N/P reducing pellets (solid vodka dosing)

[rdlisby]

Now what am I going to do............... I just read the last post. It took me a little over a week to read all of this, and apparently I should have been taking notes. Are NP Bio pellets PCL? BRS stated there is PHL? Someone in one of the forumes said PHL could be better for some reason.?

Also seems like everybody is using reactors of different shapes, sizes, and configurations. And in some cases not reactor at all . So in all reality if I want to use a reactor as long as I fine tom the flow through it to keep the pellets moving in some fashion it doesn’t matter If I go with the Next Reef SMR1 or the Geo 420 or any of the others? Right??

I really shoud have taken notes I hope there is not a test coming.

[thebanker]

Tom, I asked this earlier, but do you think that tilting a pellet reactor is detrimental to the efficacy of the pellet system? Tilting it is the only way I get fluid movement in the pellets. I try to wiggle the reactor daily to ensure all pellets get moved around.

[philbo32]

Originally Posted by thebanker

Tom, I asked this earlier, but do you think that tilting a pellet reactor is detrimental to the efficacy of the pellet system? Tilting it is the only way I get fluid movement in the pellets. I try to wiggle the reactor daily to ensure all pellets get moved around.

IME it doesn't matter how you get the pellets to tumble, you just need to keep them moving so that they don't clump together.

[bertoni]

Moving the reactor around a bit now and then likely is fine. I don't see a problem with that, although a lot of agitation could scrub off the bacteria.

I'm not convinced that live rock needs any infauna to process nitrate. I don't know of any studies along those lines, though. Live rock is an unknown quantity, IMO.

[Aquarist007]

Originally Posted by bertoni

Moving the reactor around a bit now and then likely is fine. I don't see a problem with that, although a lot of agitation could scrub off the bacteria.

I'm not convinced that live rock needs any infauna to process nitrate. I don't know of any studies along those lines, though. Live rock is an unknown quantity, IMO.

Always nice when you join in Bertoni

I agree with you---and how would infauna be deposited or migrate to the live rock in the first place--by definition they are bethnic so I am assuming they would be isolated to the substrate

[tmz]

After thinking a bit more about potential NO3 production from rock pores clogged with detritus and other organics, it seems likely reduced flow and lower oxygen would limit nitrification( a process which needs oxygen) and further any nitrate trickling or diffusing through would likely be picked clean of it's O via denitrification in these low to zero oxygen /nitrate areas. I do think detritus exposed to more flow on surfaces and in cracks and crevices will likely nitrify .

[tmz]

As noted before ,I don't know how to guage the the infuana in live rock. Certainly sponges grow there; seen some worms pop out too;I'd bet on micro crustaceans as likely squatters too. Whether infuana have a role in organics transport similar to those in sanbeds probably varies from rock to rock depending on several factors including: porosity , flow and food supply,but I don't know of any information in the literature on it either.

[tntneon]

Originally Posted by capn_hylinur

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

+1 , the thread is becomming very intressting again , with you guys discussing the N/P subject

I have to say since i use the BP's i brush (because i still haven't found a turkey baster here in europe ..., capn' hilinur ) my rocks not so much any more ,
I hope this will not be a problem ?
I don't see any trapped detrius between the cavities of the rocks .
When i brush them , it's with a small painters brush (12 mm) .

greetingzz tntneon

[DJREEF]

Originally Posted by 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?

I have found that wave timers and high volume powerheads to be of immense value where this is concerned. Sometimes the best flow, can be very short periods of no flow where by flocculants are lifted up into the water column by their own natural buoyancy and then swept out by the alternating currents. Turkey basters and powerhead blowoffs - work great, too if you're disciplined enough and have the time to stay on top of it.

DJ

[tripnbili]

I've seriously considered using some BP. I got the email from BRS today where they have a door buster on their version of BP.

Has anyone had success with these? Or am I better off spending the extra $10 for the "NP Reducing Bio-Pellets"

And, whichever brand I choose, I'll be using them in a 2-chamber BRS reactor (intended for GFO & GAC) which no longer runs GFO. I found the GFO to be overkill with my carbon dosing coupled with Prodibio.

