N/P reducing pellets (solid vodka dosing)

[philbo32]

n this case the tank ran for 4 years improperly maintained until I took it over so that rock had a long time to absorb nitrates.

For clarifiction , nitrate(NO3) doesn't build up in/on the rock; phosphae (PO4 )does. Maybe the pellets depleted nitrate to a point where the bacteria were N limited and as a result could not use the PO4 or the polymers..

Agreed, I have had the same situation, running my own pellets. I have found phosphates encourage GHA, even though nitrate is at 0mg/L, phosphate in my system was at 0.03mg/L and still GHA fluorished. Only by using GFO and biopellets until phosphate levels are deminished could I get rid of GHA.

 

[DJREEF]

Agreed, I have had the same situation, running my own pellets. I have found phosphates encourage GHA, even though nitrate is at 0mg/L, phosphate in my system was at 0.03mg/L and still GHA fluorished. Only by using GFO and biopellets until phosphate levels are deminished could I get rid of GHA.

Ditto.

DJ

 

[DJREEF]

n this case the tank ran for 4 years improperly maintained until I took it over so that rock had a long time to absorb nitrates.

For clarifiction , nitrate(NO3) doesn't build up in/on the rock; phosphae (PO4 )does. Maybe the pellets depleted nitrate to a point where the bacteria were N limited and as a result could not use the PO4 or the polymers..

Actually, NO3 can get trapped in LR in the form of trapped organics - the rock becomes so saturated with detritus it no longer functions as an effective filtration device and leaches a steady supply of NO3 into the bulk water. So, while technically the NO3 isn't on the surface like the PO4, it does pass through the pores of the rock past the surface, and through the algae on it's way into the bulk water.


DJ

 

[Aquarist007]

n this case the tank ran for 4 years improperly maintained until I took it over so that rock had a long time to absorb nitrates.

For clarifiction , nitrate(NO3) doesn't build up in/on the rock; phosphae (PO4 )does. Maybe the pellets depleted nitrate to a point where the bacteria were N limited and as a result could not use the PO4 or the polymers..

Sorry---I knew that---posting error on my part

 

[Aquarist007]

I think that is the caution to be learned here----use a gfo media with the pellets if you don't know the history of the tank/live rock

 

[mm.reefs]

Actually, NO3 can get trapped in LR in the form of trapped organics - the rock becomes so saturated with detritus it no longer functions as an effective filtration device and leaches a steady supply of NO3 into the bulk water. So, while technically the NO3 isn't on the surface like the PO4, it does pass through the pores of the rock past the surface, and through the algae on it's way into the bulk water.

DJ

+1 :thumbsup:

 

[tmz]

Decay will breakdown the nitrogen in detritus and other non refractory organics in/on the rock to among other things,DOC(dissolved organic carbon), particulate organics and/ or ammonia, nitrite , nitrate and N2 nitrogen gas depending on the flow and whether oxic, hypoxic or anoxic conditions prevail at a given time in the process .
In some situations NO3 could be the end product to the water column . In some situations large or broken organic chains might be released which might be exported by skimming or gac or consumed by bacteria. In other cases ammonia or nitrite might be taken up directly by algae and corals.
In badly clogged pores anoxic conditions may develop with organic C present as detritus setting the stage for sulfate reduction and it's toxic by product hydrogen sulfide.

So it's not a given that a flow of NO3 from rock clogged with organic material will occur,in my opinion.


Obviously,ensuring the right flow patterns in the tank and ocassionaly blowing off the rocks and crevices to minimize detirus buildup down helps prevent all of these issues.

Phosphate on the other hand may also come free form the organics as they break down in clogged rock pores but even as inorganic /orthophosphate /PO4 species it sticks to even clean calcium carbonate rock surfaces, perhaps via a loosely binding adsorbtion to CO3 and equilibrates with the water overtime.

 

[DJREEF]

Decay will breakdown the nitrogen in detritus and other non refractory organics in/on the rock to among other things,DOC(dissolved organic carbon), particulate organics and/ or ammonia, nitrite , nitrate and N2 nitrogen gas depending on the flow and whether oxic, hypoxic or anoxic conditions prevail at a given time in the process .
In some situations NO3 could be the end product to the water column . In some situations large or broken organic chains might be released which might be exported by skimming or gac or consumed by bacteria. In other cases ammonia or nitrite might be taken up directly by algae and corals.
In badly clogged pores anoxic conditions may develop with organic C present as detritus setting the stage for sulfate reduction and it's toxic by product hydrogen sulfide.

So it's not a given that a flow of NO3 from rock clogged with organic material will occur,in my opinion.


Obviously,ensuring the right flow patterns in the tank and ocassionaly blowing off the rocks and crevices to minimize detirus buildup down helps prevent all of these issues.

Phosphate on the other hand may also come free form the organics as they break down in clogged rock pores but even as inorganic /orthophosphate /PO4 species it sticks to even clean calcium carbonate rock surfaces, perhaps via a loosely binding adsorbtion to CO3 and equilibrates with the water overtime.

Right. I only addressed the surface PO4 because this is source that any nuisance alga would be the most readily accessible too.

Flow patterns + rock infauna. Sometimes flow isn't enough without the proper set of organisms pushing and pulling nutrients out of the rock. I've seen systems which looked like like a toilet flushing that had non functional LR issues simply because the proper organisms weren't present within the rock to assist with nutrient exchange.

DJ

 

[Aquarist007]

Thanks for the detailed explanations tom and dj--I for one am learning alot from your posts.

