N/P reducing pellets (solid vodka dosing)

[bdare]

So... when running these pellets are we not supposed to use GAC or GFO? Both time I've added some while running the pellets my Monti caps have bleached and almost died all together.

 

[ari5736]

ok..."something" must be working. The nitrates are definitely lower...no doubt about it. The api kit is almost pure yellow. Test after test. SO NOW, should I stop doing something? Like stop the 2 tsp of sugar, or just turn the BP off and see if no3 goes back up? Or should I just be happy and shut up. ?

this is the first time in months that the NO3 has gone down with out me doing something else that I could easily attribute to the decline. No WC's, just the pellets and sugar, and now my skimmer nog is very cloudy/creamy looking, like hot coco.

for the first time since set up the tanks params ar zeros....of this I AM pleased. Now if we could figure out why it took so long to work...and why now? Do you all think it was the sugar? I've only dosed it like 4 times....

:spin1::spin1::spin1:

Must be the sugar, mine are not working after almost 6 months and I am not dosing sugar.

 

[DJREEF]

Or should I just be happy and shut up. ?

Damn, I'd be happy if you'd just shut up. Cripe, how long have you been moaning about this?

All kidding aside. Just gotta say congrats - it's about time. I'd keep going with it before you start backwards engineering what's currently working.


DJ

 

[sirreal63]

Just for you Dave!!!

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AQ4xwmZ6zi4?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AQ4xwmZ6zi4?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

[bluereefs]

So... when running these pellets are we not supposed to use GAC or GFO? Both time I've added some while running the pellets my Monti caps have bleached and almost died all together.

GAC is a must IMO, I use GAC and bp without issue with my corals. Personaly I dont use GFO because my phosphate are undetectable with Salifert test kit.

 

[daveonbass]

haha...thanks guys...now I don't know what to do with my life/tank. This morning I noticed that the tank is cloudy again...and my skimmer is going nuts with clearish dirty water. It's just overfowing like crazy. If anyone remembers when I did rice, it looks and smells like that did. Only difference is that NOW, after just testing, the NO3 is 0ppm. I think the test tube was a lighter shade of yellow than the reference strip. Like I have negative NO3. I'm thrilled that it's doing "something" but not to pleased with the cloudy tank. My fish and lps are looking upset, but the sps look fine. Now that the skimmer is not dialed up and over flowing, the fish look better, and don't seem as stressed. But my zoas, gsp, and rics are not too happy. The lps are looking better but still not great. And again the sps seem to have had no change.

should I add anything else now, like gac...or just let the cloud go away on it's own.

 

[sirreal63]

Stop the sugar, if you haven't already, run GAC and check it daily. If the nitrates reappear, which could happen, start with a little vinegar. I don't think you will need to do that though. If you were truly bacteria limited and the sugar helped, then the bacteria will begin consuming the pellets as long as there is no easier carbon source to consume.

In the meantime I will see if Def Leopard has a vinegar or vodka appropriate song.

 

[daveonbass]

if I can find a store here that has gac I'll pick some up. But so far no dice. I really hope it was the sugar I added...and that I can stop adding it now. The tank is so white...the sand is crystal clear, and the water being clear with a slight cloud to it just gives it this etherial effect.

I don't want to have to keep adding stuff still but I'll keep you all posted. I'll hold off on telling SWC that I added sugar to start the process. And hopefully the pellets will take over and keep working if I stop dosing. But I'll tell them after I'm sure the pellets are controlling it now.

hopefully it gets easier from here.

 

[Aquarist007]

Particulate organics feed bacteria. So the addition of organic carbon whether by pellets(polysacharrides), sugars(monosacharrides) ethanol , acetic acid or decaying matter like algae exudate, fish waste, uneaten food, spawns, dead bacteria ,etc. will produce one strain or another. Some may be used as food ,some may be pathogenic but not enough is known to establish polymer degradation as a particularly useful coral feeding strategy,in my opinion.

