N/P reducing pellets (solid vodka dosing)

[frank40]

I have been using the BP for 2 weeks now, I have 2 ltrs in a Geo 420 reactor being fed by a "T" in my return line. I am also running Rowa. My initial startup readings were: Phos .02(Hanna) and trates .2(salifert). After 1 week my trates dropped to 0 phos remained at .02, i then proceeded to remove all the algae in my fuge.
On the second week trates still at 0 but phos dropped to .01 I am taking the GFO offline to see if the BP will handle my tank on its own.

[Bzar]

Interesting situation here. I've been using BP for about 3 months now. They are in a BRS reactor fed by a 200 gph rio powerhead. for the first couple months they were tumbling in the reactor, and I was rocking 0 nitrates. Three weeks ago I noticed the BP's stopped tumbling. I thought it was just mulm buildup and so I took them out and mixed them around, would often shake up the reactor and stuff trying to get them tumbling again. There was flow going through, but didn't seem as much as before.

Then the other day I noticed I had a lot more pods then usual and thought to check my nitrates....sure enough reading was 5!!! so I took the reactor offline again and found some pellets stuck in the outlet hindering the flow, causing the lack of tumble, etc. So I'm hoping that with the reactor working right the nitrates will come down again. Moral of the story seems to be keep good flow on the pellets. I've since modded the reactor with the needle point mesh from walmart to ensure no more stuck pellets, and I'll also be getting a more powerful pump for added flow.

[tatuvaaj]

Bzar,

I have couple of times "cleaned" the pellets by mixing them around like you did and every time nitrate concentration has increased (temporarily).

I have tried BPs bot in high flow "fluidizing" setup and in a lower, more steady flow. If anything, the low flow setup has been more efficient in reducing NO3. Maybe denitrification is enhanced in lower flow setup (thick biofilm) versus higher rate of biomass generation in a fluidizing setup (constant POC availability)?

[HighlandReefer]

If the low flow creates thicker biofilms, then I would agree that this would be more conducive to the anaerobic bacteria, since thicker biofilms contain more anaerobic bacteria. Some research indicates that biofilms larger than 300 microns is the size where flow does not effect the anaerobics further.

[thejuggernaut]

Well would it be better to keep them at low flow then several times a week turn the flow up to turn them and clean them off?

[Bzar]

Hmmm interesting. All I know is that when my 200gph was reduced due to the blockage in the reactor, and the tumbling totally stopped, my nitrates went up. I never had a real violent tumble with 200gph through that reactor when there was no blockage...at its best there was a gentle movement. Curious, are we now saying that...

1) no movement of pellets = inefficient
2) too much movement of pellets = inefficient
3) gentle movement with constant flow = best

might be, might be. I'll test no3 again in a few days to see if the returned gentle tumble I usually have creates a reduction in my level 5 nitrates.

Side note: with the increase in NO3 I have a lot more pods and the corals have better color, and much increased polyp extention...??

[tatuvaaj]

Originally Posted by thejuggernaut

Well would it be better to keep them at low flow then several times a week turn the flow up to turn them and clean them off?

I'm not sure if it is any better but it probably wouldn't hurt either as long as you don't clean them too well

That's actually what I did several months: I manually stirred the pellets 3 or 4 times a week. Worked great and some of my invertebrates really loved the larger bacterial aggregates!

The biggest problem with low flow IMHO is that as the bacterial biomass builds up inside the filter it becomes more and more efficient mechanical filter, trapping stuff that would probably be best to export through skimmer (or feed animals).

[HighlandReefer]

I would assume that the reactor can be run to produce more aerobic bacteria (faster flow), where bacteria would be removed by skimming or the reactor could be run to produce more anaerobic bacteria, which you would have to physically removed bacteria to export (slow flow). Of course it could also be run as a combination of both (perhaps a medium flow). Personally, I see a lot of possibilities as to which method would reduce nitrate the best and a lot may bear on which species of bacteria are present.

[HighlandReefer]

One other possibility that comes to mind would be if you attached another chamber containing old GAC after the N/P pellet reactor. This may allow more harborage for anaerobic bacterial biofilms. Perhaps use a straight through the top flow to prevent blockage of the water. Cleaning this chamber would not need to be done as frequently. The flow through the N/P reactor would be speeded up in this case.

[kaskiles]

I would run the reactor normally at flow just under the point where the top surface of the pellets were bouncing. Then once per night, open the ball valve enough to make all of them jump up and jump around (but not blow out the reactor), maybe 1 minute or less bouncing. Then adjust back down to normal flow.

