I have been running NP Bio Pellets since I started my tank back in april. All of a sudden I have been seeing an abnormal amount of what I think is biofilm (brown alge like stuff) and with that a lot of bubbles on the biofilm. I was wondering if this was a normal thing when using the pellets? Or should I discontinue the pellets till the biofilm reduces a bit?
N/P reducing pellets (solid vodka dosing)
- Thread starter tntneon
- Start date
- Status
This sounds much more like Dino's to me. Do a search.
I killed mine off by replacing my Ro/Di Filters and blacking the tank out for 3 days. It may take several rounds of darkness....
ChuckG
New member
I don't think this is entirely accurate. It holds true so long as there are nutrient reserves stored in the tank, but I have found than when nitrogen or phosphate hit absolute zero the biomass of the pellet reactor weakens and dies off (equalizes).
A natural occurrence, but this can lead to scavenger blooms of dinoflagellites. The die off of the good bacteria can lead to an influx of Particulate Organic Carbon (POC) that dinos will take advantage of.
It is my opinion that when a tank tests 0 nitrate and at/or near 0.0 phosphate for a couple of weeks that it is time to start thinking about using a lower maintenance dose of pellets. Or maybe even doing this once testing shows trace nitrate less than 5ppm nitrate and 0.03 phosphate for a couple of weeks. The pellet reactor engine is powerful and will eventually starve itself out.
Feeding more is not necessarily the answer because the reactor biomass will only grow and the tank waters become more devoid of N and P. It is the devoid of N and P plus POCs in the display that will lead to dinos in my experience.
ChuckG
New member
Smokey where you monitoring phosphate and nitrate levels in the weeks leading up to brown biofilms arrival? If so can you share what these were?
I agree initial high dosing of organic carbon (pellets, etc) in a tank with high nutrients(N and P) runs a risk for bacterial blooms and oxygen depletion. Starting them in a tank where NO3 and PO4 have been reduced to lower ranges (say for example NO3 , 20ppm and PO4 < .25 ppm)and then using them to drop them further and maintain the lower levels may be a better strategy than starting with a large amount of pellets and high to very high N and P.
In my opinion you can overdose the pellets as you can any organic carbon source because of a potential harmful DOC(dissolved organic carbon ) buildup. Skimming and using gac help remove the extra DOC ultimately added to the tank when dosing.
The following post of mine is from another pellet thread in response to a question regarding N defficiency , the process by which the organic carbon added to the tank reduces N and P and wether sand beds influence the activity. Much of it is related to the question of potential cosequences of overdosing organic carbon :
Living things consume organic carbon(C),.phosphorous(P) and nitrogen(N) as food. Autotrophic (photosynthetic organisms) produce much of the inorganic carbon (sugar) they need.Some organisms like heterotrophic(non photosynthetic) bacteria rely on organic carbon .They also respire the O from NO3 freeing the N to form N2 gas when living in anaerobic conditions.
The Redfield ratio circa 1934, is a measure of the C:N
ratio in phytoplankton(106 parts C :16N;1P). Different organisms have different ratios but generally the Redfield ratio gives perspective on the relative amounts of CNP in marine organisms. Significantly more C than N and N than P.
Since photosynthetic organisms add C ,why is it necessary to add C via an organic carbon source to a reef tank with macro algae refugia and corals?
Surface ocean water contains; 0.7 to 1.1ppm DOC( dissolved organic carbon),about 0.2ppm NO3 and a scant 0.005ppm PO4. Reefs thrive at these levels.
As hobbyists we don't have a practical way to measure DOC but it is a nutrient with benefit and downside just like the other two. Organic carbon buildup does harm corals for example , perhaps due to effects on the coral's symbiont bacteria ,so exporting it is important.Tanks often have high PO4 and NO3 from the concentrated bio load prevalent in reef tanks and the associated waste decomposition. We know nuisance algae and cyanobacteria benefit from these.
The hypothesis regarding organic carbon dosing(carbohydrates, sugars, ethanol, acetic acid, etc) relies on the premise that more organic C will encourage more bacterial growth in the presence of N and P.The bacteria will consume the C and the N and P with it as well as respiring some NO3 thus limiting and reducing NO3 and PO4 by rendering or keeping N and P in organic forms( or nitrogen gas bubbles) exportable by skimming , granulated activated carbon ,purigen and other methods that remove organic materials.
