N/P reducing pellets (solid vodka dosing)

[tntneon]

Originally Posted by capn_hylinur

... method is applicable to my case and might have a negative impact on the filtration system I have?
Do the pellets make that much difference in the growth and coloration of corals to merit its use?...

Hi capnhilinur ,

Nice to hear you here.

-At some time (in the first 1 or 2 month's) i withnessed some decreasse in Chaeto growth /becomming more light green and more brittle .
But this was with an 9 watt bulb over the fuge ,
When i swapped it to an 26 watt PC 6500 °K , like the ones you use (i think , from the good , the bad and the ugly thread ... ) , the Chaeto was growing fast again with an dark green color .
Chaeto was light limmited in my case as it seems.

-As for coloration , my corals are very happy , much PE , no GHA anymore , so for me it works .
But it seems that it isn't always the case , as you already have read probably.
The reasons why are still unknown for the moment...

greetingzz tntneon

[mm.reefs]

Originally Posted by bluereefs

I was in similar situation, nitrates skyhigh phosphate 0 (probably more because I use Salifert test but he shows 0) I could not get bp to work in fluid reactor (everything was OK with flow, tumbling...) but when I switch to diy reactor using same bio pellets I get bacterial bloom next day and nitrates drop to 0,2 mg/lit. So I dont think phosphates play the role why bp do not wont to work. And I duplicate this scenario in all of my 3 aquariums, if bp do not wont to work in aquarium with limited phosphates I will not get bacterial bloom when I switch reactor.

Second, if I remember corectly bacteria can use organic phosphate not detectable by the test and they are sure present in aquariums with high nitrates and heavy feeding.

I supposed you guys tested phosphate with a photometer, otherwise you can't affirm you have cero phosphate. Titration test kits are no good for low range readings.

[bluereefs]

Originally Posted by mm.reefs

I supposed you guys tested phosphate with a photometer, otherwise you can't affirm you have cero phosphate. Titration test kits are no good for low range readings.

Yes I know, but the point is that phosphate reading/value was not important in my case, and I beleive in other cases, for bp to work or not working. For months I used bp in fluidized reactor without efects, then I switch to diferent usage and boom, bacterial bloom, I playing with bp for months till now, and everytime I put my non functional fluid reactor to aquarium he do nothing, I remove him and put diy reactor and I get bacterial bloom, phosphate levels are the same all the time acording to salifert phosphate test, whatever the realy phosphate value are in my aquarium they do not influent bp. Reading the posts from people who do not have succes with bp I saw they have same problem what I had/have, simply bp in those cases do absolutely nothing.

BTW whatever phosphate and nitrate exact level was in my aquarium, with salifert nitrate tests I get maximum red on color table, with the phosphate test I get total clear sample, so for sure they are not in balance with Redfield ratio. I do not use phosphate remover, barelly have algae and coralline cover everything, I think that is very similar with Dave situation and is actually also interesting uncomon issue.

[Stuart60611]

Originally Posted by bluereefs

Yes I know, but the point is that phosphate reading/value was not important in my case, and I beleive in other cases, for bp to work or not working. For months I used bp in fluidized reactor without efects, then I switch to diferent usage and boom, bacterial bloom, I playing with bp for months till now, and everytime I put my non functional fluid reactor to aquarium he do nothing, I remove him and put diy reactor and I get bacterial bloom, phosphate levels are the same all the time acording to salifert phosphate test, whatever the realy phosphate value are in my aquarium they do not influent bp. Reading the posts from people who do not have succes with bp I saw they have same problem what I had/have, simply bp in those cases do absolutely nothing.

BTW whatever phosphate and nitrate exact level was in my aquarium, with salifert nitrate tests I get maximum red on color table, with the phosphate test I get total clear sample, so for sure they are not in balance with Redfield ratio. I do not use phosphate remover, barelly have algae and coralline cover everything, I think that is very similar with Dave situation and is actually also interesting uncomon issue.

As I posted several pages back, I suggest that one possible explanation for the problems of those, like yourself, who appear not to be either nitrate or phosphate limited is that, perhaps, you did not have a good good bacteria species balance in your system and in particuar populating the pellets. This would also explain why under certain conditions the pellets worked and others they did not.

