N/P reducing pellets (solid vodka dosing)

[NaClH2Opgh]

ethanol dosing, which has its obvious limitations (growth of bacteria on corals, feeding red bacteria, CO2 production of bacteria everywhere which lowers pH, when placing the exit tube of the pellet filter in front of the skimmer this will be severely reduced etc...),

Not sure I understand "obvious limitations". I have been dosing vodka for almost 15 months. I get no cyano in my tank at all. I regularly run a Ca reactor and my PH has been in the 7.9 - 8.1 range before I started to dose vodka and is still in that range since I have been dosing vodka. What do you mean by growth of bacteria on corals? Just trying to understand how this is better than regular carbon dosing. It just seems like with continually adding pellets 2 to 3 times per year the price really needs to come down considerably or to provide some benefit that vodka is not for this to be an option. Again, I am not being a "nay sayer" but just trying to weigh the advantages over vodka dosing.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

In my hands it is working much better than ethanol dosing, which has its obvious limitations (growth of bacteria on corals, feeding red bacteria, CO2 production of bacteria everywhere which lowers pH, when placing the exit tube of the pellet filter in front of the skimmer this will be severely reduced etc...), but yes it is a choice

I agree that those are good potential benefits, if they hold up to careful scrutiny.

Since we do not know what it is, there are also potential drawbacks that we cannot know about. The release of who knows what monomeric or oligomeric organic compounds, the fact that corals and such may not get any direct benefit from the organic matter as they may with acetate, the unknown purity of the material with respect to other ions, the relative amount of aerobic vs anaerobic metabolism of the material by bacteria (which is potentially different than direct dosing), the different species that may grow on it, and the way that that species and growth pattern impacts the ability of the bacteria to act as food sources for higher organisms in the tank.

I'm sure there are other possible concerns, but those are a few that come to mind.

 

[Plantbrain]

I agree whole heartly, without evidence that has been demonstrated, it's all marketing hee haw. Seems they are telling you what you want to hear for your $$$. Plenty of that in this and many other hobbies.

I see nothing to suggest they are really any more effective as far as enhancing bacterial cycling rates for NO3=> N2 transformation. A little bit of Fe and sugar ought to do fine if the goal of the systems are to be ran very lean.

I think a lot of the success has to do with good consistent habits and stable loading rates provided by the aquarists. So it's a human issue more than marketing a new cure for everyones bad habits.

This really seems more like an issue of carbon(reduced carbon) limitation of the bacteria that NO3=>N2 gas. So it does not matter too much as long as the Carbon and Nitrogen are loaded at a some what stable rate. So whether you use booze, acetic acid or sugar should not matter.
Or $$$ pricy little super balls.

If macro algae are used in the system, eg, refugiums etc, then there's plenty of reduced carbon leached from those autotrophes anyway. Not likely the aquarium is carbon limited nor particularly helpful to add reduced carbon further to enhance N removal.

Additionally, the macros will remove NH3/NO3 directly as biomass in addition to leaching reduced carbon, I'd say perhaps 5-10% of the total fixed DIC is leached if......and this is a big if.........the rates of loading are again somewhat stable and the other demands of the macros are being met(N, P, Fe etc, light and so on). I think that is the big advantage for the bacteria, they are much easier to cultivate and balance their limiting factors than say macro algae, but the trade offs are the bacteria look none too pretty and are not fed to fish, sold etc.

This same issue with Carbon limitation occurs in freshwater wetlands where they use them for water treatment for N removal via NO3=> N2 and P sequestration. NO3=> N2 rates go up as the carbon is added if it's a limiting factor.

Since many run reefs super lean in terms of food, there's not a lot of leftover carbon.........or carbon in general, and skimmers remove any that's left like mad before it's broken into smaller fractions.

Personally, I'd just stick with sugar and be done with it.
Easy, dirt cheap, available, easy to do without changing much.
Seems like they are preying on ignorance and using marketing/trends etc to sell the product. Sugar is not hard to use or buy.

Regards,
Tom

 

[reefkeeper2]

I think there would be clear advantages to using a product like this if the questions Randy has put forth can be reasonably answered. I attended a lecture at the Brass conference in Boston where Eric Bornman touched on the subject of carbon dosing. The relationships between corals and the bacteria that they harbour are complicated and not fully understood. He spoke of the natural ratios of primary elements in the water and how carbon dosing changes this, and how excess bacterial growth on your sps might not be a good thing. I have been dosing for years, and though happy with the results thought what he said made sense. A product like this would allow you to grow the bacteria you need for a low nutrient environment without changing the population of the microorganisms in the water or on your corals. Sounds like a good advancement to me. I hope the answers to Randys questions come sooner rather than later.

 

[recife111]

I don't think it is that expensive.

 

[ksed]

jptenklooster

I've heard that Charles Delbeek is testing this product?
I am wondering how that is going and will there be any literature published on the Bio Pellets?

