N/P reducing pellets (solid vodka dosing)

Status
Not open for further replies.
sooooooo...your pellets "are" working then?. If yes, then you and I do NOT have the same problem. My pellets have never worked for me at all. :/
 
davyr said:
My nitrates never fluctuate,they always stay at 10. I still do 4 gallon w/c every Thursday.
Click to expand...

davyr said:
Hi Dave,
My nitrates were 25 on the 23/7/10 so they have come down but I want them down further. If that is possible?
Click to expand...


Sounds like through water changes and/or the pellets something is helping the nitrate issue. As stated before, you might have to introduce another method of nitrate reduction (vinegar, sugar, etc...) then allow the pellets to take care of the maintenance. Sounds to me like at the very least they are keeping your nitrates around 10 since you indicated they don't fluctuate. :)
 
Well i have contacted these guys and they want me to try their new D&D pellets http://www.bioaquatek.com/. So hopefully these will get my nitrates down to under 10 and they assure me that they are made different to all the other pellets.
 
Hayyy they are just only 2 miles away from my sister's house and I am visiting her on Friday. Might call around to see what they got to impress me......
 
I wonder if the water changes are necessary to some degree to replenish trace elements that may become limiting growth/proliferation factors????



bluereefs said:
IMO bacterial bloom come from way to much bacteria in water column in short period of time, reason for my opinion is because in the past when I will start my diy reactor with higher amount of bio pellets, with 500 ml for example from the start I will get bacterial bloom next day but if I ad small amount of bp during weeks then I do not get bacterial bloom with 500 ml, is the same reactor so if there are carbon/pellets release in aquarium I should get bacterial bloom both time. Also people who use them in the bag and not in the reactor will get bacterial bloom all the time, siting in bag in the sump are actually pellets materials in tank water, not separated in the reactor.
Click to expand...

Bluereefs.
I asked if you were indicating that you thought the pellets weren't releasing any components into the water column because I got the impression from the above post that you were taking a strong stance that the pellets don't release the carbon into the water column.

I don't want this to be too confusing or drag out without making a point so I'll take my questions a step further and just get to the point.

If you're indicating that your confident that they aren't releasing a carbon source into the water column then why the bacterial blooms?? It sounds as if your indication is that the bacterial blooms aren't actually occuring inside the water column but I'm interpreting that you're indicating the bacterial cloud is occurring from generous sloughing of the bacteria from the pellets as the carbon source induces a major initial bacterial population. That's my interpretation of your above post please tell me if I'm wrong in my interpretation.

If that is your indication, then I have a few thoughts. Even if the bacterial cloudiness (blooms) are from significant bacteria sloughing from the pellets than they have the same potential for negative consequences as if the bacterial population was generated as a bloom within the water column.

This quote from Cliff outlines serious potential implications from the massive bacterial population overgrowth as so many have seen.

HighlandReefer said:
" few days latter diy reactor create bacterial bloom and drop nitrate from 100 to 0,25 in few days"

I can see where a bacterial bloom would reduce nitrate quickly. I don't believe this is a safe practice IMHO, even though many hobbyists have experienced bacterial blooms while using these pellets without problems. The number of hobbyists' reports of bacterial blooms while using these products is alarming IMHO.

All bacteria do produce toxins as they grow and multiply. Some of these bacterial toxins are much more toxic than other bacterial toxins. If the bacterial specie that blooms in the water column produces highly toxic byproducts, then this could have drastic effects on your other organisms. The blooms rob oxygen from the water column. The effects on the coral symbionts could be negative and result in bleaching (expulsion) or worse yet cause changes in symbiont population species in the coral (some produce toxins which kill coral tissue). Just because this does not occur with the species of bacteria you have in your tank, it don't necessarily mean it can't occur for other hobbyists. :)

Exactly what the effects on coral symbionts the organic chemicals released in the water column from these pellets is unknown. Obviously for a bacterial boom to occur in the water column, the reactor is releasing the pellet material into the tank water IMHO. I thought the major purpose for using solid pellets is to prevent this from occurring like when using liquid carbon sources?
Click to expand...

