N/P reducing pellets (solid vodka dosing)

[liver]

Anyone try placing the pellets inside their skimmer?

[Lucifa68]

hello everyone. a friend of mine is using this and has a porblem with tissue loss from the bottom, what Kh should he have his tank at?????? also he has bee loosing fish like crazy. any ideas??????

thanks in advance

[Scej12]

Originally Posted by Lucifa68

hello everyone. a friend of mine is using this and has a porblem with tissue loss from the bottom, what Kh should he have his tank at?????? also he has bee loosing fish like crazy. any ideas??????

thanks in advance

What aree the parameters. In particular; pH could be too low.

[daveonbass]

he may just wanna stop for now if stuff is dying. Get his params fixed as close to NSW (minus N and P maybe) then try the pellets again.

there could be a number of things causing this...

[daveonbass]

he may just wanna stop for now if stuff is dying. Get his params fixed as close to NSW (minus N and P maybe) then try the pellets again.

there could be a number of things causing this...

[Yogre]

Originally Posted by liver

Anyone try placing the pellets inside their skimmer?

I would think displacement of bubble reaction chamber volume would make this less than an optimal solution.

[bertoni]

I agree. I'd leave the skimmer empty.

[Scej12]

I agree as well - the air in the skimmer would also cause the pellets to be carried out as well I'd imagine.

[bdbyace28]

I started using the pellets in a reactor for about 8 months. I read that having the outlet feed straight into the skimmer helped from getting the white slime from proceeding into other areas of the sump/tank. I did notice an increase in slime algae after about 4 months and a brown bacteria slime that would start forming on the obscure corners of the rock bases. I re-measured the amount of media I had in my reactor and it was still showing as the recommended dose for my system. I stopped the reactor pump to see if there were any changes once I discontinued the use of the pellets and found that the slime began to receed. I lowered the dose of pellets to half and noticed that the slime did not come back. From my experience, I would say start low and work your way up in the amount of pellets you use based on your need. I had low nitrates and phosphates to begin with which is probably why I needed to lessen the dose.

[Scej12]

Hi Folks - I'd promised to update you with photos for the purpose of my future (next week's) experiment... so I figured it's worth a little background in order to convey the context of the installation. Here it all is:

Somewhere back in 2008 I'd planned out an upgrade project for one of my existing clients. In the end the project didn't go through due to combined financial factors. However, the key point here is that the project got me thinking about creating a multifaceted filtration system that can be adapted to multiple, if not all potential (freshwater and marine) aquarium [water processing] solutions within a single adaptable facility. Since the original plan in 2008 failed to launch into a real-life project; I continued to develop that initial multi-solution concept into an actual reproduce-able (patent-pending) filtration system.

Although this is not the place (thread) to elaborate on the actual filtration system I figured a little background would be appropriate to explain the pellet setup and weird looking reactors you might be questioning in the following photos...

So the answer to the inevitable query... "what type of reactors are you using...?" ...they are prototypes.

Here are the photos:

BP-Experiment_01.JPG

The reactors have standard base portions and necks; that can be fitted with interchangeable heads. So far, I've made a 'tall-head' for the reactor on the left that will function as a calcium reactor; a 'skimmer-head' for the reactor in the middle for obvious function (also the middle insert is flipped to allow the foam through); and a 'flat-head' for the reactor on the right that will function as a [fluidized] media reactor.

BP-Experiment_05.JPG

After a few weeks of operation, and a gradual build up from 1L to 2.5L of pellets, I noticed that the pellets were making their way through the bottom diffuser plate into the base of the reactor. And since the media was being fluidized from just above the diffuser plate, the bottom of the reactor was a stagnant spot for the pellets to be sitting.

BB-Pics_026.jpg

My first instinct was to try to prevent this by introducing some window screen (mesh) to sit on the bottom diffuser plate in the hopes that the pellets would be contained above the plate. This ultimately didn't work as the pellets would eventually make their way underneath the mesh, and continue to fill the bottom space after about a week of operation.

BP-Experiment_08.jpg

Eventually, I decided that the mesh was a band-aid solution and not a desirable one at that. It also occurred to me that if the bottom (4") space could be made useful without the risk of allowing an anaerobic micro-environment to take hold within the reactor, there would be a potential of increasing the overall capacity of the reactor, without having the new problem of media overflowing through the exit at the top. So one of the plugs were modified to allow some of the water pressure in from below the diffuser plate with the hope of eliminating this potential of a dead-zone. All of the water still exits the reactor at the top, which means that fresh water is always fed through the bottom trapped media. This also allowed for an additional 1L of pellets to be added bringing the introduced media to 3.5L, but I would assume that approximately .5L would have already been consumed over the past 3-4 months of operation.

