N/P reducing pellets (solid vodka dosing)

[Scej12]

Sj

[Dizzle63]

I have been running the pellets in a BRS dual reactor with a mag 5 on a 75 gallon tank. They are running in the second chamber with carbon in the first chamber. My nitrates were 25 and are now 2 or lower. Now, my LPS look amazing as do my zoanthids. My SPS look off though. They grow, but never color up. I am also running GFO in a Phosban 150. Are my SPS problems associated with the use of the GFO? My magnesium, calcium, and alkalinity are all consistant and at good levels (1400, 425, and 9 respectively). Does anyone know about the use of the pellets with regards to GFO?

[Scej12]

Originally Posted by Dizzle63

I have been running the pellets in a BRS dual reactor with a mag 5 on a 75 gallon tank. They are running in the second chamber with carbon in the first chamber. My nitrates were 25 and are now 2 or lower. Now, my LPS look amazing as do my zoanthids. My SPS look off though. They grow, but never color up. I am also running GFO in a Phosban 150. Are my SPS problems associated with the use of the GFO? My magnesium, calcium, and alkalinity are all consistant and at good levels (1400, 425, and 9 respectively). Does anyone know about the use of the pellets with regards to GFO?

Sorry Dizzle - I crafted out this long winded response to your question which included some other observations this morning but then to told my token had expired when I attempted to post it... needless to say I was unable to recover any of it... and it was a LOT!!!

Anyway to cut a long story short and while I muster up the patience to type it all again, assuming I can remember all of my random thoughts of this morning .

can you please include your pH and phosphate readings. Thanks.

BTW - the short answer to your query regarding the use of gfo is that is is often times encouraged. It will not adversely affect your corals as much as it could stall your biopellet process if you actually do achieve 0 phosphates; and still have nitrates. Both have to be present at certain ratios for the pellet system to work successfully... but then again it doesn't look as though you have a high nitrate problem at all. I don't believe your gfo is causing duress to your sps.... I'm more inclined to think that it is with some other balance of parameters.

Let us know what your pH is sitting at currently.

Regards,

Sheldon

[NyReefNoob]

how many of you have after levels all reach zero have pulled some of the pellets out or cut the amount in half ? reason i ask is because i have been chatting with a few other local reefers about some situations they have been having. i am about 3 months into them, i got the vertex uf-15 reactor and added 500 ml of vertex pellets, same day i took my gfo and carbon off line. my levels werent too bad to start with, now levels are all at zero, ok so with this i do feed 2 cubes a night and a little flake or pellet, i do have alot of fish but most are smaller fish. i only need to lightly clean glass once a week, my lps have been having there tenicles out during the day which is odd, and can come to 1 of 2 conclusions, they are starving out as i dont spot feed, or the bacteria from the pellets is keeping them fed. ive had no tissue regeneration or anything, sps are doing great other then started to pale a little so i started dosing AA. and this has helped bring colors back.
ok now to the question, do you think once all levels have reached zero that these are almost making the systems too sterile ? one of my friends has been using them around the same amount of time, does have a larger system but doesnt feed his fish alot. so my thoughts were that his tank is starving, he has been getting a little rtn on the bottom of his sps as well as another buddy who is using them also and doesnt like to feed his fish,
so now once levels are zero wouldnt you cut back to kinda of a maintainace amount of pellets ? basically like with vodka dosing, once levels zero out you cut amount of dosage down to a maintainance amount ?
also i have my flow very low in my reactor, just enough to keep pellets moving, one of the things i had thought about with a little higher flow arent you really breaking the bacteria off and it isnt really having enough time to partially consume the pellets ?

[TheFishMan65]

What I have read says that pellets are only eaten by the bacteria if Nand P is present. Also that the carbon is not released except by the decomposition. If this is true then you do not need t cut back. They do not do anything if you are at the zero level.

[daveonbass]

+1, what fishman said.

if there is no food then it wouldn't matter how many pellets you do/don't have. the carbon source will not get used...it will just sit in the reactor in pellet form till some of the remaining bacteria attempt to consume it while taking in N and P respectively to reduce all those parts involved (C, N, P).

no need to reduce the pellets.

