N/P reducing pellets (solid vodka dosing)

[TheDogFather]

Sounds like synthetic Zeolites. If the cost of this product is 120 Euros ($177) per liter per year, it is still quite a bit more expensive than an actual Zeolite ($15/Liter for Zeovit's Zeolites for example) when replaced every six weeks...

What makes this product better for the increased cost over traditional Zeolites besides that it has to be replaced less frequently?

Thanks!

-TDF

 

[kaskiles]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15746707#post15746707 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by TheDogFather
What makes this product better for the increased cost over traditional Zeolites besides that it has to be replaced less frequently?

1. The organic carbon is embedded in the media, so you do not have to dose vodka, glucose, etc. This eliminates tricky daily dosing regimes, and/or expensive sophisticated dosing equipment. Also, overdosing would not be possible.

2. Since the organic carbon is embedded in the media, and is not water soluble/miscible; it cannot travel out into the tank water and feed bacteria growing in other places (mats on rocks, diseases on fish and corals).

3. The media probably does not absorb Potassium, and other inorganic materials, like Zeolites. Possibly avoiding extra dosing additives and trace elements.

4. The media should not be friable, so if it is fluidized in an up-flowing media reactor, it should not release mineral fines into the display tank that can settle out on coral surfaces (possibly irritating them).

A drawback may be that the Zeolites might be better at bacterial denitrification.

 

[liver]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15746707#post15746707 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by TheDogFather
Sounds like synthetic Zeolites. If the cost of this product is 120 Euros ($177) per liter per year, it is still quite a bit more expensive than an actual Zeolite ($15/Liter for Zeovit's Zeolites for example) when replaced every six weeks...

What makes this product better for the increased cost over traditional Zeolites besides that it has to be replaced less frequently?

Thanks!

-TDF

It appears that this product replaces more then just the zeolites, it replaces a good part of that system or at least the part that gets you to ULNS. Also, I think your doses are not comparable a liter of this doesn't equal 1 liter of zeolite.

? for jean paul do you need to add bacteria every so often like with zeo and prohibo or because the bacteria live on the carbon food source this isn't necessary?

 

[tntneon]

It appears that this product replaces more then just the zeolites, it replaces a good part of that system or at least the part that gets you to ULNS. Also, I think your doses are not comparable a liter of this doesn't equal 1 liter of zeolite.

? for jean paul do you need to add bacteria every so often like with zeo and prohibo or because the bacteria live on the carbon food source this isn't necessary?

Hi liver ,
I asked JP on the local forum the question you asked here (he`s probably very busy now, to read all his posts:spin2.
He answered that the pellets do not need any suplemental dosings of bacteria and/or others.
He pointed out that this was one of the big advantages , less dosing and the same result .

greetingzz tntneon

 

[McSassy]

here`s the situation now...

Now i`m gonna post if i see any changes , water clarity is a little
bit beter perhaps then yesterday , but it is way to soon to do some evaluations.

greetingzz tntneon

Looks like you have it soundproofed as well. Does that create any additional heat in the tank? How well does it absorb the noises from the tank as well?

 

[jptenklooster]

It appears that this product replaces more then just the zeolites, it replaces a good part of that system or at least the part that gets you to ULNS. Also, I think your doses are not comparable a liter of this doesn't equal 1 liter of zeolite.

? for jean paul do you need to add bacteria every so often like with zeo and prohibo or because the bacteria live on the carbon food source this isn't necessary?

no addition of extra bacteria are required. the source of bacteria for the pellets are the bacteria that you introduce in your tank through life-rock.

Regarding zeoliet, I think this and previous comments are correct and clear enough.

regards,

jp

 

[tntneon]

Looks like you have it soundproofed as well. Does that create any additional heat in the tank? How well does it absorb the noises from the tank as well?

honestly , not so much
like you can see on my lastest picture , i removed the sound insulation...

greetingzz tntneon

 

[tmz]

:wavehand:Hi Tatu. Certainly sounds convenient but how do we know the carbon source in the ploymer beads are not miscible and will not simply diffuse through the system like ethanol.,etc. Wouldn't a carbon reactor do much the same thing in terms of segregating the organic carbon and bacteria?

