N/P reducing pellets (solid vodka dosing) - Split
- Thread starter tntneon
- Start date
tntneon
SPSahollic
I do not know everything about these pellets, and in fact no one does, these are not researched and produced for the aquarium market, so we have to learn about them as we go. We have let manufactures of acrylic tubes dictate to us how pellets are to be used, but in reality they just grabbed onto what people were doing in the beginning with pellets and have created their own market for pellet reactors, and have people just starting with them convinced that tumbling reactors are the right way to use pellets. It is only right for the mfg's as they can sell overpriced acrylic tubes......
....I have never had a bacterial slime issue, never had a bacteria bloom but I did, in the beginning, use too many pellets for my bio-load and stripped the water of NO3 and PO4, stripped so much that chaeto dissolved....
Something to think about.
+1 , nice said sireal63 , the idea to use an open type "jar " or "vaze" to put the pellets in was to keep it simple an inexpensive.
And the mesh bags in my case had a film on it after only 2 days , probably reducing the flow thru it , and as manufacturer had said at that time , that it was dangerous when flow was to strongly reduced (anoxic conditions).
So it seemed alot easyer to just dump them in an bucket or vaze an let the flow from display do there job in tumbling or in my case a slow boilling movement.
As for the Chaeto i had the the same issue , if you really don't measure (salifert) NO3 anymore then it's time to reduce the pellets or you won't have any chaeto left.
I though that if i would feed more it could compensate for that .
But as the corals grew i had a dead spot (flow ) in my nano where food left overs /mulm and bacteria began to accumalate , NO 3 didn't rise at all but in this area caulerpa started to grow from the detrius as soil .
Now the caulerpa is getting under control , i only feed fish now and add a few drops of salifert all-in one , no more daily plancton or just occaisionaly.
greetingzz tntneon
Thanks tntnean. I would like to say that I am in no way telling anyone that what they are doing with their pellets is wrong, but I do hope to open back up this dialogue of how to use them the best. Pellets have been on the market for us for a few years now, some people have had great success with them, some have not. Could that be in the way we employ these pellets?
I started looking at how we were using pellets after my water stripping in the beginning. These are just my observations, someone else may have other observations.
1. We want to keep as much of the bacteria inside the reactor as we can. Is this important?
2. We want to provide adequate flow of oxygenated water to the bacteria. I have employed very slow flow and never had any signs of sulfides or anything negative from slow flow. Any reactor can have issues if the flow is stopped.
3. We want control over the nutrient removal rate. Currently we do this by controlling the amount of pellets in the reactor, is that the only way?
The current reactors on the market do not do a very good job at #1 and #3, in fact some of them are just ludicrous. I saw the video for the CadLights conical one that whirls them like a blender. The way I see it, we want the pellets to have as much bacteria on them instead of sloughing the bacteria off and letting it escape the reactor. That crazy flow seems like it would impede bacterial population on the pellets and release too many to the tank. Is that really what we want and does it matter?
I watched the Reef Dynamics video and had warm fuzzies. I had been looking at making one that was recirc but with the move and my impending back surgery I did not give it a lot of time. This reactor seems to solve the problems, we can control the tumble, control the flow and thereby control the nutrient consumption. So far it is the only reactor I have seen that meets the goals I have for pellets. No I am not pushing this reactor, but I do like the way it is designed and that is my only point.
My biggest thought and concern is #1, how important is it to try and keep as much of the bacteria contained in the reactor as we can and what, if any are the issues with colliding the pellets against each other?
I started looking at how we were using pellets after my water stripping in the beginning. These are just my observations, someone else may have other observations.
1. We want to keep as much of the bacteria inside the reactor as we can. Is this important?
2. We want to provide adequate flow of oxygenated water to the bacteria. I have employed very slow flow and never had any signs of sulfides or anything negative from slow flow. Any reactor can have issues if the flow is stopped.
3. We want control over the nutrient removal rate. Currently we do this by controlling the amount of pellets in the reactor, is that the only way?
