Re: Nitra-Guard Bio-cubes from Orca Labs promises denitrification free of Redfield's
- Thread starter Aquarist007
- Start date
mandarinfanatic
New member
i dont recommend that at all. i do waterchanges as a preventative measure . it is the one thing we can do in our tank with certainty to keep tank stable
sent from my galaxy s3
carlosdeandrade
New member
[/QUOTE]it is the one thing we can do in our tank with certainty to keep tank stable[/QUOTE]
I know it's a part of reefkeeping that is as old as the hills, however, does it really keep the tank stable when it it replenishes lost trace elements rather suddenly. If our systems are stable by not fiddling them, how could the removal of 10% of the water keep it stable, shouldn't one rather do very small water changes over a seven day period? Or, maybe just leave the system alone and add a supplement that will keep these waters changes to a minimal amount?
I know it's a part of reefkeeping that is as old as the hills, however, does it really keep the tank stable when it it replenishes lost trace elements rather suddenly. If our systems are stable by not fiddling them, how could the removal of 10% of the water keep it stable, shouldn't one rather do very small water changes over a seven day period? Or, maybe just leave the system alone and add a supplement that will keep these waters changes to a minimal amount?
carlosdeandrade
New member
[/QUOTE]it is the one thing we can do in our tank with certainty to keep tank stable[/QUOTE]
I know it's a part of reefkeeping that is as old as the hills, however, does it really keep the tank stable when it it replenishes lost trace elements rather suddenly. If our systems are stable by not fiddling them, how could the removal of 10% of the water keep it stable, shouldn't one rather do very small water changes over a seven day period? Or, maybe just leave the system alone and add a supplement that will keep these waters changes to a minimal amount?
I know it's a part of reefkeeping that is as old as the hills, however, does it really keep the tank stable when it it replenishes lost trace elements rather suddenly. If our systems are stable by not fiddling them, how could the removal of 10% of the water keep it stable, shouldn't one rather do very small water changes over a seven day period? Or, maybe just leave the system alone and add a supplement that will keep these waters changes to a minimal amount?
mandarinfanatic
New member
depends how you do waterchange. what i do is put topup pump into bucket of new mixed salt water and have a small syphon pipe returning water to that bucket and leave it to do waterchange for a few hours. the coral and fish dont even feel the impact. it is like acclimatisation pace and works a charm.
sent from my galaxy s3
sent from my galaxy s3
mandarinfanatic
New member
it keeps system superstable.
sent from my galaxy s3
sent from my galaxy s3
mandarinfanatic
New member
if there are no water changes over time you are creating an imbalanced tank. small wayerchange weekly. test water perams and adjust if neccessary. it doesnt get better imo
sent from my galaxy s3
sent from my galaxy s3
megadeth72
New member
not sure if people that advocate frequent small water changes understand how insignificant it is, especially with trace elements
here's an example, you can reverse the logic if you want to see how much trace your adding, but be prepared to be sad. If you have 30ppm of no3 and want to get it to 5ppm, the new water has 0 ppm, and the tank is increasing at 0ppm and you do a 10 % water change every week here's how much the no3 drops
start 30ppm
week1 27.5ppm
week2 25.3ppm
week3 23ppm
week4 21ppm
it will take 210 days to get to 5 ppm
if you do 30 % changes it drops to 70 days
if you do 50 % changes it takes 5 changes
I do NOT waste my time with less than 30 % water changes, it's a waste of money in an already expensive hobby
here's an example, you can reverse the logic if you want to see how much trace your adding, but be prepared to be sad. If you have 30ppm of no3 and want to get it to 5ppm, the new water has 0 ppm, and the tank is increasing at 0ppm and you do a 10 % water change every week here's how much the no3 drops
start 30ppm
week1 27.5ppm
week2 25.3ppm
week3 23ppm
week4 21ppm
it will take 210 days to get to 5 ppm
if you do 30 % changes it drops to 70 days
if you do 50 % changes it takes 5 changes
I do NOT waste my time with less than 30 % water changes, it's a waste of money in an already expensive hobby
mandarinfanatic
New member
that at is scary if you think about it. i think that if you do your maintenance with the waterchange it makes it more significant. once a month. i vacuum my substrate and replace the water with the waterchange. at the same time i do pump clean,back glass clean etc. and i always felt good about my four 10 percent waterchanges a month. or 40 percent a month. i am cool with doing the smaller changes cos the spses dont have big changes. i dont think someone can just rely on waterchanges to reduce nitrates. thanks for opening our eyes.
sent from my galaxy s3
Aquarist007
New member
Wow. Thanks for all the contributions to this thread by everyone. Having been away and having to read through the whole thread again I can see some common points:
As with any use of pellets of any form it appears that one must run a gfo media along with it as they are more effective in removing nitrates rather then phosphates
I don't see one form of pellets being more effective than the other.