[NyReefNoob]

i do understand that part of if there is no bacteria for them to be consumed, so basically once all levels are zero, they become in-effective ? but just like gravel if you aggitate it it will start to break up. so with the pellets tumbling and hitting each other it would still have some effect. also has anyone felt them after they have soaked for long period ? do they feel any softer ?
one of the thing's i had asked along time ago, is how does light play in effect to the pellets or bacteria, noticed one company came out with a colored reactor now.
have also seen where people are saying you need a media inside along with the pellets to give a more benificial growth surface for the denitrification, have any of you done this ?

[daveonbass]

in a nut shell...no. Once they reach "zero" they are still working, but they are simply maintaining the nutrient export. after all the fish keep pooping, and other wastes (food, etc.) are still entering the water...so they will continue to eat as much/all the N and P that is produced from the wastes. so No, they are not in-effective.

the fact that something breaks up when you agitate it should be proof that there is still bacteria on there that is Working to our favor...consuming the C:N:P in proper ratios.

I've had them soaking or in a reactor for almost a year...and they are not any softer...Both the original NP Biopellets and my newer SWC pellets.

My sump is completely unlit...so I can't properly comment on how light effects them. So far from what I've read in all these pages...it doesn't seem to have any large impact on the bacteria. which I assume would be the case since bacteria seem to grow just fine in all light conditions save for UV light...that's a no-no.

I do not use media. And my pellets have enough surface area to keep my tank N and P at 0ppm each. So I don't think it's needed. Also I WOULDN'T recommend it anyways since it seems that it would be MORE abrasive and actually grind down the pellets faster, and in turn NOW you would be releasing the carbon source into the water coloumn. Which the whole point is to keep the reactions taking place limited to the reactor.

hope that answers some of the questions.

[Scej12]

+1

+1

+1

+1

+1

Well said Dave.. agree on all fronts!

[TheFishMan65]

However, there has also been a suggestion in on of these threads to mix the pellets in the sand bed to get the extra surface for the bacteria to grow on. I believe that one experiment showed that fewer pellets are needed in this case. The disadvantage as I see it is that it is harder to remove the bacteria by skimming. Sorry I don't know what thread that was in.

[gary faulkner]

I do not use media

??????

[thebanker]

I'm guessing he means "no GFO" as in "I don't use chemical absorbtive media"?

[NyReefNoob]

by media i dont use gfo or carbon, my tank is crystal clea, nor do i use filter socks, i personally am not having issue's with the pellets, but from two friends that have been using them around the same amount of time i have been both are having the same issue with sps and lps. rtn from base, both of the guys arent new to the hobby and we have ran through everything we can think of, i personally think part of their problem is lack of amount they are feeeding the tanks and have gotten to almost a sterile situation. one has a 220g mixed reef and the other a custom 90g. more then sufficient skimmer, flow and lighting.
will say this in reguards to my tank though, i have a bourbanki colony that never exibited feeder tenicles out during light hours and since a month after pellets it always has them out. one thing i do and have before the pellets is between my baffles it is loaded with rubble rock and thinking this has been a benifit in giving a place for the bacteria to go and do it's work as well, might be wrong but been this way for over 1.5 years. i do every couple of months take a power head and blow it in and around the rubble to get debris out

[jarrett shark]

well here is my problem with bio pellets,


Ever since i been instlled bio pellets 5 months ago in plase of GFO and carbon my tank has been going down hill the past 1 month and dont have a cause but bio pellets to blame. My problem like most people is instruction on what happens when it kicks in, i always feed only every 2 days because i thought the key to sps was zero po4.i was wrong i should of feed more.
i am having big RTN on most of my sps colonies now and it keeps going everyday. My po4 keeps staying at zero after 1 week of heavy feeding. i never new my tank has been so clean and starving for these past 2 months. my lps is all open even when lights are on.

My skimmer works less and i cant keep my PH above 8.1 because i think the pellets are eating my oxygen levels also. SO this week i reduced my pellets from 1000ml to 500 ml and going to seee if i get any po4 or nitrate.

not saying that dont work just worked to good for me, now not every tank is the same and i just saying be real carefull of using them.

[Dizzle63]

My pH is routinely at 7.9, if not a little lower. My phosphates sit at 0.12 regularly. I have never been able to keep my tank at even 8.0 without dosing way too much buffer. All of my LPS and zoanthids look amazing, but I am having trouble with the color on the SPS. I just can't seem to get that right.

