Warner Marine Now Has A Pellet Product

[platax88]

Originally Posted by Stuart60611

IMO, no way to really know without first trying. I would give it a shot combined wth moderating feeding the best you can. Once you get your phosphate low, you can then try taking the GFO off line and see how things go. If phosphate remains in check, you could also then, if you want, increase feeding. If ineffective, then you may have to consider either leaving the GFO on line full time or other husbandry considerations. I think DJReef's suggestion of employing the use of macroalgae to assist in phosphate uptake could be a good one to try. Just note my experience (as well as others) with vodka and be on the look out for the macro showing signs it is dying. If it starts to look like it is withering away, pull it out b/c I think in that situation the macro is doing much more harm than good in terms of nutrient control.

Thanks, definately dont want to go the mcroalgea way... been there/done that. I rather run GFO if needed. I will kep the thread posted of my results once i am down in PH4.

[MedRed]

Is there any downside to using too many pellets?
I'm running a Next Reef SMR1 Reactor with 1000ml of EcoBak and a Mag Drive 3 Pump on a 60 Gallon tank.

[DarkSephiroth]

It is recommended every 500ml per 100gal of water. So 1000ml = 200gal, in this case you're using way too much. I'd take a bit more than half out before your coral started to die/not doing well.

[MedRed]

why would they start to die/not doing well? what's the downside to using extra pellets?

[poolkeeper1]

Personally I think it depends on your bioload as to having too much EB in your system. I ran 750ml on a 60gal tank that was heavily stocked with good results. And i currently use 1000ml on a 165gal total water volume with no problems. It's up to you as only you know your tank.
Bill

[MedRed]

I just want to know what the detriment would be. Can the pellets poison the water somehow if too much are used? Or would the bacteria living on them be to spread out to build up decent numbers to slough off? I'll reduce the amount if necessary. If it's not necessary, I'll keep it as is.

[jsdancer]

Originally Posted by Stuart60611

When you have nitrate, bacteria are able to outcompete both macroalgae and microalgae for it. Likewise, macroalgae is able to outcompete microalgae for nitrate. You are right that your system needs some nitrate in order for the bacteria to be able to also uptake phosphate. The bacteria eat nitrate, and for about 10 or so units of nitrate that the bacteria eat the bacteria also eat 1 unit of phosphate. This is the redfield ratio concept. Without nitrate, the bacteria cannot consume phosphate on its own. The way we export both the nitrate and phosphate from our systems with the pellets is the bacteria eat nitrate and phosphate and then get skimmed out of the system together with all the nitrate and phosphate they consume. Sandbeds really have no general cause for systems to have nitrate and phosphate imbalances. What typically causes the imbalance is the system gets very low on nitrate so that the bacteria can no longer consume phosphate. The hobbyiest continues to feed the tank (food being the largest source for phosphate), and the tank begins to accumulate phosphate. The bacteria are unable to uptake the phosphate accumulated because the system is void of nitrate.

Thanks stuart, There is so much at play here with our tanks. What is great though is that we as hobbyists can share what are experiences are. In the intrim we help each other out.

I know for me at least I understand a whole other process, other than the initial cycling of a new tank, that happens in our tanks.

[DJREEF]

Originally Posted by Stuart60611

IMO, no way to really know without first trying. I would give it a shot combined wth moderating feeding the best you can. Once you get your phosphate low, you can then try taking the GFO off line and see how things go. If phosphate remains in check, you could also then, if you want, increase feeding. If ineffective, then you may have to consider either leaving the GFO on line full time or other husbandry considerations. I think DJReef's suggestion of employing the use of macroalgae to assist in phosphate uptake could be a good one to try. Just note my experience (as well as others) with vodka and be on the look out for the macro showing signs it is dying. If it starts to look like it is withering away, pull it out b/c I think in that situation the macro is doing much more harm than good in terms of nutrient control.

I would add that I think that you have a high and in no way "mid" bioload. With that in mind combined with large amount of food you have to feed that crew (nori for the tangs is also very high in phosphate), I would not be suprised unfortunately if you will not always be struggling to find ways to keep your phosphate in check.

