N/P reducing pellets (solid vodka dosing)

[SimonSKL]

Does it matter where the reactor input comes from? I'm kind of torn on the MJ1200 OR MJ900 for the TLF 150. I'll probably end up with the 1200, can always dial it down if needed I guess.

I don't think you will be happy with using TLF150 with either the MJ 900 or 1200 as the inlet of the reactor is only 1/4". TLF is not designed for such a high flow that the pellets need to tumble. TLF 550 probably will be better with a 1/2" inlet and a MJ 1200 (295gph). I think you need at least 300gph to tumble the pellets. JMO.

 

[Flavordsm]

I don't think you will be happy with using TLF150 with either the MJ 900 or 1200 as the inlet of the reactor is only 1/4". TLF is not designed for such a high flow that the pellets need to tumble. TLF 550 probably will be better with a 1/2" inlet and a MJ 1200 (295gph). I think you need at least 300gph to tumble the pellets. JMO.

TLF 150 also uses 1/2" I.D. vinyl tubing

 

[pterfloth]

TLF 150 also uses 1/2" I.D. vinyl tubing

Both the TLF 150 and 550 have 1/2" inlets but reduce down to 1/4" at the elbow inside the cap. This restriction makes getting enough flow to the pellets difficult.

 

[ChuckG]

I've got a question that revolves around the need to run ferrous oxide/hydroxide (GFO) to pick up any residual phosphate that the bactera can't consume. Ill just throw some thoughts out there for everyone to chew on as I do not have enough information or background to come up with an answer on my own.

Specifically I am wondering how the use of bio pellets and GFO concurrently balances out. If you consider how GFO seems to out compete algae for phosphate in the water column it seems pretty aggressive in its rate of consumption. So how does GFO's consumption rate compare to the consumption rate of the friendly bacteria on the bio pellets?

Following the logic of the product, the friendly bacteria seems to need to process both nitrates and phosphate in a specific ratio to build cells and continue to grow. But if GFO is more aggressive than the bacteria at consuming phosphate then wouldn't it starve the bacteria out to the point where the colony starts to diminish? I am envisioning the end result being a tank with no phosphates in the water column but a whole lot of unprocessed nitrates.

Worst case.. and I have read the examples in this thread of tanks with phosphate reserves in the rock and the owner continues to use GFO in combination with the pellets. What is to say that it wasn't GFO all along that wound up being primary consumer of phosphates in these examples with the bacteria running up in second place?? The only reason the bacteria colony did not peter off was because there was a deep reserve of phosphate in the tanks substrate.

So if GFO is more aggressive than the bacteria at consuming phosphate is there anything that can be done to mitigate the problem and bring consumption of both removal methods into a balance? Maybe lower the rate of flow thru the GFO? This seems like it might work short term, but is it sustainable given GFO's tendency to clump? How does one manage this long term to insure they aren't hindering the bacterial colony on the pellets?

Or maybe the bacteria colony can hold it's own against GFO's consumption of phosphate? I wonder if the developer has any data points to consider or show how the two inter operate?

Or maybe I am over thinking all of this. Don't get me wrong.. I really like the idea and theory behind these pellets. And as per the directions you only need to run GFO if you have an abnormal amount of phosphate import in relation to nitrate production. So GFO may not need to be used in the majority of cases. It all just leaves me wondering how the product balances with GFO use.. especially since the product is newer.

Thoughts?

 

[Flavordsm]

Both the TLF 150 and 550 have 1/2" inlets but reduce down to 1/4" at the elbow inside the cap. This restriction makes getting enough flow to the pellets difficult.

Wonder if you could just bore it out a little bit with a dremel? I'll have to look at mine next time I take it apart.. Might work that way

 

[EvMiBo]

Well. Just ordered 500ml of the BP, a Maxijet1200 and TLF 150 reactor. Hoping for good results, I've recently had GHA going out of control...

 

[PSam]

I'm having no problem with the pellets tumbling in TLF150 + mj1200 at about 75%. 300ml pellet right now.

I don't think you will be happy with using TLF150 with either the MJ 900 or 1200 as the inlet of the reactor is only 1/4". TLF is not designed for such a high flow that the pellets need to tumble. TLF 550 probably will be better with a 1/2" inlet and a MJ 1200 (295gph). I think you need at least 300gph to tumble the pellets. JMO.

 

[EvMiBo]

I'm having no problem with the pellets tumbling in TLF150 + mj1200 at about 75%. 300ml pellet right now.

I think I'm just going to put all 500ml in the reactor and see how it goes. Looking forward to it, I'll try to take some pictures and video for everyone.

(before and after of GHA, testkit results etc.)

 

[tatuvaaj]

Chuck,

Some thoughts:

As you pointed out, the problem is in imbalance at both the import and export side of things: many foods seem to contain unnaturally high phosphorus levels, beyond the N ratio that living things can incorporate into their biomass. On the other hand there's imbalance in export too: denitrification is very efficient in many aquaria and thus there are more pathways for nitrogen export than there are for phosphorus. Phosphorus can only be truly exported by removing it physically (skimming / biomass / GFO et al).

Luckily bacteria are able to utilize phosphorus in its organic forms, especially when inorganic phosphates get closer to limiting levels. It is possibly this source of phosphorus that keeps bacteria growing even if you use large amounts of GFO. And besides, no one seems to be concerned that bacteria will die in natural reefs even though water there contains a lot less dissolved nutrients than a typical home aquarium :lol:

I don't think any hobbyist can tell for certain if they have limiting levels of either DIP or DIN as far as bacteria are concerned; the test kits are just not sensitive enough. Basically any measurable amount of either is more than enough to keep bacteria growing and thus the problem in most cases seem to be either some other limiting element (like labile organic carbon or maybe even some micronutrient) and/or too inefficient export in relation to input.