This would be more like the cleaning the zeovit reactors, let the bacteria work on the surface, then purge it. Some systems might respond to one purge per day, other less, other more.

[DJREEF]

Originally Posted by kaskiles

I would run the reactor normally at flow just under the point where the top surface of the pellets were bouncing. Then once per night, open the ball valve enough to make all of them jump up and jump around (but not blow out the reactor), maybe 1 minute or less bouncing. Then adjust back down to normal flow.

This would be more like the cleaning the zeovit reactors, let the bacteria work on the surface, then purge it. Some systems might respond to one purge per day, other less, other more.

I'm trying to figure out how all of this is easier than LOC dosing. Seems that monkeying around with the equipment takes much longer than dumping vodka in.

DJ

[tatuvaaj]

Originally Posted by DJREEF

I'm trying to figure out how all of this is easier than LOC dosing. Seems that monkeying around with the equipment takes much longer than dumping vodka in.

No need to "monkey around", just place them in good water flow, it's all that is needed.

I personally don't think there's much to achieve with more complicated setup.

[stevedola]

setting up 500ml to work with my fathers 90g softy tank which has HA problems. I had looked into dosing wodka to help but he just isnt that technical when it comes to the regiment required for the system. This NP biopellets seem pretty set it and forget it. Ill post pics when I get a chance.

[Bzar]

It's been 1 day since I fixed my reactors flow problem. I now have my original gentle tumble of pellets and better flow without the rogue pellets blocking the outlet. The blockage seemed to cut my flow through the reactor down by about half.

So I tested my water this morning out of curiosity to see if there's been any results. I wasn't expecting any change in 1 day but to my surprise my nitrates are back to 0 from 5

Looks like I wont need a stronger pump afterall. Just need to make sure I have my reactor working properly which can be determined by seeing if the pellets are slightly dancing around.....easy enough.

100 gal system, 700ish ml's of biopellets, BRS reactor modded with needle point mesh instead of sponges, 200 gph rio 600 powerhead.

DJ: IMO it's easier. With this system there's no over dosing, under dosing, guessing if you're using the right amounts, constant testing, bacterial film, etc etc. The potential problems associated with LOC atm are much more severe than the potential problems of BP's imo. Time will tell as the product becomes more market tested. BP's are relatively maintenence free as long as the equipment is setup and working properly (as I've just prooven the hard way....as always). For me this system is more condusive to vacations or general laziness A house sitter just needs to look at the reactor to see a gentle tumble; no measuring, or estimating involved. I don't trust dosing pumps either...that's just me. Most I have to do really is make sure the pellets are tumbling gently, and maybe flush/shake the reactor on occasion.

It took three weeks ("general laziness") of a blocked reactor with it's efficiency reduced by roughly half to cause an affect to my water quality, and it was minor at worst, and actually benneficial at best (more pods, and corals seem to like the little dirtier water....but so might algae over time sooo it's back to 0)

I estimated my cost for my first year of BP in this size system will be roughly $140 (reactor, powerhead, mod material, and BP's)
Second year will be roughly $60, and every year after the same unless I find I need more BP's then I'd have to get a second reactor, etc. in the long run, $60 a year for a relatively maintenence and guess free ULNS seems ok to me. But only time will tell if it's truly worth it.

[DJREEF]

"I don't trust dosing pumps either...that's just me."

I'm with you on that. I have yet to meet an "automated" system I can live with.

DJ

[Bzar]

Well almost every nutrient exporting system is automated to some degree, and some that aren't can be with some innovation. Refugiems, RDSB, Cryptic Fuges, Zeo, Carbon Dosing, Sulfur, Skimmers, etc. all have a degree of trust in something that could go wrong. Even with manual liquid carbon dosing one must rely on good skimming to remove the bacteria.

Large manual water changes is really the only pure manual system of nutrient exportation.

So it's a matter of making a choice which system one can trust and is most effective for ones style, behavior, space, budget, etc to keep a systems nutrients low. I know some reefers that have no nutrient exporting methods (not recommended). For me even though this BP system is fairly automated the potential BIG dangers just aren't there. Sticking with the recommendations of the product can't hurt the system. Worse that can happen is that a reactor malfunctions or stops working which can be easily corrected and doesn't kill the system in a short period of time before corrections can be made. I can even put the pellets in a container under the overflow inlet if the reactor totally craps out.

