N/P reducing pellets (solid vodka dosing)

[bertoni]

Some pictures of the baby cardinals would be fun...

 

[daveonbass]

ok, but only cause you asked.

 

[SimonSKL]

Dave, beautiful baby Bangai! I too have a true pair of bangai and hope one day they can produce like yours. What kind of food do you use to feed the babies? Are they in a separate tank?

 

[daveonbass]

I don't want to take this thread off topic. I'll pm you the answer. But in short (that does have a little to do with the topic) I feed them BBS, frozen BBS, and I can get them to eat a little crushed flake food; all at around the two week mark which I hear is rare. And yes they are in a CPR HOB refugium, so they get to share the larger tank volume in safety, with any extra bioload being taken care of by the pellets/skimmer.

pm time.

 

[Scej12]

well i dose kalk and never had ph problems, my ph stayed 8.2-8.4 other then adding the bio-pellets, and taking gfo off line nothing has changed, tank is next to a window with window partially opened, with nice breeze coming in. ph is dropping to 7.8 and on a high 8.1 during day, i do run fuge light opposite of tank light. plenty of top water flow and drain sit's a 1/4 above sump water level so getting oxygen there also.
cal is 420, alk 10 mag 1400

Very interesting. I'd asked the same question a page or two back as my pH is in the same range as yours is right now. I can't draw any conclusions from my particular application because I don't have the history of parameters from before I began the pellets. This is why I was asking if anyone else can draw a link.

Although I should qualify the following by stating that my CO2 feed to my calcium reactor has been turned (trying to allow calc to drop); my parameters are as follows:


Ca - 480 - 500 (CO2 off)
Mg - 1450
dkH - 9
PO4 - 0.5
NO3 - approx. 60 (coming down from 160+ over last 4 months)
pH - 7.8 - 8.1 (just started dosing Alk this week so should be going up soon)
SG - 1.025

The total system is 500g..

With my dkH at 9 I would have expected my pH to be consistently over 8.

Poolkeeper asked why we would suspect the pellets of affecting pH: Well the only theory I came up with so far is that the new system biomass (i.e. bacteria making it past your skimmer) could be augmenting the O2/CO2 balance in the aquarium. I'm wondering if this might mean that the Alk should be maintained higher to bolster the pH buffering capacity of the system. Just a theory at this point... but I'll continue to play around with my system looking for confirmations or redirections... It would just be nice to have a reference of parameters from others using the pellets to compare levels and relationships.

Regards,

Sheldon

 

[bertoni]

Thanks for the pictures! I guess I will try to keep the thread on topic, too.

I agree that the most likely cause of lower pH with pellets would be extra carbon dioxide, although I'm not sure yet that the problem is likely to occur.

 

[bertoni]

Thanks for the pictures! I guess I will try to keep the thread on topic, too.

I agree that the most likely cause of lower pH with pellets would be extra carbon dioxide, although I'm not sure yet that the problem is likely to occur.

 

[Oldude]

Scej12 -Ok - so after reading your response, I had to consult one of my resident experts to pick his brain a little. Our discussion touched on the following:

- some of the reported causes for lps to bail polyps could be low strontium; molybdinum; calcium; or magnesium;
- there is also a possibility that the efficient bacteria could be stripping other trace elements - his example was that some bacteria can actually calcify (I.e. Those crusty caked up gravel sandbed patches you sometimes find. I know your calc level is fine, but the example is just to show that there are a vast variety of bacteria; capable of efficiently nourishing themselves with nutrients/elements readily available. This brings me to the last thought we deliberated;
- based on the example of the zeovit system, the aparent strategy can be summed up (at least anecdotally) as: using bacteria cultured in zeolytes to strip away most, if not all of the foundational fertilizing nutrients; NO3/PO4 primarily, but likely a few other elements as well. It is the common principle of probably all 'bacteria driven systems'. However my feeling is that what makes the zeo system so successful albeit labour-intensive, is that whole supplemental regiment that can be tailored to some degree to each user's specific scenario. However, the key point is that some provisions are made to replace the removed undesireables with desireable supplements. In a nutshell it could be that if/when the pelletsactually do acheive their purpose of ULNS, some corals (LPS in particular) can in fact starve to death if not purposefully fed.

LPS get a lot of their nourishment from heterotrphically grabbing food. My friend also suggested that sometimes LPS can display a greater density of zooxanthelae by exhibiting darker/browner colour. This could in fact be a measure of attempted compensation for lack of other grabbable food; so they switch to more autotrophic nourishment (through photosynthesis).

If we get enough reports of corals suffering after the bp system achieves ULNS conditions, that could be an indication that the purported application of bacterioplankton as an adequate subsitute for all of the known (and unknown) nutrients being processed out by them; is in fact not enough as a stand-alone heterotrophic food source. Put another way, could it be possible that the bacteria generated could be out-competing some of our inverts...?