The differences, for example, in reactor set ups could maybe have changed oxygen, flow or other conditions within the reactor so as to allow different bacterial species to gain dominion. Our systems are so very different in terms of the varying species of life they have, and there so many variables which differ between our systems that have great influence over which species thrive at any given time. There are literally thousands of different species of bacteria in our systems, and we do not fully understand the mechanics of how and why populations shift. Obviousy, you would want a bacteria species to dominate the pellets effective at taking up nitrate and phosphate which some are and some are not. A way to artificially influence this issue in your favor I would think would be to dose high quality live bacteria near or about the intake for the pellet reactor and leave the skimmer off for a few hours thereafter so as to get the desired species an opportunity to gain turf.

Below is a post Randy made a while back on the bacterial diversity in our systems:

Originally Posted by Randy Holmes-Farley
I guess the interesting question(s) is/are how many species of bacteria are present? 5 or 500 in a tank?

The number will be way higher than 500, if you consider all organisms, although the most abundant 50 may account for nearly all of the mass. Many thousands of species can be found in a single teaspoon of soil, for example.

Here's a paper showing bacteria isolated from seawater samples, and that does not count the vast numbers that will be attached to surfaces or in sediment, live rock, etc:

Characterization of bacteria isolated from seawater in Toyama Bay. Kimata, Keiko; Shimizu, Miwako; Shima, Tomoko; Kanatani, Junichi; Isobe, Junko; Kurata, Takeshi; Watahiki, Masanori. Toyama Institute of Health, Imizu, Japan. Toyama-ken Eisei Kenkyusho Nenpo (2008), Volume Date 2007, 31 135-144.
Abstract

Bacterial species were isolated from seawater in Toyama Bay, Japan and identified by analyzing 16S rDNA sequences. Bacterial species identified were 417 out of 640 isolates and none of the identified bacteria were resistant to tetracycline or oxacillin. These results concluded a clean and safe environment of Toyama Bay.




This paper shows many species isolated from the surfaces of a single sponge species:



Phylogenetic Diversity and Spatial Distribution of the Microbial Community Associated with the Caribbean Deep-water Sponge Polymastia cf. corticata by 16S rRNA, aprA, and amoA Gene Analysis. Meyer, Birte; Kuever, Jan. Max-Planck-Institute for Marine Microbiology, Bremen, Germany. Microbial Ecology (2008), 56(2), 306-321.

Abstract

Denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE)-based analyses of 16S rRNA, aprA, and amoA genes demonstrated that a phylogenetically diverse and complex microbial community was assocd. with the Caribbean deep-water sponge Polymastia cf. corticata Ridley and Dendy, 1887. From the 38 archaeal and bacterial 16S rRNA phylotypes identified, 53% branched into the sponge-specific, monophyletic sequence clusters detd. by previous studies (considering predominantly shallow-water sponge species), whereas 26% appeared to be P. cf. corticata specifically assocd. microorganisms ("specialists"); 21% of the phylotypes were confirmed to represent seawater- and sediment-derived proteobacterial species ("contaminants") acquired by filtration processes from the host environment. Consistently, the aprA and amoA gene-based analyses indicated the presence of environmentally derived sulfur- and ammonia-oxidizers besides putative sponge-specific sulfur-oxidizing Gammaproteobacteria and Alphaproteobacteria and a sulfate-reducing archaeon. A sponge-specific, endosymbiotic sulfur cycle as described for marine oligochaetes is proposed to be also present in P. cf. corticata. Overall, the results of this work support the recent studies that demonstrated the sponge species specificity of the assocd. microbial community while the biogeog. of the host collection site has only a minor influence on the compn. In P. cf. corticata, the specificity of the sponge-microbe assocns. is even extended to the spatial distribution of the microorganisms within the sponge body; distinct bacterial populations were assocd. with the different tissue sections, papillae, outer and inner cortex, and choanosome. The local distribution of a phylotype within P. cf. corticata correlated with its (1) phylogenetic affiliation, (2) classification as sponge-specific or nonspecifically assocd. microorganism, and (3) potential ecol. role in the host sponge.