[Scej12]

Originally Posted by jarrett shark

well here is my problem with bio pellets,


Ever since i been instlled bio pellets 5 months ago in plase of GFO and carbon my tank has been going down hill the past 1 month and dont have a cause but bio pellets to blame. My problem like most people is instruction on what happens when it kicks in, i always feed only every 2 days because i thought the key to sps was zero po4.i was wrong i should of feed more.
i am having big RTN on most of my sps colonies now and it keeps going everyday. My po4 keeps staying at zero after 1 week of heavy feeding. i never new my tank has been so clean and starving for these past 2 months. my lps is all open even when lights are on.

My skimmer works less and i cant keep my PH above 8.1 because i think the pellets are eating my oxygen levels also. SO this week i reduced my pellets from 1000ml to 500 ml and going to seee if i get any po4 or nitrate.

not saying that dont work just worked to good for me, now not every tank is the same and i just saying be real carefull of using them.

Originally Posted by Dizzle63

My pH is routinely at 7.9, if not a little lower. My phosphates sit at 0.12 regularly. I have never been able to keep my tank at even 8.0 without dosing way too much buffer. All of my LPS and zoanthids look amazing, but I am having trouble with the color on the SPS. I just can't seem to get that right.

Ok - although there is no way for you to know this because I wound up losing my almost 1.5 page worth of typing I tried to post as an initial response to Dizzle's question; I think you both just validated the case I was trying to make.... so here goes another attempt (this time not using the quick reply facility - so hopefully my token doesn't expire causing me to loose all of my typing!!)

My thoughts are as follows:

• Ever since the dawn of Ultra Low Nutrient Systems (ULNS) given rise by this relatively new concept of "bacteria driven filtration" Zeo; Carbon dosing; etc... the discussion to determine an ideal carbonate hardness changed from the prescribed range of 8-12 dkh to a maximum limit of 9 dkh. Reason for this is that if your aquarium is nutrient limited in terms of phosphate/nitrate, then your zooxanthelae driven growth slows so much so that accelerated [coral] skeleton building (driven by lots of available CaCO3 i.e. dKH>9) will lead to burnt tips on your acro colonies... in other words, your acro skeleton structure will outgrow it's flesh;
  
  I recently had a discussion with a colleague which re-focused my understanding of the importance of pH in a reef environment in particular with regard to sps/lps. Natural sea water hovers at a pH of 8.2. If you think of a calcium reactor which uses CO2 to acidify and ultimately liberate Ca & CO3 ions from aragonite/coral media etc; you would quickly see that at a certain pH Ca dissolves from coral skeletons, but can further deduce that at some point, living coral cannot even uptake or fix Ca to their skeletons.
  
  In my particular prototype system (450g Reef fixer-upper), I embarked on a pretty extreme rehabilitation of a 6 year old aquarium that did not have the benefit of an adequate filtration nor circulation system until about 6-8 months ago. Nitrates were well over 200ppm; and phosphates were at about 3.5 or so... needless to say, this was the ideal system to test out the bio-pellet strategy.
  
  In this particular system, I'd inadvertently elevated the calcium to 540 ppm (before I actually measured it). In response I shut off the CaCO3 reactor's CO2 feed hoping that my recent addition of LPS; and newly growing coralline algae would use up the surplus Ca before anything got to stressed... well the calcium refused to drop and in fact continued to fluctuate between 490 & 520 for an additional two months! In the meantime, I couldn't quite confirm what exactly was causing my loss of crocea clams, and a number of lps including elegance, bubble, plate, and fungia corals all due to rapid tissue loss/polyp bailouts.
  
  It is known that one of the reasons that lps bail their polyps is because of insufficient Ca or at least Ca uptake. The skeleton is no longer adequately able to retain the fleshy polyps... I was certainly puzzled since at that same time this aquarium was plagued with extremely high Ca (didn't want to do a water-change just yet) even though the Ca reactor for all intents and purposes was turned off (CO2).
  
  In looking at the situation in terms of pH and dKH, I found that my pH had been sitting at around 7.83 - 7.89 according to my recently installed and calibrated pH monitor; and KH was sitting around 8-9 degrees. At first I was not sure what the best corrective measure would be since I usually rely on calcium reactors to control KH, but in this odd situation, I already had an over-abundance of Ca... so I invested in some Kent Marine Pro Buffer to address the low pH issue by raising the dKH to whatever it needed to be to elevate the system pH toward levels found in NSW. Over the last 2 weeks I've arrived at a dKH level of 12-13 (Pro buffer and returning the Ca reactor to service); pH is now consistently above 8.1 (usually hitting 8.25); and .... wait for it.... wait for it..... MY Ca HAS FINALLY DROPPED TO 400-420!!!
  