The hope with this last arrangement is that the bottom media will function similar to the setup that some have with the pellets in a media bag, i.e. not tumbling; while the media above the plate will continue to tumble in a conventional manner. It can be also seen from the picture above that the media above the plate is moving quite a lot while the portion below appears to be simply resting.

Below is a pic of the foam being generated by the 'foam reactor' aka protein skimmer:

BP-Experiment_10.jpg

I'd mentioned in one of my last posts that I wanted to adjust the pump to recirculate a significant portion of the water within the reactor in order to slightly lower the O2 level in the reaction chamber to see if the anaerobic component will increase and positively boost the entire process, but after reading the post about the ease of potential for these pellets to go anoxic, I think it might be wise to wait until that potential is ruled out in the current arrangement of relaxed flow through the bottom. So far after about 3-4 days running there is no sign of H2S at the bottom.

I did another water test today, and it is still hard to tell how much the nitrates are coming down as I'm trying to judge between the dark shades of red indicative of API's range of 40ppm to 160ppm. In the three days that the new arrangement has been in action it looks as though the reading might in fact be budging downward, but I can't say for sure. The colour is taking longer to darken if that is any indication; however, I am optimistic that there should be a clearer indication within a week or two, so I'll keep you posted and hold off on the pump adjustment til then.

Sorry about the essay. Please feel free to let me know if my flow presumptions are completely misplaced. Thanks for reading if you managed to make it through all...! It took me about 3 days to assemble everything and type it

Regards,

Sheldon

[Scej12]

Originally Posted by bdbyace28

I started using the pellets in a reactor for about 8 months. I read that having the outlet feed straight into the skimmer helped from getting the white slime from proceeding into other areas of the sump/tank. I did notice an increase in slime algae after about 4 months and a brown bacteria slime that would start forming on the obscure corners of the rock bases. I re-measured the amount of media I had in my reactor and it was still showing as the recommended dose for my system. I stopped the reactor pump to see if there were any changes once I discontinued the use of the pellets and found that the slime began to receed. I lowered the dose of pellets to half and noticed that the slime did not come back. From my experience, I would say start low and work your way up in the amount of pellets you use based on your need. I had low nitrates and phosphates to begin with which is probably why I needed to lessen the dose.

Is anyone finding a relationship between using the pellets and low pH?

I'm finding that any systems in which I'm experiencing algae problems, the pH is usually below 8 usually hovering around 7.9. For about 2 weeks when I had my pellets removed and instead ran carbon in the reactor, I found that my pH rose up to 8.1, now that I have replaced the bp media, I'm getting a pH reading of 7.87, and I'm seeing signs of green turf algae starting to spread a little. However it should be noted that my calcium carbonate reactor has been turned off (CO2) for about 3 months now because I was trying to lower my calcium from 520ppm. It has just dropped down to 480 for the first time, but quickly rises up to 500 as soon as I add magnesium. Since this tank is a rehab scenario, I'm still trying to establish my coralline algae, which is only about 10% there so far.

I'm just wondering if there is any coincidence between reports of LPS/SPS showing obvious signs of stress when bp are initially introduced and pH levels (in addition bio-films and other known effects). I'm going to start dosing Kent Pro-Buffer this week to try to address the pH issue. It could be that adding CO2 to the bulk water could be a side effect of all of that bacterial activity. I'd just be interested to hear the parameters of some of the tanks that are experiencing stress after the introduction of pellets.

SJ

[langtudatinh01]

bdbyace08, so did the white slime form a film on the sandbed and some corals? Could the bacteria makes the LPS to recess? i am having issue with my LPS recessing while my sps are growing like crazy and colored up. maybe i dont have enough flow too. check my parameter everyday and everything in perfect range: ph 8.3, cal 440, alk 8 and mag is around 1300. the soft corals in my tank are doing good. i just put back online GFO for now (suspect of higher phosphate level). i do run Rox carbon from BRS too.

[Scej12]

Originally Posted by langtudatinh01

bdbyace08, so did the white slime form a film on the sandbed and some corals? Could the bacteria makes the LPS to recess? i am having issue with my LPS recessing while my sps are growing like crazy and colored up. maybe i dont have enough flow too. check my parameter everyday and everything in perfect range: ph 8.3, cal 440, alk 8 and mag is around 1300. the soft corals in my tank are doing good. i just put back online GFO for now (suspect of higher phosphate level). i do run Rox carbon from BRS too.