In the very least, I think it might be worth the try to adopt a pseudo-zeo philosophy in that if we employ a super-cleaning strategy; we need to ensure that we do not leave behind a barron; or at least mono-cultured microscape.

Sheldon

tmz - I suspect the caulastrea and euphylia were acustomed to higher nitrate and phosphate and when it was quickly cut back they could not adjust and bailed out . Surface waters hold ,than .2ppm Nitrate with PO4 only .005ppm but deeper waters and lagooons can have 10x that or more. I had similar issues with these types of corals as nutrients dropped with carbon dosing. When I moved them to a higher nutrient tank they did better. Tracking your PO4 and NO3 before and during dosing and moving them down slowly is prudent. Generally, ime, euphylia and caulastrea will do ok with the lower nutrient levels( in my case PO4 around .04ppm and NO3 <1ppm ) but do not grow much and do better with NO3 at 5 to 20ppm and PO4 around .1ppm.

Alternatively, the polymers in the pellets may have broken down to monomers and these sugars could fuel pathogenic bacterial activity via oxygen depletion or upsetting the symbiont bactria of cetaina corals.

I really appreciate your feedback however I find it quite unlikely my nutrient levels have dropped very much and my reef is nowhere near a ULNS. My system is 700 gallons with approx 80 fish with some being fairly big and I am only running 1 liter of the pellets for les than a month. Could it have dropped a bit? Sure, that was the plan but the levels are higher than I'd like and much higher than when I ran an ULNS a few years ago with the same corals that just died doing very well. Many of my current sps are suffering some tissue loss and what looks to be tip burn. I am suspicious there is something in the bio-pellets that's causing the damage. Not sure exactly what is in them but many of the corals seem to be having a strange reaction.

 

[thebanker]

My euphyllia and caulastrea have looked better since starting BP's. SPS has done very well, with the fastest growing coral in my tank being a montipora capricornis growing 1-2mm/day. I have noticed it's tougher to maintain pH as well. Some of my red sea xenia has just started to suffer, but I'm not sure it's 100% related to the pellets or the pH.

 

[thebanker]

Pellets & flow poll: http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1948488

Thanks!

 

[Oldude]

I really appreciate your feedback however I find it quite unlikely my nutrient levels have dropped very much and my reef is nowhere near a ULNS. My system is 700 gallons with approx 80 fish with some being fairly big and I am only running 1 liter of the pellets for les than a month. Could it have dropped a bit? Sure, that was the plan but the levels are higher than I'd like and much higher than when I ran an ULNS a few years ago with the same corals that just died doing very well. Many of my current sps are suffering some tissue loss and what looks to be tip burn. I am suspicious there is something in the bio-pellets that's causing the damage. Not sure exactly what is in them but many of the corals seem to be having a strange reaction.

I think the recent "tip burn" and a few other issues may be because I hadn't changed my DI resin for a long time. I took some TDS readings this morning;
H2O going into RO Prefilter was 147, after the RO filters 001 and after going through the DI stage it came through at 258. Yikes I was contaminating my water and almost doubling the TDS contained in the straight tap water. I think this has contributed to my problem more than anything.

 

[Scej12]

I really appreciate your feedback however I find it quite unlikely my nutrient levels have dropped very much and my reef is nowhere near a ULNS. My system is 700 gallons with approx 80 fish with some being fairly big and I am only running 1 liter of the pellets for les than a month. Could it have dropped a bit? Sure, that was the plan but the levels are higher than I'd like and much higher than when I ran an ULNS a few years ago with the same corals that just died doing very well. Many of my current sps are suffering some tissue loss and what looks to be tip burn. I am suspicious there is something in the bio-pellets that's causing the damage. Not sure exactly what is in them but many of the corals seem to be having a strange reaction.

Sorry Greg - honest assumption made based other contributor citations of problems after the pellets have kicked in and done their job. Thought you didn't list your NO3 +PO4 levels because it might have been zero for both.

I'm still trying to identify some of the possible side effects of using the bp, and thebanker has started a great poll thread to help zero in on some of the reasons for successes/issues. I personally am not looking away from pH as an affected dynamic since we are dealing with living; respirating, bacteria. BTW - not doubting you in any way, but what did you measure your pH with? Are you using a calibrated probe, or reagent test kit? I only ask because of my recent experience of using an API test kit that was yielding the apparent shade of 8.0 - 8.2, but then when I brought by a recently calibrated probe, it turned out to be 7.84 or something. I also came in contact with a probe on a system that read 8.6, but since I saw cyano taking hold on the sand bed, I thought such a high pH was unlikely, and had the owner test with an API kit only to show that the pH was actually 7.8, and the probe had not been calibrated in a while, if ever....

Again, I'm not suggesting any lack of attention on your part, as I can see that you have a very well established tank; and overall history of mastery with your husbandry. My mention was more in general to share my experience in learning just how easy it is to make parallax errors in rudimentary assessments.

