N/P reducing pellets (solid vodka dosing)

[DJREEF]

Originally Posted by staggeringwade

Update & Summary of events:
After the two days of lights out and my sand bed started bringing black splotches to the surface, after running the lights for two days on, the blackness has mostly disappeared.
My DT still has cloudy water after 4 days (lost count) from the bacterial bloom.
Other than the one birdsnest that is dyingback, everything appears to be doing great. All of my parameters are in check, all animals are looking good.
I did another test on a 40 gallon breeder that has a 6" sugar fine sand bed and live rock with a couple fish. No equipment other than a little aquac remora.
I ran the lights off for two days and the sand bed start leaving black splotchy spots at the surface too?
So I'm kinda thinking maybe I'm stumped. I'm running a very small amount of ecobak now, maybe 250 ml on my 120 gallon DT with 60 gallon sump.
I don' have but 4 fish and quite a few corals.
I don't mind adding some more fish to the system, I just don't have fish readily available where I live. Petco just carries clowns and fish that are not reef safe. (or the tangs are all sick with ick.)
Plus I hate to add fish to a tank with a bacterial bloom because I don't fully understand the science here.
I feel like I should have just left the bio pellets alone at 1000 ml and seen what happened because I still a bacterial bloom.
Am I now prolonging the bacterial bloom by reducing the pellets?
Nitrates and phosphates still at zero, refuguim plants looking bad (which was to be expected) and GHA still hanging on, but looking like it is about to die off.
I was planning on running my DT with lights off again to help kill off the GHA but the black stuff on the sand bed was frightening. I scooped up a little sample and it didn't smell like hydrogen sulphide, and my tank water smells clean (for seawater).
Wade

Stop overworking the problem. Sit back, deep breaths, and let the process work itself out. And for Gad's sake don't add anything else.

DJ

[tntneon]

Originally Posted by staggeringwade

Update & Summary of events:
After the two days of lights out and my sand bed started bringing black splotches to the surface, after running the lights for two days on, the blackness has mostly disappeared.
My DT still has cloudy water after 4 days (lost count) from the bacterial bloom.
Other than the one birdsnest that is dyingback, everything appears to be doing great. All of my parameters are in check, all animals are looking good.
I did another test on a 40 gallon breeder that has a 6" sugar fine sand bed and live rock with a couple fish. No equipment other than a little aquac remora.
I ran the lights off for two days and the sand bed start leaving black splotchy spots at the surface too?
So I'm kinda thinking maybe I'm stumped. I'm running a very small amount of ecobak now, maybe 250 ml on my 120 gallon DT with 60 gallon sump.
I don' have but 4 fish and quite a few corals.
I don't mind adding some more fish to the system, I just don't have fish readily available where I live. Petco just carries clowns and fish that are not reef safe. (or the tangs are all sick with ick.)
Plus I hate to add fish to a tank with a bacterial bloom because I don't fully understand the science here.
I feel like I should have just left the bio pellets alone at 1000 ml and seen what happened because I still a bacterial bloom.
Am I now prolonging the bacterial bloom by reducing the pellets?
Nitrates and phosphates still at zero, refuguim plants looking bad (which was to be expected) and GHA still hanging on, but looking like it is about to die off.
I was planning on running my DT with lights off again to help kill off the GHA but the black stuff on the sand bed was frightening. I scooped up a little sample and it didn't smell like hydrogen sulphide, and my tank water smells clean (for seawater).
Wade

hi staggerwade ,

I firmly agree with DJ , you are making to much changes in a really short period of time , on a reef tank wich is an complex and delicate system !
I took me about 4 to 5 month's to kill all GHA with BP , and when GHA was gone i still had cyano for another 2 month's .

As for the Chaeto , i had to upgrade my lighting from 9 w to 23 watt in order to keep the chaeto healty in those low nutrient levels.

greetingzz tntneon

[daveonbass]

I agree with DJ as well. Now back to me.

I have been patient since my N and P hit 0ppm. But lately my sand bed has been getting worse cyano than before. The tank looks great and the corals are all growing wonderfully. I have also been adding more food for the corals like BBS, ppone, and heavier feeding. The corals are responding with great colors and growth, I even gave my buddy my first frag from a colony that's been growing well.

but again the sand is no longer white. I don't want to add any more sugar if I don't have too, and I don't think I do since that levels are still 0ppm. But is there a chance that I just need to keep waiting? It doesn't worry me since it's just the sand bed, and it's not growing up the rocks or on corals...so I'm fine with leaving it. But I wanted to get some other peoples opinions.