While a nitrogen deficiency limiting to bacterial growth is possible with aggressive carbon dosing in an unfed tank, it is unlikely in most applications and can be remedied with a little extra food or amino acid dosing.
PO4 species of phosphate can be readily exported in the inorganic form via binders such as gfo without upping the nitrate and organic carbon to potentially harmful levels. So many use gfo or other methods along side organic carbon dosing to keep PO4 very low. Micro algae is limited by PO4 levels <0.03ppm.
Surface area for benthic bacteria to colonize such as found in sand beds can play a role in favoring anaerobic disgestion and NO3 consumption for respiration. Sand beds,particularly deep ones, carry a risk of organic carbon buildup in any anoxic areas in the bed. Organic carbon in an anoxic area favors sufate(SO4) reducing bacteria which produce toxic hydrogen sulfide as a by product of their activity .
Pellets are touted to rely on localized digestion on the pellets thereby minimizing the risks of dissolved organic carbon buildup in the water or substrate as compared to other methods of carbon dosing(vodka, vinegar ,sugar ,etc.) . However, the bacterial blooms etc . experienced by many using pellets may indicate otherwise . The pellets rely on carbohydrates which turn to monomers( sugars) which may cause difficulties if they get into the water column. So far users are doing well with them though.
__________________
Tom
In my opinion you can overdose the pellets as you can any organic carbon source because of a potential harmful DOC(dissolved organic carbon ) buildup. Skimming and using gac help remove the extra DOC ultimately added to the tank when dosing.
The following post of mine is from another pellet thread in response to a question regarding N defficiency , the process by which the organic carbon added to the tank reduces N and P and wether sand beds influence the activity. Much of it is related to the question of potential cosequences of overdosing organic carbon :
Living things consume organic carbon(C),.phosphorous(P) and nitrogen(N) as food. Autotrophic (photosynthetic organisms) produce much of the inorganic carbon (sugar) they need.Some organisms like heterotrophic(non photosynthetic) bacteria rely on organic carbon .They also respire the O from NO3 freeing the N to form N2 gas when living in anaerobic conditions.
The Redfield ratio circa 1934, is a measure of the C:N
ratio in phytoplankton(106 parts C :16N;1P). Different organisms have different ratios but generally the Redfield ratio gives perspective on the relative amounts of CNP in marine organisms. Significantly more C than N and N than P.Since photosynthetic organisms add C ,why is it necessary to add C via an organic carbon source to a reef tank with macro algae refugia and corals?
Surface ocean water contains; 0.7 to 1.1ppm DOC( dissolved organic carbon),about 0.2ppm NO3 and a scant 0.005ppm PO4. Reefs thrive at these levels.
As hobbyists we don't have a practical way to measure DOC but it is a nutrient with benefit and downside just like the other two. Organic carbon buildup does harm corals for example , perhaps due to effects on the coral's symbiont bacteria ,so exporting it is important.Tanks often have high PO4 and NO3 from the concentrated bio load prevalent in reef tanks and the associated waste decomposition. We know nuisance algae and cyanobacteria benefit from these.
The hypothesis regarding organic carbon dosing(carbohydrates, sugars, ethanol, acetic acid, etc) relies on the premise that more organic C will encourage more bacterial growth in the presence of N and P.The bacteria will consume the C and the N and P with it as well as respiring some NO3 thus limiting and reducing NO3 and PO4 by rendering or keeping N and P in organic forms( or nitrogen gas bubbles) exportable by skimming , granulated activated carbon ,purigen and other methods that remove organic materials.
While a nitrogen deficiency limiting to bacterial growth is possible with aggressive carbon dosing in an unfed tank, it is unlikely in most applications and can be remedied with a little extra food or amino acid dosing.
PO4 species of phosphate can be readily exported in the inorganic form via binders such as gfo without upping the nitrate and organic carbon to potentially harmful levels. So many use gfo or other methods along side organic carbon dosing to keep PO4 very low. Micro algae is limited by PO4 levels <0.03ppm.
Surface area for benthic bacteria to colonize such as found in sand beds can play a role in favoring anaerobic disgestion and NO3 consumption for respiration. Sand beds,particularly deep ones, carry a risk of organic carbon buildup in any anoxic areas in the bed. Organic carbon in an anoxic area favors sufate(SO4) reducing bacteria which produce toxic hydrogen sulfide as a by product of their activity .
