soulsigma
New member
Sorry to hear about your loss, sounds like you got things all dialed in now and within 2 to 4 weeks you should begin too see results. I have a C02 scrubber connected to my skimmer so I didn't experience any of the above.
N/P reducing pellets (solid vodka dosing)
- Thread starter tntneon
- Start date
- Status
Sorry to hear about your loss, sounds like you got things all dialed in now and within 2 to 4 weeks you should begin too see results. I have a C02 scrubber connected to my skimmer so I didn't experience any of the above.
chercm
New member
My tank never turn cloudy at all and ph is stable at around 8.0 to 8.1, is it ok?
Rwpdunne
spsaholic
What size is your tank? How many pellets are you using?
robojet
New member
I'm curious... is the reactor actually plumbed so it goes directly into the skimmer? Or is the outlet to the reactor simply 'near' the skimmer pump? If it's directly plumbed, could you elaborate on how this is done, maybe a photo? I'm a bit new to the whole sump/skimmer thing, and would really be interested in details.
Thanks!
chercm
New member
Rwpdunne
spsaholic
heres a picture see my return pipe going straight into my skimmer
Attachments
robojet
New member
Napi Napoli
New member
Should the return stay above the water line or below
daveonbass
New member
well I'm not starting one...haha...my two new SPS that I got and seemed to love the tank are now DEAD. I'm not blaming the pellets...but still, my after pics are worse than the befores...
SimonSKL
New member
I had started my Vodka/Vinegar/Sugar dosing for about 2 weeks before I decided to switch to BP. At that time, I was running GFO as well as a ATS. About 2 weeks after I started the BP, the water became much clearer and my corals, including SPS, were doing well with PE. My PO4 was zero and nitrate undetectable and my GHA started gradually disappearing. After 4 weeks, most of the GHA were gone so I decided to take the ATS offline. I added another 250ml BP to the reactor to a final volume of 750ml for my 100g tank. I still kept my GFO going. In fact I replaced them with fresh GFO. In the last few days, I noticed the GHA are returning even though my PO4 is still zero. I decided to put my ATS back on.
IMO, the BP seems to give me better water clarity and corals are doing well but I can't say the same for controlling GHA. I have to admit I started to feed the fish a little more heavy since I started with the BP thinking the BP would remove the excess nutrients from the heavier feedings. I will probably go back to lighter feedings until I can control the GHA again. My skimmer is working about the same as before BP. I did try to skim the water a little wetter but the skimmate volume remained the same. After adding the extra 250ml of BP to the reactor, I increased the water flow thru the reactor and the BP were "dancing" in the reactor. I don't know if such a higher water flow made the BP less effective. I am now dialing back the flow as before to the BP just barely moving.
IMO, the BP seems to give me better water clarity and corals are doing well but I can't say the same for controlling GHA. I have to admit I started to feed the fish a little more heavy since I started with the BP thinking the BP would remove the excess nutrients from the heavier feedings. I will probably go back to lighter feedings until I can control the GHA again. My skimmer is working about the same as before BP. I did try to skim the water a little wetter but the skimmate volume remained the same. After adding the extra 250ml of BP to the reactor, I increased the water flow thru the reactor and the BP were "dancing" in the reactor. I don't know if such a higher water flow made the BP less effective. I am now dialing back the flow as before to the BP just barely moving.
ChuckG
New member
What was the timing involved with the changes?
The ATS could have been the main consumer of PO4 while it was online. It could have been limiting all other removal methods to include your bp reactor. So when it was removed all at once it would take some time for the bactera populations in the reactor to catch up. Hair alge could have taken hold in this gap where there was not enough PO4 removal capacity.
If that is the case.. then intime you shoudl see the bp reactor remove more PO4 now that the ATS is offline and eventually limit the algea growth.
The ATS could have been the main consumer of PO4 while it was online. It could have been limiting all other removal methods to include your bp reactor. So when it was removed all at once it would take some time for the bactera populations in the reactor to catch up. Hair alge could have taken hold in this gap where there was not enough PO4 removal capacity.
If that is the case.. then intime you shoudl see the bp reactor remove more PO4 now that the ATS is offline and eventually limit the algea growth.
SimonSKL
New member
What you said makes sense. My ATS was offline on Apr 28th so it was off for about 11 days. I have been running 500ml of BP since 3/22/10. I would imagine the bacteria already in the reactor would be able to catch up in that time period. I just restarted my ATS yesterday and it will be at least another two weeks before it will fully functional. Should I stop my ATS again and see if the bacteria can catch up? What would be a reasonable time for that?