Exactly. Don't employ husbandry based on this or that theory. Go with what actually works for your system. Get things where they need to be then fine tune on the basis of need. I've seen too many systems go down as a result of the caretaker's adherence to some specified dogma. Understand that dynamic systems are in a simple way 'dynamic', which means they are ever changing. Vigilance is necessary in a "read and react" type scenario, which may or may not require that the caretaker step outside his philosophic comfort zone from time to time in order to make adjustments for the good of the system.

DJ

[DJREEF]

Originally Posted by jsdancer

What is great though is that we as hobbyists can share what are experiences are. In the intrim we help each other out.

...and this, singularly, is the primary reason why this hobby has traveled the worm hole in the past ten years vs all of the other years combined.

DJ

[tmz]

Originally Posted by jsdancer

So far week 7 and things are a little bit different.
Nitrates are at 0.08 salifert kit
Phosphates are at 0.00 salifert kit as well


All my other parameters are fine too!
This is what has been a little diffferent.
I am noticing that my glass has gone back to being cleaned about twice per week instead of once per week like back in week 2 and 3.
Any one notice the same?

I am really enjoying the extent of the conversation that has taken a turn on here for this forum. This is definitely one of the reasons why I joined the forums. To learn!

I am trying to understand the theory, so bare with me guys. From what it looks like it is better to have a little nitrate and no phosphate rather than no nitrates but some phosphates. Having some nitrates allows the bacteria to go first in line of "eating", followed by the macro then micro algaes, right?
Are the bacteria in the pellets also up taking the phosphates? Is the fact that we are aggressively skimming our water and doing water changes allowing the phosphates to drop?

What about those of us who have some form of sand beds. Are the guys who don't have sand beds having the ratios off balance?

Living things consume organic carbon(C),.phosphorous(P) and nitrogen(N) as food. Autotrophic (photosynthetic organisms) produce much of the inorganic carbon (sugar) they need.Some organisms like heterotrophic(non photosynthetic) bacteria rely on organic carbon .They also respire the O from NO3 freeing the N to form N2 gas when living in anaerobic conditions.

The Redfield ratio circa 1934, is a measure of the C:N:P ratio in phytoplankton(106 parts C :16N;1P). Different organisms have different ratios but generally the Redfield ratio gives perspective on the relative amounts of CNP in marine organisms. Significantly more C than N and N than P.

Since photosynthetic organisms add C ,why is it necessary to add C via an organic carbon source to a reef tank with macro algae refugia and corals?

Surface ocean water contains; 0.7 to 1.1ppm DOC( dissolved organic carbon),about 0.2ppm NO3 and a scant 0.005ppm PO4. Reefs thrive at these levels.

As hobbyists we don't have a practical way to measure DOC but it is a nutrient with benefit and downside just like the other two. Organic carbon buildup does harm corals for example , perhaps due to effects on the coral's symbiont bacteria ,so exporting it is important.Tanks often have high PO4 and NO3 from the concentrated bio load prevalent in reef tanks and the associated waste decomposition. We know nuisance algae and cyanobacteria benefit from these.

The hypothesis regarding organic carbon dosing(carbohydrates, sugars, ethanol, acetic acid, etc) relies on the premise that more organic C will encourage more bacterial growth in the4 presence of N and P.The bacteria will consume the C and the N and P with it as well as respiring some NO3 thus limiting and reducing NO3 and PO4 by rendering or keeping N and P in organic forms( or nitrogen gas bubbles) exportable by skimming , granulated activated carbon ,purigen and other methods that remove organic materials.

While a nitrogen deficiency limiting to bacterial growth is possible with aggressive carbon dosing in an unfed tank, it is unlikely in most applications and can be remedied with a little extra food or amino acid dosing.

PO4 species of phosphate can be readily exported in the inorganic form via binders such as gfo without upping the nitrate and organic carbon to potentially harmful levels. So many use gfo or other methods along side organic carbon dosing to keep PO4 very low. Micro algae is limited by PO4 levels <0.03ppm.