Pellets are touted to rely on localized digestion on the pellets thereby minimizing the risks of dissolved organic carbon buildup in the water or substrate as compared to other methods of carbon dosing(vodka, vinegar ,sugar ,etc.) . However, the bacterial blooms etc . experienced by many using pellets may indicate otherwise . The pellets rely on carbohydrates which turn to monomers( sugars) which may cause difficulties if they get into the water column. So far users are doing well with them though.
__________________
Tom
, backettrio
New member
is C:N ratio acceptable for bacterias?
ratio acceptable for bacterias?
Hi tntneon,
My post was not intented to minimze your opinion on overdosing but just to provide some framework on the process involved in organic carbon dosing and to encourage some caution.
If the pellets do indeed maintain bacterial activity localized to the pellets and keep the carbohydrates and sugars on the pellets as claimed, then overdosing might be less of a concern with this method than direct dosing of other sources. I'm skeptical that it all stays local though.
My post was not intented to minimze your opinion on overdosing but just to provide some framework on the process involved in organic carbon dosing and to encourage some caution.
If the pellets do indeed maintain bacterial activity localized to the pellets and keep the carbohydrates and sugars on the pellets as claimed, then overdosing might be less of a concern with this method than direct dosing of other sources. I'm skeptical that it all stays local though.
ChuckG
New member
Hi TMZ.. Great posts BTW. My additional thoughts and I have no proof.. but even if of the carbon from the pellets never escapes the reactor.. you might at least get sloughed off bacteria that escapes the reactor which has fed off the pellets carbon source and integrated into their bodies. There are studies posted on advanced aquarist that suggest skimming is very inefficient on the first pass.
I am thinking that once this sloughed bacteria enters the display, and if they are not directly consumed by filter feeders, they will quickly starve as they can not passively complete for N and P as well as the bacteria left in the flowing reactor. Once they start to weaken they can become food for pests that can feed on them before they have even had a chance to break completely back down into dissolved organics... namely Dinos. The precurser to the dino outbreak seams to be undetectable (trace levels) N and P in the display but an abundance of dissolved or particulate carbon .
Last edited:
ChuckG
New member
greetingzz tntneon
Your experience is highly valuable. Pellet functionality on the surface seems very simple but in some scenarios there might be many complex dynamics going on behind the scenes that in rare occurrences can lead to problems.
Thanks Chuck glad you like the posts.
The bacteria could certainly move some of the organics and their enzyme activity could free up lot's of stuff.
I agree skimming is less effective than gac in removing organics, imo. The skimmer seems to remove some and serves a key role in aeration which is more critical when oxygen consuming bacterial activity is enhanced . Beyond the bacteria moving stuff into the water , I fret about the carbohydrates which go to monomers(sugars) that may diffuse out at least to some extent. I don't know to what extent ,probably less than with direct dosing of sugar ,etc. but I don't know how to measure it.
The bacteria could certainly move some of the organics and their enzyme activity could free up lot's of stuff.
I agree skimming is less effective than gac in removing organics, imo. The skimmer seems to remove some and serves a key role in aeration which is more critical when oxygen consuming bacterial activity is enhanced . Beyond the bacteria moving stuff into the water , I fret about the carbohydrates which go to monomers(sugars) that may diffuse out at least to some extent. I don't know to what extent ,probably less than with direct dosing of sugar ,etc. but I don't know how to measure it.
tntneon
SPSahollic
hi chuck & TMZ ,
I think i have that issue , corals are very happy( coloration , PE ,growth rate ...) and i don't have any measurable N / P or algea.
But still i have to clean the glass every 2 days , is this the evidence that i have to much DOC / TOC that can't seem to skim off ?
greetingzz tntneon
I think i have that issue , corals are very happy( coloration , PE ,growth rate ...) and i don't have any measurable N / P or algea.
But still i have to clean the glass every 2 days , is this the evidence that i have to much DOC / TOC that can't seem to skim off ?
greetingzz tntneon
djkms
Fish Freak
Hello all. First of all I want to say great thread. I have learned a lot from reading most of it and the knowledge here is amazing!