The current reactors on the market do not do a very good job at #1 and #3, in fact some of them are just ludicrous. I saw the video for the CadLights conical one that whirls them like a blender. The way I see it, we want the pellets to have as much bacteria on them instead of sloughing the bacteria off and letting it escape the reactor. That crazy flow seems like it would impede bacterial population on the pellets and release too many to the tank. Is that really what we want and does it matter?
I watched the Reef Dynamics video and had warm fuzzies. I had been looking at making one that was recirc but with the move and my impending back surgery I did not give it a lot of time. This reactor seems to solve the problems, we can control the tumble, control the flow and thereby control the nutrient consumption. So far it is the only reactor I have seen that meets the goals I have for pellets. No I am not pushing this reactor, but I do like the way it is designed and that is my only point.
My biggest thought and concern is #1, how important is it to try and keep as much of the bacteria contained in the reactor as we can and what, if any are the issues with colliding the pellets against each other?
I wish such a thing existed. There will be friction when the pellets collide, and based on my own experience, my pellets decreased in size faster when in a fast moving reactor, and decreased less when in the bottom of a canister filter where they did not move at all. Both ways kept my NO3 in check, but with the reactor the pellets dissolved faster. Friction from the collision will wear down the pellets, where does that little bit of pellet go? Is it in solution moving through the aquarium where bacteria consume it in the main system? Given the flow from the reactors on the market, I would say yes that it is not contained in the reactor.
I do not know of any study that supports this, it is, as I said, just my observation. Logically you would expect friction from the pellets colliding with each other, and you would expect that the bacteria on the pellets would also be disrupted from that collision and friction. The bacteria are already in our water, throughout the system, but the food source is the carbon in the pellets, which have a slow dissolution rate on their own, that is what they were originally designed for, to break down in landfills.
I do not know of any study that supports this, it is, as I said, just my observation. Logically you would expect friction from the pellets colliding with each other, and you would expect that the bacteria on the pellets would also be disrupted from that collision and friction. The bacteria are already in our water, throughout the system, but the food source is the carbon in the pellets, which have a slow dissolution rate on their own, that is what they were originally designed for, to break down in landfills.
tntneon
SPSahollic
1) I think that the bacteria will be concentrated on the surface of the pellets , but that they also release into sytem , else you could not skim them away (---> very important IMO).
That they wil realease into sytem what in it self is no bad thing as corals too feed on bacteria , if met to the following export conditions IMO
To be able to skim them away one must be sure that you have no deadflow spots , because then bacteria + nutrient will sinck in this area , having a area where it all builds up----> high flow in display very important + skimmer performance and maintenance important.
So i don't think it is important to keep the bacteria in the reactor .
2) Don't know for sure , mine always have boiled and never had any issues with rotten egg smell
3) I think that would be the safest way, as one limits the other .
One could say more feeding could resulte in more N & P 's , but be double sure you have enough flow and skimmer performance else you have bad issues ( algea , cyano ,... )
These are my findings , i'm not gonna tell this is the way or the holy grail to do it , just some observations .....
greetingzz tntneon
That they wil realease into sytem what in it self is no bad thing as corals too feed on bacteria , if met to the following export conditions IMO
To be able to skim them away one must be sure that you have no deadflow spots , because then bacteria + nutrient will sinck in this area , having a area where it all builds up----> high flow in display very important + skimmer performance and maintenance important.
So i don't think it is important to keep the bacteria in the reactor .
2) Don't know for sure , mine always have boiled and never had any issues with rotten egg smell
3) I think that would be the safest way, as one limits the other .
One could say more feeding could resulte in more N & P 's , but be double sure you have enough flow and skimmer performance else you have bad issues ( algea , cyano ,... )
These are my findings , i'm not gonna tell this is the way or the holy grail to do it , just some observations .....
greetingzz tntneon
Good points tnt, I would add that I haven't noticed any decrease in skimmer output no matter where the reactor output was. With the canister filter, the output was back in the display, with no change in skim. I do have very high flow in the display and low flow through the sump. With the reactor, the output was into the container that held the skimmer. The skim was the same.