[DJREEF]

Originally Posted by daveonbass

I agree with DJ as well. Now back to me.

I have been patient since my N and P hit 0ppm. But lately my sand bed has been getting worse cyano than before. The tank looks great and the corals are all growing wonderfully. I have also been adding more food for the corals like BBS, ppone, and heavier feeding. The corals are responding with great colors and growth, I even gave my buddy my first frag from a colony that's been growing well.

but again the sand is no longer white. I don't want to add any more sugar if I don't have too, and I don't think I do since that levels are still 0ppm. But is there a chance that I just need to keep waiting? It doesn't worry me since it's just the sand bed, and it's not growing up the rocks or on corals...so I'm fine with leaving it. But I wanted to get some other peoples opinions.

Use a small gravel vacuum the top 1/2" layer and turn the sand over a bit when you change the water, or get some Cerith snails. The Baja Ceriths work well for that, as do the conchs. Abalones, too.

DJ

[Aquarist007]

Originally Posted by DJREEF

Use a small gravel vacuum the top 1/2" layer and turn the sand over a bit when you change the water, or get some Cerith snails. The Baja Ceriths work well for that, as do the conchs. Abalones, too.

DJ

I agree with DJ however another alternative is to mount a korlia power head low in the tank and direct it up. For the next couple of weeks use a turkey baster lightly on the substrate every other day or so.
As the condition improves you can cut the basting back to once a week.

[DJREEF]

Originally Posted by tmz

I agree with both of you.
Perhaps a bit more on removing PO4 and N03 will be helpful to some readers.
Neither NO3 nor PO4 or are amphipathic and are not attracted to the air/water interface ;thus , not skimmable. The bacteria bind them up as organics and make some of them more skimmable. The smell from the skimmer cup is decaying organic matter.

These inorganics PO4 and NO3 do not have an affinity for adsorbtion by granulated organic carbon ,either. When they are part of an organic compound, gac is very effective at removing some of them . Some note gac is significantly more effective at reducing total organic carbon including dissolved organics than skimming. Though it seems lots of particulate organics flow out of the skimmer when carbon dosing and the aeration gained from skimming is also very important particularly with more bacteria consuming more O2.

Originally Posted by tntneon

hi staggerwade ,

I firmly agree with DJ , you are making to much changes in a really short period of time , on a reef tank wich is an complex and delicate system !
I took me about 4 to 5 month's to kill all GHA with BP , and when GHA was gone i still had cyano for another 2 month's .

As for the Chaeto , i had to upgrade my lighting from 9 w to 23 watt in order to keep the chaeto healty in those low nutrient levels.

greetingzz tntneon

Originally Posted by capn_hylinur

I agree with DJ however another alternative is to mount a korlia power head low in the tank and direct it up. For the next couple of weeks use a turkey baster lightly on the substrate every other day or so.
As the condition improves you can cut the basting back to once a week.

Originally Posted by daveonbass

I agree with DJ as well. Now back to me.

Man, I really want all of you to come replace the idiots I work for.

DJ

[sirreal63]

I agree with DJ.

[daveonbass]

DJ, did you just montage' all the posts agreeing with you? Haha

capn_h: isn't that just masking the problem...if I turn that all off wouldn't it just come back? I'm looking for a long term permanent outcome.

[DJREEF]

Originally Posted by daveonbass

DJ, did you just montage' all the posts agreeing with you? Haha

capn_h: isn't that just masking the problem...if I turn that all off wouldn't it just come back? I'm looking for a long term permanent outcome.

Shockingly, there were many more - I just got sick of cutting and pasting. Anyway, back to your previously scheduled program.

DJ

[Aquarist007]

Originally Posted by daveonbass

DJ, did you just montage' all the posts agreeing with you? Haha

capn_h: isn't that just masking the problem...if I turn that all off wouldn't it just come back? I'm looking for a long term permanent outcome.

not at all. It is just increasing flow to an area and working the detrius, nitrates and phosphates back up into the system where it can be filtered off.