Whether these populations are generated directly in the water column from the carbon source being released into the water "or" they are a result of the sloughing of a large portion of bacteria from the pellets then the consequences that Cliff outlined are still the same. The only thing I would see as different is symbiotic bacteria not being able to utilize the carbon source if it truly is remaining within the pellets. Since we have no ability to test the water to see if a carbon source is or is not leaching, I guess we can't rule out the possiblity that they aren't (which can potentially cause bacterial overgrowth with the corals symbiotic bacteria.) You sounded very convinced that these pellets aren't releasing the carbon source into the water. Do you have any literature or links to any info indicating that that is true or are you just assuming that?? Please correct me if I was wrong in the interpretation of any of your comments in your post. I don't want to put words in your mouth but very much want to discuss your opinion on the pellets releasing anything into the water besides bacterioplankton.



Dave.

Few questions for you. I want to further clarify your experimentation. You've mentioned several times that you've successfully maintained a reef aquarium by various conventional means. You also mention several times that you simply added the pellets to see their impact on filtration. Have you changed any of your normal routines which have kept your tanks successful in the past?? If you've stopped some of the normal care and husbandry which you routinely provide for your tank then you are actually putting a larger burden on the pellets. If you've supplemented the pellets for some other means of nutrient management (water changes or various means of filtration) then you may have swapped a more efficient nutrient management for the pellets which may not be able to do as much for your tank. Just a thought.

In all honesty I don't think the manufacturers intended these pellets to be a replacement for normal husbandry or a replacement for any other means of filtration, but more so another method to reduce nutrients further and/or be able to feed more without having a further increase in unwanted nutrients.

Jeremy
 
jlinzmaier, sorry for late reply, I was and still was quite bussy last days.

Just for clarification, in most of my posts I specifically pointed that what I write are only my opinion, IMO, that actually mean that I could be wrong, I also noted that I am not a expert with bio pellets and even less with the chemistry things. Randy, Bertoni, Boomer, Clif, tmz...are here to teach us what can be going on with all chemistry involved in bio pellets or any other question asked in RC.

Answer also depend of personal presentation of questions or advice, so when I readed Cliff post most of my atention get this sentences:
the reactor is releasing the pellet material into the tank water IMHO

Did I get this wrong or not dont know, but my understending of those words is that bp release smal particles in water column and that create bacterial bloom, so reason for so manny bacterial bloom in aquarium can be tinny pellets material suspended in tank water. IMO, that is not the case because everyone who use bp in the bag not separated in reactor will have constant bacterial bloom, also from my expirience using bp with small adition weekly do not create bacterial bloom, if I get bloom when I start with 500 ml of bp I should get him also when I start slowly and reach critical mass of 500 ml bp, if I do not get him then issue IMO are not related with pellets material in the tank water. Only differences, at least how I see the diferences, is much more bacteria in very short period of time in aquarium what lead to bacterial bloom, most of my expriences show me that bacterial bloom start slowlly, first day water are cloudy but not so much like next days so they obviously multiple very fast in aquarium water. That is not happening when bp are added slowly and when bacteria multiple much slower.

That is how I see that issue.
 
bluereefs said:
jlinzmaier, sorry for late reply, I was and still was quite bussy last days.

Just for clarification, in most of my posts I specifically pointed that what I write are only my opinion, IMO, that actually mean that I could be wrong, I also noted that I am not a expert with bio pellets and even less with the chemistry things. Randy, Bertoni, Boomer, Clif, tmz...are here to teach us what can be going on with all chemistry involved in bio pellets or any other question asked in RC.