 

[tatuvaaj]

There are a lot of unknowns with all DOC sources as well. There is number of potential problems with sugar for example but I have never had anything but positive results (minus visible bacteria on surfaces and water).

I do think product like BioPellets (if it proves to be effective) offer important advantages over DOC dosing:

- It takes away the problem of correct dose. Most problems people have seem to be because of overdose (or dosing too little). The consequences from DOC overdose can be nasty...
- No additional DOM load
- Very nice bacterioplankton production (food for filterers)
- Works well for lazy people like me

I think it is a bit premature to blame the manufacturer for false advertising at this point.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

It takes away the problem of correct dose.

How does it do that? Seems to me it takes away the ability to jigger doses day by day depending on what the aquarist observes. You are basically stuck with it, unless you add more or remove some, aren't you?

 

[tatuvaaj]

It takes away the problem of correct dose.

How does it do that? Seems to me it takes away the ability to jigger doses day by day depending on what the aquarist observes. You are basically stuck with it, unless you add more or remove some, aren't you?

Since the bacteria growing on this material are limited by N and P (and never by C) they get from water column, you can't really overdose the pellets but of course you can have too little. Because the bacteria are constantly exported from the system the rate of bacteria growth depends on nutrients available and surface area (number of pellets).

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Since the bacteria growing on this material are limited by N and P (and never by C)

How do you know that? Release of small organic molecules from the polymer solid to become available for the bacteria may be slower than the bacteria want it to be. It presumably requires hydrolysis of some sort of chemical bond(s). It is not like the bacteria are at a restaurant ordering whatever meals they want. .

And why would we assume that with (unlimited) C, if that is in fact the case, that the level of N and P that results is a desirable/optimal one?

Because the bacteria are constantly exported from the system the rate of bacteria growth depends on nutrients available and surface area (number of pellets).

Doesn't that make the number of pellets important and akin to "dose" for soluble molecules?

 

[tatuvaaj]

Randy,

I should have added "... if you believe that the pellets don't release significant amount of [whatever] into the water"

I do believe they don't release DOC, based on my experience: after I started to use BioPellets I reduced my vodka/sugar dosing to half and saw the expected reduction in visible bacteria in the tank itself (most obvious changes being improved water clarity and much higher water flow through the hose from overflow) :lol:

The amount of bacterial biomass able to grow on this material is very impressive in my experience. As you probably know heterotrophic bacteria are able to alter their internal N ratio according to environment they grow in but naturally it has limits. This is one thing we have discussed in this thread (the problem of too high P:N ratio because of many aquarium foods).

I should also point out that the biopellets do not prevent you from dosing DOC. Actually, that's exactly what I'm doing right now

 

[NaClH2Opgh]

The flow through the reactor, the surface area for bacteria to grow (amount of pellets), the amount of N and P in the water for the bacteria to feed on, the amount of bacteria removed via skimmer; these all determine how much bacteria you have in your system and you really only have control over two of them. Flow and surface area. I'll keep watching for results but as of now, I'll get a dosing pump and automate my vodka dosing, for lazy people like me, and get my $9.99 half gallon of vodka every 10 or 11 months. The $99 twice a year doesn't justify it for cheap people like me.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

The released organic molecules may not get away from the area of the pellet by being taken up by bacteria that coat it first, but small organic molecules MUST be released and possibly later be taken up by the bacteria before they can be fully metabolized. The metabolic processing is internal to the bacteria, not external.

 

[tatuvaaj]

Randy,

Naturally

I was just describing my experiences with this form of filtration. IME the bacteria do seem to trap whatever is dissolved from the pellets (as seen by very fast biomass production and the lack of typical signs of DOC dosing).

Maybe the carbon in the pellets is only available through enzyme activity and thus controlled by the bacteria? In any case, dissolution and resulting leak of DOM doesn't seem to be problem in my case.

 

[tntneon]

The flow through the reactor, the surface area for bacteria to grow (amount of pellets), the amount of N and P in the water for the bacteria to feed on, the amount of bacteria removed via skimmer; these all determine how much bacteria you have in your system and you really only have control over two of them. Flow and surface area. I'll keep watching for results but as of now, I'll get a dosing pump and automate my vodka dosing, for lazy people like me, and get my $9.99 half gallon of vodka every 10 or 11 months. The $99 twice a year doesn't justify it for cheap people like me.

-I folow your thought

But for me it`s a winner those pellets , my corals never felt better then now .
No3 and po4 stay rocksteady zero.
PE colors and growth are very good , as is waterclarity.

I don`t fully understand which proccesse are involved but i know they are doing some thing good.
And i don`t think they are some new fancy /trendy marketing tricks.
Jptenklooster is a reachercher and is working togheter with coral sience , and also i`ve read that Pieter van Suylenkom (totm 2006 see link) is also using these pellets i`m confident that it`s a good product.