In my reactor, should the water run thru the GAC first? Or the BP first?

Also, I think I've read about removing the foam inserts which are in the reactor when using the BP in the BRS reactors? I'm having trouble finding the answer to this in a 130+page thread. So, what do I need to do to the reactor to utilize BP in it and which brand?

Thanks so much and I'll report my progress when I start =)

[DJREEF]

Originally Posted by tripnbili

I've seriously considered using some BP. I got the email from BRS today where they have a door buster on their version of BP.

Has anyone had success with these? Or am I better off spending the extra $10 for the "NP Reducing Bio-Pellets"

And, whichever brand I choose, I'll be using them in a 2-chamber BRS reactor (intended for GFO & GAC) which no longer runs GFO. I found the GFO to be overkill with my carbon dosing coupled with Prodibio.

In my reactor, should the water run thru the GAC first? Or the BP first?

Also, I think I've read about removing the foam inserts which are in the reactor when using the BP in the BRS reactors? I'm having trouble finding the answer to this in a 130+page thread. So, what do I need to do to the reactor to utilize BP in it and which brand?

Thanks so much and I'll report my progress when I start =)

You're probably going to have a tough time doing this with a two chamber, but if u do run them together then definitely GAC first. The slime from the pellets will goo all the carbon together and clog things up.

DJ

[tripnbili]

Originally Posted by DJREEF

You're probably going to have a tough time doing this with a two chamber, but if u do run them together then definitely GAC first. The slime from the pellets will goo all the carbon together and clog things up.

DJ

Do you think I'll have difficulty getting the pellets to tumble correctly?

Also, what should I do to the reactor to use the pellets? Remove the foam inserts??

[thebanker]

Take out the foam inserts, and you can make your own mesh replacements using a plastic mesh you can buy at any arts & crafts store like Michaels. Super cheap and easy. That seems to be the standard prescription.

[tripnbili]

Originally Posted by thebanker

Take out the foam inserts, and you can make your own mesh replacements using a plastic mesh you can buy at any arts & crafts store like Michaels. Super cheap and easy. That seems to be the standard prescription.

I have a mesh I used for a mod on a skimmer pump...it will probably work.

Am I basically using it to keep the pellets from leaving the reactor and getting stuck in the plumbing?

[DJREEF]

Originally Posted by tripnbili

Do you think I'll have difficulty getting the pellets to tumble correctly?

Also, what should I do to the reactor to use the pellets? Remove the foam inserts??

Yea. You'd need a pump big enough to potentially grind your carbon to dust. You may want to do a search and see if anyone has been successful with that type of setup.

DJ

[DJREEF]

Originally Posted by tripnbili

I have a mesh I used for a mod on a skimmer pump...it will probably work.

Am I basically using it to keep the pellets from leaving the reactor and getting stuck in the plumbing?

No, it's a different type of mesh. Do a search for mesh discs for needle point. They sell them at Michael's, Hobby Lobby, and Walmart back in the fabrics section.

DJ

[thebanker]

Originally Posted by DJREEF

Yea. You'd need a pump big enough to potentially grind your carbon to dust. You may want to do a search and see if anyone has been successful with that type of setup.

DJ

I agree with DJ on this, it will be very tough to get the pellets to tumble in a dual reactor setup, since the media in the second reactor will likely slow the flow to the point where the pellets are motionless. In a single TLF 150 reactor driven with a MJ1200, I have a tough time getting the pellets to move, and that pump drives the reactor to almost leaking with 295 GPH.

[Aquarist007]

What the manufacturer didn’t tell you about using np pellets(polymers)

The theory behind the pellets is that they produce bacteria. The bacteria consume nitrates and phosphates and they themselves are consumed by corals.
Well fed corals colour up and thrive;the water becomes crystal clear.

This is where the theory stops short . Use of these pellets in six systems has caused a variety of problems leaving me with extra maintenance, unhappy and impatient customers, and a lot of explaining to do.

