował, po pierwsze efekt "przyduchy", po drugie spadek ph a po trzecie karmienie korali, gąbek i całej rzeszy filtratorów skondensowanym syfem, który wciągnęły bakterie...

Pozdrawiam

seb

[guliwer777]

Przyłączam się do reszty i odradzam.

Pozdrawiam

[Grzegorz Dyzma]

Zwracam honor choc czasami dobrze byc przekornym inaczej nic bysmy sie nic nie dowiedzieli. Do tej pory bylem w przeswiadczeniu ze wegiel aktywny jest w stanie redukowac ilosc bakterii w kolumnie wody. Najnowsze badania pokazaly jednak ze tak sie nie dzieje. Mala ilosc wodki jeszcze nikomu nie zaszkodzila, ale w akwarium bez odpieniacza jednak moze.

Ponizej wycinek z artykulu o tym ze wegiel nie jest w stanie redukowac bakterii

3.3 Bacteria removal via mechanical filtration - how effective? The third and final research topic under the general heading of modulating bacteria populations in aquarium water focuses on the question of mechanical bacteria export, a necessary requirement for the overarching goal of carbon dosing-based nutrient depletion. We have already seen circumstantial evidence for bacteria removal from the water column by predation, but that process does not remove the bacterium's nutrient content from the closed aquarium system. For that function, some type of mechanical filtration that specifically targets bacteria for removal is required. The carbon dosing hypothesis cites protein skimming as the mechanism for physical removal of bacteria, with their nutrient load, from the aquarium water. Note that skimming, or any type of mechanical filtration, can only remove bacteria that are in the water column; bacterial biofilms on surfaces can only be cleared if they are dislodged and enter the water column. Therefore, we set out to examine the capability of a protein skimmer, in our case the Bubble King mini 160, to scrub authentic aquarium water of its bacterial load. There are reports in the literature (Brambilla, 2008; Suzuki, 2008) that document the ability of foam fractionation (= protein skimming) to clear bacteria from both coastal seawater and also a closed circulation fish rearing system. In the former case (Suzuki, 2008), a coastal seawater sample from a fishing port near Miyazaki Japan was continuously skimmed with a DYI protein skimmer, and the removal of different types of water column bacteria, reported as efficiency of removal (100% = complete removal of bacteria) follows: Enterococci, Vibrio and Salmonella, 55-60%; Fecal coliform, 5%. Thus, it appears that not all types of bacteria respond identically to bubble-based extraction. The latter experiment (Brambilla, 2008) documented that in a closed, recirculating, fish-only system, water column bacteria populations could be reduced from 32-88% by skimming, depending upon the experimental details. We interpreted these two independent sets of results as providing strong precedent for the expectation that we would observe similar behavior when skimming aquarium water. In addition to protein skimming, many aquarists utilize Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) as an active filtration medium to clear TOC from aquarium water, and so we wondered if GAC might also contribute to the mechanical removal of bacteria from aquarium water as well.

The question of GAC-based bacterial water remediation was studied by removing 5 gallons of KSF tank water that had been prepared as follows; the KSF tank's H&S 200 skimmer was turned off for 42 hours before water removal, a 17% (30 gallon) water change with IORC saltwater was conducted 24 hours before water removal, and the tank was fed 3.5 hours before water removal. This 5 gallon water sample was placed in a plastic container and, mindful of the rapid growth of the bacteria population in non-sterile plastic containers, this sample was immediately recirculated through a Phosban reactor containing 150 gm of HC2 GAC. Prior to starting the Phosban reactor pump, five 25 mL water samples were removed from the 5-gallon bucket and placed in sterile centrifuge tubes, capped, and set aside. These five tubes serve as a control for bacteria growth; at 30-minute time intervals during the GAC run, 0.5 mL of 37% formaldehyde solution was added to each tube in succession, and these control tubes were immediately frozen pending later analysis. These tubes are not a perfect control, because they do not account for plastic-container-induced bacteria growth, but they do serve as a check against overall contamination. Samples (25 mL, worked up with formaldehyde as described in the General Experimental) were removed periodically from the 5 gallon volume during the course of the GAC run. An entire experimental time period of 120 minutes was chosen to minimize the opportunity for plastic container-fueled bacteria growth, which might mask detection of any GAC-induced depletion.

The data are displayed in Fig. 17. Clearly, there is no evidence that supports the notion that GAC filtration can serve as an effective method for bacteria removal from the water column. Rather than going down, the bacteria levels in the water sample rise slightly (~ 1.4x compared to the starting point) and then decline. This behavior is no different from what might be expected if the container's surface organic load fueled some bacteria growth, at least until the carbon source was consumed. The control samples also rose a little (1.3x) over the same 2-hour time period, a reminder that some small bacterial growth is almost unavoidable in standing water samples. Thus, GAC does not seem to be an effect method for removing bacteria from the water column of reef tanks.

Reszta tutaj

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2011/3/aafeature

[thomas kay]

czyli temat mi się rozjaśnił całkowicie. będę musiał sobie poradzić jakoś inaczej dzięki!