biopellet guidance needed

jacob.morgan78

New member
My pellets have started to catch on because I have a bunch of stuff happening: pellets are starting to clump in the bottom of the reactor (and starting to clump more), stringy stuff in sump (not a whole lot but there), filter sock is clogging within 24 hrs, my sponge in my carbon reactor is clogging up repeatedly, and my skimmate is much wetter than usual (not sure if this is because of pellets or not).

What should I do/change? I feel like I need to stir up the pellets or something and take out the filter sock at least.

They've been running for just under 8 weeks. I'm using BRS pellets in a TLF reactor running off a mj 1200. I have the output right next to input of my skimmer. The skimmer is an Reef Octopus NWB 150. My parameters are all good... zero phosphate, trace nitrate <1.

Thanks for any guidance you can offer with this!!
 
it is the type of condition and not the strain of faculative bacteria(need oxygen for the processes of respiration and cell metabolism) that limit the reduction of nitrates or the fixation of nitrogen.
In an aerobic condition bacteria will use the oxygen first for the process of respiration. This results in the oxidation of ammonia and nitrites producing nitrates as a biproduct of the chemical equation.
In an anerobic condition the faculative bacteria will reduce nitrates to get the oxygen. The results of the chemical equation will produce nitrogen gas as a biproduct so resulting in the fixation of nitrogen and the reduction of nitrates

It should be added that even though bacteria assimulate nitrates as a part of digestion it is my opinion that one should also try to max nitrogen fixation both through digestion and cellular respiration

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a pellet reactor there must be an anerobic condition for nitrogen fixation to occur. This is usually created by the biofilm secreted by the upper layer of bacteria and which is exposed to oxygen. The environment changes in the lower levels of the biofilm to less oxygen and the bacteria then switch to nitrate reduction.
Therefor it is the recommendation of this poster that we exericise balance with the flow going through these reactors. If we see alot of mulm being created then one should reduce the flow slightly. Mulm should be removed by gently draining the reactor or using suction as with a turkey baster taking care not to disturb the the biofilm on the pellets.

This particular reactor(one of the 18 or so I have in operation) has not been touched for a month now since I followed the above procedure.

 
^^^ this again.
Well You have a MJ 1200 and your pellets are clumping. I am having the same issue and I am running a MJ 900 and was told more flow was needed.
 
^^^ this again.
Well You have a MJ 1200 and your pellets are clumping. I am having the same issue and I am running a MJ 900 and was told more flow was needed.

are you adding more flow and still getting mulm build up? Then try and carefully remove the mulm with a turkey baster or similar fashion. I service 16 to 18 of these presently and you can imagine the work of having to clean the all each week.
In my first test case 5 weeks ago I have a system with 2 pellet reactors on it. One I left alone with enough flow to move the pellets, the other I cleaned out. The one I have not touched is fine. The one I clean out I have to do each week as it gets clogged with mulm.
Now I am not an expert but I have discovered something that works for me and am sharing it.
I do not wish to start or participate in a debate over---if someone want to give it a try great. it would be nice to see someone else have the same results as I have.
 
Thank you so much for the response! This sounds like great advice.

Just curious, could the reduction in "mulm" be due to less water and hence less nutrients going through the reactor and therefore less nutrients for the bacteria to break down? And if this is the case, would this be less effective since there isn't as much nutrient reduction in the system?

I just went back and read this and it was hard to understand... sorry!

Thanks again for the advice!
 
Thank you so much for the response! This sounds like great advice.

Just curious, could the reduction in "mulm" be due to less water and hence less nutrients going through the reactor and therefore less nutrients for the bacteria kjmto break down? And if this is the case, would this be less effective since there isn't as much nutrient reduction in the system?

I just went back and read this and it was hard to understand... sorry!

Thanks again for the advice!
You make a could point however I believe the bigger reason for the mulm is--

The aerobic bacteria produce a biofilm that protects them and bacteria that prefer anaerobic conditions below. When the biofilm gets disturbed anaerobic bacteria can be destroyed. These dead bacteria and biofilm are key parts of the mulm that is formed
 
I rinsed the biopellets to help with the clogging and in the process lost a bit of the pellets in the rinsing; not many but some. After unclogging the reactor, I left the flow the same. After a day, I already noticed it starting to clog again. I was able to stop and start the flow and help with the clogging a little. After this, I have slightly slowed the flow to see if it will help.