I am not sure of what your point is here Tom?

 

[Aquarist007]

Why do you say that?? Do you know of any literature to support that or is that just an assumption??

Jeremy

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1843241

 

[DJREEF]

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1843241

J is kind of argumentative. Anyway, I agree with you capn. In every single instance I have observed, where higher organisms are concerned live food is preferred over poop every time.

DJ

 

[Aquarist007]

haha...thanks guys...now I don't know what to do with my life/tank. This morning I noticed that the tank is cloudy again...and my skimmer is going nuts with clearish dirty water. It's just overfowing like crazy. If anyone remembers when I did rice, it looks and smells like that did. Only difference is that NOW, after just testing, the NO3 is 0ppm. I think the test tube was a lighter shade of yellow than the reference strip. Like I have negative NO3. I'm thrilled that it's doing "something" but not to pleased with the cloudy tank. My fish and lps are looking upset, but the sps look fine. Now that the skimmer is not dialed up and over flowing, the fish look better, and don't seem as stressed. But my zoas, gsp, and rics are not too happy. The lps are looking better but still not great. And again the sps seem to have had no change.

should I add anything else now, like gac...or just let the cloud go away on it's own.

the cloudiness due to the bacterial bloom will go away on its own. The major concern is that the bacteria will lower the oxygen level in the tank.
this is also another reason for having a good skimmer.
I would add an air stone low in the tank so it is really bubbling up the surface of your tank. an airstone will not dissolve much oxygen in the water but it will stir up the surface area where the main gas exchange occurs.
Also direct a power head so it is really churning up the surface water and keep the surface uncovered.
Keep it this way for the duration of the bacterial bloom

 

[tastydog]

Ummm, 120 pages, almost 3000 posts. Can someone please help me and recap this thread that has been in it from the start? Are N/P pellets a good way to reduce nitrates? I have do not have a phosphate issue. I do not have any qualms about not have a "natural" system. I do have a 90 gallon that is heavily stocked and I need a way to push my nitrates down. I do not mind a small amount of maintenance. Also, people have said the drawback to NP pellets is that you tank develops a film of bacteria. Is this true? Basically, I just want an informed opinion on the use of them and what is considered standard implementation and results. I realize the reason this thread is so long is because it is so debatable. I guess I just want a PRO/CON list without having to read 3000 posts

Brandon

 

[Aquarist007]

Ummm, 120 pages, almost 3000 posts. Can someone please help me and recap this thread that has been in it from the start? Are N/P pellets a good way to reduce nitrates? I have do not have a phosphate issue. I do not have any qualms about not have a "natural" system. I do have a 90 gallon that is heavily stocked and I need a way to push my nitrates down. I do not mind a small amount of maintenance. Also, people have said the drawback to NP pellets is that you tank develops a film of bacteria. Is this true? Basically, I just want an informed opinion on the use of them and what is considered standard implementation and results. I realize the reason this thread is so long is because it is so debatable. I guess I just want a PRO/CON list without having to read 3000 posts

Brandon

I think this will do the trick for you Brandon esp if you read the whole article

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17690651&postcount=321

I author has also conversed with me on the same thread if you are interested

 

[tastydog]

Wonderful, thank you so much!

 

[jlinzmaier]

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1843241

I've followed that thread. There is nothing in there that indicates corals prefer to feed on free living bacteria vs POM. First of all, you need to understand what POM is.

This article provides a very clear indication that POM is composed of varying degrees of organics, both alive and dead.
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-03/eb/index.php

Your indication that corals prefer bacteria over POM is very misleading statement. POM is composed largely of bacteria and other living microfauna!! The varying size and composition of POM is what determines what corals and other invertebrates will feed on it. The only reason I asked you why you indicated that corals prefer bacteria over POM is to get some clarification as to where you were going with that statement because it was a very open ended statement with too much room for improper interpretation (IMO).