  In my opinion the above three points/observations can be combined to conclude this.... If your pH is below 8.0, your skeleton/calcium based corals will have great difficultly keeping; and will in all likelihood begin losing CaCO3 from their skeletal structure. This will inevitably lead to lps bailing polyps, and sps receding their tissue.
  
  I also believe that with an abundance of bacterial fauna, which can be expected with this latest strategy of solid form carbon dosing, there will be a related impact on the O2/CO2 dynamic within our closed systems; the bacteria will respire and therefore add further load to your aquarium's buffering capacity - which is a direct derivative of alkalinity: i.e. the higher your KH, the greater your pH buffering capacity.
  
  In my observations it would seem that the ULNS recommended maximum of 9 dKH cannot maintain pH at the ideal level of 8.2 in a system laden with O2 breathing/CO2 respiring bacteria. If I'm not mistaken, the entire impetus for this prescribed limitation of 9 dKH has to do with preventing the coral skeleton from out-growing it's flesh/polyps, then why can't we just focus on better nourishing the fleshy parts of the coral with amino acids and other types of heterotrophic feeding regiments (if it turns out that the bacterio-plankton made available by the pellets prove nutritionally limited)?

More and more I'm beginning to suspect that many of the problems being cited after the pellets have successfully achieved targeted nitrate/phosphate levels have to do with the effect this bacterial system has on pH balance within our aquariums. I believe this can and in all likelihood does significantly contribute to everything from hair algae (and cyano) explosions to stress and tissue recession on corals. At this point this is just a theory backed only by my own limited experience of one prototype tank; as well as my interpretation of some of y'all's posted finding/issues. Maybe in time this theory will be further validated or perhaps even defeated, but I think we should list all of our parameters along-side the issues experienced... as usual the problem is always a combination of individual but nonetheless obviously affective contributing parts.

It might in fact turn out that many of the problems might be addressable by setting a higher target dKH; or better aerating/degassing produced CO2 from our water columns so that pH can be maintained at proper levels, which would allow many of the other natural processes to take place... simply food for thought at this point.

Let me know if any of this makes any kind of sense, or if I'm completely off my rocker. Thanks for reading... if you in fact made it through all of it...

Regards,

Sheldon

[Dizzle63]

How is it possible for the tips to grow without live coral tissue to sequester the calcium and carbonate ions?

[Scej12]

Can't remember exactly where I read this but remember that only the tips were described to be burnt, which means that there is other tissue feeding the structure close by. I will have to back track, but I'm pretty sure this was cited during the initial wave of liquid (vodka) carbon dosing on one of the threads on this site I believe.

In the meantime please see below quoted from page 127 regarding what also may be happening to your sps (think all is informative, but the effects you are looking for is somewhere in the middle to last third)... re nourishment.

Regards,

Sheldon

Originally Posted by capn_hylinur

A friend and colleague passed this post along me. It adds some more perspective to some of the issues of using the pellets


"Just thought id dive on here folks and offer a mix of observations based on research with both medias.

This information is derIved from various sources ive worked with over some time now, some of whom are more than qualified in my opinion to offer reasoning behind the points raised.

Issues commonly encountered:

Excessive clouding of the aquarium and associated risks....(oxygen depletion causing stress in fish, Ph suppression, and bacterial overload of the corals mucus coating)

It appears in some cases that clouding can occur due to bacterial blooms within the main display which are caused by two common factors.

1. An excessive amount of media used initially in the presence of very high free nutrient levels commonly appears to trigger a bacterial bloom on the media that exceeds the skimmers capacity for removal. The excess then ends up being shunted through to the main display where it can (at high levels) use up excessive amounts of oxygen leading to stress in fish, with subsequent drops in Ph..

2. Excessive levels of water-born bacteria can (as well as acting as a food source) also adversely affect some corals that lack the ability to shed this buildup from their surfaces via the mucus coating. Sps corals are very well adapted to such conditions having a higher degree of mucus secreting ability comared to many soft corals. Under high light intensity it may well be the case that some soft corals become so heavily laden with this constant bombardment of bacteria sticking to their surfaces under cloudy conditions that it affects the corals ability to balance out gases produced during photosynthesis leading to bleaching.