Answer also depend of personal presentation of questions or advice, so when I readed Cliff post most of my atention get this sentences:
the reactor is releasing the pellet material into the tank water IMHO

Did I get this wrong or not dont know, but my understending of those words is that bp release smal particles in water column and that create bacterial bloom, so reason for so manny bacterial bloom in aquarium can be tinny pellets material suspended in tank water. IMO, that is not the case because everyone who use bp in the bag not separated in reactor will have constant bacterial bloom, also from my expirience using bp with small adition weekly do not create bacterial bloom, if I get bloom when I start with 500 ml of bp I should get him also when I start slowly and reach critical mass of 500 ml bp, if I do not get him then issue IMO are not related with pellets material in the tank water. Only differences, at least how I see the diferences, is much more bacteria in very short period of time in aquarium what lead to bacterial bloom, most of my expriences show me that bacterial bloom start slowlly, first day water are cloudy but not so much like next days so they obviously multiple very fast in aquarium water. That is not happening when bp are added slowly and when bacteria multiple much slower.

That is how I see that issue.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply Bluereefs.

A few thoughts.

If people are experiencing a bacterial bloom when adding pellets (and this is very clearly occurring after the initial addition of pellets for MOST people implementing their use) than what other explanation is there other than the pellets releasing some sort of carbon source into the water column??? That's the only explanation that comes to mind for me. Since a carbon source is almost always the limiting factor to bacterial growth in a reef aquarium then the sudden addition of a carbon source would allow the bacteria to grow uncontrolled until a nutient or necessary element became a limiting factor - thus the initial bloom becuase for so long the carbon source was a limiting factor as other nutrients have been present in excess (in excess in relation to C when you're referring to bacterial proliferation).

When you add the pellets slowly all you're doing is using the carbon as the limiting growth factor for the bacteria. As you add the pellets slowly they consume a large amount of N and P but the C is limited by the small amount of pellets thus preventing a major population explosion. Until you add more C (pellets), the bacteria will continue to reduce N and P at the restrictive level of the source of C. When you then add more pellets, the N and P may have been significantly reduced which will in turn become a limiting factor thus preventing the bacterial population explosion. In that scenario you will have more than enough C but often N or P (or some other necessary element) are limited enough to prevent a significant population explosion. There are also a number of other trace elements that may have been taken up during the initial addition of the small amount of pellets which may become a limiting factor and N or P may well not be the limiting factor at that point - the limitation of various trace elements may explain situations like Dave's in which the pellets are found to create no effect (thus my encouragement for regular water changes).

I see no evidence at all that the C isn't being released into the water column in some way or another. The bacterial blooms within the tanks water column seem to be pretty clear evidence to me that the carbon source is being released in some amount. Is a large amount being continually released or maybe only a small amount is being continually released- I don't know. Maybe there is only an initial release of carbon as the outer layers are freshly exposed to the aquarium water or maybe they continue to release a carbon source constantly. There is no true evidence to fully support the fact that they do or do not release a carbon source but the bacterial blooms are a pretty significant factor supporting the theory that they do.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this theory or you have other thoughts.

Jeremy
 
The manufacturers of many of these products claim they have systems installed in commercial aquariums and coral propagation facilities. Can anyone confirm this is true? If so, I'd love to hear from someone who works at a large commercial aquarium that has a pellet system and if they experience the same issues as the home aquarist.
 
I concur with my own anecdotal evidence.. I feel either carbon sloughed directly from these products or residual organic carbon (dead bacteria) is released backed into the aquarium. This from an extended fight with dinoflagellates while running a high bio-load and bio-pellets. Dinoflagellates are purported to need much more carbon than nitrogen or phosphorous and they seem to thrive in the low nutrient high carbon environment that the bio-pellets provide.

With a high bio load and a bio-pellet bacterial engine running at peak efficiecy, there in no amount of skimming that will prevent the buildup and migration of carbon into the aquarium... at least in my experience. The only saving grace might be having a high number of filter feeders in the display.