And this article has a nice roundup of the species they found in a cross ocean transect:

Community structures of actively growing bacteria shift along a north-south transect in the western North Pacific. Taniguchi, Akito; Hamasaki, Koji. Graduate School of Biosphere Science, Hiroshima University, 1-4-4 Kagamiyama, Higashi-Hiroshima, Hiroshima, Japan. Environmental Microbiology (2008), 10(4), 1007-1017.

Abstract

Bacterial community structures and their activities in the ocean are tightly coupled with org. matter fluxes and thus control ocean biogeochem. cycles. Bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU), halogenated nucleoside and thymidine analog, has been recently used to monitor actively growing bacteria (AGB) in natural environments. We labeled DNA of proliferating cells in seawater bacterial assemblages with BrdU and detd. community structures of the bacteria that were possible key species in mediating biochem. reactions in the ocean. Surface seawater samples were collected along a north-south transect in the North Pacific in Oct. 2003 and subjected to BrdU magnetic beads immunocapture and PCR-DGGE (BUMP-DGGE) anal. Change of BrdU-incorporated community structures reflected the change of water masses along a north-south transect from subarctic to subtropical gyres in the North Pacific. We identified 25 bands referred to AGB as BrdU-incorporated phylotypes, belonging to Alphaproteobacteria (5 bands), Betaproteobacteria (1 band), Gammaproteobacteria (4 bands), Cytophaga-Flavobacterium-Bacteroides (CFB) group bacteria (5 bands), Gram-pos. bacteria (6 bands), and Cyanobacteria (4 bands). BrdU-incorporated phylotypes belonging to Vibrionales, Alteromonadales and Gram-pos. bacteria appeared only at sampling stations in a subtropical gyre, while those belonging to Roseobacter-related bacteria and CFB group bacteria appeared at the stations in both subarctic and subtropical gyres. Our result revealed phylogenetic affiliation of AGB and their dynamic change along with north-south environmental gradients in open oceans. Different species of AGB utilize different amt. and kinds of substrates, which can affect the change of org. matter fluxes along transect.

[bluereefs]

Could be that Stuart60611, really dont know, FWIW I use natural sea water and IIRC each ml of NSW have milions/bilions of live bacteria , when I change the water I change aprox 200 liters, 50 gallons, so I ad a loot of live real marine bacteria in the aquarium. I do experimented with some bacterial product from EU ( acording to visible apearance it was identical as microbacter7 ) few months ago in diferent aquarium with non functional bp and bp was still non functional. Same efect get Dave when he use microbacter 7, bp do not wont to work either, with or without bacterial aditives.

[Stuart60611]

Originally Posted by bluereefs

Could be that Stuart60611, really dont know, FWIW I use natural sea water and IIRC each ml of NSW have milions/bilions of live bacteria , when I change the water I change aprox 200 liters, 50 gallons, so I ad a loot of live real marine bacteria in the aquarium. I do experimented with some bacterial product from EU ( acording to visible apearance it was identical as microbacter7 ) few months ago in diferent aquarium with non functional bp and bp was still non functional. Same efect get Dave when he use microbacter 7, bp do not wont to work either, with or without bacterial aditives.

Ya, it is tricky to nail down. For example, I could imagine that in your situation the bacterial dosing could not have worked because you did not dose enough or for long enough for appropriate population shifts to occur. I do see a very general trend that if you were to try to group those who have unexplained ineffectiveness from the pellets many seem to have not carbon dosed much prior to using the pellets. This would maybe also shed some light on my theory because perhaps those systems who have not already artifically influenced bacterial populations with carbon dosing in a favorable way prior to placing the pellets on line are more likely to a have a poor bacterial mix on the pellets.

I would add that all other bacterial driven systems, like zeovit, prodibio, etc., recognize this issue by not only carbon dosing but also dosing appropriate species of bacteria. If controling bacteria populations was not important, then why would you ever need to dose bacteria with these other systems since you could just dose the carbon like we do with the pellets? I know of no successful zeo tank that did not dose zeobak and just used zeolites. Nevetheless, we are in essence doing precisely that and runing our pellets without bacterial additions which I think could be at the root of the problem.