In Practicality
The pellets will reduce nitrates almost immediately and act like a floc pulling detritus out of the water and thus giving an almost instantaneous clarity. However the pellets fall short in how long it takes them to reduce phosphates.
Once the nitrates are reduced in your system algae that thrived very easily on them diminishes. This leaves the door open for other nuisance algae that was in competition before for nitrates and kept in check, yet has the capacity to flourish on phosphates. Namely bryopsis (hair algae) and cyano and other slime algae .
They have the capacity to pull phosphates from reef rock which over the years can form a hard paste with carbonates.

These algae are ugly, smell and can easily suffocate corals and drain the system of quality oxygen.

In four out of six tanks that I experimented with np pellets, this has been the case. It is a lot of work to take out reef rock and scrub it, similarly try to save corals that are covered in bryopsis.
Ever have to carefully clean off a sea fan or branch coral by hand that seem to be magnets for gathering bryopsis . I spent an hour on one just today.

If you add too much of the np pellets too fast then you can get a bacteria bloom. Left unchecked a bacteria bloom can seriously and quickly rob the system of vital oxygen and drive down the pH of the system.
Again I have had to deal with a bacteria bloom in a couple of the tanks---by setting up aeration, water changes, and in one case discontinuing the np pellets
What is evolving with experienced users of the pellets is that phosban should be run separately in conjunction with the first couple of months use of the pellets.

Running carbon and a protein skimmer is a must to handle the dead bacteria.
So now you have a reactor with carbon, a reactor with phosban and a reactor with the pellets---and a protein skimmer all hanging around on the outside of the tank. This is a very hard sell to my customers.

What the bacteria does do is form a mulm---a mixture ofdissolved np pellets and rapidly reproducing bacteria. One reefers suggested they call it bacteria snot—a good description in my opinion. This mulm can cause problems---it clogs the reactor and the filters in the reactor. It can coat corals that do not have the ability to produce their own mucous to ward off being coated by this mulm. They soon suffocate or can’t feed and die. This mulm can cause clumping in the reactor and the reactor has to be take down, the pellets rinsed an number of times till no more snot is realeased—another time consumer.
I have also heard from experts that the usefulness of this bacteria to corals is questionable. Although concrete research on bacteria produced from polymers is limited their experience questions it,

A better suggestion then the pellets-- reef keeping 101
Run carbon and phosban. If you don’t want reactors hanging about a simple Rena Canister filter with all other media taken out except a phosban pack and a carbon pack. This will do wonders for the clarity of your water and the control of nuisance algaes.

Maintain your live rock. Blast it once a week with a turkey baster. Get that detritus away from the rock and up into the water column where it can be filtered off. Move a couple of pieces of live rock around monthly

And guess who eats detritus—corals!

Maintain excellent circulation and flow. Creative placement of power heads can insure the water flow takes a circular flow from top to substrate, across the substrate and back up to the top of the reef. Flow should be a minimum of 20 times the volume of the display tank in gph.

10 per cent water changes performed weekly.

Set up and automatic feeder esp in the case of constant grazers such as tangs. The feeder can control the amount and time interval to feed the fish. This insures the feed is consumed at each feeding

Take care of your sand bed. Studies have shown that even a one inch sand bed is capable of reducing nitrates if the flora and fauna in the top level is constantly maintained. This means reducing the number of carnivores that ravage the sand bed----necessarius snails, sand sifting stars, hermit crabs.

Rinse all frozen food introduced to your tank---they contain phosphates in the juice—and nothing eats the juice in your tank.

[thebanker]

Cap'n,

I agree that GAC and GFO are good to use to reduce phosphates and improve water's optical clarity.

But I don't think it means that biopellets are bad. You said it yourself that they reduce nitrates effectively. Also I don't know about algae "draining the system of quality oxygen".