Since the move I have not put the pellets back in service, I broke the canister filter, so I may just hang them in a mesh bag in the sump while I work on my reactor.
This thread has grown a lot since you started it, and my hope is that the people who have been using this product will chime in and relay their experience. There have been many different implementation of this product, reactors of many styles, mesh bags, canister filters, etc.
Since the move I have not put the pellets back in service, I broke the canister filter, so I may just hang them in a mesh bag in the sump while I work on my reactor.
This thread has grown a lot since you started it, and my hope is that the people who have been using this product will chime in and relay their experience. There have been many different implementation of this product, reactors of many styles, mesh bags, canister filters, etc.
I have been using a modded reactor for several months now, 100% of the affluent enters my skimmer. My tank is a 39x24x22 rimless with 2 MP10 and 1 MP40 in the tank for water movement. The tank itself is rather new and I have some algae growing on the rocks right now. Im not sure if its a bit of new tank syndrome or if the pellets are causing an issue. I have recently started adding vinegar to my ATO which runs through a kalk stirrer to add a 2nd carbon source as well as get a bit more punch from my kalk. At this time Im really deciding on whether to take my bio pellets off line and see what the vinegar can do for me.
cherubfish pair
New member
sirreal63,
I think part of the reason for the pellet tumble is to help slough bacteria. The sloughing process is nutrient export harvested by skimmers.
The nutrient cycle involving pellets is as follows: nutients enter the tank in the form of food, the food is assimilated by plants and animals, the plants and animals excrete wastes and mineralize after death, the bacteria on the pellets assimilate the excretement only to be sloughed from the pellet and skimmed out of the water by protein skimmers.
I agree with you on the Reef Dynamic pellet reactors. They look like an awesome product. I think they are overpriced though.
I think part of the reason for the pellet tumble is to help slough bacteria. The sloughing process is nutrient export harvested by skimmers.
The nutrient cycle involving pellets is as follows: nutients enter the tank in the form of food, the food is assimilated by plants and animals, the plants and animals excrete wastes and mineralize after death, the bacteria on the pellets assimilate the excretement only to be sloughed from the pellet and skimmed out of the water by protein skimmers.
I agree with you on the Reef Dynamic pellet reactors. They look like an awesome product. I think they are overpriced though.
Hujoweforum
New member
I am Running those little devils for over two years.Two Liters of pallets
In 120 G system.From my experience:
Low oxygen,low Ph and week skimmer Will cause a lot of problems.
And getting a little bit deeper in the problem proper gas exchange
Co2 -oxygen Will save everybody Many headaches.
Growth of bacteria rely on the level of oxygen in the filter and carbon.
By choking them in a little towers with high-pressure and higher level of Co2.
Little fellows will not be very happy.
In 120 G system.From my experience:
Low oxygen,low Ph and week skimmer Will cause a lot of problems.
And getting a little bit deeper in the problem proper gas exchange
Co2 -oxygen Will save everybody Many headaches.
Growth of bacteria rely on the level of oxygen in the filter and carbon.
By choking them in a little towers with high-pressure and higher level of Co2.
Little fellows will not be very happy.
Cherub, you will get bacterial slough off with slower flow as well and will do a better job of containing the bacteria in the reactor and what bacteria is released from the reactor should be of a higher concentration for the skimmer to aid in removal. At least that is how I see it, although when I ran these in my canister filter, the effluent was into the display about as far from the skimmer as possible and it made no difference, the skim was the same, but I prefer to run the effluent right to the skimmer intake. I do understand the process of how pellets work. One thing about the RD reactor, the flow adjustments are tunable and as much appear to be able to tune the effectiveness of the bacteria, (edit, quantity of bacteria by limiting the available nutrients) and it may be that what is actually happening is the oxygen is the control mechanism that limits the nutrient removal via slower flow through the reactor. This approach appears to work, though I have never done it to the extreme that Jeff did. If we can control the bacteria by limiting the oxygen and prevent the reactor from producing nasties then that is indeed a good thing.