From the article:

What is Particulate Organic Material?

Particulate organic material has its origins in life, being composed by and large of the remains, secretions and excretions of living organisms. On coral reefs, it is composed mostly of dead algae, bacteria, mucus, and feces.

The Role of Particulate Organic Material in Corals

Corals, in particular, are notable for their consumption of detritus. All corals studied feed to some degree on POM and coral communities have been found to remove half of the POM present on some reefs. So prevalent is this material that it is termed "reef snow" in the wild. In some cases, detritus may be the primary heterotrophic resource of corals, depending on the availability of other types of living plankton. The soft corals (Octocorallia), zoanthids (Zoantharia), stony corals (Scleractinia), and mushrooms (Corallimorpharia), all accept detritus as food and can, in some cases, be provided with over 100% of their carbon and nitrogen requirements by this resource alone. In particular, the gorgonians are well studied in this regard. In fact, some gorgonians seem to rely exclusively on detritus as a captured food source; rejecting zooplankton and phytoplankton in many cases - or at least having these other foods comprise an incidental part of their diet. Part of the reason that the Octocorallia are so "fond" of detritus is that their tentacles are well adapted to "sieving," and their nematocysts are less adept at capturing large or particularly motile prey. Corals are also notable in that they not only consume detritus, but also produce it by the bacterial and algal conglomerations that are trapped and grow on the very mucus they release.

Particulate Organic Material as a Trophic Resource

Both in the aquarium and on coral reefs, detritus is mostly algal in origin, being produced in situ and is thus referred to as being autochthonous. It is composed mainly of dead filamentous algae and phytoplankton, and secondarily of fleshy macroalgae, coralline algae, zooxanthellae, cyanobacteria, phytoplankton and seagrasses. Non-algal detritus is mostly congealed coral mucus bound with other particulate material (Alongi, 1988). On reef slopes and crests, the material is mostly coral mucus while over reef flats and lagoons, the material is mostly algae and fecal matter. This material, by itself, has a high carbon content. However, it acts as a substrate for bacteria, ciliates, cyanobacteria, and other microorganisms that coat the particles. Bacteria can even convert dissolved organic material (DOM) into particulate organic material (POM) by aggregating it in the presence of carbon. This provides a substantially enriched particle replete with amino acids and valuably higher nitrogen content. As such, detritus becomes a very nutritious food source for many organisms. It is such a complex "dirt" that detritus has been described as a completely self-contained microhabitat of its own with plant, animal and microbial components and its own "built-in" nutrient source.

J is kind of argumentative. Anyway, I agree with you capn. In every single instance I have observed, where higher organisms are concerned live food is preferred over poop every time.

DJ

First of all, I didn't know asking for clarification was being argumentative.

Second of all, if you had any idea what POM is then you'd realize it consists of live food - bacteria and other microfauna. Maybe you should do your homework before trying to sound so smart.

There, that's being argumentative so now you've actually got something to complain about!!

Jeremy

 

[tastydog]

Okay, I read that and now have a couple questions.

I have a stable 90 gallon tank with high nitrates and thriving growing corals. Should I change anything? My nitrates have been around 40ppm over the past 2 months and were 20-40ppm before that since the tank was established. The rise was due to my neglegence over the summer. I did not do enough water changes. I am now doing 15 gallon water changes once a week to try to bring them back down below 20. I have: zoos, aussi reverse prisim favia, orange plate montipora, birdsnest, frogspawn, several bubble tip anemone and about 5-10 other corals. Everyone one of them is growing and doing very well and have been since the day they were added. Should I even worry about my higher nitrates? I have increased the flow in the tank and am really watching the feedings and increased water change volume and frequency to begin battling the rise, but should I be worried?

I know 40 is VERY high, but if nothing is complaining am I doing anything wrong?

My second question is more of statement. With all the cons of using N/P pellets, it would seem that dosing organic carbon would be better for me. I already have to dose for Alk every night anyway.