Here is my situation. My tank (info below) has been setup for a couple of months. So far I have only been running a skimmer and chaeto in my fuge. My parameters seem to be pretty good. NO3 sits about 1-2 and PO3 has a slight tint in my API test (just got a salifert kit in today for better readings). I would venture to guess my PO3 is around .10 My bioload is very small at the moment (only 2 false percula's, a few snails and a fire shrimp). My chaeto grows like crazy and I have to prune it back about once a week.
I am going through the normal algae cycle. First diatoms, now hair algae and a bit of bryopsis. I did have some cyno in my fuge but after cleaning it out about a week ago it hasnt seem to come back (fingers crossed). I also seem to have a bit of dyno in my fuge on a piece of live rock in there (brown slime, bubbles during the day). The dyno doesnt seem to be much of a problem. I have a couple of snails in the fuge which are doing fine. The only algae I have in my DT is HA and a couple random strands of bryopsis which I remove when I can. I also have some small patches of coralline in my DT.
Water parameters are good and stable. Fish are happy, shrimp is happy and my torch coral (only coral in my tank at the moment) is happy.
I ordered TLF GFO and some hydrocarbon which came in today. I also ordered a BRS pellet reactor and Ecobak pellets which should be coming in later this week. I want to stay ahead of the curve with nutrient export.
My question is, should I run a small amount of pellets right away or wait for a higher bioload? Should I run my GFO with the pellets? I will plan on having a fully stocked tank but taking it real slow. I know that the pellets take a few weeks to become "fully active" just wondering if I should start now...
Thoughts?
Here is my situation. My tank (info below) has been setup for a couple of months. So far I have only been running a skimmer and chaeto in my fuge. My parameters seem to be pretty good. NO3 sits about 1-2 and PO3 has a slight tint in my API test (just got a salifert kit in today for better readings). I would venture to guess my PO3 is around .10 My bioload is very small at the moment (only 2 false percula's, a few snails and a fire shrimp). My chaeto grows like crazy and I have to prune it back about once a week.
I am going through the normal algae cycle. First diatoms, now hair algae and a bit of bryopsis. I did have some cyno in my fuge but after cleaning it out about a week ago it hasnt seem to come back (fingers crossed). I also seem to have a bit of dyno in my fuge on a piece of live rock in there (brown slime, bubbles during the day). The dyno doesnt seem to be much of a problem. I have a couple of snails in the fuge which are doing fine. The only algae I have in my DT is HA and a couple random strands of bryopsis which I remove when I can. I also have some small patches of coralline in my DT.
Water parameters are good and stable. Fish are happy, shrimp is happy and my torch coral (only coral in my tank at the moment) is happy.
I ordered TLF GFO and some hydrocarbon which came in today. I also ordered a BRS pellet reactor and Ecobak pellets which should be coming in later this week. I want to stay ahead of the curve with nutrient export.
My question is, should I run a small amount of pellets right away or wait for a higher bioload? Should I run my GFO with the pellets? I will plan on having a fully stocked tank but taking it real slow. I know that the pellets take a few weeks to become "fully active" just wondering if I should start now...
Thoughts?
Just start it all now. No point in making it any more complicated than it needs to be.
DJ
djkms
Fish Freak
Thanks DJ, just the answer I was hoping for. Should I maybe just start out with 1/2 or 1/4 of the recommended amount of pellets and work up or just start with recommended dose and let my bioload catch up?
it probably wouldn't hurt anything to work your way in 1/2 at a time. Just make sure your circulation is adequate in the event you have a bloom (which I doubt you will with such a minimal bioload).
DJ
Aquarist007
New member
I have been running the np pellets on 4 different systems for about 5 weeks
In all the tanks I have noticed an immediate clarity in thee water and the corals extending their polyps
However in one tank, soon after installing the np pellets in a phosban reactor i had a huge breakout of bryopsis on the reef rock and on all the equipment,
Although some of the bryopsis has been reduced it is still very privelent in this tank.
Has any one else experienced this problem
In all the tanks I have noticed an immediate clarity in thee water and the corals extending their polyps
However in one tank, soon after installing the np pellets in a phosban reactor i had a huge breakout of bryopsis on the reef rock and on all the equipment,
Although some of the bryopsis has been reduced it is still very privelent in this tank.
Has any one else experienced this problem
That's odd. Obviously the algae is pulling something out of the rock. What r the levels in that tank respective to the others.
DJ
- Status
Similar threads
