Warner Marine Now Has A Pellet Product

[Stuart60611]

From Reef Builders:

Warner Marine is releasing EcoBAK pellets this week throwing their hat into the solid vodka dosing pellet market. A main difference you’ll notice between the EcoBAK pellets and other products on the market it the small, rough shape over smooth spheres giving a more porous pellet with more surface area for the beneficial bacterial to grasp onto and thrive. When chatting with Warner Marine about the product, they indicated the polymer used in the product is not Polycaprolactone (PCL) that has been in use in other products like Instant Ocean’s Natural Nitrate Reducer but another form of biodegradable polymer that shares the same characteristics and completely different than the polymer used in NP Biopellets. EcoBAK is filler free, so all you are getting is a nitrate and phosphate reducing polymer that is consumed by the bacteria. This is the important difference between EcoBAK and vodka dosing, the carbon source never enters the water stream. Ideally the EcoBAK works well in a media reactor and can replace your GFO but could also be used passively in a mesh bag in an area of flow in case you’re running out of space or saving up for a reactor. It’s not necessary to fully fluidize the media as the product doesn’t slime over, so you don’t need a high flow rate for it to be effective. Warner Marine told us a flow of around 100 GPH through one liter of pellets would be a good starting point. The company is also pricing this very competitively and coming in below other solid vodka dosing-type products with a 250ml canister running around $19.99, 500ml for $34.99 and one liter for $59.99. If you’re interesting in picking up some of Warner Marine’s EcoBAK, check out your favorite Warner Marine dealer or visit the website or call direct for more details.

Looks cheaper than the biopellets. Any thoughts?

 

[jason2459]

Glad to see the prices start to come down.

 

[PowermanKW]

Mine should be here today. I like WM products and am excited to give this a shot.

 

[Stuart60611]

One thing that I found curious about the above snipet is the statement that the Warner Marine pellets can be used to replace GFO. In the NP Biopellets thread, it has been suggested repeatedly both by the manufacturer and users of the product that one often has to run the NP Biopellets with GFO suggesting that the NP Biopellets are best at breaking down nitrate and not as effective at breaking down phosphate. Here, it appears that perhaps the Warner Marine Pellets are better at breaking down phosphate. They are purportedly made from a different substance so perhaps that is the basis for the contention?

 

[skibum9884]

I agree it is interesting that there are now several products like this on the market (3, I believe).

So, who is going to test these against eachother and tell us which is best?

 

[trueperc]

I just say this at ************ too, but I can find any more info. What I would like to know how much of theses pellets do you need per size of tank.
Hey PowermanKW where did you order them from.

 

[Primetime33]

I bought some of these from Jon at an earlier club meeting. My phosphates have dropped from .26 to .07 in 4 weeks. These tests were done with a Hanna phosphate colorimeter. Good job Jon!!! I need to stock up ( years supply or so ) before you sell out of these!!!!

 

[PowermanKW]

I just say this at ************ too, but I can find any more info. What I would like to know how much of theses pellets do you need per size of tank.
Hey PowermanKW where did you order them from.

I got mine from Warner Marine. WM suggests 250ml/50g of water. So I will be running 500ml.



I do understand why it is suggested to run GFO. From reading on this new technology, nobody has ever suggested N or P are "broke down", rather they are consumed/absorbed by the growing bacteria and then removed via skimming just like regular carbon dosing has always done. At least that's my understanding.

My N and P are already low, so I am going to just run EcoBak straight with GAC and no GFO just to see what my PO4 does. I just ran a new batch of GFO and my PO4 is .008 with a D-D Merck kit. So I'm starting with a clean tank.

 

[Reefer Steve]

Let the solid carbon dosing wars begin.

 

[saltcrazy]

I got mine from Warner Marine. WM suggests 250ml/50g of water. So I will be running 500ml.



I do understand why it is suggested to run GFO. From reading on this new technology, nobody has ever suggested N or P are "broke down", rather they are consumed/absorbed by the growing bacteria and then removed via skimming just like regular carbon dosing has always done. At least that's my understanding.