Jonathan , thanks for chiming in. Didn't AA do a study and determined that some bacteria seem to be skimmable and others not? That seems kind of interesting to me.
Hujo, what problems did you have? Low oxygen and dangerously low PH in our tanks is a rare issue. What happened in your case?
My goal is to examine what we are doing with these pellets, it may be the best way, but it may not. I went back to see where the idea of fluidizing them came from, it was the importer of this product originally. He was trying to sell pellets to the aquarium industry, and I am always leary of people with a monetary goal. In my 29 years of sales, marketing and product development, I know to never trust anyone who stands to profit's advice. We learn by questioning and this product has been available long enough for some questions to be asked. My own observations in the 18 months I have used it and the different ways I have used it have made me think. Are we using these things correctly and is there a better way?
Jonathan , thanks for chiming in. Didn't AA do a study and determined that some bacteria seem to be skimmable and others not? That seems kind of interesting to me.
Hujo, what problems did you have? Low oxygen and dangerously low PH in our tanks is a rare issue. What happened in your case?
My goal is to examine what we are doing with these pellets, it may be the best way, but it may not. I went back to see where the idea of fluidizing them came from, it was the importer of this product originally. He was trying to sell pellets to the aquarium industry, and I am always leary of people with a monetary goal. In my 29 years of sales, marketing and product development, I know to never trust anyone who stands to profit's advice. We learn by questioning and this product has been available long enough for some questions to be asked. My own observations in the 18 months I have used it and the different ways I have used it have made me think. Are we using these things correctly and is there a better way?
cherubfish pair
New member
I think we need to think of this methodology like bacteria are our friends. The bacteria incorporate our excess nutrients into their tissues and multiply. By skimming off the bacteria, we remove the excess nutrients from our tanks and this also removes some bacteria thereby creating more food than is needed by the pellet imbedded bacteria. There is extra food now that gives the bacteria a source of energy to multiply and become sloughed off and so on.
The RD reactor seems to have a more efficient design. It passes a sample of water through the pellets more times than the other reactors and gives the bacteria more time to feed on the excess nutrients in a given amount of time. I don't see any change in the rate of sloughing with the RD design though.
The RD reactor seems to have a more efficient design. It passes a sample of water through the pellets more times than the other reactors and gives the bacteria more time to feed on the excess nutrients in a given amount of time. I don't see any change in the rate of sloughing with the RD design though.
The rate of change would by way of the valve on the recirc flow, from a slow tumble to a very fast one. No question that it has been the reactor that has intrigued me the most. Maybe because I had in my head to do something similar, but Jeff nailed it better than I could have.
I know bacteria are our friends.
I know bacteria are our friends.
cherubfish pair
New member
So you first saw it [RD] on YouTube too?
cherubfish pair
New member
I emailed Jeff about a smaller reactor and here's his answer:
~Jeff Macare, Reef Dynamics
Aquarist007
New member
Bacteria exists in a biofilm that coats live rock, substrate, etc etc.
Similarily in the np pellets reactor.
The biofilm is not easily removed by skimming nor is it easily removed by increase flow through the pellet reactors. Any bacteria that does become water borne is easily removed by skimming. This keeps the system healthy and stops the accumulation of unwanted forms of bacteria ie cyano.
The reason we want lots of flow through the reactors is to bring more nitrates and phosphates to the bacteria and not the other way around.
If you dose the system with carbon then you are increasing the bacteria level in the system and this can cause some problems that switching to the pellet reactors solved
Similarily in the np pellets reactor.
The biofilm is not easily removed by skimming nor is it easily removed by increase flow through the pellet reactors. Any bacteria that does become water borne is easily removed by skimming. This keeps the system healthy and stops the accumulation of unwanted forms of bacteria ie cyano.
The reason we want lots of flow through the reactors is to bring more nitrates and phosphates to the bacteria and not the other way around.
If you dose the system with carbon then you are increasing the bacteria level in the system and this can cause some problems that switching to the pellet reactors solved
Similar threads