I'm not saying everyone that uses bio-pellets like products will suffer from a dinoflagellate a infestation. But in my experience the environment the bio-pellets promote are very conducive to dinoflagellite infestation. I prefer manual carbon dosing for the time being.. as it seems much easier to control how much carbon is in the display at any given point in time.
 
The only RC member that has a large facility that I know who is experimenting with PHA's (which is what is believed to be in the BP Biopellets) is Mesocosm (Gary White). He is holding off on releasing his verdict until ample time is given to derive some sort of form of scientific data. I just PM'ed Gary regarding possible updates and he has not had a chance to get back. He is a busy man. ;)
 
so is it not possible that the bacteria blooms are just bacteria blooms. In this equasion it seems that we are all turning "reaction X" into "reason Z".

i.e. Bacterial bloom = carbon in water.

why not: bacterial bloom = BACTERIA in water?

it seems at least a little possible that the bacteria are being produced in mass numbers and that the BACTERIA are then pumped into the DT water. Would there nessicarily be carbon in the water (from the pellets, not organic from the dead bacteria), or is it just what we see, bacteria?

it's like saying you see smoke; ou know that somewhere there IS a fire, but the fire is from a source, and not always at all the points of the fire.

is it possible that the carbon is not leaching into the water, and that just the bacteria is?

also I find it funny that jeremy thinks I should do more frequent waterchanges, and that mo thinks that by doing them I'm stripping the tank of the current nessicary bacteria. I can't win for losing...haha.
 
Dave.. I thought on this long and hard. Not saying this is the way it is, but I personally feel that bacteria eat the carbon on the pellets then are free to migrate throughout the aquarium carrying along with them the carbon that they digested.
 
Let's try to restate what Jeremy has stated in different terms.;)

If you put bacterial in pure rodi water without any contaminates, bacteria will not live. They need N, P, C & other elements to survive. which is not in pure rodi water. They do need some H,O which is found in distilled water. Without the N, P, C & other necessary elements they die. If you let a couple of bugs drop into the rodi water, then bacteria will begin to grow until the nutrients are gone & if replenished bacteria continue to grow.

We can limit the nutrients to some extent in a reef tank. The bacteria will grow and increase in population as long as there is enough nutrients. If too many nutrients are added then the bacterial populations will go crazy. Without enough nutrients the bacterial populations are limited. But if any bacterial required element is missing, then the bacterial will not live. You can have everything else they need and if one element is missing they die in other words. Therefore, bacterial growth is limited to the element that is missing or in short supply. The rest of the elements can be all out of whack, but it don't matter.

Organic matter suspended or dissolved in the tank water are nutrients. Too many cause problems and too little cause problems. You need the amount just right. These organics contain everything bacteria need to survive in most cases.

Reef tanks are limited with C availability. Too much along with too many other nutrients will cause blooms. So the amount of C you add can be used to control the population growth of bacteria much easier then most other elements in a reef tank. Phosphate can be used the same way since it may be limiting in a tank, although this is much harder to control since we add so much in fish foods, which is a must for fish survival. If you take fish out of your tank, then you can control many nutrients needed in a coral only tank. This is why a coral only tank is simplified & easier to get good coral growth. In a coral only tank you need to add all the required elements & fish food messes up the equation along with fish wastes. ;)



EDIT: FWIW, anyone using any carbon sources to control nutrients is here reading this post, simply because they have too many fish in their tank or in a few cases, only have a few fish and overfeed them. But the hobbyists' dreams are to have lots of fish with all the extra food and waste added and end up resorting to carbon dosing to try to get the water chemistry back in some kind of order. Very difficult to do for many advanced hobbyists. This is when the water chemistry fun begins. Unfortunately this leads to a lot of guessing since we can't measure very many of the elements required in a reef tank. Incidentally, all the naturally occurring elements found on earth are found in a reef aquarium. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Dave, I have it fiugred out - it is a fairy tale. Cliff just stated the principle of the three bears:
[BToo many cause problems and too little cause problems. You need the amount just right. [/B]
Click to expand...
Try inviting Goldilocks over:)
Actually I am working on setting up a generic pellet reactor with PLAs and will post when I get it working. I hope Ihave better luck than Dave, but I could resist the perfect setup. Thanks Cliff.
 