My N and P are already low, so I am going to just run EcoBak straight with GAC and no GFO just to see what my PO4 does. I just ran a new batch of GFO and my PO4 is .008 with a D-D Merck kit. So I'm starting with a clean tank.

powerman,

i was on the warner website http://www.warnermarine.com/indexsite.html, but did not see this product. can you tell us where to order from, maybe a link? thanks.

 

[PowermanKW]

powerman,

i was on the warner website http://www.warnermarine.com/indexsite.html, but did not see this product. can you tell us where to order from, maybe a link? thanks.

I was talking on the phone about some stuff and the EcoBak came up so he sent me some. They have been announced and are due to release this week. So give em a call or wait till it posts on the site. I'm sure WM retailers will have some soon too.

 

[PowermanKW]

Let the solid carbon dosing wars begin.

All for it if it delivers as promised. I was not at all interested in liquid carbon dosing. We shall see. I already have low numbers, but of course want to feed more.

 

[Stuart60611]

I got mine from Warner Marine. WM suggests 250ml/50g of water. So I will be running 500ml.



I do understand why it is suggested to run GFO. From reading on this new technology, nobody has ever suggested N or P are "broke down", rather they are consumed/absorbed by the growing bacteria and then removed via skimming just like regular carbon dosing has always done. At least that's my understanding.

My N and P are already low, so I am going to just run EcoBak straight with GAC and no GFO just to see what my PO4 does. I just ran a new batch of GFO and my PO4 is .008 with a D-D Merck kit. So I'm starting with a clean tank.

You are correct, and I think I used a poor choice of words when I described the pellets as "breaking down" nitrate or phosphate and also understand that the pellets work exactly as you describe in effect as a solid carbon dose. However, what I found interesting by the description of these is that it appears Warner Marine is suggesting that their pellets be used instead of GFO rather than in conjunction with GFO which is often recomended with bio pellets. To me, this may suggest that perhaps the Warner Marine pellets being made from a different polymer serving as a carbon dose promote the growth of a different bacterial mix than the bio pellets which is more condusive to consuming phosphate. Otherwise, why would the Warner Marine pellets be used to replace GFO as opposed to be used in conjunction with GFO like the bio pellets.

 

[ChuckG]

One thing that I found curious about the above snipet is the statement that the Warner Marine pellets can be used to replace GFO. In the NP Biopellets thread, it has been suggested repeatedly both by the manufacturer and users of the product that one often has to run the NP Biopellets with GFO suggesting that the NP Biopellets are best at breaking down nitrate and not as effective at breaking down phosphate. Here, it appears that perhaps the Warner Marine Pellets are better at breaking down phosphate. They are purportedly made from a different substance so perhaps that is the basis for the contention?

It is the bacteria that consume the PO4 while consuming the carbon source. Probably safe to assume it is the same bacteria the grow on the WM and BP products. They apparently consume carbon, nitrogen, and phosphate in a specific ratio. The BP manufacturers say that GFO may need to be used when more phosphates are dumped into the the tank than there is available nitrogen (nitrate) for the the bacteria to consume two along with carbon in the proper ratio.

I can't say for sure but following that logic and if it is correct then there may also be certain scenarios where GFO may need to be used with the WM product.

I also ran across this product the other day. Looks similar although no mention of phosphate reduction. That said they may not want to mention PO4 reduction for a product advertised for freshwater plants as I believe freshwater planted tanks sometime need phosphates dosed to keep things the plants growing optimally.

http://www.aquariumplants.com/Deniballs_p/am77006.htm

 

[Stuart60611]

It is the bacteria that consume the PO4 while consuming the carbon source. Probably safe to assume it is the same bacteria the grow on the WM and BP products. They apparently consume carbon, nitrogen, and phosphate in a specific ratio. The BP manufacturers say that GFO may need to be used when more phosphates are dumped into the the tank than there is available nitrogen (nitrate) for the the bacteria to consume two along with carbon in the proper ratio.

I can't say for sure but following that logic and if it is correct then there may also be certain scenarios where GFO may need to be used with the WM product.