 

[tatuvaaj]

Tom,

I can only report that all signs seem to indicate that no (or insignificant amounts of) DOC is leached from the pellets. I reduced my vodka+sugar dosing to less than half and bacterial growth on surfaces has declined greatly (as you would expect).

The pellets themselves are insoluble and very hard.

 

[tmz]

Thanks, Tatu

 

[erbio]

Any updates guys?

 

[tntneon]

Things are pretty the same with me .

Water is very clear and waterparameters are stable, no3=0.2 and po4=0.
But GHA is still present in my display as is cyano who covers it , from time to time i syphon them away.
Sometimes the sand has a little bit of cyano too , this was something i was experiencing too with liquid carbon dosing (vodka or wodka).
I do have less bacterial strings (almost none) in my display then with original vodka dosing.
that`s the evidence for my , that the pellets don`t dissolve

coloration and PE are great and never seen before in my system:eek1:.

I hope , some reefers here on RC can soon test those pellets too.
They could bring in more info then i ever can , with a better understanding of the englisch language (<--- you see:hmm6.

greetingzz tntneon

 

[thejuggernaut]

Im wondering what something like this would do for someone who is running a fish only tank that doesnt have alot of live rock. I know they are frowned upon by alot of people but a Wet/Dry or Fluidized sand bed followed inline by some of these pellets might be a winning combination for a FO tank.

 

[kaskiles]

I'd think they would be a replacement for the wet/dry and fluidized sand filters. Mostly because I think they are a substrate for aerobic bacteria, like the wet/dry and fluidized sand. You would use them like the wet/dry or fluidized sand, and their advantage over bio-balls and fluffy sand would be their ability to feed organic carbon to the attached heterotrophic bacteria they are hosting.

 

[tmz]

If the pellets are an organic carbon source which I believe they are. it would be of benefit to heterotrophic bacteria. Autotrophs don't need organic carbon and do fine with CO2.

 

[tntneon]

If the pellets are an organic carbon source which I believe they are. it would be of benefit to heterotrophic bacteria. Autotrophs don't need organic carbon and do fine with CO2.

Can you explain to me what the difference is between autotrophs and hetrotrophic bacteria ?
my understanding of micro biology elementary .

greetingzz tntneon

 

[thejuggernaut]

Heterotrophic bacteria are the first to develop on a sand bed. Heterothrophs are simply bacteria that use organic compounds for their carbon source. Just like you Newbies, they chow down on just about anything that is placed in front of them. When the compound is something like a protein, that contains nitrogen, some of that nitrogen is excreted as ammonia. This of course is toxic to fish and invertebrates.

There is another group of bacteria, called autotrophs, that get their carbon directly from carbon dioxide. As an energy source they oxidize ammonia to create nitrite and nitrates. The problem with autotrophs is they do not grow nearly as fast as heterotrophs (the only thing slower is that Newbie mind of yours) and it takes time to seed a UGF with sufficient numbers to do much good. Usually it takes 7-10 days for enough nitrifying bacteria to populate a filter and allow it to convert ammonia to less toxic forms. It is interesting that there is a large debate on which bacteria actually accomplish nitrification in an aquarium. Candidates are, but not limited to, Nitrosomonas, Nitrosococcus, Nitrosospira, Nitrobacter, Nitrosovibrio, Nitrosolobus, and Nitrospina. No matter what the genus is involved, the heterothrophs produce the ammonia and carbon dioxide on which the nitrifying bacteria live so they form a close association with them in the filter media.

This is a quote from a thread started by Waterkeeper. He gives a pretty good definition of different types of filters both biological and mechanical...check it out...

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=707105

P.S. this quote I got was off the top of page 2.

 

[tatuvaaj]

Too much happening in my tank to give any meaningful update :mad2:

I'll have to get out all the extra PO4 with GFO, concentration back @ 0.1-0.2 ppm :eek1:

 

[kaskiles]

running a fish only tank that doesnt have alot of live rock.

Ok, you and Waterkeeper have changed my mind. I guess you would want a trickle filter or fluidized sand filter with the fluidized biopellet filter.

 

[ksed]

Too much happening in my tank to give any meaningful update :mad2:

I'll have to get out all the extra PO4 with GFO, concentration back @ 0.1-0.2 ppm :eek1:

Tatu

Are the pellets not working for you or is there some thing going on in the tank?

Thanks

Kevin