Brandon
PS: Other parameters: Ca: 440, KH: 9, Mg: 1500, PH: 8.4, Phosphate ~.03, Iodide: .06, silicate has not been tested in some time.

 

[goochesfish]

In your case I would check the pump and make sure everything is clean and go from there.

Took the pump apart for cleaning and that definitely did the trick. I'm foaming up once again. Some debris from the biopellets must have shot into the skimmer pump because the foam head dropped and stayed down immediately after starting the BP reactor. Now it's back to normal.

 

[Aquarist007]

Okay, I read that and now have a couple questions.

I have a stable 90 gallon tank with high nitrates and thriving growing corals. Should I change anything? My nitrates have been around 40ppm over the past 2 months and were 20-40ppm before that since the tank was established. The rise was due to my neglegence over the summer. I did not do enough water changes. I am now doing 15 gallon water changes once a week to try to bring them back down below 20. I have: zoos, aussi reverse prisim favia, orange plate montipora, birdsnest, frogspawn, several bubble tip anemone and about 5-10 other corals. Everyone one of them is growing and doing very well and have been since the day they were added. Should I even worry about my higher nitrates? I have increased the flow in the tank and am really watching the feedings and increased water change volume and frequency to begin battling the rise, but should I be worried?

I know 40 is VERY high, but if nothing is complaining am I doing anything wrong?

My second question is more of statement. With all the cons of using N/P pellets, it would seem that dosing organic carbon would be better for me. I already have to dose for Alk every night anyway.


You kinda of answered your first question by stating that your corals were thriving and doing well===the old adage if it aint broken then it dont need fixen

Brandon
PS: Other parameters: Ca: 440, KH: 9, Mg: 1500, PH: 8.4, Phosphate ~.03, Iodide: .06, silicate has not been tested in some time.

You kinda of answered your first question by stating that your corals were thriving and doing well===the old adage if it aint broken then it dont need fixen

IMO 40 is not a really high nitrate level. However if you have algae then you might want to lower it. If you have no algae then the first thing I would question is the method and test kits you are using to test nitrates with.

Water changes are not an effective method for reducing nitrates. If you dont find the source for importing them then they will be right back up there after the water change
Sources of nitrate importing
over feeding
not enough flow
not rinsing frozen food before using
poor skimming

If you can setup a refugium with chaeto macro then that would be alot more affective then water changes for reducing nitrates

To your second question, what cons of np pellets are you concerned about. I have found the worst thing that has happened it a get a bacteria bloom for a couple of days if I over shoot the amount of them I use. Surface agitation and flow help replace the oxygen in the tank until the bloom is over

 

[Aquarist007]

I've followed that thread. There is nothing in there that indicates corals prefer to feed on free living bacteria vs POM. First of all, you need to understand what POM is.

This article provides a very clear indication that POM is composed of varying degrees of organics, both alive and dead.
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-03/eb/index.php

Your indication that corals prefer bacteria over POM is very misleading statement. POM is composed largely of bacteria and other living microfauna!! The varying size and composition of POM is what determines what corals and other invertebrates will feed on it. The only reason I asked you why you indicated that corals prefer bacteria over POM is to get some clarification as to where you were going with that statement because it was a very open ended statement with too much room for improper interpretation (IMO).

From the article:














First of all, I didn't know asking for clarification was being argumentative.

Second of all, if you had any idea what POM is then you'd realize it consists of live food - bacteria and other microfauna. Maybe you should do your homework before trying to sound so smart.

There, that's being argumentative so now you've actually got something to complain about!!

Jeremy

Jeremy, chill a bit, I didn't even make a statement in the first place

"I don't believe particulate organics are enjoyed by corals as much as bacteria? "

I hate to see all your efforts go to waste. I think what is appropriate for this thread is that corals eat bacteria, a bonus for carbon dosing of any form.