[mm.reefs]

Originally Posted by stuart60611

ya, it is tricky to nail down. For example, i could imagine that in your situation the bacterial dosing could not have worked because you did not dose enough or for long enough for appropriate population shifts to occur. I do see a very general trend that if you were to try to group those who have unexplained ineffectiveness from the pellets many seem to have not carbon dosed much prior to using the pellets. This would maybe also shed some light on my theory because perhaps those systems who have not already artifically influenced bacterial populations with carbon dosing in a favorable way prior to placing the pellets on line are more likely to a have a poor bacterial mix on the pellets.

I would add that all other bacterial driven systems, like zeovit, prodibio, etc., recognize this issue by not only carbon dosing but also dosing appropriate species of bacteria. If controling bacteria populations was not important, then why would you ever need to dose bacteria with these other systems since you could just dose the carbon like we do with the pellets? I know of no successful zeo tank that did not dose zeobak and just used zeolites. Nevetheless, we are in essence doing precisely that and runing our pellets without bacterial additions which i think could be at the root of the problem.

1+ .

[tmz]

For counterpoint, I do not believe you need to dose bacterial concoctions. There are plenty in the system and I prefer to allow indigenous bacteria to grow into the role. If the bacteria being dosed were viable in a tank there would be no need to continue to dose them as is the usual prescribed course.They may give a temporary boost but are not necessary in my opinion and experience.

[Stuart60611]

Originally Posted by tmz

For counterpoint, I do not believe you need to dose bacterial concoctions. There are plenty in the system and I prefer to allow indigenous bacteria to grow into the role. If the bacteria being dosed were viable in a tank there would be no need to continue to dose them as is the usual prescribed course.They may give a temporary boost but are not necessary in my opinion and experience.

I understand this view, and many very knowlegeable people in this hobby, like yourself, share it. There are a couple things about it that I just cannot reconcile. If you do not dose bacteria of a particular species, then nature will take its course and those species who can outcompete others will feed off the lion's share of the carbon based pellets. The problem the way I see it is it also not possible that ultimately the species that wins that battle may not be a species that does our system a whole lot of good in terms of denitrification and phosphate uptake? As you point out, the "temporary boost" of a larger number of a particular species of bacteria created by bacterial dosing would in theory give that species an ability it otherwise would not have without artificial intervention to dominate the pellets. You could maintain this temporary advantage in perpetuity by continual bacterial dosing.

Moreover, even if you do not buy into the idea that there is any importantance of particular species of bacteria dominating the pellets, is it not also true that by dosing bacteria and thereby artificially increasing their numbers beyond what would naturally occur in the system you are going to create a larger bacterial mass in the system generally which can then take up more nutrients for export which I would imagine becomes much more profound when you combine bacterial dosing with an immediately available and substantial carbon source, like the pellets. Finally, as far as I am aware, zeovit just does not work without dosing zeobak. Otherwise, applying your view, the zeovit system should work just fine without zeobak b/c the bacteria already in our sytem would populate the zeolites. I think it is fairly settled that the zeovit system is very effective and keeping system's low nutrient.

[Aquarist007]

Originally Posted by tmz

For counterpoint, I do not believe you need to dose bacterial concoctions. There are plenty in the system and I prefer to allow indigenous bacteria to grow into the role. If the bacteria being dosed were viable in a tank there would be no need to continue to dose them as is the usual prescribed course.They may give a temporary boost but are not necessary in my opinion and experience.

Hi tom

So are you saying that increasing the bacteria does not have a positive affect on the growth of corals?

[pecan2phat]

So for those that did not see a bacterial bloom in their water column or any bacterial sloughing from their pellets within the reactor, are you saying that the Bio Pellets are not working properly or are they going by test results for No3 & Po4?

[jcusmarine]

All I can chime in and add is that I have been using NP Pellets with success since they first came out in the US.

Of note, I did not add them to reduce nitrates or phosphates in particular, or to treat any water quality issue. I was interested in the effects of the bacteria as a food source for my corals. I also liked the additional assumed benefit that I could possibly feed more often with less concern about phosphates.

With that said, I upgraded tanks and I am using the NP Pellets on my new system and I am seeing similar results as my previous system when using the pellets. I get crazy PE extension and my corals seem to benefit. I have zero nitrates and phosphates using my salifert tests and I believe through observation that the pellets help with this, but cannot confirm.