Surface area for benthic bacteria to colonize such as found in sand beds can play a role in favoring anaerobic disgestion and NO3 consumption for respiration. Sand beds,particularly deep ones, carry a risk of organic carbon buildup in any anoxic areas in the bed. Organic carbon in an anoxic area favors sufate(SO4) reducing bacteria which produce toxic hydrogen sulfide as a by product of their activity .

Pellets are touted to rely on localized digestion on the pellets thereby minimizing the risks of dissolved organic carbon buildup in the water or substrate as compared to other methods of carbon dosing(vodka, vinegar ,sugar ,etc.) . However, the bacterial blooms etc . experienced by many using pellets may indicate otherwise . The pellets rely on carbohydrates which turn to monomers( sugars) which may cause difficulties if they get into the water column. So far users are doing well with them though.

[Stuart60611]

Originally Posted by tmz

Living things consume organic carbon(C),.phosphorous(P) and nitrogen(N) as food. Autotrophic (photosynthetic organisms) produce much of the inorganic carbon (sugar) they need.Some organisms like heterotrophic(non photosynthetic) bacteria rely on organic carbon .They also respire the O from NO3 freeing the N to form N2 gas when living in anaerobic conditions.

The Redfield ratio circa 1934, is a measure of the C:N:P ratio in phytoplankton(106 parts C :16N;1P). Different organisms have different ratios but generally the Redfield ratio gives perspective on the relative amounts of CNP in marine organisms. Significantly more C than N and N than P.

Since photosynthetic organisms add C ,why is it necessary to add C via an organic carbon source to a reef tank with macro algae refugia and corals?

Surface ocean water contains; 0.7 to 1.1ppm DOC( dissolved organic carbon),about 0.2ppm NO3 and a scant 0.005ppm PO4. Reefs thrive at these levels.

As hobbyists we don't have a practical way to measure DOC but it is a nutrient with benefit and downside just like the other two. Organic carbon buildup does harm corals for example , perhaps due to effects on the coral's symbiont bacteria ,so exporting it is important.Tanks often have high PO4 and NO3 from the concentrated bio load prevalent in reef tanks and the associated waste decomposition. We know nuisance algae and cyanobacteria benefit from these.

The hypothesis regarding organic carbon dosing(carbohydrates, sugars, ethanol, acetic acid, etc) relies on the premise that more organic C will encourage more bacterial growth in the4 presence of N and P.The bacteria will consume the C and the N and P with it as well as respiring some NO3 thus limiting and reducing NO3 and PO4 by rendering or keeping N and P in organic forms( or nitrogen gas bubbles) exportable by skimming , granulated activated carbon ,purigen and other methods that remove organic materials.

While a nitrogen deficiency limiting to bacterial growth is possible with aggressive carbon dosing in an unfed tank, it is unlikely in most applications and can be remedied with a little extra food or amino acid dosing.

PO4 species of phosphate can be readily exported in the inorganic form via binders such as gfo without upping the nitrate and organic carbon to potentially harmful levels. So many use gfo or other methods along side organic carbon dosing to keep PO4 very low. Micro algae is limited by PO4 levels <0.03ppm.

Surface area for benthic bacteria to colonize such as found in sand beds can play a role in favoring anaerobic disgestion and NO3 consumption for respiration. Sand beds,particularly deep ones, carry a risk of organic carbon buildup in any anoxic areas in the bed. Organic carbon in an anoxic area favors sufate(SO4) reducing bacteria which produce toxic hydrogen sulfide as a by product of their activity .

Pellets are touted to rely on localized digestion on the pellets thereby minimizing the risks of dissolved organic carbon buildup in the water or substrate as compared to other methods of carbon dosing(vodka, vinegar ,sugar ,etc.) . However, the bacterial blooms etc . experienced by many using pellets may indicate otherwise . The pellets rely on carbohydrates which turn to monomers( sugars) which may cause difficulties if they get into the water column. So far users are doing well with them though.