none of this answered my question.

chuck: when you eat a sandwich, and go back to work, no one tells you that you are sneaking a sandwich to the office, (in your belly?) so how is this the case with bacteria? Why do we not say that "bacteria" is leaching into the tank? Cause it is. If it carries carbon with it then so what? In that case we would have to argue that a bacteria bloom is adding (leaching) N and P back into the display tank. But we don't, so why do we assume that carbon is entering and that the bloom is not just the "smoke" from the reactors "fire?"

but I'm just curious, I am probably completly wrong. :P
 
daveonbass said:
so is it not possible that the bacteria blooms are just bacteria blooms. In this equasion it seems that we are all turning "reaction X" into "reason Z".
Click to expand...

Dave you're not making a whole lot of sense with this one. The point I'm trying to make is that the white cloudiness is a bacterial bloom induced by the release of carbon from the pellets. Never did I indicate that the bacterial bloom was anything else. The only other mention of a suspicion that the white cloudiness was anything but a bacterial bloom in the water column was when I asked bluereefs if his indication for the cloudiness was from significant bacterial proliferation on the pellets and large amounts of sloughed off bacteria were sent into the DT and is potentially making the water cloudy. The possibility that the initial cloudiness is from bacterial mass sloughung from the pellets is unlikley IMO becuase that would look more like slimy strings instead of a uniform white cloud. I was just giving bluereefs a chance to explain his thoughts on the cloudiness since it appeared to me he was indicating the cloudiness was from sloughing of bacterial mass.

daveonbass said:
i.e. Bacterial bloom = carbon in water.

why not: bacterial bloom = BACTERIA in water?
Click to expand...

This is essentially the same thing when it comes down to it because the carbon in the water is inducing the growth of bacteria in the water. The white cloudiness you see is a bacterial bloom - not a visible carbon source.

daveonbass said:
is it possible that the carbon is not leaching into the water, and that just the bacteria is?
Click to expand...


Possible but unlikely as the cloudy formation is more similar to bacterial growth in the water column as opposed to bacterial mulm sloughing off from the pellets.



daveonbass said:
also I find it funny that jeremy thinks I should do more frequent waterchanges, and that mo thinks that by doing them I'm stripping the tank of the current nessicary bacteria. I can't win for losing...haha.
Click to expand...

Never did I indicate you needed to do more water changes!! I don't even know or, at this point, care what you do for water changes. I merely indicated that it may be necessary for routine water changes (like 99% of us already do) so that various trace elements are not a limiting factor in the bacterial proliferation.

Jeremy
 
I have been using these bio-pellets for about 5 weeks now. My nitrates have now finally dropped to zero. I'm really happy with their performance.

I have a question however. Over the last week the pellets do not tumble in the reactor anymore (TLF 150 with sponges removed and mesh on bottom). There is 300gph pump pushing water through the reactor, and the water output seems to be fine, but the pellets will not move. I can stir them up and they will tumble for about 5 mins, but will then settle back down.

Do the pellets really need to tumble, or do they just need sufficient flow? According to the directions from the manufacturer, they need flow, but no mention of tumbling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

alpburakozbay
Dream of the Ocean
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
T Diddy
T Diddy
D
Algae issue - and I feel like I've tried everything
2
Replies
21
Views
3K
JCOLE
JCOLE
cody6766
Nitrate Problems? Vodka dosing worked for me this time
Replies
4
Views
1K
Genetics
Genetics
A
Space for equipment and Siphon use
Replies
1
Views
2K
Vinny Kreyling
Vinny Kreyling
bfortune76
Nutrient balance struggle.
Replies
1
Views
541
reefgeezer
R
Back
Top