N/P reducing pellets (solid vodka dosing)

[jlinzmaier]

What is ATS?

Algae Turf Scrubber. It's a method to grow turf algae in an area where it can be pruned and removed as a means of nutrient export.

Jeremy

 

[C-21 USAF]

For those of you use the NP pellets......can you please tell me what is the most common media reactor all of you are using? And how much I would need for a 180-gl DT? Also, does it have to tumble in the MR like GFO or Carbon; how much flow, etc? Any info or great tips would be a big help.

I read through over 40-pages of this thread and can not find an answer to these questions. This seems like a great way to help reduce nitrates and I would like to give a try if the upfront $$$ is not too high.

Many thanks.......

I had this same problem....I'm using the SMR1 with 500ml on an eheim 1250 (317 gph) in my 150 sps dominated tank and am happy. Might add more pellets in another month or so.

 

[daveonbass]

the info on "how much" of the pellets to use is in the second post. Literally post #2. As for what to putthem in...that is what we are all finding out. There are more than one type of reactor that people have had success with.

on my personal note. I just did two water changes of 20g each on my tank. I did one before work and one after work. 20g is about half my display volume...so I got my nitrates down from 80 to 40ppm this morning...and then 40 down to 20ppm tonight.

 

[daveonbass]

the bad news is that the drop in nitrates is not from the pellets. (my po4 is still 0) I wish it was from them but it was all manual. the good news is that I hope now the pellets will work better since the tanks nitrates are not too high for them to be effective. we shall see.

 

[catman78]

Sign Guy,

Nice job on the reactor. Tank looks great.
Looks like you have some experience working with acrylic.
What is the diameter of the inside tube?
What was the approximate cost of the material?

Thanks

 

[Eric Williams]

Catman78
The inside size of the tube is 4" the outside is 4 1/4". I have made three or four of these now all in different sizes and they are very cheap to fabricate. The cost of the tube for a 24" length is about $12.00 from Interstate Plastics then you just have the PVC tube, contectors, hose and the valve. The large one cost me less than $30.00 to fab. It helps when you work for a sign company that has a C&C machine to cut all the pieces. I have found that by going with 3/4" fittings or larger you really get the flow you need with the pellets. This would most likely be over kill for carbon of Rowaphos.

 

[catman78]

Thanks for the info Sign Guy
Looks like having access to C&C machine helps bigtime.

 

[borcu]

why is it must adding before skimmer? and are bacterias food? how are they became planktonic food and also for which organisms?

 

[TheFishMan65]

Well I just finished all 65 pages. No questions amazing

Daveonbass, IIRC you are running both your BP reactor and skimmer of the same pump in series. I also think you lack sump space. BUT is there any way you can get them on separate pump? That is the one thing I read that you are doing different. I think maybe you lost some flow through your skimmer. Just an idea, I really don't know what will happen and IIRC you have an extra 1200 lying around because you love that quiet one (maybe that was someone else it's been a long read).

borcu, As I understand it the amount of bacterial food produced it too much. If it all goes to the DT then it will just break down and you GHA or some other algae. By going through the skimmer first a lot (maybe most) of the bacteria is skimmed of but some still makes it to the DT.

 

[daveonbass]

t'is true. I was told that going directly to the skimmer would be the optimum way to run these. But I'm starting to think that I really need to get them plumbed separately.

I did end up using the MJ1200 for something else, but I could easily take it off and test it in the bp tank. I assume I would just use the MJ on the skimmer, and the quietone (yes it finally did get quiet) on the pellets.

but to clarify. My pellets are tumbleing perfectly, and my skimmer has a ball valve on the in and the out flow, so I can control the skimmers effectiveness. And yes it still skims just fine. The IN flow ball valve controls the BP flow/tumble rate by restricting the flow/back pressure on the BP reactor. And the OUT ball valve controls the height in the skimmers body/neck area, by restricting/increasing back pressure in the skimmer. It's a way of fine tuning both ends. But if no results are ever seen then I will start to assume that the pellets work MORE like vodka than was originally suspected...and that the bacteria does more good by being much more present in the display tank, instead of supposedly being limited to the reactor and leaving immediately through the skimmer.

 

[TheFishMan65]

It just an idea, but the MJ1200 (from what I read) isn't powerful enough for just the BP. Maybe the quiet one isn't powerful enough for both. Maybe the bacteria is too concentrated and a little extra water does something. Didn't I read the the bacteria form sheets? Maybe the missing pump breaks that up some how so it is exported better? I don't know, but this seems like it works for almost every so I am probably going to try it. I remember reading of one other that gave up and went the Zeo route. The only other bad issue I remember was some start up cloudiness/ph/oxygen problems.

[EDIT]
Maybe the 'sheets of bacteria' are too heavy to stick to a bubble.