I also ran across this product the other day. Looks similar although no mention of phosphate reduction. That said they may not want to mention PO4 reduction for a product advertised for freshwater plants as I believe freshwater planted tanks sometime need phosphates dosed to keep things the plants growing optimally.

http://www.aquariumplants.com/Deniballs_p/am77006.htm

I am not sure I agree here. I do not think it is at all necessarily safe to assume that the same bacterial mix will grow on the WM and BP products just as the same bacterial mix do not grow when dosing sugar, vodka, vinegar, etc. I believe it has been shown that different bacteria feed and effectively multiple to higher numbers depending on the carbon source. WM uses a different polymer or carbon source so it would seem to me that it is indeed possible and even likely that the bacterial mix may be different.

This would explain why one product is to be used with GFO and one product is used to replace GFO. They each could promote the growth of a different mix of bacteria -- one that consumes more phosphate than the other.

 

[ChuckG]

I am not sure I agree here. I do not think it is at all necessarily safe to assume that the same bacterial mix will grow on the WM and BP products just as the same bacterial mix do not grow when dosing sugar, vodka, vinegar, etc. I believe it has been shown that different bacteria feed and effectively multiple to higher numbers depending on the carbon source. WM uses a different polymer or carbon source so it would seem to me that it is indeed possible and even likely that the bacterial mix may be different.

My first thought would be then that they would also supply the proprietary bacteria to dose along with their media.

I use the NP Biopellet media, feed heavily, and do not use GFO. My experience so far is that I can't keep enough PO4 in the tank.

 

[Stuart60611]

My first thought would be then that they would also supply the proprietary bacteria to dose along with their media.

Ya, that is the prodibio approach. Here, however, the bacteria is still probably already in our tanks, although perhaps in small numbers. The differing polymers between the BP and WM products may provide more effective food source for different bacteria which would ultimately result in different bacteria being in a higher number in the system depending on which product you used. These different bacteria likely consume nitrate and phosphate in differing proportions which could make one product better at exporting nitrate or phosphate than the other.

 

[Reefobsession]

Can I get these through John?

 

[ChuckG]

Ya, that is the prodibio approach. Here, however, the bacteria is still probably already in our tanks, although perhaps in small numbers. The differing polymers between the BP and WM products may provide more effective food source for different bacteria which would ultimately result in different bacteria being in a higher number in the system depending on which product you used. These different bacteria likely consume nitrate and phosphate in differing proportions which could make one product better at exporting nitrate or phosphate than the other.

Your theories are interesting. Are there any studies or data available to suport this line of thought?

Dont get me wrong in that i am not proporting one is a better product than the other. I welcome the WM product and might have chose it when i was bulding my reactor. I just entered the conversation as these topics interest me.

I think ultimatly that unless the bacteria cultured consumes phosphate and nitrate in the specific ratios in which they are introduced or stored in the aquarium then as one resource depletes to zero and becomes a limiter there will be a residual reserve of the other. Seems it would be near impossible to specify a media that worked hand in hand with any one set of bacteria to consume n and p in the specific ratios that aligned to the import / export methods used by even a small set of aquairums.

It is an interesting topic that is for sure.

 

[PowermanKW]

I talked to Jon about this when we spoke. He explained the product.... but I don't want to speak for him.... there was not any talk of any special carbon mixture or bacteria. I think it is just general talk in the press release and we will have to see for ourselves how it goes. I guess I'm trying to say at this point we should probably not make assumptions.

For instance... I don't have bad PO4 problems, but I do run GFO. I also run Cheato in the fuge but it grows very slowly. Perhaps these EcoBak pellets will suck up enough nitrates to reduce cheato growth further, but I might still have a little more PO4 without GFO. So perhaps I can remove the cheato and then I would have a better balance of N and P reduction through EcoBak that my PO4 is lowered further. You see what I mean?

And then of course what works for me may not for you. So we will just have to see. I am going to start from scratch with EcoBak Gac and no GFO. I'll wait for 3-4 weeks, and see how my tank and fuge are doing, then I will start feeding more and testing along the way. If my PO4 should creep up along the way but stabilize, I might run a batch of GFO to knock it down and see if it stays. Who knows. I would love to stop using GFO... hell that alone would pay for this and then some.. but who knows at this point.