Liquid carbon dosing has the potential of overdosing with automation and/or manual dosing; equipment malfuntion (me), accidents (sooo me), house and tank sitters, people in parties that would think it's funny to feed the tank more booze, measuring wrong over periods of time (also sooo me), etc. Overdosing > under dosing, in that it can kill things very very very fast if it happens....and knowing my track record of bad luck that's a risk I'm not willing to take, and worth the little bit extra $$ for the pellet system. If it wasn't pellets I would be considering sulfer, or zeo......or begging the wife for enough room for a good size refugium/RDSB

[HTSL]

Hi from over the pond. Been following this thread and a few of us over here are trialling the pellets, however there seem to be a few issues with skimmer performance.

What we have noticed is that there seems to be two types of pellets about. The earlier ones contain the rounded shaped pellets whereas the later ones contain additional square edged pellets which sink to the bottom after fluidising.

I for one, and a couple others using the latter type have completley lost all skimmer performance with only a fizzing action i.e. no foaming.

Anyone else experienced this?

Regards

[coffeenut]

Originally Posted by HTSL

Hi from over the pond. Been following this thread and a few of us over here are trialling the pellets, however there seem to be a few issues with skimmer performance.

What we have noticed is that there seems to be two types of pellets about. The earlier ones contain the rounded shaped pellets whereas the later ones contain additional square edged pellets which sink to the bottom after fluidising.

I for one, and a couple others using the latter type have completley lost all skimmer performance with only a fizzing action i.e. no foaming.

Anyone else experienced this?

Regards

\

MY skimmer (ASM G5 (with extra sedra9000 doing recirc, and a gate valve mod)) is pulling 3x the crap it used to pull, i empty the LARGE cup every couple days now instead of 1x per week.. been running pellets for 1.5 months now.

[sgbett]

Its been a couple of weeks since I started and I have noticed skimmer has changed slightly, I have very little head of bubbles (say 1/2inch) where before I had probably 1-2" head.

500ml fluidised pellets MJ1200 driving. 280l total system volume. Virtually no N&P to start with (1ppm N and 0.008P), but a tank full of micro/macro algeas of all types that were likely the consumers.

MCE300 Skimmer which was pulling out fairly good amount of brownish soup, and getting plenty of thick brown sludge build up.

Since I last cleaned it though (about 3 days ago) I have noticed a real drop in the amount of build up, and having had a quick look at the skimmate I am getting a very dark black liquid. More like instant coffee.

System has been up about six months about 8-10" of fish. Mixed reef, very small corals not grown out at all. GFO in sump, refugium with DSB reverse let with handfuls of algea from main tank.

It might be imagination but it also looks like the algae from the main tank has slowed down/stopped. Maybe receding but not sure yet.

I feed heavily 3-4 times day. 2 tpyes of flake, pe mysis, cyclop eze and occasional other bits a peices, prawn, cockle etc

[tatuvaaj]

Originally Posted by HTSL

I for one, and a couple others using the latter type have completley lost all skimmer performance with only a fizzing action i.e. no foaming.

I've noticed reduced skimmer performance for a day or so after adding new pellets but it is only temporary and doesn't completely stop skimming.

The material has changed after introduction/testing but as far as I know they only reduced the amount of filler (CaCO3) in the pellets.

[thejuggernaut]

Well I should get half a liter in tomorrow. Im going to run as much of it as I can in a TLF reactor, until I can get one of the new next reef reactors designed to run the pellets, at that point I'll up the levels to 1 liter of pellets. My tank is a 120 gallon with a 40 breeder sump and a I-tech 200 skimmer. There is alot of hair algae in my tank and am going to see what these pellets alone will do to combat it. Ill report back in a few weeks when it has had time to take effect.

[Bzar]

Juggernaut: be interesting to see how this works for you...yes, please keep us updated. I used vodka to get rid of HA after the cycle....curious to see how this works for more people.

[euromomtx]

Originally Posted by tatuvaaj

I've noticed reduced skimmer performance for a day or so after adding new pellets but it is only temporary and doesn't completely stop skimming.

The material has changed after introduction/testing but as far as I know they only reduced the amount of filler (CaCO3) in the pellets.

I didn't pay attention to the amount of skimmate right after adding the pellets but I'd say now that they've been in there for a month I would say the skimmate is more and also stinkier.

[ari5736]

Is there any consensus on how many ml I would need for a heavily fed 125g display, 20g sump, and 20g fuge, less rocks for a total h2o volume back to about 125g. I would like to keep them in a filter bag where water enters sump.

[thejuggernaut]

I think they are saying minimum 500 ml per 100 gallons of water....I plan on using 1000 ml (1 liter) in my 120. The deal is you cant over dose these things and after the initial cost there isn't any down sides.