I think the recent "tip burn" and a few other issues may be because I hadn't changed my DI resin for a long time. I took some TDS readings this morning;
H2O going into RO Prefilter was 147, after the RO filters 001 and after going through the DI stage it came through at 258. Yikes I was contaminating my water and almost doubling the TDS contained in the straight tap water. I think this has contributed to my problem more than anything.

Never heard of this before, but will certainly add this to my list of "could happens". Thanks for sharing that.

SJ

 

[travis32]

Well, I might jump on this band wagon. I've been reading up on the rice experiment and have seen a lot of references to bio pellets. I'm not sure what it is yet, or how they work. However, I know one thing. I have PO4 issues!!! Ugg.

I have no sign of cyano whatsoever in my tank. I saw one or two spots start a little bit on my rock and it just disappeared and hasn't returned. SO, I think my nitrates are under control with only 3 fish in my 125g.

However, PO4 runs consistantly at .5 with GFO running and with lots of HA consuming the PO4. The HA is the symptom, the PO4 I know to be the issue.

The rock had a mass die off 3 months ago. Is probably still literred with decaying matter, but it's starting to come back to life. Just lots of PO4 being released though.

If anyone can fill me in on the perceived effectiveness of biopellets, I'm willing to contribute to the research.

Stats are as follows:

PH: 8.4
alk: 2.5 meq/l (trying to get this to 3.5 very slow process though).
CA: ~400
MG: 1200
Nitrites: 0
Ammonia: 0
Nitrates: undetectable.
Sg 1.028 (A little higher than I like)
Temp: 77 - 81
29 gallon sump + 125g 6ft RR tank

DSB in sump on one half, Skimmer on second half, ATS starting in the middle of the sump, BRS GFO Reactor running in the skimmer half and output on the second half of the sump.

I didn't want to read through 135 pages, so if anyone can provide a synopsis of what bio pellets are, how they work, effort needed to maintain them, and results thus far on PO. Any negative effects on corals / fish that should be watched for?

Thanks!

 

[Scej12]

If your nitrates are zero, you will likely have trouble getting the pellets to lower your phosphates. please go back and read thread no. 3066. tmz has put forth a good summary regarding the relationship between carbon, phosphorous, nitrogen.

In a nut shell, the pellets seem to work really well provided you have the presence of both nitrate & phosphate. They provide the carbon. In terms of flow, the consensus is to have a slow boil type motion... not enough flow they start to clump-up with bacterial mulm.

Until you get your phosphates down, you might want to stick with the gfo strategy for now.

There is no real effort to maintain them other than topping them up every couple of months as they get consumed. The key would be to dial in your flow enough that they fluidize without clumping. The danger in using too much to begin with is that you could have an extreme bacterial bloom in your water column that could suffocate your livestock. This is the primary reason for starting with less; then eventually building up. Also if you drop your levels down too quickly, your corals can get a little stressed.

Hopefully I haven't left out any important thoughts, but that is a brief synopsis. Good luck; and I will look forward to your findings.

Regards,

Sheldon

 

[travis32]

Thanks sheldon, the info is much appreciated. Yeah if I have no nitrates, not sure if there'd be any point to try this then. At least until I have nitrate issues a few months to a year from now.. I could maybe force some nitrate issues by installing bioballs somewhere. Nah, why create more problems.

I'll keep this in mind for the future though. Sounds intriguing!!

 

[thebanker]

I don't know of anyone running an ATS and pellets. If you have the ATS working at capacity, it might be worth trying.

 

[daveonbass]

or try taking the ATS offline and see if the nitrates bump up to the right ratio for the PO4 to then come down with the NO3. Or in my case just jump start it all with sugar doseing. Like Mary Poppins said "...a spoon full of sugar helps the N and P go down..."

sorry I'm in a goofy mood.

 

[ryanuuy]

I have been using BP for about 3 months now in my 120g DT and 50g sump and so far its been pretty great. My water is clearer and my N and P are definitely way less. My sps all have colored up and are showing pretty good signs of growth.

By next month, Im actually going to be adding a new fuge to my tank where i will place a DSB, liverocks, and a little macroalgae. This isnt really for reducing N or P further but to develop the organisms like pods and whatnot that will help feed my SPS. Would my macroalgae all just die? Does anyone keep macroalgae that do okay with BP in their systems as well?

 

[thebanker]

I keep chaetomorpha and green grape caulerpa. Both grow, not as fast as they did before BP but they still grow.

 

[ryanuuy]

Should i still add a DSB to that fuge? I was thinking that it would just be redundant since the BP will take care of the nutrients and the little left will be taken by the macroalgae so the DSB will basically be useless. Am i right in saying that? I was still going to put maybe 1 or 2 inches of sand to house critters like pods which provide food for the corals.