I'm starting to get a "film" on the back and side glass of stringy/hair stuff. I've also noticed a few strings of this around the tank here and there. Will this affect my coral? Do you have any idea how long it will last or what I should do to help?

Thanks for any guidance you can offer!
 
I rinsed the biopellets to help with the clogging and in the process lost a bit of the pellets in the rinsing; not many but some. After unclogging the reactor, I left the flow the same. After a day, I already noticed it starting to clog again. I was able to stop and start the flow and help with the clogging a little. After this, I have slightly slowed the flow to see if it will help.

I'm starting to get a "film" on the back and side glass of stringy/hair stuff. I've also noticed a few strings of this around the tank here and there. Will this affect my coral? Do you have any idea how long it will last or what I should do to help?

Thanks for any guidance you can offer!

By rinsing the pellets you are in effect destroying the biofilm and bacteria. So you are really starting all over as far as nitrate removal is concerned. You are seeing the signs of increased nitrates/phophates--the algae.
If you can find the flow where you don't need to touch the pellets in about 7 to 10 days you should start to see that algae dissapear.
 
You might be seeing a bacterial bloom. Some of the pellets might have abraded a little. I'd siphon out the film, and consider cutting back on the pellets if it persists. Depending on what's actually growing in the film, it might affect corals eventually, possibly by releasing toxins. I wouldn't worry much just yet, though.
 
The film definitely started before rinsing the pellets. The film is not algae-like; more slimy and bacterial-like. I should have said this in the previous post. I tried to be gentle as to not to strip the pellets. I tried to only get the slime out of the reactor that was causing the clogging. By doing this, I dont' think I got all the "slime" out. This may be why it is starting to clog again already.

Bertoni, I would have to scrape and siphon at the same time to get it. Is that what you're suggesting? I reduced the pellets and flow so I hope this will help. You think this is something I could just wait out? I hate making quick changes and feel that is what I'm doing.

As a consequence of all this, I'm having a hard time running my ROX (BRS) carbon due to it getting clogged very fast as well in its reactor. You think I should put the carbon in a bag and just do passive filtration with the ROX for now?

I really appreciate getting the help from such respected aquarists on here. Thank you!
 
Hmm, if the slime won't budge with a simple siphoning, I might not bother trying to remove it at this point. I'd probably discontinue the carbon if it's getting slimed rapidly. Using it in a bag might delay the sliming, but it will do so by reducing the rate at which water passes through the carbon, which defeats the purpose.
 
it is the type of condition and not the strain of facultative bacteria(need oxygen for the processes of respiration and cell metabolism) that limit the reduction of nitrates or the fixation of nitrogen.
In an aerobic condition bacteria will use the oxygen first for the process of respiration. This results in the oxidation of ammonia and nitrites producing nitrates as a biproduct of the chemical equation.

In an anerobic condition the faculative bacteria will reduce nitrates to get the oxygen. The results of the chemical equation will produce nitrogen gas as a biproduct so resulting in the fixation of nitrogen and the reduction of nitrates

Scott,

Not to be pedantic but that's not correct in several points and if technical information is presented it should be accurate ; so,to clarify:


Ammonia oxidizers and nitrite oxidizers are aerobic and function on surfaces exposed to a flow of water with plenty of oxygen. They have nothing to do with the organic carbon sourced by the biopellets. They are chemoautophic or chemolithorophic depending on the specific species and don't need the organic carbon from the pellets This process is generally called nitrification and these types of baceteria are generally called nitrifying bacteria. Nitrate is produced as an end product of the nitrification phase of the nitrogen cylce.

The facultatative heterotrophic bacteria perform denitrification which is not nitrogen fixation but nitrogen reduction. They need the organic carbon, phosphorous, nitrogen and a source of oxygen either free oxygen or the oxygen from nitrate.

Nitrogen fixation is at the other end of the cylce and is defined:

(Science: biochemistry) The incorporation of atmospheric nitrogen into ammonia by various bacteria, catalysed by nitrogenase.
This is an essential stage in the nitrogen cycle and is the ultimate source of all nitrogen in living organisms. In the sea, the main nitrogen fixers are cyanobacteria.