Recommendation: The start up dose should be pulled back if you notice excessive clouding at any stage, by removing the media, retaining a smaller amount, and washing and rubbing the remainder under RO to shed and kill off any bacteria before storing it for use later. The higher the initial free nutrient load, the lower the startup dose should be, with approximately 1/2 the recommended minimum dose used in systems with No3 levels between 1-5ppm, and 1/4 of the minimum dose used in systems with No3 above that level. Technically, there is no 'minimum' start up dose beyond that needed to start a slow downward trend in free nutrient levels (if you want to start with 100ml/100gallons, so be it if your sitting at 50ppm N03). As those levels start to fall nearer to the baseline, the dosage can be increased bit by bit to spread the now limited bacterial populations ( nutrient limited) across the larger more affective surface area afforded by the increase in media. (why increase the dose as the levels rise?....well, ill get to that in a minute)

Equally the skimmer must come under the spotlight. The fundamentals of this system rest squarely on the shoulders of the skimmers capacity to remove the bacteria presented to it. If the skimmer is not up to the job (poor quality, poorly designed or simply poorly adjusted) it will have a knock on effect in terms of the ratio of bacteria removed compared to that allowed to pass through to the main system...The main aim is to 'remove' as much bacterial mulm as possible, leaving only traces to make it through to the system as coral food (a poor one at that compared to real zoo-plankton it must be said)...remember it is after all an 'assimilation and export' method not not a conversion method as in nitrification or de-nitrification (although some does occure)....If you are not convinced your skimmer is up to the task, consider an upgrade or place a filter sock on the outlet of the skimmer to catch surplus bacterial mulm. This must however be cleaned once every 7 days without fail to remove these bacteria which will die off after approximately 8 days after exiting the reactor and being deprived of the media as a food source. Once the bacteria die, they release what was previously bound back into solution and the whole process just goes round in a big circle with little if any effect on the free nutrient pool.

The recommended end dose:

As the nutrient pool starts to fall and get nearer natural levels (im not using the words ULNS here ) We are NOT trying to create a nutrient poor desert to the degree that zooxanthallae populations start to die back excessively leading to excessive paling in the corals...what we ARE trying to do, is make way for more food addition in an effort to get closer to the natural environment, where corals and fish can have a much higher degree of daily food availability via the natural pathways of prey capture without building up a surplus nutrient pool.

Corals are supremely adaptable animals because they have the ability to derive nutrients from differing sources and to differing degrees depending on the environment. In nearly all cases we effectively starve our corals in one primary area (that being prey capture) forcing the coral to take advantage of dissolved nutrients and light energy to make up for the deficit. If you take away or lower the background levels of dissolved nutrients to more natural levels you have to make up that deficit in the way of real food for the corals to capture and consume without which the coral lacks the energy and nutrients required to produce protective pigments, mucus coatings, and to fuel further growth. so the aim is to gradually increase feeding as the nutrient levels fall. The recommended surplus volume of media above that required to instigate the initial fall in levels is based on the volume required to offer suitable surface area for future populations that have to keep up with the increased food input and subsequent nutrient input after nitrification and to a degree new higher levels of Po4 input. This is where some medias are deffinately better than others....you cant beat surface area at the end of the day when it comes to a bacterial growth platform...the smaller the media, the more surface area available per liter of media used...

In short....as your free No3/Po4 levels start to fall, gradually increase your feeding so the corals are able to adapt to the shift in nutrient pathways...If you don't, your corals will suffer.....And don't be surprised at how much food you can end up putting in once the system has stabilised and your at your maximum dosage for the system volume. from personal experience the amount can far exceed other methods without the drawbacks of nutrient buildup, but you have to take your time and let the system adjust.

NB: In new systems or those that are already at natural trace levels of No3/Po4 there is no reason why you cant start with a higher or full dose, becouse any bacteria present will already be nutrient limited, so blooms are far less likely.

Time as an indicator of success:

Basically, if your seeing a fall from 50ppm No3 in just a couple of weeks to 5ppm or less its NOT a good thing in reality because your corals wont have time to adapt to the shift in nutrient pathways. What you really want to be looking at is a fall over several months to give both your corals 'and you' a Chance to shift the pathways over. you cannot hope to get a handle on how much to increase feeding by if your levels are falling like a stone because by the time they hit natural levels (sub 0.1ppm NO3 and sub 0.008ppm Po4) which is the point the bacterial populations will become nutrient limited to the degree full deprivation becomes virtually negligible. you wont have had time to gauge if your corals are getting enough food or if they are still falling into energy deprivation. So the main aim is to keep the process as a slow adjustment for both you and your corals.