How often do you refresh your carbon. From what I've been reading a few pages back, carbon seems to be just as important as skimming. I believe it was reported (TMZ I think) that carbon might even take out more organics than your skimmer can. Capnhighliner also forwarded a post from someone talking about some of the reasons for stress to inverts as a result of the manner of pellet function; ...suggested that LPS don't have the same ability that SPS do to slough off slime coatings that might be resulting from bacterial mulm. If you can detect bacterial films on your inanimate furnishings, then it could also be trying to collect on your inverts; from what I've absorbed from this thread, it seems that sps can naturally deal with cleaning themselves, but lps do not cope as well. It might be necessary to increase your carbon change intervals to help the lps out a little.

From what I've been gathering throughout, it seems as though the pellets do work really well for their advertised purpose, but they may also necessitate some modification (to at least the level of priority) of other regular husbandry routines... With all of the new introduction of organics, maybe we just need to throw as many organic export strategies into the plan as practical to ensure some of the more sensitive livestock is not stifled by mulm/films??? Just like everything else in this hobby, it can take a little tinkering to get it down to a science.

SJ

[Lucifa68]

thanks for the reply. his ph is above 8 and alk is 8-9. what should alk be kept at???? all other params are fine as well

[SimonSKL]

Originally Posted by rsuplido

I think new pellet reactors are coming and more well designed to keep the pellets tumbling:


The bottom part propels the pellets up every time:


I wish manufacturers of the more common reactors create inserts so you can change the bottom plate to something like the above.

To test if this design improves the tumbling of BP, I made something similar and use it in my NextReef MR1 reactor.



This is MR1 with no modification. Despite good movement in the front, there is very little movement in the back as water seems to flow in the route with least resistance.



This is with the DIY concave deflector replacing the original diffuser plate:


I think there is significant improvement to the movement of the BPs within the whole reactor with the modification.

You can read about my DIY concave deflector in this post:
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh...7#post18045207

[Scej12]

Originally Posted by Lucifa68

thanks for the reply. his ph is above 8 and alk is 8-9. what should alk be kept at???? all other params are fine as well

Alk was always prescribed to be between 8-12. Since the introduction of zeovit and all the other ultra low nutrient strategies, the advice then became to keep the alk no higher than 9, otherwise the sps will exhibit burnt tips. If your friend is loosing both fish and corals perhaps alk is not the primary problem. How's your water O2 levels? Can you provide all of the other parameters including salinity. Are fish gasping for air? Are they eating at all? Not enough info available to get a good grasp on the situation as yet. Perhaps some photos of the system if possible might help.

Sheldon

[Oldude]

I just started using pellets in my reef 3 weeks ago. I started with 550 ml for 2weeks and then added another 550 ml 1 week ago. My tank is 400 gal and system is about 700 gal so I believe I'm starting pretty light for the water volume. Anyway I have a large hammer coral that I've had for 6 years which has survived all sorts of issues over the years but this weekend it literally puked out all the polyps leaving pretty much just a bare skeleton. The only thing other than bumping up a lower than normal magnesium level that I've changed in my reef is adding the bio-pellets. I've also had a couple of heads of frogspawns and trumpet corals loose some polyp heads lately as well. Could the pellets have caused this reaction?

[Scej12]

Originally Posted by Oldude

I just started using pellets in my reef 3 weeks ago. I started with 550 ml for 2weeks and then added another 550 ml 1 week ago. My tank is 400 gal and system is about 700 gal so I believe I'm starting pretty light for the water volume. Anyway I have a large hammer coral that I've had for 6 years which has survived all sorts of issues over the years but this weekend it literally puked out all the polyps leaving pretty much just a bare skeleton. The only thing other than bumping up a lower than normal magnesium level that I've changed in my reef is adding the bio-pellets. I've also had a couple of heads of frogspawns and trumpet corals loose some polyp heads lately as well. Could the pellets have caused this reaction?

I haven't read about any polyp bailing so far as a result of these pellets, however it could be that the pellets triggered other changes in your system as well. Did any of your parameters change after using the pellets. I'm also trying them on a similar sized system as yours. I worked up from about 1L and now about 4 mos later I'm at about 3L. I actually began adding lps and montiporas as my introductory corals and lost a couple of specimens in the beginning. However in my case my calcium was way too high 540, and my pH was rather low 7.8 or so. I attributed these params to the polyp ejections that I'd experienced. In my particular case I don't think it was a direct result of the polyps as my tank was about 6 years old and under filtered for that entire time. This was the result of the low pH in my opinion, and I think this was the cause of my losses. I do think it is entirely possible that the pellets could be influencing some of the parameters as I don't think the bailouts would be due to bacteria blooms which is the initial reaction from the pellets, unless of course the bacterial blooms have some sort of ancillary effect - respire O2 and produce CO2, therefore affecting the pH balance.

Let's see your parameters so that we might be able to rule out a few more possibilities.

Sheldon

[Scej12]

Also check to see how much the pH drops at night. If bacteria are contributing enough CO2, perhaps they could be compounding the diurnal swings to some extent, thereby stressing the lps enough to cause the bailout.

