Pooky's 300
- Thread starter JohnL
- Start date
pookstreet
Registered Stick Killer
Thanks Dan. It does feel good to have some nice sticks to look at and take pix of again.
pookstreet
Registered Stick Killer
Thanks Stacie. Let's hope everything goes in the right direction from now on. How is your tank doing?
pookstreet
Registered Stick Killer
You and me both :worried2:
pookstreet
Registered Stick Killer
pookstreet
Registered Stick Killer
Here is an unknown aquacultured Acro that I picked up to test out. It's still doing fine and coloring up a bit.
pookstreet
Registered Stick Killer
Just finished a round or testing today and everything came out pretty normal, except PO4, which is still a bit on the high side.
Alk ~9 dKH
Ca ~440 ppm
Mg ~1250 ppm
NO3 < 5 ppm
PO4 0.10 ppm (Hanna)
What's most interesting is that I started to also test the Ca reactor effluent for PO4 couple of days ago. Both times so far, the effluent has been 0.03 ppm higher than the tank water. So the Ca reactor has been pumping 0.03 ppm of PO4 into the tank all this time? I've always known that it's possible for some PO4 to be released from the reactor media, but not that much. Now it's got me seriously thinking about adding a phosphate reactor to clean up the effluent before it's dumped into the tank. Any thought as to possible negative side effects of doing that?
Alk ~9 dKH
Ca ~440 ppm
Mg ~1250 ppm
NO3 < 5 ppm
PO4 0.10 ppm (Hanna)
What's most interesting is that I started to also test the Ca reactor effluent for PO4 couple of days ago. Both times so far, the effluent has been 0.03 ppm higher than the tank water. So the Ca reactor has been pumping 0.03 ppm of PO4 into the tank all this time? I've always known that it's possible for some PO4 to be released from the reactor media, but not that much. Now it's got me seriously thinking about adding a phosphate reactor to clean up the effluent before it's dumped into the tank. Any thought as to possible negative side effects of doing that?
aquariumclown
New member
Kenny, it won't matter if your dosing mb7 and vodka, which will populate po4 eating bacteria to take care of it biologically.
aquariumclown
New member
Stayed tuned. I will take some pics of Kenny's corals 
DanW
Certified Stick Killer
Although I've never tested, I've also wondered about the phosphate coming from the CA Rx but this article from Jose Dieck dissuaded me from adding a phosphate reducing chamber. Here is the pertinent excerpt:
"œ"¦in my tests of two of the most popular medias using a colorimeter, the level of phosphate detected in the effluent was a maximum of 0.02 ppm, which is below the minimum of 0.03 ppm recommended for the aquarium water, and it is way below the amount contained in the food you would add when feeding your fish and corals. For this reason, the addition of a phosphate removing reactor after the calcium reactor is not only not necessary but may even be detrimental because the high content of alkalinity and calcium in the effluent will rapidly create calcium carbonate precipitate on the phosphate removing media surfaces"¦"
"œ"¦in my tests of two of the most popular medias using a colorimeter, the level of phosphate detected in the effluent was a maximum of 0.02 ppm, which is below the minimum of 0.03 ppm recommended for the aquarium water, and it is way below the amount contained in the food you would add when feeding your fish and corals. For this reason, the addition of a phosphate removing reactor after the calcium reactor is not only not necessary but may even be detrimental because the high content of alkalinity and calcium in the effluent will rapidly create calcium carbonate precipitate on the phosphate removing media surfaces"¦"
Although I've never tested, I've also wondered about the phosphate coming from the CA Rx but this article from Jose Dieck dissuaded me from adding a phosphate reducing chamber. Here is the pertinent excerpt:
"œ"¦in my tests of two of the most popular medias using a colorimeter, the level of phosphate detected in the effluent was a maximum of 0.02 ppm, which is below the minimum of 0.03 ppm recommended for the aquarium water, and it is way below the amount contained in the food you would add when feeding your fish and corals. For this reason, the addition of a phosphate removing reactor after the calcium reactor is not only not necessary but may even be detrimental because the high content of alkalinity and calcium in the effluent will rapidly create calcium carbonate precipitate on the phosphate removing media surfaces"¦"
Dan, what he saying is that you add more phosphates via food that you will ever add though Ca reactor effluent. I have had long discussion with Randy about this too. He also a agrees that the amount of phosphates added via Ca reactor effluent is minimal and use the example of phosphates in foods we feed.
I ran my effluent though GFO for month and never notice any difference. I'm convinced that the impact is minimal.
My Ca reactor has always formed a build up inside the reactor. This is partly because I feed the reactor with return pump so teh extra detritus gets pushed the reactor. I clean it out and refill the media every 3-4 months.
Pretty much how I see the point as well. Po4 will bind to the rocks. If I remember correctly, it was much higher awhile back. If that was the case, it will still take time to get the numbers down; but they will come down.
Pretty much how I see the point as well. Po4 will bind to the rocks. If I remember correctly, it was much higher awhile back. If that was the case, it will still take time to get the numbers down; but they will come down.
pookstreet
Registered Stick Killer
I agree with Brian's interpretation here. My idea was to use a phosphate reactor for the effluent until the overall level in the tank has dropped down to the optimal level, then it would be taken offline. Intuitively, if I can eliminate 0.03 off the bat, then the tank would have less to deal with and maybe can get rid of the remaining stuff naturally faster without another constant source of phosphates. Well, at least that was the idea :hammer:
However, this particular statement causes the most concern and probably shot down the idea all together if it is true :blown:
aquariumclown
New member
The Great Kenny SPS Revival Project: Jan 2010 update!
The Great Kenny SPS Revival Project: Jan 2010 update!
Pink Lemonade. There's lemon now! Just waiting for the pink.
Pink Jade
Hawkins Echinata (I love the beautiful new blue buds!)
Unknown frag, but recovering nicely
Blue tip tenuis? It lost some zooxanthellae due to lack of nutrients in my frag tank (I'm adding some fishes in there soon!)
Purple Unknown - New verticals! (I moved this into my DT and it's doing wonderfully)
The Great Kenny SPS Revival Project: Jan 2010 update!
Pink Lemonade. There's lemon now! Just waiting for the pink.
Pink Jade
Hawkins Echinata (I love the beautiful new blue buds!)
Unknown frag, but recovering nicely
Blue tip tenuis? It lost some zooxanthellae due to lack of nutrients in my frag tank (I'm adding some fishes in there soon!)
Purple Unknown - New verticals! (I moved this into my DT and it's doing wonderfully)
pookstreet
Registered Stick Killer
Dang, Leo. The Acros look really good Hope I don't keel dem when bring them back.
Hope I don't keel dem when bring them back.
DanW
Certified Stick Killer
Sorry for the , I understood the article it goes against what I've heard from many people/posts. Just another example of the misinformation that is circulating out there. I know a few very experienced reefers that are running the CA Rx effluent through GFO to reduce the PO4 which I agree with Kenny sounds all good and well. If we can stop even 0.02 from getting in then sure but the "œmay even be detrimental" part is surprising.
Man Leo, you've got skillz.
, I understood the article it goes against what I've heard from many people/posts. Just another example of the misinformation that is circulating out there. I know a few very experienced reefers that are running the CA Rx effluent through GFO to reduce the PO4 which I agree with Kenny sounds all good and well. If we can stop even 0.02 from getting in then sure but the "œmay even be detrimental" part is surprising.Man Leo, you've got skillz.
Similar threads
