vodka or pellets
- Thread starter Wd40
- Start date
Alex T.
Active member
I would not use mb7 or biopellets. it's really a bogus front by these companies because they can't make money off you if you're giving it to Smirnoff . If you're going to dose vodka, just stay with that.
There's really no difference in results, or any other factual data that proves their product works better, or better in conjunction with just plain carbon dosing. And vodka is a lot cheaper in the long run.
There's really no difference in results, or any other factual data that proves their product works better, or better in conjunction with just plain carbon dosing. And vodka is a lot cheaper in the long run.
There's no doubt that vodka works, however i see 2 major advantages using pellets over vodka.
1. You can't overdose with pellets because they get consumed as needed by the bacteria so there's no guesswork determining your dose
2. You don't have to tend to it daily. If you are like me, who travels a lot daily vodka dosing is out of the question.
This is, ofcourse if the pellets deliver what they promise ... quite frankly it may be too soon to tell. I just put ecoBak pellets online today with the hopes of eventually not having to use GFO any longer.
I have also experimented with vodka/MB7 and it wasn't for me ... I had a major cyano outbreak and i would often forget to dose.
1. You can't overdose with pellets because they get consumed as needed by the bacteria so there's no guesswork determining your dose
2. You don't have to tend to it daily. If you are like me, who travels a lot daily vodka dosing is out of the question.
This is, ofcourse if the pellets deliver what they promise ... quite frankly it may be too soon to tell. I just put ecoBak pellets online today with the hopes of eventually not having to use GFO any longer.
I have also experimented with vodka/MB7 and it wasn't for me ... I had a major cyano outbreak and i would often forget to dose.
Trini 2D Bone
Member
new
new
hey all what do u use vodka for
new
hey all what do u use vodka for
daz the reefo
New member
have a read of this : http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2008-08/nftt/index.php
should shine some light on the subject for you
sedor
New member
Do you have any first hand experience? Personally, I used to run vodka and a few months ago I switched over to biopellets. The vodka was great at reducing nitrates, but the pellets do an excellent job at NO3 and PO4! IMO, its far better than vodka.
Wd40, there is a lot of change that occurs within this hobby. Biopellets are a recent addition that take away a lot of the daily work that is required with vodka if you don't have a pump.
However, both can start a bacterial bloom. The difference is biopellets are added in great amounts upfront, this is when the initial bloom will occur, and with vodka it may take weeks to reach a level that entice a rapid growth in bacteria.
Also, not to further complicate your decision but have you also looked at adding vinegar? Many people that had issues with vodka and cyano found that adding in vinegar in substitution aided immensely with their problems.
If you are a person that misses days tending to your tank and do not have a doser, I would tell you to go with the biopellets. If you go that route just add smaller amounts for the first week to avoid the initial bloom (I know a hassle) and make sure that you have a nice rotating flow with them inside the canister.
However, both can start a bacterial bloom. The difference is biopellets are added in great amounts upfront, this is when the initial bloom will occur, and with vodka it may take weeks to reach a level that entice a rapid growth in bacteria.
Also, not to further complicate your decision but have you also looked at adding vinegar? Many people that had issues with vodka and cyano found that adding in vinegar in substitution aided immensely with their problems.
If you are a person that misses days tending to your tank and do not have a doser, I would tell you to go with the biopellets. If you go that route just add smaller amounts for the first week to avoid the initial bloom (I know a hassle) and make sure that you have a nice rotating flow with them inside the canister.
Alex T.
Active member
Sedor, I'm not saying that biopellets "don't" work. I'm quite sure that they do. But, to say that MB7 and biopellets are a superior carbon source to vodka or vinegar should be perceived by hobbyists with a skeptical eye.
Carbon dosing is already a proven method that doesn't even cost pennies per day. In the chemistry forum, Randy has illustrated this analogy with using other household items to come up with alkalinity, calcium and magnesium supplements at the fraction of the cost for what the aquarium trade charges for their supplements. From a cost perspective, it's an elementary decision. The rest in my opinion is marketing hype. As a former Madison Avenue ad agency executive I can assure you that step 1 in validating a product is to create a need or perception of need, and then exploiting it through targeted messaging. They've done that in spades.
If traveling for work is the norm for someone, and daily dosing is impossible, I can see the need for moving on to pellets. However, even some people who've reached their maintenance dose don't do it every day. There are reports of some people keeping their vodka maintenance dose to twice per week. At that level of "involvement", it's pretty doable for most hobbyists unless they are working away from home for weeks at a time. And if you are working away from home for weeks at a time, are you really enjoying the fruits of your labors in the hobby anyway?
And regarding your comments about the pellets decreasing PO4 levels too, carbon dosing does the exact same thing...so I don't know why you're claiming this as an advantage of biopellets over vodka/vinegar. They achieve the exact same result...lowering of PO4 and NO3 by introduction of a controlled carbon dosed source.
You are more than welcome to your opinion that biopellets are superior to vodka, but many who've dosed vodka have no problems with PO4, NO3 or cyano issues, with more money left in their pockets for corals and less reactors/pumps to run.
Carbon dosing is already a proven method that doesn't even cost pennies per day. In the chemistry forum, Randy has illustrated this analogy with using other household items to come up with alkalinity, calcium and magnesium supplements at the fraction of the cost for what the aquarium trade charges for their supplements. From a cost perspective, it's an elementary decision. The rest in my opinion is marketing hype. As a former Madison Avenue ad agency executive I can assure you that step 1 in validating a product is to create a need or perception of need, and then exploiting it through targeted messaging. They've done that in spades.