I believe that you have to create an aerobic environment for yeast to function but at the time , an anaerobic environment will get the Max nitrate and phosphate reduction from bacteria
In the end I think it comes down to practicalites of the particular tank situations and with 33 tanks under my care in differing situations I am comfortable in opining here:
In my restaraunt tanks I like the idea of the or a cubes since they are easy to setup and reliable to run with weekly maintance. I have very little control over the feeding since they always seem to delegate the job to the most dim witted staff member:lol:
In private homes I use the biopellets. Their feeding habits are more reliable, and:strooper: will help monitor the condition of the pellets. The will also be more agreeable to adding a phosban reactor.
In my own tanks I would prefer vodka dosing because I like to be involved on a daily basis with them. Personally that is the part of the hobby I enjoy more then sitting in front of the tank and watching a hermit crab kill a snail because it can:rollface:
As far as pricing for eg a120 gal
Or a cubes 48, air pump line and stone 15 dollars
Biopellets 28, reactor 48, pump 36
Not a big difference really
Lastly when the subject of water changes came up it should be restated that effective ways in reducing nitrates, phosphates and organics are
Plenty of live rock
Excellent skimmer
Chaeto or calerpa macro algae in a refugium
Carbon and gfo
As with any use of pellets of any form it appears that one must run a gfo media along with it as they are more effective in removing nitrates rather then phosphates
I don't see one form of pellets being more effective than the other.
I believe that you have to create an aerobic environment for yeast to function but at the time , an anaerobic environment will get the Max nitrate and phosphate reduction from bacteria
In the end I think it comes down to practicalites of the particular tank situations and with 33 tanks under my care in differing situations I am comfortable in opining here:
In my restaraunt tanks I like the idea of the or a cubes since they are easy to setup and reliable to run with weekly maintance. I have very little control over the feeding since they always seem to delegate the job to the most dim witted staff member:lol:
In private homes I use the biopellets. Their feeding habits are more reliable, and:strooper: will help monitor the condition of the pellets. The will also be more agreeable to adding a phosban reactor.
In my own tanks I would prefer vodka dosing because I like to be involved on a daily basis with them. Personally that is the part of the hobby I enjoy more then sitting in front of the tank and watching a hermit crab kill a snail because it can:rollface:
As far as pricing for eg a120 gal
Or a cubes 48, air pump line and stone 15 dollars
Biopellets 28, reactor 48, pump 36
Not a big difference really
Lastly when the subject of water changes came up it should be restated that effective ways in reducing nitrates, phosphates and organics are
Plenty of live rock
Excellent skimmer
Chaeto or calerpa macro algae in a refugium
Carbon and gfo
Last edited:
Aquarist007
New member
No apologies necessary. Lots of great information
Isn't the above quote contrary to the manufacturers claim of this product not affecting the red field ratio?
I am wondering if there is any pellet on the market that can make that claim.
As far as vodka dosing. Does that skew the red field ratio?
not sure if people that advocate frequent small water changes understand how insignificant it is, especially with trace elements
I strongly prefer small frequent water changes and have done 1% per day plus another 10% or so related to monthly maintenance functions for a number of years. My corals ,fish,andother animals like it too.
The contribution to major .minor and trace lements is by no means insignificant. Keeping them steady via conituus small changes is preferable to bouncing them around by letting them deplete and then bouncing them up again with a larger change.ime. Many of these elements deplete quickly orare bound with
I undrstand the math. This article by Randy Holmes Farley gives a much more accurate picture of efficiency loss than the numbers thrown out in the earlier post:
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-10/rhf/index.php
This is from it:
<table align="center" width="730"><tbody><tr><td> Continuous water changes: Continuous water changes, despite their name, are not necessarily performed every minute of every day. The distinguishing feature of these changes is that water is added at the same time that it is removed. The actual rate of addition can be high or low. Reef aquarists (myself included) most often perform these types of water changes with two matched pumps, one that removes the old water and one that adds the new water. Often these pumps are part of the same mechanism (such as two sets of tubing on a peristaltic pump or two heads on a diaphragm pump), but that is not a requirement. I use a dual head diaphragm pump capable of a maximum of 30 gallons per day for each head (a Reef Filler pump from Champion Lighting). In my setup, once I have a 44-gallon trash can full of new salt water, all I do to perform a 44 gallon or smaller water change is plug in the pump. The wastewater is sent down the drain. Sometimes I change 44 gallons in one shot, taking about a day and a half. Sometimes I pump for a few hours at a time, and then wait for a few days.
These changes are slightly less efficient than single batch water changes of the same total volume. A continuous water change of 30% exactly matches one batch 26% water change. As with very small batch water changes, these have the advantage of neither stressing the organisms (assuming the change is done reasonably slowly), nor altering the water level in the aquarium. The ease of doing such changes automatically also makes it far more likely that busy or lazy aquarists will actually do them.
