doctorgori
New member
My tank was cloudy for a week I think...I dosed MB7 for lack of something better to do and it cleared up...I wouldn't swear there was a coorelation but it did clear coincidentally ...
What's Your Problem With Bio-Pellets?
- Thread starter t.trezona
- Start date
I am using NP biopellets for the last 12 months.
Each time I have had a cloudy tank...Zeos Coral Snow and ZeoBak mixed cleared the tank pretty quick...
What is your NO3 at?
I have used Hach's NI-14 kit with there calibration liquids to calculate may chloride interference and am confident I am very, very low on NO3(<1.5) so I believe the pellets have worked just like anything watch what's going on.
Each time I have had a cloudy tank...Zeos Coral Snow and ZeoBak mixed cleared the tank pretty quick...
What is your NO3 at?
I have used Hach's NI-14 kit with there calibration liquids to calculate may chloride interference and am confident I am very, very low on NO3(<1.5) so I believe the pellets have worked just like anything watch what's going on.
BossHoggin
New member
I recently implemented a phosban 150 reactor with Pro-bio pellets in my 50 gallon mixed reef to battle nitrates and phosphates and the nuisance algae that comes with them. I have good directional flow in areas with coral so a little cyano doesn't bother me much... It hasn't changed much since I set it up about a month ago anyway.
wayne in norway
New member
I worked with biopellets for about 7 months trying to get them to work for me. I'd previously dosed liquid carbon , Fauna Marin Ultrabak which is a cocktail. This worked well for me, but I need to get it online from Germany ( a faff) and hoped to get rid of that and reduce maintentance. Also I'd seen some tanks work very well (online descriptions).
I used a Deltec FR reactor. I have about 700 litres of water, and the reactor sat in a sump with my skimmer, a Chinese cone pulling circa 750lph of air , and a consistently good perfoermer. At first all is well, except annoying clumping of the pellets requires daily maintenance (tumblig a la zeovit). If this isn't done I get signs of increased nitrate and phosphate ( I normally have trace and trace).
To fix this I changed the feed pump for a larger one as more flow will reduce clumping and thus maintenance. However after a few days I started experience this clods of cyano starting to appear, mostly on the sand but also sticking to some rock. I am well aware of where nitrate and phosphate are distributed in out tanks, and am not normally bothered by a little bit of cyano, but this was a considerable nuisance. I employed my usual toolbag to fix this, and it helped to a degree, but I could not get rid of it. My flow was improved, sandbed investigated, increased GFO and carbon used et al., but it persisted.
Clearly something was feeding this. I made the decision to drop the pellets and go back to Ultrabak. Within days the problem is receding, and after a month it is effectively gone. Note that at no time did any of my SPS show signs of ill health or lost colour, growth, but still cyano was popping up everywhere.
I find the bacterial study earlier very interesting - the notion that the bacteria are staying in the reactor seems at best 'hopeful to me. I feel that using these requires a stroke of luck, and it's a fine line between not enough and too much flow.
I used a Deltec FR reactor. I have about 700 litres of water, and the reactor sat in a sump with my skimmer, a Chinese cone pulling circa 750lph of air , and a consistently good perfoermer. At first all is well, except annoying clumping of the pellets requires daily maintenance (tumblig a la zeovit). If this isn't done I get signs of increased nitrate and phosphate ( I normally have trace and trace).
To fix this I changed the feed pump for a larger one as more flow will reduce clumping and thus maintenance. However after a few days I started experience this clods of cyano starting to appear, mostly on the sand but also sticking to some rock. I am well aware of where nitrate and phosphate are distributed in out tanks, and am not normally bothered by a little bit of cyano, but this was a considerable nuisance. I employed my usual toolbag to fix this, and it helped to a degree, but I could not get rid of it. My flow was improved, sandbed investigated, increased GFO and carbon used et al., but it persisted.
Clearly something was feeding this. I made the decision to drop the pellets and go back to Ultrabak. Within days the problem is receding, and after a month it is effectively gone. Note that at no time did any of my SPS show signs of ill health or lost colour, growth, but still cyano was popping up everywhere.
I find the bacterial study earlier very interesting - the notion that the bacteria are staying in the reactor seems at best 'hopeful to me. I feel that using these requires a stroke of luck, and it's a fine line between not enough and too much flow.