I have never and will never consider the pellets as some sort of miracle reef saving magic pill....but I have found they are a valuable addition to my system and I think as long as we setup our systems and keep our husbandry up to par with the type of livestock we are keeping, we can find value in this method.

[ace0007]

After 2 years of high nitrates I have used Biopellets. Took 4 months but nitrates down from 50+ to undetectable in pinpoint meter. I do not dose anything at all. PE is amazing. Still maintain water changes. I have found that you need adequate flow. As they got worn away the nitrates stopped reducing. Topping up reactor resulted in another reduction to <1. Sweet. I cannot explain why others see no results. I notice people use Salifert for phosphate in the US. I found them unreliable in measuring low levels of phosphate so now use Merck test kits which are accurate coupled with the Hanna electronic meter. I think some people have high phosphates that are not measured properly which may be something to look into.

[tmz]

Stuart,

If you do not dose bacteria of a particular species, then nature will take its course and those species who can outcompete others will feed off the lion's share of the carbon based pellets. The problem the way I see it is it also not possible that ultimately the species that wins that battle may not be a species that does our system a whole lot of good in terms of denitrification and phosphate uptake?

Living things need C N and P. Heterotrophic bacteria can't make organic carbon from CO2 via photosynthesis. They all take up C,N and P. Their biomass may vary a little in terms of ratios of CNP but there is no evidence to suggest that bottled bacteria take up more P and N relative to C than those that would naturally occur. Personally, I've been dosing organic carbon for 20 months and never used bacterial supplements and have very good N and P reduction. The indigenous bacteria do a fine job. I think continuouisly adding bacterial supplements may in the short run suppress their development.In any event I think it is unnecessary.

by dosing bacteria and thereby artificially increasing their numbers beyond what would naturally occur in the system you are going to create a larger bacterial mass in the system generally which can then take up more nutrients for export which I would imagine becomes much more profound when you combine bacterial dosing with an immediately available and substantial carbon source, like the pellets

Maybe for a short while since the dosed bacteria are not viable in the tank for any length of time. But consistently dosing bacterial supplements could suppress indigenous bacterial growth. Basically, if you provide the food (C,NandP)naturally ocurring bacteria will come and get it, in my opinion. Varying the carbon source is a more effective way to influence beneficial bacterial growth than adding supplements in my opinion.

There are many who dose bacteria and I don't mean to diminish their efforts but there is another side to the story to be considered.

[Stuart60611]

TMZ:


Thanks, and certainly a fair point of view. I think what would be real interesting would be to take a look at an established low nutrient bacterial driven methodology, like zeovit, and see how it performs both with and without bacterial additions. I realize that such an experiment would be difficult in terms of maintaining controls and even fashioning a way to accurately make the comparison, but I think such a comparison could shed some light on the importance, if any, bacterial dosing can play in the carbon dosing technique. What would be interesting to see if the zeolites were populated in each instance with very different species or densities of bacteria (and particularly those dosed in the zeobak) and what, if any, difference it made in terms of nutrient export.

[Dizzle63]

I have a BRS duel reactor and have the choice of running either a phosban 150 or 550 reactor on a 75. What would be the best way to run the biopellets, carbon, and phosban? I have maxijets available. What other pump might I need?

[davyr]

Has anybody noticed any bleaching of their softies after using the pellets? Have a look at these guys and it has only just happened since i started with the pellets.

[180+55reef]

so a leather of mine has bleached

I am one of the people that has seen no improvements, and to boot I had a ugly film of cyno. My slimmate was clear, it has been running for 5 or so months

Recently I started dosing vinegar (3 weeks or so) and I get ugly smelly stuff out of my skimmer and the cyno is reduced, but not totally gone

comments?

[daveonbass]

my comment: the BP don't really do anything. I am starting to firmly believe that it's all the other "regular husbandry" that is paying off. I think that if there is a bacteria bloom, then yeah, maybe there is something working in them there. But I don't recall anyone being able to claim that they STOPPED doing regular husbandry, even just water changes, and still noticed that their water got "better." I have held off doing a WC for weeks now hopeing to see the BP do something in the tank to reduce NO3. And no effects. However, if I had continued to do my regular WC's then I too would have undetectable nutrient levels. I just have not EVER been shown that BP "ALONE" will do anything, the success stories all seem to have too many other variables that could have contributed to the success.