Bleaching in soft corals and some LPS may also be linked to another factor:

Its been reported on many occasions that an increase in water clarity is encountered as the bacterial mulm acts as a flocculant, binding other material in the process and clayfying the water (not to be confused with carbon). This increase in clarity can cause stress in some soft corals which lack the ability that many SPS have to rapidly produce protective pigments in an effort to combat changes in photo saturation. It may well be the case that increased clarity has simply led to these corals becoming stressed via over saturation or increased UV penetration.

As for claims regarding possible contaminants I can verify that 'NONE' of the bio media brands on the market in the UK at present contain anything that can be of harm to livestock, be that SPS/LPS/or otherwise. There does however seem to be some situations where certain corals have reacted adversely, but there certainly isn't any 'trend' beyond those attributable to the fact that some corals in some situations may suffer stress if the tank conditions are altered drastically within too shorter time frame or adequate measures are not taken on the part of the keeper to make up for the shift in nutrient pathways leaving the coral weak and susceptible to infection or other factors as previously mentioned such as bacterial fouling. Some corals simply dont like being subjected to change which is a game we all play.

Po4 uptake the truth:

For the process to work effectively you need both nitrate and phosphate availability. If one or the other reaches natural levels, it then becomes the limiting factor for the 'whole' process. So its not surprising that some report Po4 or No3 sitting stubbornly in the absence of the other, in which case secondary measures are required, IE water changes in the case of an No3 pool, or Po4 removers in the case of a Po4 pool. In reality, Po4 addition/generation is far higher than NO3 generation in closed systems due to food input, so it will inevitably lead to an imbalance of availability, with No3 usually being the limiting factor, and a surplus Po4 pool to be taken care of. In essence don't remove your Po4 reactors, because it will still be required to take up that surplus input beyond that being assimilated with the available No3 pool...what this process will do is make your Po4 remover last allot longer though. (as the blurb says 'reduces' Po4 and No3')...nobody ever said it does it in perfect balance.


Hopefully this will answer a few questions, but if i can be of any further help then please feel free to ask and i'll offer what input i can when i have time.
__________________

Simon Garratt. o.c.r.d"

[flipit13]

i have a question. has anyone experienced cloudiness in there tank? i am running my 40 breeder, frag tank 30gal, and 30 gal sump. i used npx 500 in a tlf 150 reactor modified. i have an mj1200 with great tumbling. outlet from reactor goes to skimmer input.

any suggestions would be great

thank you
rick

[TheFishMan65]

Sounds like a bacteria bloom add air stones until it clears IMHO.

[flipit13]

fishman should i also replace my carbon to help

[Scej12]

Yes carbon would help. The cloudiness is a normal part of the process. You should expect a bacterial bloom within the first couple of days of using the pellets. This usually clears up within a day or two. The main concern is if you have high nitrates/phosphates and start with a large amount of pellets, you can have a bloom so large that the oxygen can be depleted in your system. hence the suggestion to use air stones.

As a side note: I heard that if you use the system without a skimmer the bacterial blooms ( which usually happen only initially) can repeat themselves.

SJ

[flipit13]

Originally Posted by Scej12

Yes carbon would help. The cloudiness is a normal part of the process. You should expect a bacterial bloom within the first couple of days of using the pellets. This usually clears up within a day or two. The main concern is if you have high nitrates/phosphates and start with a large amount of pellets, you can have a bloom so large that the oxygen can be depleted in your system. hence the suggestion to use air stones.

As a side note: I heard that if you use the system without a skimmer the bacterial blooms ( which usually happen only initially) can repeat themselves.

SJ

thank you scej12
this bloom took about 2 weeks to happen so i guess they are finally kicking in.
i added the 2 airstones and also turned the skimmer up alittle i notice my skimmate was a lot drier than usual. i only added about 1/4 of the amount of carbon as usual i wasnt sure so better less to be safe.

today a lot more clear. what i did notice today was what softies i have in the tank are closed and thinning out. and feeders are out on all my sps and lps and didnt feed yet. Also in my frag tank since it is bare black bottom i noticed white hairs like algae that was never there before.

what could the hairs be?

[TheFishMan65]

Probably bacteria strings from what i have read. Got pictures?

[Scej12]

I would agree - bacterial for sure. your lps can take a little time to adjust to the new biomass in the water. Allow the bloom some time to clear up and the corals to adjust.

SJ