ChuckG
New member
My thoughts below and please take this a simply as ideas to help you think this through and find your own path vs. actual advise to follow..
If your tank has a high nutrient input and some nutrients sunk into the rock then I guess it's concievable that 11 days might not be enough to catch up to what is available for the algae to consume. Not knowing the details it is hard to say.. If you are set on the direction of migrating to the pellets for your primary export method then adding more was probably a sound decision. Concievable you might find later you need even more pellets later on to strike a balance.
In the interim you could manage PO4 export with the GFO. This might require changing the GFO every 2 days to keep ahead of the hair in the short term (amount depends on nutrient import). Testing the GFO effluent will let you know when it is exhausted. Then slowy scale back GFO use so the pellets can eventually take over.
Or cross your fingers and have faith in the pellets will eventualy catch up by themselves or with a small amount of GFO. They do work, it may just be a bumpy ride as you find the balance in quantity needed and flow through the reactor (I liek them all to move but not violently). In the interim couple of weeks while that is happening you can manually remove the the hair.
SimonSKL
New member
I have tested the GFO effluent with my Hanna Phosphate checker and it was zero. Tank water's phosphate is also zero. My GFO was replaced on 4/28/10. How can I tell if my GFO is already exhausted?
Eventually I do want to use the BP as my only nutrient export system. Now that the GHA is growing back, my nutrients must still be pretty high. I will replace the GFO next and will manually pull the GHA as you suggested. Thanks for your help!
ChuckG
New member
Best way to see if the GFO is exhausted is to compare the GFO reactors output PO4 reading againt the tanks reading. If the GFO output is lower then you know it is still working. This becomes difficult to do though when there is an active growth of algea in the tank as the algea consumes all the PO4 and you can get a zero reading in both spots.
In these instances it might help to manually prune out all the algae possible so you can get a PO4 reading before it is stripped of the water column. This is a good time to also start off with a fresh batch of GFO then monitor its output daily. If the is a lot of PO4 in the system then the tank reading and the GFO output reading could equalize in as little as 24 hrs so you have to keep an eye on it to catch the que on when its exhausted.
I have seen what these pellets can do. If this was my tank and I knew the bio-load was high and that I might be fighting an accumultion of nutrients then I would be inclined to incrementally add pellets up to the max amount specified by the manufacturer and keep pulling the hair algae out until it started to go translucent and die off. I'd also suppliment the bacteria populations with something like Microbacter 7 even though I have no proof that it helps as it could speed up bacteria populating the reactor.
Edit to Add: I'd also make sure the BP Pellet reactor output was placed right infront of the skimmer input to maximize the export of the nutrient laden bacteria so that they do not find their way into dispaly to die off, decay, and further feed algae. On my skimmer I have the pellet reactor output hose placed right in front, but to the side, and perpandicular to the skimmer input so it does not interfere with the skimmer input but also allows for the majority of the bp ractors output to be uptaken by the skimmer.
Last edited:
SimonSKL
New member
I replaced my GFO two days ago and manually pulled as much of the GHA as I could. One thing that I am not sure is the proper flow rate thru the BP reactor. I know many people want to see their BP tumbling but is it really the ideal flow for optimal bacterial growth in the reactor? Too much flow gives the bacteria less time to feed on the carbon on the BP and may not allow enough anaerobic bacteria to form to remove nitrate. I increased my water flow since I added more BP but have found my skimmer actually producing less skimmate. I have dialed back the flow to just keep the BP moving, not tumbling. I want to see if my skimmer will have better production.
I think you're misunderstanding how the process works. I'm getting this impression form a lot of folks here that have a tendency to add their own stuff to this. This media does not act like live rock. The pellets allow certain types of bacteria to grow within/on them that use the organic components of the pellets to process nitrates/phosphates and incorporate them into their body mass. When critical mass is achieved (population density of organisms) segments of the population are sloughed off and removed through mechanical processes (skimming). That's it. That all this stuff does. In a microcosm it works much in the same way that a refugium full of macro works with the exception that instead of manually removing the export material (macro), the export material (bacteria) is instead removed through skimming. It's merely a way to remove nitrogenous materials through nutrient export via mechanical process.
So you need the pellets to "tumble" to facilitate the bacterial sloughing (for mechanical export).
DJ
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