[davyr]

Originally Posted by 180+55reef

so a leather of mine has bleached

I am one of the people that has seen no improvements, and to boot I had a ugly film of cyno. My slimmate was clear, it has been running for 5 or so months

Recently I started dosing vinegar (3 weeks or so) and I get ugly smelly stuff out of my skimmer and the cyno is reduced, but not totally gone

comments?

I have seen my nitrates reduce since the 23/7/2010 as they used to be 25 but now they are between 5 and 10 (salifert). I cannot however seem to get them under 5 but they have only been running 4 wks. Also i am not getting the mulm that people are talking about. I have had the reactor slow boiling fast boiling and just ticking away like rowa but i still cannot seem to get a decent skin on these pellets. It would help if the manufacturers of the pellets would put up a decent video to see how much we should be fluidising these babies.

[davyr]

Originally Posted by daveonbass

my comment: the BP don't really do anything. I am starting to firmly believe that it's all the other "regular husbandry" that is paying off. I think that if there is a bacteria bloom, then yeah, maybe there is something working in them there. But I don't recall anyone being able to claim that they STOPPED doing regular husbandry, even just water changes, and still noticed that their water got "better." I have held off doing a WC for weeks now hopeing to see the BP do something in the tank to reduce NO3. And no effects. However, if I had continued to do my regular WC's then I too would have undetectable nutrient levels. I just have not EVER been shown that BP "ALONE" will do anything, the success stories all seem to have too many other variables that could have contributed to the success.

Maybe you are right. I am using the SWC pellets here in the UK,i had them shipped over and i did notice a drop within the first 48 hrs but lately it is getting to the stage where i am having to get the kids to confirm on the salifert colour chart what the colour is. And i think half the time i am convincing myself it is a lower number than what it is.

[ari5736]

This discussion is getting pretty interesting. I will try and measure my NO3 on Monday, having taken the reactor offline Friday, to see if nitrate went up quickly where as with the pellets nitrate raised at a very slow rate.

[tozzi]

Someone should start a poll . if they work for u or not, this thread is makin my head spin

[pecan2phat]

Originally Posted by davyr

I have seen my nitrates reduce since the 23/7/2010 as they used to be 25 but now they are between 5 and 10 (salifert). I cannot however seem to get them under 5 but they have only been running 4 wks. Also i am not getting the mulm that people are talking about. I have had the reactor slow boiling fast boiling and just ticking away like rowa but i still cannot seem to get a decent skin on these pellets. It would help if the manufacturers of the pellets would put up a decent video to see how much we should be fluidising these babies.

I started my pellets about 14 to 17 days ago and I immediately got huge amounts of bacterial sloughing or mulm off the pellets after about 2 days. By the 3rd or 4th day, the water started to cloud up tremendously indicating a bacterial bloom in effect. It took another 3 days for that to clear up but the mulm in the reactor only dissapated about 50%. When I added another 550 ml of pellets to the reactor, the mulm got so thick that I had to open up the reactor to syphon the large chunks out, it was nastie!
I'm wondering if people that do not have the bacterial sloughing or even the bacterial bloom in the water column is because of low No3 & Po4 to start with.
Reason why I mention this is because I was getting huge amounts of bacterial sloughing/mulm in the reactor and my pellets were not even tumbling but the system that I am trying these on is mainly a FOWLR system with LPS corals. When I started the pellets, No3 was at 100 ppm and Po4 was at 2.53 ppm. I tested just the No3 today and it was at 80 ppm. I now have the pellets tumbling like a slow boil after changing out the manifold to a dedicated Mag 7 pump but still need to add the remaining 550 ml of pellets to the reactor for the recommended amount of pellets.

[SimonSKL]

Originally Posted by tozzi

Someone should start a poll . if they work for u or not, this thread is makin my head spin

I think there are a lot of us running the pellets are not sure if they work or not. There are just too many variables and everyone's tank is somewhat different.