 

[tntneon]

hi Chuck ,

-I don`t use GFO anymore (4 month`s) .
It did not increase my phosphates levels (still zero) .


-The BP`s get the work done if you want to decrease NO3 (po4 has never been an issue) , but like other carbon sources it sometimes triggers cyano too.
This i think happens when the bacteria are not skimmed off properly , and therefore stays in the system then die , and are consumed back again by cyano .
When i`m doing dry skimming(<1l/week) it seems that the cyano is coming a little bit back , and if i dial my skimmer for wet skimming (2 l / week) it disappears again ?

If you have cyano issues when using BP`s you can also add for a week or so vinegar , till it dissappears , then you gradually decrease over a coupple of days and let the bp`s do there work again.

greetingzz tntneon

 

[stevedola]

my tank has been running BPs for 2 weeks and Im experiencing high PH (8.7). Before I think the ph was low because of the bacerial bloom however now the water is crystal clear but I knew something was wrong BC the BTA was looking alittle shrivaled. Shoudl I just let the tank settle in and run its course and hope the Ph will level out or should I try and reduce PH? is there an good way drop PH? Im making 20g of new water for a WC if needed.

My No3 is at 35ppm but I have no way to know what the original reading was because the algea was consuming it and reading 0ppm. Now the algea is slowly disappearing but the BPs dont seem to be consuming it quick enough. as stated b4 I have 500ml on a 90g tank.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I suspect a pH measurement error, unless your alkalinity is super high or you are adding a lot of limewater. I don't see a way for these pellets to raise pH appreciably, and always such high of pH without limewater is measurement error.

This has more:

High pH: Causes and Cures
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-03/rhf/index.htm

 

[jong101]

for those of you using filter socks, did you just get rid of them all together? i am trying to find a solution b/c if i do not use filter socks my pump pulls air through the bubble trap. I am trying to see what people are doing in the situation of filter socks

 

[salinity]

Guys,

You need to check out the Vetex reactor for the Pellets. It's unbelievable. I was running the Little Fishies 150 but I wasn't happy with the flow control and I just didn't the connections.
Also... I'm running every thing off of one pump. 2 returns and this beauty reactor. It works perfectly! In fact I still had to dial the returns and the reactor. I have enough juice in the return pump to power another small reactor for Rowa Phos.

I too use the Vertex reactor and am very happy with it, I found my phosban was too small and the small tubing clogged. I got my Vertex reactor from here, they sell it as a package and actually have a good sale on pellets. Just don't forget to have some pvc glue handy if you buy the Vertex, a couple fittings need to be glues to set it up.

 

[tntneon]

Clean set-up , salinity :thumbsup:

greetingzz tntneon

 

[catman78]

PH drop when adding pellets

PH drop when adding pellets

Been running 500 ml for around 3 months.
A week ago I added another 500 ml to reactor. System volume 120 gallons
PH just over 8 in daytime for last few days.

I'm using a maxi-jet 1200 wide open and a phosban 500 reactor.

Is this normal?

thanks

 

[ChuckG]

Phosphorus can only be truly exported by removing it physically (skimming / biomass / GFO et al).

I like the idea of combining aggressive wet skimming with the use of bio-pellets to the practise of supplimenting with GFO.

Luckily bacteria are able to utilize phosphorus in its organic forms, especially when inorganic phosphates get closer to limiting levels. It is possibly this source of phosphorus that keeps bacteria growing even if you use large amounts of GFO.

I am not too familiar with the capabilites of GFO and the variuos types of phosphate.. are you saying GFO only removes inorganic phosphate?

And besides, no one seems to be concerned that bacteria will die in natural reefs even though water there contains a lot less dissolved nutrients than a typical home aquarium :lol:

This comparsion I am not really sure of. I mean there are certainly billions/trillions of bacteria that exist in and on any one reef. But I would think it is safe to say that within our closed systems we are attemtpting to harbor much higher densities of bacteria per unit of area measure than on any natural reef.

Furthermore becuase the aquarium is a closed there will be a finite amount of phosphate that if you where to use enough GFO.. it will deplete it fairly rapidly. I dont think this is achieveable in the ocean as no matter how much GFO you dump in it... you're never going to remove it all. :fish1:

 

[stevedola]

I suspect a pH measurement error, unless your alkalinity is super high or you are adding a lot of limewater. I don't see a way for these pellets to raise pH appreciably, and always such high of pH without limewater is measurement error.

This has more:

High pH: Causes and Cures
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-03/rhf/index.htm

u r right. ph was 8.3

error was in the test kit.

 

[tatuvaaj]

I am not too familiar with the capabilites of GFO and the variuos types of phosphate.. are you saying GFO only removes inorganic phosphate?

Yes.

Furthermore becuase the aquarium is a closed there will be a finite amount of phosphate that if you where to use enough GFO.. it will deplete it fairly rapidly. I dont think this is achieveable in the ocean as no matter how much GFO you dump in it... you're never going to remove it all.

That might be true if you do not feed the aquarium at all (in which case you won't need BPs either ). We don't really know because there is no way an average hobbyist will be able to measure PO4 in natural range (average 0.003 ppm PO4, sometimes much lower).

 

[ChuckG]

Yes.

That might be true if you do not feed the aquarium at all (in which case you won't need BPs either ). We don't really know because there is no way an average hobbyist will be able to measure PO4 in natural range (average 0.003 ppm PO4, sometimes much lower).

Thanks!