Flow in the tank should be between 20 and 40 times the volume of the tank in gph and flow should be circular from the top to the bottom, across the bottom, upwards again and across the tank towards the overflows, with the surface churning for gas exchange.

this is intelligent marine science--not a bandaid at all--and will give you a long term permanent outcome.

[Aquarist007]

Originally Posted by DJREEF

Man, I really want all of you to come replace the idiots I work for.

DJ

Are you requesting a change of idiots to work with DJ or is this a compliment

[daveonbass]

but again that would mean I have to leave a pump there permanently...and thus not solve the problem...just a quick fix without addressing the problem, which you claim is build up of nutrients. (I don't disagree) But, if I were to remove said pump, which would be my goal, then the problem would likely return, thus it's just a bandaid.

[DJREEF]

Originally Posted by capn_hylinur

Are you requesting a change of idiots to work with DJ or is this a compliment

No, it's actually a selfish request. No one ever listens to me at work .

DJ

[Aquarist007]

4 days ago I reinstalled the rena cannister filter with carbon and phosban media in the tank that I started the np pellets in 7 weeks ago. I was fed up with the amount of time and work that tank was costing me in maintenance due to the bryopsis.
What a difference today---crystal clear tank and the bryopsis is diminishing.

Now I am not being negative against the use of pellets because I have six other systems doing great on them. Rather one has to know the history of the live rock in a tank before initiating the np pellets. In this case the tank ran for 4 years improperly maintained until I took it over so that rock had a long time to absorb nitrates.

It will be interesting to note if at one point when the bryopsis finally clears up, the rena filter can be unhooked again.

As another note I took a 10 lbs rock home to the shop that was covered with bryopsis and put it in a tank with little nitrates and phosphates and clean live rock. That rock still has some bryopsis on it while none of the other rock has it.

[tmz]

n this case the tank ran for 4 years improperly maintained until I took it over so that rock had a long time to absorb nitrates.

For clarifiction , nitrate(NO3) doesn't build up in/on the rock; phosphae (PO4 )does. Maybe the pellets depleted nitrate to a point where the bacteria were N limited and as a result could not use the PO4 or the polymers..

[philbo32]

Originally Posted by tmz

n this case the tank ran for 4 years improperly maintained until I took it over so that rock had a long time to absorb nitrates.

For clarifiction , nitrate(NO3) doesn't build up in/on the rock; phosphae (PO4 )does. Maybe the pellets depleted nitrate to a point where the bacteria were N limited and as a result could not use the PO4 or the polymers..

Agreed, I have had the same situation, running my own pellets. I have found phosphates encourage GHA, even though nitrate is at 0mg/L, phosphate in my system was at 0.03mg/L and still GHA fluorished. Only by using GFO and biopellets until phosphate levels are deminished could I get rid of GHA.

[DJREEF]

Originally Posted by philbo32

Agreed, I have had the same situation, running my own pellets. I have found phosphates encourage GHA, even though nitrate is at 0mg/L, phosphate in my system was at 0.03mg/L and still GHA fluorished. Only by using GFO and biopellets until phosphate levels are deminished could I get rid of GHA.

Ditto.

DJ

[DJREEF]

Originally Posted by tmz

n this case the tank ran for 4 years improperly maintained until I took it over so that rock had a long time to absorb nitrates.

For clarifiction , nitrate(NO3) doesn't build up in/on the rock; phosphae (PO4 )does. Maybe the pellets depleted nitrate to a point where the bacteria were N limited and as a result could not use the PO4 or the polymers..

Actually, NO3 can get trapped in LR in the form of trapped organics - the rock becomes so saturated with detritus it no longer functions as an effective filtration device and leaches a steady supply of NO3 into the bulk water. So, while technically the NO3 isn't on the surface like the PO4, it does pass through the pores of the rock past the surface, and through the algae on it's way into the bulk water.


DJ

[Aquarist007]

Originally Posted by tmz

n this case the tank ran for 4 years improperly maintained until I took it over so that rock had a long time to absorb nitrates.

For clarifiction , nitrate(NO3) doesn't build up in/on the rock; phosphae (PO4 )does. Maybe the pellets depleted nitrate to a point where the bacteria were N limited and as a result could not use the PO4 or the polymers..