Now, that it is a much better scientific explanation than I was able to provide.

TMZ:

What are your thoughts on platax88's situation. He is using ecobak and has nitrate of merely 1ppm. He was before using GFO to bind his inorganic phosphate which he was able to keep in check with the GFO. He has now taken his GFO off-line, and his phosphate is creeping back up. Obviously, he can put his GFO back on line to, once again, bind the inorganic phosphate. What I am curious about is what your thoughts would be on dosing nitrate whether through food, amino acids, or other ways so as to allow more bacterial uptake of the phosphate. I understand that you do not want to get to dangerous levels of nitrate, but in his situation he at only 1ppm is nowhere near any dangerous level of nitrate. Can this work so that dosing nitrate in a suitable form could increase the bacteria's uptake of phosphate so that both the nitrate remains low and the bacteria are able to uptake the residual phosphate? The goal here would be to reach a balance so that there was ample nitrate in the system to allow the bacteria to deal with any phosphate without the continued use of GFO.

[Zedar]

Stuart60611

That is exactly what i do. Its worked for me.

Don't forget good husbandry. Blowing the rocks off and removing as much detritus as possible is a recipe for success.

[platax88]

Hi guys ... after a few days run a very small amount of GFO, my PH4 levels have dropped to .06 and NOW i am seeing the bacteria "action" return. The pellets have started to gum up again!

The bad news is that this swing from low to high and back to low PH4 has caused some STN on two colonies (milie and birdsnest) and a purple haze monti. All other sps (which are many) seem unaffected. All params stayed consistent during this episode. I think now that PH4 is back in check the necrosis will stop.

This thread and experience has really helped me understand the concept of the Redfield ratio and bacteria as a whole a bit better. Big thanks to Stuart and everyone else.

[platax88]

Originally Posted by Stuart60611

Now, that it is a much better scientific explanation than I was able to provide.

TMZ:

What are your thoughts on platax88's situation. He is using ecobak and has nitrate of merely 1ppm. He was before using GFO to bind his inorganic phosphate which he was able to keep in check with the GFO. He has now taken his GFO off-line, and his phosphate is creeping back up. Obviously, he can put his GFO back on line to, once again, bind the inorganic phosphate. What I am curious about is what your thoughts would be on dosing nitrate whether through food, amino acids, or other ways so as to allow more bacterial uptake of the phosphate. I understand that you do not want to get to dangerous levels of nitrate, but in his situation he at only 1ppm is nowhere near any dangerous level of nitrate. Can this work so that dosing nitrate in a suitable form could increase the bacteria's uptake of phosphate so that both the nitrate remains low and the bacteria are able to uptake the residual phosphate? The goal here would be to reach a balance so that there was ample nitrate in the system to allow the bacteria to deal with any phosphate without the continued use of GFO.

Yeah! how sweet would it be to determine how much NO3 is needed to maintain PH4 at .03 ... we can then use NO3 to target ideal numbers

[DarkSephiroth]

Originally Posted by MedRed

I just want to know what the detriment would be. Can the pellets poison the water somehow if too much are used? Or would the bacteria living on them be to spread out to build up decent numbers to slough off? I'll reduce the amount if necessary. If it's not necessary, I'll keep it as is.

Im not really an expert on this but i was reading on clay-boa and someone said that they added too much EB Pellets and it stripped out all his nutrients, thus starving his corals

[DJREEF]

Originally Posted by platax88

Yeah! how sweet would it be to determine how much NO3 is needed to maintain PH4 at .03 ... we can then use NO3 to target ideal numbers

Unfortunately, I'm afraid that's probably going to vary from system to system, and probably again within the same system over time. It'd be fun to imagine some magical ratio that works for all systems at all times, though. Like a great big EASY button. Alas, only on TV .

DJ

[Stuart60611]

Originally Posted by DJREEF

Unfortunately, I'm afraid that's probably going to vary from system to system, and probably again within the same system over time. It'd be fun to imagine some magical ratio that works for all systems at all times, though. Like a great big EASY button. Alas, only on TV .