</td></tr></tbody></table>
I strongly prefer small frequent water changes and have done 1% per day plus another 10% or so related to monthly maintenance functions for a number of years. My corals ,fish,andother animals like it too.
The contribution to major .minor and trace lements is by no means insignificant. Keeping them steady via conituus small changes is preferable to bouncing them around by letting them deplete and then bouncing them up again with a larger change.ime. Many of these elements deplete quickly orare bound with
I undrstand the math. This article by Randy Holmes Farley gives a much more accurate picture of efficiency loss than the numbers thrown out in the earlier post:
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-10/rhf/index.php
This is from it:
<table align="center" width="730"><tbody><tr><td> Continuous water changes: Continuous water changes, despite their name, are not necessarily performed every minute of every day. The distinguishing feature of these changes is that water is added at the same time that it is removed. The actual rate of addition can be high or low. Reef aquarists (myself included) most often perform these types of water changes with two matched pumps, one that removes the old water and one that adds the new water. Often these pumps are part of the same mechanism (such as two sets of tubing on a peristaltic pump or two heads on a diaphragm pump), but that is not a requirement. I use a dual head diaphragm pump capable of a maximum of 30 gallons per day for each head (a Reef Filler pump from Champion Lighting). In my setup, once I have a 44-gallon trash can full of new salt water, all I do to perform a 44 gallon or smaller water change is plug in the pump. The wastewater is sent down the drain. Sometimes I change 44 gallons in one shot, taking about a day and a half. Sometimes I pump for a few hours at a time, and then wait for a few days.
These changes are slightly less efficient than single batch water changes of the same total volume. A continuous water change of 30% exactly matches one batch 26% water change. As with very small batch water changes, these have the advantage of neither stressing the organisms (assuming the change is done reasonably slowly), nor altering the water level in the aquarium. The ease of doing such changes automatically also makes it far more likely that busy or lazy aquarists will actually do them.
</td></tr></tbody></table>
The math is wrong. It would take 17 water changes at 10% (0.9<sup>17</sup>×30 or 5 at 30% (0.7<sup>5</sup>×30) to reach 5 ppm. The difference in cost would be 20% of the water column, which is rather small in cost. As has been mentioned, there are other issues as well.
mandarinfanatic
New member
Belgian Anthias
New member
Bio cube
Bio cube
This post was about the working of bio-cubes based on yeast to eliminate Nitrate build up or reduce Nitrate. The question of how the product works if it works at all is for me not answered.
This treatment is expensive and if it works can not compete with non commercial solutions as there are:
1. Elimination of the cause.
2. If the cause can not be found or/ and can not or will not be removed ( to much bio-load) water changes can be a less expensive solution. From my experience 10 % water-changes can prevent build-up but will not reduce high nitrate readings to an acceptable level. In an older system sudden water-changes of 40% and more can be dangerous and are not advisable.
3. Elimination of the nitrate by activation of more de-nitrification capacity.
A non expensive, stable and reliable solution is the use of sulfur in a reactor.
Bio cube
This post was about the working of bio-cubes based on yeast to eliminate Nitrate build up or reduce Nitrate. The question of how the product works if it works at all is for me not answered.
This treatment is expensive and if it works can not compete with non commercial solutions as there are:
1. Elimination of the cause.
2. If the cause can not be found or/ and can not or will not be removed ( to much bio-load) water changes can be a less expensive solution. From my experience 10 % water-changes can prevent build-up but will not reduce high nitrate readings to an acceptable level. In an older system sudden water-changes of 40% and more can be dangerous and are not advisable.
3. Elimination of the nitrate by activation of more de-nitrification capacity.
A non expensive, stable and reliable solution is the use of sulfur in a reactor.
Belgian Anthias
New member
mandarinfanatic
New member
There is a lot of strange info re these cubes. Yeast, not yeast bacteria blah blah. The reality is that it is ye olde solid carbon source that is expensive. It is not a replacement for preventative waterchanges. It is the same as any solid carbon source. You dont control it . It controls you. You need to check if it is still behaving itself. I prefer liquid carbon source as it is more controlable and can be adjusted immediately. How do you adjust a solid carbon source? How long does it take to adjust and verify? Too unpredictable for me.
mandarinfanatic
New member
I must also say i am one of those suckers that buys and tries all the new supplements. Ok let me rephrase that" i used to be one of those suckers" i am now fighting the temptation each time i see a new product
I will now watch and wait to see others experiences and let them pay for the testing and reviews!
sent from my galaxy s3
I will now watch and wait to see others experiences and let them pay for the testing and reviews!
sent from my galaxy s3
Belgian Anthias
New member
water changes
water changes
When the water is changed! Not when the fresh water is mixed with tank-water and removed.
water changes
When the water is changed! Not when the fresh water is mixed with tank-water and removed.
Similar threads