Source : Biology on line:

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Nitrogen_fixation


Nitrogen reduction by denitrifying bacteria occurs in two ways:

They use some for food and when they create a mulm with low oxygen availability or otherwise find themselves in a hypoxic enivronment they turn to nitrate (NO3) for the O and reduce it to N, some of which bonds to other N atoms forming N2 nitrogen gas which bubbles out of the tank and reenters the athmosphere and is thus reduced ,ie unbound and no loner fixed to anything but itself as N2.
The bond between two N atoms is very strong and N2 which makes up over 70% of the athmosphere can not be used by living things until that bond is broken and N is allowed to bond with hydrogen as it does in the creation of ammonia NH3/4. Strains of cyanobacteria and related diazotrophs are uniquely able to perfom this task as they posses a unique enzyme ,nitrogenase , which breaks the bond allowing nitrogen fixation to occur.

Pracitcal matters:


Increasing the flow to tumble the pellets will encourage more aerobic activity vs anaerobic activity and will likely be less effective at nitrate removal since the nitrate reduction (beyond nitrogen used as bacterial food ) from nitrate reduction to nitrogen gas will be lessened in a higher oxygen environment.

On the other hand excessive clumping may slow the whole process and lead to anoxic conditions( all the oxygen and nitrate based oxygen is used up) and toxic hydrogen sulfide may be produced as sulfate reducing bacteria will take over in the absence of oxygen and nitrate when organic carbon from the pellets is present.
.
The point is setting a proper flow rate can be difficult and is largely guesswork and will likely vary from system to system depending on the amount of nutrients in the water and several other variables.
 
Last edited:
Hmm, if the slime won't budge with a simple siphoning, I might not bother trying to remove it at this point. I'd probably discontinue the carbon if it's getting slimed rapidly. Using it in a bag might delay the sliming, but it will do so by reducing the rate at which water passes through the carbon, which defeats the purpose.

Thank you!

If that is the case then running a bag of clear fx might be a good idea ESP if it organics causing the problem

I'm not sure what "clear fx" is but I'll look it up and consider it. Thank you!

Pracitcal matters:

Increasing the flow to tumble the pellets will encourage more aerobic activity vs anaerobic activity and will likely be less effective at nitrate removal since the nitrate reduction (beyond nitrogen used as bacterial food ) from nitrate reduction to nitrogen gas will be lessened in a higher oxygen environment.

So you're agreeing that more flow doesn't equal more nitrate removal because you need a lower oxygen environment to efficiently remove nitrate. Do I understand correctly?

On the other hand excessive clumping may slow the whole process and lead to anoxic conditions( all the oxygen and nitrate based oxygen is used up) and toxic hydrogen sulfide may be produced as sulfate reducing bacteria will take over in the absence of oxygen and nitrate when organic carbon from the pellets is present.
.
The point is setting a proper flow rate can be difficult and is largely guesswork and will likely vary from system to system depending on the amount of nutrients in the water and several other variables.

So just enough tumple to discourage clumping and anoxic conditions and that amount of tumbling may change as the chemistry of the tank changes (or amount of nutrients in the tank change)?

Thank you for your response. I hope I understood well enough to apply to my tank. I'm basically going to keep an eye on flow and make sure there's no dead spots by spot cleaning the reactor occasionally and purchasing a better reactor as I would really like this to work.

My main concern is creating an environment that could harm my inhabitants. But if I can wait this out and make it better by making small changes here and there and keeping my skimmer clean (which is filling up FAST but is wetter than usual), then I'll stick with it.

Thanks to everyone again for your attention, I really appreciate it!
 
I suggest looking at the Aquamaxx reactors. I have used many brands of reactors and these are by far the best for the money in my opinion. They totally prevent clumping, are built very well, and are affordable. Check them out
 
so then we can agree that a slower flow through a reactor can enhance the nitrate reduction, how does the flow effect the phosphate reduction?
 
Yes, your interpretation of my comments is accurate. Glad to be of help.

Obviously the other thing you might consider is reducing the amount of pellets in use.

Considering where you deposit the effluent may be helpful to avoid letting the snotty stuff get into your display tanks.
When mine was producing lot's of slime and clogging the gac , I ran the gac in a canister filter with the filter sponges in place . It liked to grow there and the sponges were porous enough with a large enough area to trap a lot of it without stopping the flow with bi weekly cleanings , leaving the carbon behind them realtively clean.

All in all I find it difficult to get precise control over the pellets ; this is one reason I opt for soluble organics ( vodka and vinegar)

I looked up clear fx:

http://www.bluelifeusa.com/CLEAR-FX-150ml

It's bituminous gac( granulated activated carbon) and organic removing resin(s). Many use gac and Sea Chem purigen . The thought being; the resin may have greater affinity for certain organics than the gac does and vice versa.
 
Back
Top