If traveling for work is the norm for someone, and daily dosing is impossible, I can see the need for moving on to pellets. However, even some people who've reached their maintenance dose don't do it every day. There are reports of some people keeping their vodka maintenance dose to twice per week. At that level of "involvement", it's pretty doable for most hobbyists unless they are working away from home for weeks at a time. And if you are working away from home for weeks at a time, are you really enjoying the fruits of your labors in the hobby anyway?
And regarding your comments about the pellets decreasing PO4 levels too, carbon dosing does the exact same thing...so I don't know why you're claiming this as an advantage of biopellets over vodka/vinegar. They achieve the exact same result...lowering of PO4 and NO3 by introduction of a controlled carbon dosed source.
You are more than welcome to your opinion that biopellets are superior to vodka, but many who've dosed vodka have no problems with PO4, NO3 or cyano issues, with more money left in their pockets for corals and less reactors/pumps to run.
Radioheadx14
Active member
I've been using vertex pro-bio pellets for over a months now, and my hair algae problem is no longer a problem. i have a few small patches here and there, but its barely noticeable any more. Also, my water clarity is better than ever and I have noticed an increase in coral growth and color. I started slow and added a little more every week. I never had a huge bloom with starting slow. The first 2 or 3 days the water was a tiny bit cloudy (less than after a water change or after blowing off my rocks with a turkey baster.) and after a few days, my water was super clear. I thought my water clarity was perfect before, but I was wrong.
+1... like everything in this hobby (vodka for example) one should go slow. I added my first 500 ml of pellets this week and will add another 250 weekly until reaching my target of 1lt. Also, it seems like people who have experienced a bloom may have had high nutrient levels to start with. Mine were already in the acceptable low range so betwen that and ramping up the pellets I should not experience a bloom ... theoretically.
ChuckG
New member
Suggest not assuming that the carbon from pellets stays forever isolated in the pellet reactor.
Even the best skimmers are not efficient enough to strip all bacteria from the reactors effluent on the first pass.
Where does the bacteria go?
Once there, can the bacteria decay due to N, and P deprivation?
If it decays in the display what happens to the C, N, P that made up the bacteria?
Are the N and P components from the decay carried back to the pellet reactor to be readily taken back up by new bacteria?
If so, what happens to the carbon from the original bacterial decay?
Does it begin to accumulate.. in the display?
What type of environment do Dinoflagellates prefer? I'll answer this one.. environments where C is high but N and P are at trace levels.
Once that bacterial engine gets going there is no stopping it short of not feeding your fish... and you if you have a lot of fish the engine will accumulate carbon in the display. Rate is dependant on how much you feed.
If you have a lot of filter feeders that will incorporate the bacteria into their bodies before the bacteria decays then there is not much of an issue with carbon accumulation in the display. It gets used to make the corals "grow". But if you feed a lot of fish and there are no corals or way to consume the bacteria before it decays. Then this could lead to problems. This is my experience which I'll share so people with a high fish but low coral population can at least monitor and look out for something similar happening.
I now prefer a more manual approach to carbon dosing. At least until I can get more filter feeders in my tank.
Even the best skimmers are not efficient enough to strip all bacteria from the reactors effluent on the first pass.
Where does the bacteria go?
Once there, can the bacteria decay due to N, and P deprivation?
If it decays in the display what happens to the C, N, P that made up the bacteria?
Are the N and P components from the decay carried back to the pellet reactor to be readily taken back up by new bacteria?
If so, what happens to the carbon from the original bacterial decay?
Does it begin to accumulate.. in the display?
What type of environment do Dinoflagellates prefer? I'll answer this one.. environments where C is high but N and P are at trace levels.
Once that bacterial engine gets going there is no stopping it short of not feeding your fish... and you if you have a lot of fish the engine will accumulate carbon in the display. Rate is dependant on how much you feed.
If you have a lot of filter feeders that will incorporate the bacteria into their bodies before the bacteria decays then there is not much of an issue with carbon accumulation in the display. It gets used to make the corals "grow". But if you feed a lot of fish and there are no corals or way to consume the bacteria before it decays. Then this could lead to problems. This is my experience which I'll share so people with a high fish but low coral population can at least monitor and look out for something similar happening.
I now prefer a more manual approach to carbon dosing. At least until I can get more filter feeders in my tank.
Last edited:
VERY valid points... but how does this potential threat differ from manual dosing? If anything it minimizes the chance of your concerns if using pellets in a reactor rather than just dosing the water column. Sure, 100% may not be stripped by the first pass of the skimmer, but I would think most will with today's efficient/oversized skimmers ... which are recommended for any kind of carbon dosing. Remember these are not high flow rates coming out of the reactors.
As I understand it, with the pellets, the bacteria population density is relative to the organics available but with manual dosing (of bacteria) you are constantly adding bacteria at a rate that your system may not be able to sustain, therefore there would be higher risk of bacterial decay in the DT over the pellets, which are localized to a reactor and passed through a skimmer right away. It is hard to find that sweet spot manually doing carbon and bacteria. Even then, that is always a moving target that is often missed... even by the pros like SunnyX who has even documented the signs and what to when this happens.
Pellets to me equal a stable environment where there is a "locked up" carbon source that is only consumed by the amount of bacteria that your system can sustain and therefore an outbreak of Dinoflagellates due to bacterial decay is minimized. Just my opinion, but what do i know, ive had my pellets online for just a day LOL
IMO, manual dosing of vodka is NOT synonymous with dosing bacteria.
Similar threads