 

[tmz]

Flow may not be enough to keep the rocks clean; getting flow patterns right for a paticular stack of rocks in a particular tank always seems to leave a dead spot or two and takes some trial and error and that's just the surface. I've broken rocks open and found sulfides in the center,evidencing sulfate reduction and hydrogen sulfide. Blowing it out with a turkey baster, some use power heads, once in a while can help.
As for the fuana (mieofuana microfuana,etc)) that may live in a particular rock and move nutrients around I don't know how you would ensure adequate numbers and food transport.
Do you think the potential for extra bacteria from carbon dosing helps or hurts infuana populations in sand or rock? I'm thinking mulm clogging passages and O2 consumption in low flow areas may depress them or could the extra bacteria and their by products be a food source for the fuana in the rock and sand bed?

 

[rdlisby]

Now what am I going to do............... I just read the last post. It took me a little over a week to read all of this, and apparently I should have been taking notes. Are NP Bio pellets PCL? BRS stated there is PHL? Someone in one of the forumes said PHL could be better for some reason.?

Also seems like everybody is using reactors of different shapes, sizes, and configurations. And in some cases not reactor at all . So in all reality if I want to use a reactor as long as I fine tom the flow through it to keep the pellets moving in some fashion it doesn’t matter If I go with the Next Reef SMR1 or the Geo 420 or any of the others? Right??

I really shoud have taken notes I hope there is not a test coming.

 

[thebanker]

Tom, I asked this earlier, but do you think that tilting a pellet reactor is detrimental to the efficacy of the pellet system? Tilting it is the only way I get fluid movement in the pellets. I try to wiggle the reactor daily to ensure all pellets get moved around.

 

[philbo32]

Tom, I asked this earlier, but do you think that tilting a pellet reactor is detrimental to the efficacy of the pellet system? Tilting it is the only way I get fluid movement in the pellets. I try to wiggle the reactor daily to ensure all pellets get moved around.

IME it doesn't matter how you get the pellets to tumble, you just need to keep them moving so that they don't clump together.

 

[bertoni]

Moving the reactor around a bit now and then likely is fine. I don't see a problem with that, although a lot of agitation could scrub off the bacteria.

I'm not convinced that live rock needs any infauna to process nitrate. I don't know of any studies along those lines, though. Live rock is an unknown quantity, IMO.

 

[Aquarist007]

Moving the reactor around a bit now and then likely is fine. I don't see a problem with that, although a lot of agitation could scrub off the bacteria.

I'm not convinced that live rock needs any infauna to process nitrate. I don't know of any studies along those lines, though. Live rock is an unknown quantity, IMO.

Always nice when you join in Bertoni

I agree with you---and how would infauna be deposited or migrate to the live rock in the first place--by definition they are bethnic so I am assuming they would be isolated to the substrate

 

[tmz]

After thinking a bit more about potential NO3 production from rock pores clogged with detritus and other organics, it seems likely reduced flow and lower oxygen would limit nitrification( a process which needs oxygen) and further any nitrate trickling or diffusing through would likely be picked clean of it's O via denitrification in these low to zero oxygen /nitrate areas. I do think detritus exposed to more flow on surfaces and in cracks and crevices will likely nitrify .

 

[tmz]

As noted before ,I don't know how to guage the the infuana in live rock. Certainly sponges grow there; seen some worms pop out too;I'd bet on micro crustaceans as likely squatters too. Whether infuana have a role in organics transport similar to those in sanbeds probably varies from rock to rock depending on several factors including: porosity , flow and food supply,but I don't know of any information in the literature on it either.

 

[tntneon]

Thanks for the detailed explanations tom and dj--I for one am learning alot from your posts.

+1 , the thread is becomming very intressting again , with you guys discussing the N/P subject :thumbsup:

I have to say since i use the BP's i brush (because i still haven't found a turkey baster here in europe ..., capn' hilinur :fun5: ) my rocks not so much any more ,
I hope this will not be a problem ?
I don't see any trapped detrius between the cavities of the rocks .
When i brush them , it's with a small painters brush (12 mm) .

greetingzz tntneon

 

[DJREEF]

Flow may not be enough to keep the rocks clean; getting flow patterns right for a paticular stack of rocks in a particular tank always seems to leave a dead spot or two and takes some trial and error and that's just the surface. I've broken rocks open and found sulfides in the center,evidencing sulfate reduction and hydrogen sulfide. Blowing it out with a turkey baster, some use power heads, once in a while can help.
As for the fuana (mieofuana microfuana,etc)) that may live in a particular rock and move nutrients around I don't know how you would ensure adequate numbers and food transport.
Do you think the potential for extra bacteria from carbon dosing helps or hurts infuana populations in sand or rock? I'm thinking mulm clogging passages and O2 consumption in low flow areas may depress them or could the extra bacteria and their by products be a food source for the fuana in the rock and sand bed?

I have found that wave timers and high volume powerheads to be of immense value where this is concerned. Sometimes the best flow, can be very short periods of no flow where by flocculants are lifted up into the water column by their own natural buoyancy and then swept out by the alternating currents. Turkey basters and powerhead blowoffs - work great, too if you're disciplined enough and have the time to stay on top of it.

DJ

 

[tripnbili]

I've seriously considered using some BP. I got the email from BRS today where they have a door buster on their version of BP.

Has anyone had success with these? Or am I better off spending the extra $10 for the "NP Reducing Bio-Pellets"

And, whichever brand I choose, I'll be using them in a 2-chamber BRS reactor (intended for GFO & GAC) which no longer runs GFO. I found the GFO to be overkill with my carbon dosing coupled with Prodibio.

In my reactor, should the water run thru the GAC first? Or the BP first?

Also, I think I've read about removing the foam inserts which are in the reactor when using the BP in the BRS reactors? I'm having trouble finding the answer to this in a 130+page thread. So, what do I need to do to the reactor to utilize BP in it and which brand?

Thanks so much and I'll report my progress when I start =)