[jason2459]

Hey Cap'n, sorry to hear you're having issues with biopellets on those systems. I've had some very interesting results the two times I've used them in that I've experienced pretty quick reduction in phosphates down from off the chart numbers to undetectable. First time I used them I had an OVERWHELMING amounts of cyano and phosphates were off the charts over 10. After the drop to undetectable I did have GHA pop up and slowly start to recede. I was using GFO before adding the pellets and changed it out every two weeks but I had so much PO4 that the GFO must have gotten saturated very quickly and the rocks I'm sure was just chock full of PO4. I did use GAC and a very powerful skimmer for my system as well. I ran the GFO, GAC, and Pellets in a canister filter. BTW, nitrates were never detectable at that time but I'm sure only because it was being consumed by the cyano and GHA.

Second time I used BPs I had a lot of GHA and some cyano. Nitrates were slightly detectable and PO4 was pretty high but not the off the charts it was before. This time I didn't use any GFO and I placed the pellets right in my substrate. PO4 and nitrates dropped to undetectable levels a lot quicker. Cyano has been gone and GHA is receding.

So far from both experiences though the PO4 reduction was very quick along with the cyano. But the GHA took longer to start reducing and go away. I'm still on my second trial and GHA is still there but not spreading and is going away slowly. I'm still running GAC and my overkill skimmer. Both of which I think are a great things to have when using BPs.

I'm sure I still have nitrates and some PO4 and is still being consumed by the remaining GHA and as the GHA goes away more bacteria is growing and out competing it. I still don't know why I've had such great experience with PO4 removale considering nitrates are supposed to be the main source for the bacteria and not the PO4.

Here's my thread on my experiencing using PCL type BPs.
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh....php?t=1830864

[jason2459]

Got a few IMs about my last post and I'd like to clarify that I do believe I have Nitrates in my tank. I just don't truely know how much because I have GHA and now bacteria consuming it. I also believe I do have some PO4 in my tank even though it also comes up as undetectable.

I use API for nitrate so I do not get the most acurate or precise measurements under 5 but that's fine with me. I use the hanna ppm PO4 checker and it has a +/- 0.04 accruacy and again perfect for me. This is because I find that as long as my nitrates measure at 5 or under and my PO4 measures at 0.00 - 0.01 then I get no cyano and GHA has a hard time holding on.

Ever since I had a few things die on me and ended up stocking pretty heavy soon after along with feeding pretty heavily I've never gotten to those numbers. If you look at just the first page on that thread you'll see how horrendously bad the cyano got even after blowing it off up to twice daily and using a diatom filter here and there.

I have no idea why I had such a great reduction in PO4 so quickly, with-in a few weeks to undetectable, when the ratio that keeps being refered to has PO4 way down on the bottom.

[Aquarist007]

Jason, when it is someone else's tank you are working on and bryopsis breaks out all over the place, it is not tolerated very well. Similarily if their favorite coral becomes covered with it week after week and you have to clean it off by hand it is time consuming.
More and more I read on this thread and others of bryopsis breaking out while using the pellets.
I know the reason or reasons but it still doesn't take away the fact that the breakouts of bryopsis is showing up as a real weakness or caution for using the pellets if you are in the maintenance business as I am.

Thank you for posting and I will have a look at your thread

[Aquarist007]

Jason, when it is someone else's tank you are working on and bryopsis breaks out all over the place, it is not tolerated very well. Similarily if their favorite coral becomes covered with it week after week and you have to clean it off by hand it is time consuming.
More and more I read on this thread and others of bryopsis breaking out while using the pellets.
I know the reason or reasons but it still doesn't take away the fact that the breakouts of bryopsis is showing up as a real weakness or caution for using the pellets if you are in the maintenance business as I am.

Thank you for posting and I will have a look at your thread

[jason2459]

I have some type of green hair algae but don't think it's bryopsis as I have had that before but went away on it's own a while ago. I did have in my head but failed to type it out in my original post that I can see where you're coming from where you have clients that expect instant results but these pellets at least in my experience do not provide an instant removal of algae. They have provided my tank a very quick source for bacteria to feed on to start out competing algae and cyano but some manual removal has been the best way so far at reducing it quicker.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[jason2459]

I also agree that pellets should not replace basic husbandry as you mentioned. But I do think they are a great way to help reduce both nitrates and phosphates. For me they removed the need for GFO entirely so far. For some though GFO will still be needed but shouldn't need near as much which would save some money.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk