Warner Marine Now Has A Pellet Product

[Stuart60611]

From Reef Builders:

Warner Marine is releasing EcoBAK pellets this week throwing their hat into the solid vodka dosing pellet market. A main difference you’ll notice between the EcoBAK pellets and other products on the market it the small, rough shape over smooth spheres giving a more porous pellet with more surface area for the beneficial bacterial to grasp onto and thrive. When chatting with Warner Marine about the product, they indicated the polymer used in the product is not Polycaprolactone (PCL) that has been in use in other products like Instant Ocean’s Natural Nitrate Reducer but another form of biodegradable polymer that shares the same characteristics and completely different than the polymer used in NP Biopellets. EcoBAK is filler free, so all you are getting is a nitrate and phosphate reducing polymer that is consumed by the bacteria. This is the important difference between EcoBAK and vodka dosing, the carbon source never enters the water stream. Ideally the EcoBAK works well in a media reactor and can replace your GFO but could also be used passively in a mesh bag in an area of flow in case you’re running out of space or saving up for a reactor. It’s not necessary to fully fluidize the media as the product doesn’t slime over, so you don’t need a high flow rate for it to be effective. Warner Marine told us a flow of around 100 GPH through one liter of pellets would be a good starting point. The company is also pricing this very competitively and coming in below other solid vodka dosing-type products with a 250ml canister running around $19.99, 500ml for $34.99 and one liter for $59.99. If you’re interesting in picking up some of Warner Marine’s EcoBAK, check out your favorite Warner Marine dealer or visit the website or call direct for more details.

Looks cheaper than the biopellets. Any thoughts?

[jason2459]

Glad to see the prices start to come down.

[PowermanKW]

Mine should be here today. I like WM products and am excited to give this a shot.

[Stuart60611]

One thing that I found curious about the above snipet is the statement that the Warner Marine pellets can be used to replace GFO. In the NP Biopellets thread, it has been suggested repeatedly both by the manufacturer and users of the product that one often has to run the NP Biopellets with GFO suggesting that the NP Biopellets are best at breaking down nitrate and not as effective at breaking down phosphate. Here, it appears that perhaps the Warner Marine Pellets are better at breaking down phosphate. They are purportedly made from a different substance so perhaps that is the basis for the contention?

[skibum9884]

I agree it is interesting that there are now several products like this on the market (3, I believe).

So, who is going to test these against eachother and tell us which is best?

[trueperc]

I just say this at ************ too, but I can find any more info. What I would like to know how much of theses pellets do you need per size of tank.
Hey PowermanKW where did you order them from.

[Primetime33]

I bought some of these from Jon at an earlier club meeting. My phosphates have dropped from .26 to .07 in 4 weeks. These tests were done with a Hanna phosphate colorimeter. Good job Jon!!! I need to stock up ( years supply or so ) before you sell out of these!!!!

[PowermanKW]

Originally Posted by trueperc

I just say this at ************ too, but I can find any more info. What I would like to know how much of theses pellets do you need per size of tank.
Hey PowermanKW where did you order them from.

I got mine from Warner Marine. WM suggests 250ml/50g of water. So I will be running 500ml.



I do understand why it is suggested to run GFO. From reading on this new technology, nobody has ever suggested N or P are "broke down", rather they are consumed/absorbed by the growing bacteria and then removed via skimming just like regular carbon dosing has always done. At least that's my understanding.

My N and P are already low, so I am going to just run EcoBak straight with GAC and no GFO just to see what my PO4 does. I just ran a new batch of GFO and my PO4 is .008 with a D-D Merck kit. So I'm starting with a clean tank.

[Reefer Steve]

Let the solid carbon dosing wars begin.

[saltcrazy]

Originally Posted by PowermanKW

I got mine from Warner Marine. WM suggests 250ml/50g of water. So I will be running 500ml.



I do understand why it is suggested to run GFO. From reading on this new technology, nobody has ever suggested N or P are "broke down", rather they are consumed/absorbed by the growing bacteria and then removed via skimming just like regular carbon dosing has always done. At least that's my understanding.

My N and P are already low, so I am going to just run EcoBak straight with GAC and no GFO just to see what my PO4 does. I just ran a new batch of GFO and my PO4 is .008 with a D-D Merck kit. So I'm starting with a clean tank.

powerman,

i was on the warner website http://www.warnermarine.com/indexsite.html, but did not see this product. can you tell us where to order from, maybe a link? thanks.

[PowermanKW]

Originally Posted by saltcrazy

powerman,

i was on the warner website http://www.warnermarine.com/indexsite.html, but did not see this product. can you tell us where to order from, maybe a link? thanks.

I was talking on the phone about some stuff and the EcoBak came up so he sent me some. They have been announced and are due to release this week. So give em a call or wait till it posts on the site. I'm sure WM retailers will have some soon too.

[PowermanKW]

Originally Posted by Reefer Steve

Let the solid carbon dosing wars begin.

All for it if it delivers as promised. I was not at all interested in liquid carbon dosing. We shall see. I already have low numbers, but of course want to feed more.

[Stuart60611]

Originally Posted by PowermanKW

I got mine from Warner Marine. WM suggests 250ml/50g of water. So I will be running 500ml.



I do understand why it is suggested to run GFO. From reading on this new technology, nobody has ever suggested N or P are "broke down", rather they are consumed/absorbed by the growing bacteria and then removed via skimming just like regular carbon dosing has always done. At least that's my understanding.

My N and P are already low, so I am going to just run EcoBak straight with GAC and no GFO just to see what my PO4 does. I just ran a new batch of GFO and my PO4 is .008 with a D-D Merck kit. So I'm starting with a clean tank.

You are correct, and I think I used a poor choice of words when I described the pellets as "breaking down" nitrate or phosphate and also understand that the pellets work exactly as you describe in effect as a solid carbon dose. However, what I found interesting by the description of these is that it appears Warner Marine is suggesting that their pellets be used instead of GFO rather than in conjunction with GFO which is often recomended with bio pellets. To me, this may suggest that perhaps the Warner Marine pellets being made from a different polymer serving as a carbon dose promote the growth of a different bacterial mix than the bio pellets which is more condusive to consuming phosphate. Otherwise, why would the Warner Marine pellets be used to replace GFO as opposed to be used in conjunction with GFO like the bio pellets.

[ChuckG]

Originally Posted by Stuart60611

One thing that I found curious about the above snipet is the statement that the Warner Marine pellets can be used to replace GFO. In the NP Biopellets thread, it has been suggested repeatedly both by the manufacturer and users of the product that one often has to run the NP Biopellets with GFO suggesting that the NP Biopellets are best at breaking down nitrate and not as effective at breaking down phosphate. Here, it appears that perhaps the Warner Marine Pellets are better at breaking down phosphate. They are purportedly made from a different substance so perhaps that is the basis for the contention?

It is the bacteria that consume the PO4 while consuming the carbon source. Probably safe to assume it is the same bacteria the grow on the WM and BP products. They apparently consume carbon, nitrogen, and phosphate in a specific ratio. The BP manufacturers say that GFO may need to be used when more phosphates are dumped into the the tank than there is available nitrogen (nitrate) for the the bacteria to consume two along with carbon in the proper ratio.

I can't say for sure but following that logic and if it is correct then there may also be certain scenarios where GFO may need to be used with the WM product.

I also ran across this product the other day. Looks similar although no mention of phosphate reduction. That said they may not want to mention PO4 reduction for a product advertised for freshwater plants as I believe freshwater planted tanks sometime need phosphates dosed to keep things the plants growing optimally.

http://www.aquariumplants.com/Deniballs_p/am77006.htm

[Stuart60611]

Originally Posted by ChuckG

It is the bacteria that consume the PO4 while consuming the carbon source. Probably safe to assume it is the same bacteria the grow on the WM and BP products. They apparently consume carbon, nitrogen, and phosphate in a specific ratio. The BP manufacturers say that GFO may need to be used when more phosphates are dumped into the the tank than there is available nitrogen (nitrate) for the the bacteria to consume two along with carbon in the proper ratio.

I can't say for sure but following that logic and if it is correct then there may also be certain scenarios where GFO may need to be used with the WM product.

I also ran across this product the other day. Looks similar although no mention of phosphate reduction. That said they may not want to mention PO4 reduction for a product advertised for freshwater plants as I believe freshwater planted tanks sometime need phosphates dosed to keep things the plants growing optimally.

http://www.aquariumplants.com/Deniballs_p/am77006.htm

I am not sure I agree here. I do not think it is at all necessarily safe to assume that the same bacterial mix will grow on the WM and BP products just as the same bacterial mix do not grow when dosing sugar, vodka, vinegar, etc. I believe it has been shown that different bacteria feed and effectively multiple to higher numbers depending on the carbon source. WM uses a different polymer or carbon source so it would seem to me that it is indeed possible and even likely that the bacterial mix may be different.

This would explain why one product is to be used with GFO and one product is used to replace GFO. They each could promote the growth of a different mix of bacteria -- one that consumes more phosphate than the other.

[ChuckG]

Originally Posted by Stuart60611

I am not sure I agree here. I do not think it is at all necessarily safe to assume that the same bacterial mix will grow on the WM and BP products just as the same bacterial mix do not grow when dosing sugar, vodka, vinegar, etc. I believe it has been shown that different bacteria feed and effectively multiple to higher numbers depending on the carbon source. WM uses a different polymer or carbon source so it would seem to me that it is indeed possible and even likely that the bacterial mix may be different.

My first thought would be then that they would also supply the proprietary bacteria to dose along with their media.

I use the NP Biopellet media, feed heavily, and do not use GFO. My experience so far is that I can't keep enough PO4 in the tank.

[Stuart60611]

Originally Posted by ChuckG

My first thought would be then that they would also supply the proprietary bacteria to dose along with their media.

Ya, that is the prodibio approach. Here, however, the bacteria is still probably already in our tanks, although perhaps in small numbers. The differing polymers between the BP and WM products may provide more effective food source for different bacteria which would ultimately result in different bacteria being in a higher number in the system depending on which product you used. These different bacteria likely consume nitrate and phosphate in differing proportions which could make one product better at exporting nitrate or phosphate than the other.

[Reefobsession]

Can I get these through John?

[ChuckG]

Originally Posted by Stuart60611

Ya, that is the prodibio approach. Here, however, the bacteria is still probably already in our tanks, although perhaps in small numbers. The differing polymers between the BP and WM products may provide more effective food source for different bacteria which would ultimately result in different bacteria being in a higher number in the system depending on which product you used. These different bacteria likely consume nitrate and phosphate in differing proportions which could make one product better at exporting nitrate or phosphate than the other.

Your theories are interesting. Are there any studies or data available to suport this line of thought?

Dont get me wrong in that i am not proporting one is a better product than the other. I welcome the WM product and might have chose it when i was bulding my reactor. I just entered the conversation as these topics interest me.

I think ultimatly that unless the bacteria cultured consumes phosphate and nitrate in the specific ratios in which they are introduced or stored in the aquarium then as one resource depletes to zero and becomes a limiter there will be a residual reserve of the other. Seems it would be near impossible to specify a media that worked hand in hand with any one set of bacteria to consume n and p in the specific ratios that aligned to the import / export methods used by even a small set of aquairums.

It is an interesting topic that is for sure.

[PowermanKW]

I talked to Jon about this when we spoke. He explained the product.... but I don't want to speak for him.... there was not any talk of any special carbon mixture or bacteria. I think it is just general talk in the press release and we will have to see for ourselves how it goes. I guess I'm trying to say at this point we should probably not make assumptions.

For instance... I don't have bad PO4 problems, but I do run GFO. I also run Cheato in the fuge but it grows very slowly. Perhaps these EcoBak pellets will suck up enough nitrates to reduce cheato growth further, but I might still have a little more PO4 without GFO. So perhaps I can remove the cheato and then I would have a better balance of N and P reduction through EcoBak that my PO4 is lowered further. You see what I mean?

And then of course what works for me may not for you. So we will just have to see. I am going to start from scratch with EcoBak Gac and no GFO. I'll wait for 3-4 weeks, and see how my tank and fuge are doing, then I will start feeding more and testing along the way. If my PO4 should creep up along the way but stabilize, I might run a batch of GFO to knock it down and see if it stays. Who knows. I would love to stop using GFO... hell that alone would pay for this and then some.. but who knows at this point.

[Stuart60611]

Originally Posted by ChuckG

Your theories are interesting. Are there any studies or data available to suport this line of thought?

Dont get me wrong in that i am not proporting one is a better product than the other. I welcome the WM product and might have chose it when i was bulding my reactor. I just entered the conversation as these topics interest me.

I think ultimatly that unless the bacteria cultured consumes phosphate and nitrate in the specific ratios in which they are introduced or stored in the aquarium then as one resource depletes to zero and becomes a limiter there will be a residual reserve of the other. Seems it would be near impossible to specify a media that worked hand in hand with any one set of bacteria to consume n and p in the specific ratios that aligned to the import / export methods used by even a small set of aquairums.

It is an interesting topic that is for sure.

Well, there is some data to support this concept.

First, here is a quote from a post Randy made demonstrating the myriad of bacteria that exist in natural sea water and our tank water:

Quote:
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.



Now here is another quote from Randy where he indicates that he (as others also have experienced) gets less cynobacteria growth when dosing vinegar as opposed to vodka:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Holmes-Farley
I'd add vinegar into the mix of organics considered. I use mostly vinegar and a little vodka. In my system that works better (less cyano) than vodka alone. It's hard to compare to commercial products, for the reasons mentioned above.

Now taking this information together, there are many different species of bacteria in our systems. These different species of bacteria feed and multiply at different rates depending on the particular carbon source available. For example, it appears that cynobacteria grows more rapidly when fed vodka as opposed to vinegar. As such, it follows that the two different polymer carbon sources used in the WM and BP products may result in different growth rates of particular species of bacteria (obviously, the higher the number of bacteria the more nutrients that the bacteria consume). These species of bacteria may consume nitrate and phosphate at differing rates and/or proportions, just like different species of macro algae consume nitrate and phosphate in differing rates and proportions, i.e., calupra consumes more phosphate and nitrate (and grows faster) than halamedia (there are studies on the varying degree of nutrient uptake with differing species of macro algae, but I do not have them handy). As such, a particular carbon source (in this case different polymers) will result in different numbers of varying species of bacteria in a system -- each of which will consume different amounts of nitrate and phosphate at varying rates. Now I am not saying that either the WM or BP product is better for exporting nitrate or phosphate. Rather, I am merely suggesting that the fact that they both use different polymers indicates that each of these products may not function the same way in terms of assisting in the export of nitrate or phosphate and that one product may be better than the other at exporting one or both of them.

[psykokid]

Jon is going to be speaking at the SCRK meeting this sunday in Long Beach at Age Of Aquariums. Hopefully they'll have some there to purchase I'd like to give this a try and see how well it impacts my phosphates. I've been running a bio-denitrator with good results for the last couple of months and have managed to get my nitrates down from over 100 pm to 20 ppm. I've been running GFO for a while and it has helped get my phosphates down, but they are still a little higher than i would like. If they have some available at the meeting I'm going to give it a try and i'll post my findings here..

[tmz]

While , I understand the concept of diversity in bacterial populations with variable carbon sources, I suspect the claim that Warner Marine pellets replace gfo is only partly true. I'm also somewhat sketical that the polymer based carbons remain labile once the bacteria begin to consume them.
Whatever bacterial strain eats the polymer, and I suspect many will , there will will be consumption of carbon nitrogen and phosphorous. More carbon than nitrogen and significantly more nitrogen than phosphate will be consumed. So while phosphate will be removed it may not be enough for a specific system depending upon the amount of PO4 and nitrate in it, the biolaod, level of PO4 targeted,etc. I think the idea that WM has engineered a food source that uniquely attracts bacterial strains that consume more PO4 is far fetched and without any evidence ,whatsoever and as far as I can tell they make no such claim.
The use of gfo or other low range phosphate reduction methods alongside carbon dosing ( vodka, vinegar, ascorbic acid, glucose, polymers.etc.) is likely necessary in most systems to maintain very low(<.05ppm) PO4 levels, in my opinion and experience.

[tmz]

While , I understand the concept of diversity in bacterial populations with variable carbon sources, I suspect the claim that Warner Marine pellets replace gfo is only partly true. I'm also somewhat sketical that the polymer based carbons remain labile once the bacteria begin to consume them.
Whatever bacterial strain eats the polymer, and I suspect many will , there will will be consumption of carbon nitrogen and phosphorous. More carbon than nitrogen and significantly more nitrogen than phosphate will be consumed. So while phosphate will be removed it may not be enough for a specific system depending upon the amount of PO4 and nitrate in it, the biolaod, level of PO4 targeted,etc. I think the idea that WM has engineered a food source that uniquely attracts bacterial strains that consume more PO4 is far fetched and without any evidence ,whatsoever and as far as I can tell they make no such claim.
The use of gfo or other low range phosphate reduction methods alongside carbon dosing ( vodka, vinegar, ascorbic acid, glucose, polymers.etc.) is likely necessary in most systems to maintain very low(<.05ppm) PO4 levels, in my opinion and experience.

[JTL]

Following along.