 

[daveonbass]

well the QO pump is plenty big enough to run both...cause it does.

the real question I have is am I supposed to be able to see signs of the bacteria? Cause I do not. The bp look just as they did when I added them. They are now tumbleing with the best of them...and then fed directly to the skimmer. So I never know just how much are getting to the main display.

no one else has speculated that going strait to the skimmer is actually bad...and that some of the bacteria should be allowed to free float to the tank...but I've wondered that from the start.

the best argument in my case is that I have no PO4 to speak of...and there fore nothing for the bacteria to feed on in order to get rid of BOTH.

also working against me was the amount of NO3 to begin with. It seems that the pellets work best with a proper ratio of N and P, or just starting with lower levels to begin with.

either way I'm not giving up...just waiting it out to see what does work.

 

[borcu]

borcu, As I understand it the amount of bacterial food produced it too much. If it all goes to the DT then it will just break down and you GHA or some other algae. By going through the skimmer first a lot (maybe most) of the bacteria is skimmed of but some still makes it to the DT.

as bacteria blooms? i couldnt understand why more bacteria need to skim isnt main purpose getting as much as unproblematic bacteria on carbon dosings?

 

[TheFishMan65]

borcu, I am having a little rouble with the translation, but let me try. Realize I don't use this yet; I am only trying to understand what I read.

Bacteria grows on the media and the jumbling in the strong current sloughs some of the bacteria off. Three things can happens to this sloughed off bacteria:

• It can be eaten (coral, filter feeders)
• It can be skimmed out
• it can go into the main tank and decompose

The first two are good. The third is bad, IMHO. It will leave the carbon from it's structure around for cyano, green hair algae, and other 'bad things'. I also think that if way too much is released that it is what caused the cloudiness, ph drop, and lack of oxygen that has been reported.

 

[Daniel Reef]

borcu, I am having a little rouble with the translation, but let me try. Realize I don't use this yet; I am only trying to understand what I read.

Bacteria grows on the media and the jumbling in the strong current sloughs some of the bacteria off. Three things can happens to this sloughed off bacteria:

• It can be eaten (coral, filter feeders)
• It can be skimmed out
• it can go into the main tank and decompose

The first two are good. The third is bad, IMHO. It will leave the carbon from it's structure around for cyano, green hair algae, and other 'bad things'. I also think that if way too much is released that it is what caused the cloudiness, ph drop, and lack of oxygen that has been reported.

I thought that this is an excellent summary. Bravo.

 

[PowermanKW]

the best argument in my case is that I have no PO4 to speak of...and there fore nothing for the bacteria to feed on in order to get rid of BOTH.

also working against me was the amount of NO3 to begin with. It seems that the pellets work best with a proper ratio of N and P, or just starting with lower levels to begin with.

Just understand.... you do not have zero PO4, you have zero free PO4 that shows up on a test in the water column. The bacteria will only grow to the levels that support them. They could indeed be PO4 limited, but zero PO4 on a test does not prove that.

I know there is a ratios....please correct... isn't it like 116:1 nitrate/PO4???? Anyway, my point is that that is the uptake ratio of bacteria, but I highly doubt that excess nitrate to that ratio is bad or causing any problems.

What are you measuring PO4 with???

 

[Rwpdunne]

Has anyone tried the new n/p reducing bio pellets they are a lot smaller than the original ones and are a lot easy to fluidise and heres the best bit there supose to be better at reducing phosphate than the previous ones

I got a bag today so iam going to remove my row phous from my other reactor and put the new pellets in this reactor

 

[borcu]

thank you.

 

[daveonbass]

Just understand.... you do not have zero PO4, you have zero free PO4 that shows up on a test in the water column. The bacteria will only grow to the levels that support them. They could indeed be PO4 limited, but zero PO4 on a test does not prove that.

I know there is a ratios....please correct... isn't it like 116:1 nitrate/PO4???? Anyway, my point is that that is the uptake ratio of bacteria, but I highly doubt that excess nitrate to that ratio is bad or causing any problems.

What are you measuring PO4 with???

YES. Trust me I fully understand that I DO have PO4...but for all intents and purposes it is "unmeasureable". I am using a simple (brand new) API test. And again (if you read all my posts in this thread) I am not testing for accuracy, I'm simply looking for change. Weather or not my PO4 test is accurate is irrelevant, I just want to know if it goes up, down, or stays the same. The same is true for NO3. The only fact in my tank so far is that PO4 is not changing by going "up", but my NO3 is still able to go "up." this bothers me because most other users have noticed a drop in nitrates faster than the phos. But my tank has seen nothing after a few months of use. In fact my NO3 continues to go up at a steady rate. So I could care less if I have "zero" PO4, I understand that at a level undetectable on the API test, that my PO4 is probably at a good range.

just wish my trates would go down and stay down...that's what we will see after this next week (mon) after my latest WC.

 

[euromomtx]

Has anyone tried the new n/p reducing bio pellets they are a lot smaller than the original ones and are a lot easy to fluidise and heres the best bit there supose to be better at reducing phosphate than the previous ones

I got a bag today so iam going to remove my row phous from my other reactor and put the new pellets in this reactor

same brand?