DJ

Agree, that it will vary from system to system and even vary in a given system over time. However, with regular testing, the idea would be to make periodic ajdustments when necessary and taylor the nitrate dosing accordingly. Not much different than one has to do with vodka.

[DJREEF]

Originally Posted by Stuart60611

Agree, that it will vary from system to system and even vary in a given system over time. However, with regular testing, the idea would be to make periodic ajdustments when necessary and taylor the nitrate dosing accordingly. Not much different than one has to do with vodka.

Yea, that'd be the only way, unfortunately. Fiddling with it enough might eventually give you enough info to automate the process with dosers and controllers, but that'd be about as far as you could safely take it from a convenience standpoint. Even then you'd still be a slave to the test kit.

DJ

[Stuart60611]

Originally Posted by DJREEF

Yea, that'd be the only way, unfortunately. Fiddling with it enough might eventually give you enough info to automate the process with dosers and controllers, but that'd be about as far as you could safely take it from a convenience standpoint. Even then you'd still be a slave to the test kit.

DJ

Ya, but for many, I think being a slave to one's test kit is far preferable to being a slave to GFO in that it is expensive and a pain in the you know what to change out.

[DJREEF]

Originally Posted by Stuart60611

Ya, but for many, I think being a slave to one's test kit is far preferable to being a slave to GFO in that it is expensive and a pain in the you know what to change out.

No doubt. They should change the name of GFO to PIA.

DJ

[platax88]

Hey guys ... in your opinion, do you think this shift down/up/down of PH4 which I experienced could have caused my necrosis issues? I have read some posts about people blaming the pellets for tissue loss

[DJREEF]

Originally Posted by platax88

Hey guys ... in your opinion, do you think this shift down/up/down of PH4 which I experienced could have caused my necrosis issues? I have read some posts about people blaming the pellets for tissue loss

I've heard where fluctuations in P have caused problems with SPS.

DJ

[jsdancer]

First of all TMZ thank you for the complete and through explaination!

OK Can I add this then? This has happened to me now on several occasions after adding the EB pellets.
I check the skimmer and everything is running fine. I keep my skimming more on the wet side. Top off water is added and then a few hours later I find that the skimmer is completely over flowing uncontrollably.

Would the gunk completely pollute the water to the point that sps would start to rtn?
The last time this happened I tested the water a few hours later and found no apparent change in levels, but did find that the corals that were purchased last seemed to surfer the rtn.
Any thoughts on the correlation?

[thi7b]

I been running the ecobak for a month and still have not seen any improvement on the phosphate. I test it w/ a phosmeter and reading reading is higher everytime. Today it tested @ .11 two weeks ago it was .08. Any thought on how to get it down. I trying this out just to see if I can get away w/ using GFO. The skimmate has been darker. I test for nitrate and got 0 on the Salifert test kit. I'm doing water change every 2 wks. and the tank is BB. I have brown fuzzy algae on the starboard that looks so ugly. Any thoughts why I should do.

[platax88]

Originally Posted by thi7b

I been running the ecobak for a month and still have not seen any improvement on the phosphate. I test it w/ a phosmeter and reading reading is higher everytime. Today it tested @ .11 two weeks ago it was .08. Any thought on how to get it down. I trying this out just to see if I can get away w/ using GFO. The skimmate has been darker. I test for nitrate and got 0 on the Salifert test kit. I'm doing water change every 2 wks. and the tank is BB. I have brown fuzzy algae on the starboard that looks so ugly. Any thoughts why I should do.

Seems to me like you are having the same issue I am/was ... without nitrate bacteria CANNOT consume phosphate, grow and multiply. Therefore by feeding, you are adding phosphates that are not being consumed. In other words you are off-balance with the redfield ratio we have been discussing.

I would bring GFO back inline and to get the PH4 down... SLOWLY. Once you have both nitrate and phosphates down to 0 you can consider that a starting point for the bacteria and remove your GFO, but make sure to monitor what happens thereafter.