Sorry---I knew that---posting error on my part

[Aquarist007]

I think that is the caution to be learned here----use a gfo media with the pellets if you don't know the history of the tank/live rock

[mm.reefs]

Originally Posted by DJREEF

Actually, NO3 can get trapped in LR in the form of trapped organics - the rock becomes so saturated with detritus it no longer functions as an effective filtration device and leaches a steady supply of NO3 into the bulk water. So, while technically the NO3 isn't on the surface like the PO4, it does pass through the pores of the rock past the surface, and through the algae on it's way into the bulk water.

DJ

+1

[tmz]

Decay will breakdown the nitrogen in detritus and other non refractory organics in/on the rock to among other things,DOC(dissolved organic carbon), particulate organics and/ or ammonia, nitrite , nitrate and N2 nitrogen gas depending on the flow and whether oxic, hypoxic or anoxic conditions prevail at a given time in the process .
In some situations NO3 could be the end product to the water column . In some situations large or broken organic chains might be released which might be exported by skimming or gac or consumed by bacteria. In other cases ammonia or nitrite might be taken up directly by algae and corals.
In badly clogged pores anoxic conditions may develop with organic C present as detritus setting the stage for sulfate reduction and it's toxic by product hydrogen sulfide.

So it's not a given that a flow of NO3 from rock clogged with organic material will occur,in my opinion.


Obviously,ensuring the right flow patterns in the tank and ocassionaly blowing off the rocks and crevices to minimize detirus buildup down helps prevent all of these issues.

Phosphate on the other hand may also come free form the organics as they break down in clogged rock pores but even as inorganic /orthophosphate /PO4 species it sticks to even clean calcium carbonate rock surfaces, perhaps via a loosely binding adsorbtion to CO3 and equilibrates with the water overtime.

[DJREEF]

Originally Posted by tmz

Decay will breakdown the nitrogen in detritus and other non refractory organics in/on the rock to among other things,DOC(dissolved organic carbon), particulate organics and/ or ammonia, nitrite , nitrate and N2 nitrogen gas depending on the flow and whether oxic, hypoxic or anoxic conditions prevail at a given time in the process .
In some situations NO3 could be the end product to the water column . In some situations large or broken organic chains might be released which might be exported by skimming or gac or consumed by bacteria. In other cases ammonia or nitrite might be taken up directly by algae and corals.
In badly clogged pores anoxic conditions may develop with organic C present as detritus setting the stage for sulfate reduction and it's toxic by product hydrogen sulfide.

So it's not a given that a flow of NO3 from rock clogged with organic material will occur,in my opinion.


Obviously,ensuring the right flow patterns in the tank and ocassionaly blowing off the rocks and crevices to minimize detirus buildup down helps prevent all of these issues.

Phosphate on the other hand may also come free form the organics as they break down in clogged rock pores but even as inorganic /orthophosphate /PO4 species it sticks to even clean calcium carbonate rock surfaces, perhaps via a loosely binding adsorbtion to CO3 and equilibrates with the water overtime.

Right. I only addressed the surface PO4 because this is source that any nuisance alga would be the most readily accessible too.

Flow patterns + rock infauna. Sometimes flow isn't enough without the proper set of organisms pushing and pulling nutrients out of the rock. I've seen systems which looked like like a toilet flushing that had non functional LR issues simply because the proper organisms weren't present within the rock to assist with nutrient exchange.

DJ

[Aquarist007]

Thanks for the detailed explanations tom and dj--I for one am learning alot from your posts.

[tmz]

Flow may not be enough to keep the rocks clean; getting flow patterns right for a paticular stack of rocks in a particular tank always seems to leave a dead spot or two and takes some trial and error and that's just the surface. I've broken rocks open and found sulfides in the center,evidencing sulfate reduction and hydrogen sulfide. Blowing it out with a turkey baster, some use power heads, once in a while can help.
As for the fuana (mieofuana microfuana,etc)) that may live in a particular rock and move nutrients around I don't know how you would ensure adequate numbers and food transport.
Do you think the potential for extra bacteria from carbon dosing helps or hurts infuana populations in sand or rock? I'm thinking mulm clogging passages and O2 consumption in low flow areas may depress them or could the extra bacteria and their by products be a food source for the fuana in the rock and sand bed?