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-02/totm/index.php

greetingzz tntneon

 

[Genetics]

I think it has some possible merits. Once the price drops to a reasonable level it may become a good additive to have around. I would be interested to see what happens with this product on a larger scale. Would it have similar issues as that of organic dosing if too much is added? What happens when the pellets become miniaturized? Would they start moving with the current and end up in the display?

 

[jptenklooster]

The polymer does not dissolve by itself and needs to be released by enzymes produced by the bacteria. When all paperwork is finished (should be tonight) then I can give some more info on the exact polymer. Waistproducts of the polymer are CO2, H2O Ca2+(low) and CO3 (low), so no risk there. The pellets are consumed very slowly, so for most people it will probably take at least 1 year before half of it is gone, but we wanted to be on the save side because we have been able to test it only for 6 months now. In my system after 6 months I think only 25% is reduced by the bacteria (this is with heavy feeding for my gorgonia).

Naturally, if you can handle your tank without any problems by just adding wodka or sugar and don't mind adding it on a daily basis, don't let me stop you (although wodka dosing can be easily combined by using the pellets). I just came up with this idea because I could not dose enough wodka to reduce nitrates without getting a massive bacterial bloom in my tank.

We currently have no information on which bacteria can and will grow on the pellets in your tank, but that bacteria are growing there very efficiently is clear from everybody who has tested it for me thus far.

In addition, it is not only nitrate reduction as a result of denitrification and thus N2 production, it is mainly immobilisation of nutrients by forming a large biomass, although there will be some anaerobic bacteria there as well, similar to the bacteria on your teeth, you will get layers of aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. Thus far we did not observe any H2S production, even in tanks without measurable nitrates left.

It is true that Charles delbeek had the pellets for testing as well, however, he emaild me 2 days ago that he did not get around to testing them.

Regards,

Jean Paul

Randy,

Naturally

I was just describing my experiences with this form of filtration. IME the bacteria do seem to trap whatever is dissolved from the pellets (as seen by very fast biomass production and the lack of typical signs of DOC dosing).

Maybe the carbon in the pellets is only available through enzyme activity and thus controlled by the bacteria? In any case, dissolution and resulting leak of DOM doesn't seem to be problem in my case.

 

[timwijgerde]

Seems like they are preying on ignorance and using marketing/trends etc to sell the product. Sugar is not hard to use or buy.

Tom

Tom, I would be careful with uttering such statements. No one is saying you should stop using sugar or a similar form of DOC. Although Randy Holmes-Farley has fairly pointed out that questions remain to be answered regarding the biochemical processes that occur on or around the pellets, many hobbyists have successfully used this product on their aquarium.

Like Tatu said, bacterial growth seems to be rather restricted to the filter itself. Combine this with a skimmer and a significant proportion will be removed. The species of bacteria which grow on the pellets are not exactly known, but this must be more or less a reflection of what is already present in the aquarium. Of course, more research would be welcome (and several microbiologists have offered their help I believe, so hold on to your horses) but as of yet these effects are clear:

- significant reduction of nitrate and phosphate in the aquarium, provided that adequate amounts of pellets are used (about 1: 500 ratio for most tanks)

- very high production of bacteria in the filter

- no visible effects on the water column, i.e. bacterial blooms as can be the case with Wodka or sugar

- no apparent stimulation of cyanobacteria in the aquarium

Tom, calling Jean-Paul ignorant and having a lust for $$$ is simply unfair. The man has a Ph.D. himself and is not just fooling around. Of course more information about the causal effects of the pellets are more than welcome, which will slowly be released when this is available.

Please treat every product with caution, and maybe a little paranoia, but do not dismiss it directly. Or continue dosing sugar, which no one claims doesn't work. This method is simply less time-consuming, and restricts bacterial growth to the filter rather than causing an aquarium-wide bloom.

 

[ksed]

As Tim mentioned above, and in my opinion one of the great benefits is the lack of bacterial blooms,it seems to be restricted to the reactor or pellets.

The only concern that I may have is the fact that the pellets may be made of plastics which sounds harsh and toxic even though they may not be, but perhaps JP or Tim may shed some light on this.

Thanks

Kevin

 

[NaClH2Opgh]

As Tim mentioned above, and in my opinion one of the great benefits is the lack of bacterial blooms,it seems to be restricted to the reactor or pellets.

The only concern that I may have is the fact that the pellets may be made of plastics which sounds harsh and toxic even though they may not be, but perhaps JP or Tim may shed some light on this.

Thanks

Kevin

This is exactly my point though. Everyone keeps putting bacterial blooms out there like it will happen without a doubt if you carbon dose with vodka or sugar. This is NOT true. If you follow directions correctly you will not get one. I have never had a bacterial bloom after a year and half of dosing vodka.