SJ

[Oldude]

My parameters are as follows:
ca-420
dkh-8
mag-1320
K- 390
sg-1.026
ph- 8.2 - 8.5 (swings up in the photoperiod)

The crazy thing is I've had these LPS corals for many years and they have been to hell & back without a problem. Why the bailout now?

[bertoni]

How much magnesium (in terms of ppm) was added in one shot?

[Scej12]

Originally Posted by Oldude

My parameters are as follows:
ca-420
dkh-8
mag-1320
K- 390
sg-1.026
ph- 8.2 - 8.5 (swings up in the photoperiod)

The crazy thing is I've had these LPS corals for many years and they have been to hell & back without a problem. Why the bailout now?

Ok - so after reading your response, I had to consult one of my resident experts to pick his brain a little. Our discussion touched on the following:

- some of the reported causes for lps to bail polyps could be low strontium; molybdinum; calcium; or magnesium;
- there is also a possibility that the efficient bacteria could be stripping other trace elements - his example was that some bacteria can actually calcify (I.e. Those crusty caked up gravel sandbed patches you sometimes find. I know your calc level is fine, but the example is just to show that there are a vast variety of bacteria; capable of efficiently nourishing themselves with nutrients/elements readily available. This brings me to the last thought we deliberated;
- based on the example of the zeovit system, the aparent strategy can be summed up (at least anecdotally) as: using bacteria cultured in zeolytes to strip away most, if not all of the foundational fertilizing nutrients; NO3/PO4 primarily, but likely a few other elements as well. It is the common principle of probably all 'bacteria driven systems'. However my feeling is that what makes the zeo system so successful albeit labour-intensive, is that whole supplemental regiment that can be tailored to some degree to each user's specific scenario. However, the key point is that some provisions are made to replace the removed undesireables with desireable supplements. In a nutshell it could be that if/when the pelletsactually do acheive their purpose of ULNS, some corals (LPS in particular) can in fact starve to death if not purposefully fed.

LPS get a lot of their nourishment from heterotrphically grabbing food. My friend also suggested that sometimes LPS can display a greater density of zooxanthelae by exhibiting darker/browner colour. This could in fact be a measure of attempted compensation for lack of other grabbable food; so they switch to more autotrophic nourishment (through photosynthesis).

If we get enough reports of corals suffering after the bp system achieves ULNS conditions, that could be an indication that the purported application of bacterioplankton as an adequate subsitute for all of the known (and unknown) nutrients being processed out by them; is in fact not enough as a stand-alone heterotrophic food source. Put another way, could it be possible that the bacteria generated could be out-competing some of our inverts...?

In the very least, I think it might be worth the try to adopt a pseudo-zeo philosophy in that if we employ a super-cleaning strategy; we need to ensure that we do not leave behind a barron; or at least mono-cultured microscape.

Sheldon

[Scej12]

Sorry Duplicate

[thebanker]

Originally Posted by SimonSKL

To test if this design improves the tumbling of BP, I made something similar and use it in my NextReef MR1 reactor.



This is MR1 with no modification. Despite good movement in the front, there is very little movement in the back as water seems to flow in the route with least resistance.



This is with the DIY concave deflector replacing the original diffuser plate:


I think there is significant improvement to the movement of the BPs within the whole reactor with the modification.

You can read about my DIY concave deflector in this post:
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh...7#post18045207

I checked out your thread. That is absolutely money! What a great solution for anyone running pellets w/ a traditional diffuser plate!

[tmz]

Originally Posted by Oldude

My parameters are as follows:
ca-420
dkh-8
mag-1320
K- 390
sg-1.026
ph- 8.2 - 8.5 (swings up in the photoperiod)

The crazy thing is I've had these LPS corals for many years and they have been to hell & back without a problem. Why the bailout now?

I suspect the caulastrea and euphylia were acustomed to higher nitrate and phosphate and when it was quickly cut back they could not adjust and bailed out . Surface waters hold ,than .2ppm Nitrate with PO4 only .005ppm but deeper waters and lagooons can have 10x that or more. I had similar issues with these types of corals as nutrients dropped with carbon dosing. When I moved them to a higher nutrient tank they did better. Tracking your PO4 and NO3 before and during dosing and moving them down slowly is prudent. Generally, ime, euphylia and caulastrea will do ok with the lower nutrient levels( in my case PO4 around .04ppm and NO3 <1ppm ) but do not grow much and do better with NO3 at 5 to 20ppm and PO4 around .1ppm.

Alternatively, the polymers in the pellets may have broken down to monomers and these sugars could fuel pathogenic bacterial activity via oxygen depletion or upsetting the symbiont bactria of cetaina corals.