S2minute
New member
Vertex update
Vertex update
Since my last update, i've added another 50 ml of the vertex for a total of 100 ml. This is now 1/8 the min recomended. This is all sitting on the bottom of my 150 gal rubbermaid where the flow from the DT is plummed. As the DT flow into the sump is plummed under the waterline, this area is very turbulent. The pellets formed a wide line just around one side of this flow. This is good because this line is now inbetween the flow into the sump and the skimmer intake. Hope you can follow that heh :fun4:. The skimmer has settled and is producing some nice foam. The Ph has rebounded and is currently....8.06 @ 76.7 F as of 8:50am est. The VHO 03s just came on 20 mins ago. The tank is clear. The GHA i am dealing with atm is dying off. I've had NO brown cayno since i added this stuff. I HAD RED stuff in many places towards the lower 1/2 of the DT where one of the MH stopped running due to a ballast failure,(i'm also working on a huge DIY LED fixture, see muh albums), BUT, since the addition of the Vertex, it's ALL gone. SO far, i've done 2- 50gal weekly water changes since the Bact. bloom settled and i've not had to syphone off any Detritus from the bottom of the sump because the buildup is now so much less. Till next time :thumbsup:
Vertex update
Since my last update, i've added another 50 ml of the vertex for a total of 100 ml. This is now 1/8 the min recomended. This is all sitting on the bottom of my 150 gal rubbermaid where the flow from the DT is plummed. As the DT flow into the sump is plummed under the waterline, this area is very turbulent. The pellets formed a wide line just around one side of this flow. This is good because this line is now inbetween the flow into the sump and the skimmer intake. Hope you can follow that heh :fun4:. The skimmer has settled and is producing some nice foam. The Ph has rebounded and is currently....8.06 @ 76.7 F as of 8:50am est. The VHO 03s just came on 20 mins ago. The tank is clear. The GHA i am dealing with atm is dying off. I've had NO brown cayno since i added this stuff. I HAD RED stuff in many places towards the lower 1/2 of the DT where one of the MH stopped running due to a ballast failure,(i'm also working on a huge DIY LED fixture, see muh albums), BUT, since the addition of the Vertex, it's ALL gone. SO far, i've done 2- 50gal weekly water changes since the Bact. bloom settled and i've not had to syphone off any Detritus from the bottom of the sump because the buildup is now so much less. Till next time :thumbsup:
badonkadonk
Member
This is going back a few pages, a question in response to my statement that if the pellets don't tumble they stick together, and may form a detritus trap and go anaerobic as a result of their impermeability:
Short answer is I don't know, but have some ideas. Anaerobic zones aren't necessarily bad - in fact they are good in that they perform often "complementary" or unique functions to aerobic zones. Sediments are typically anaerobic an inch or two below the surface zone in quiescent (low energy) locations. Even in our tanks, for those that have relatively large grain size aragonitic sands (i.e. permeable material) as a deep sand bed, anaerobic zones set up over time (thanks in large part to the accumulation of smaller particle size detritus which fills pore spaces in the sand), anaerobic zones build up. It is not until these anaerobic zones are disturbed through stirring of the sand are there problems in the water column due to release of reduced substance such as sulfides (though aged deep sand beds, like mine that I removed a couple of years ago, also seem to cause problems due to the production and release of nutrients/reduced compounds/nasties to the water column).
It's a little different for biodegradable polymers however. The detritus in these anaerobic clumps of pellets degrade and release nasties to the water column, but the polymer itself is also likely broken down to intermediate incomplete degradation compounds, which is very different from the aerobic pathways. These intermediates may then be released to the water column where they may cause problems directly, or indirectly such as being deposited on glass, rock etc., where they may then serve as a nutrient sink. The great advantage of bio pellets is purportedly the immobilized nature of the carbon source, where the bacteria can then be localized, fed to the protein skimmer, and nutrients exported. Perhaps this is the reason cyano or other bacterial blooms result in some tanks where the carbon source is disseminated throughout the tank. While I have no direct evidence that this is what happens (and there are many other possibilities), anecdotal accounts seem to support this.
Also, in general, hydrocarbons (which biopellet polymers can be considered), are degraded to carbon dioxide and water in aerobic systems, but are created in anaerobic systems (fossil fuels); in other words, very different biochemistry is taking place. The advantage of biopellets is realized in aerobic settings where the polymer provides a carbon source in our carbon-limited systems, to keep up with N and P which are all too plentiful in our little closed systems. The carbon in the polymer is released and/or broken down and assimilated by the bacteria, which also scrub the troublesome N and P from the water column to create biomass (or use it as an energy source).
But in the end, you're right, I don't really know, but bio pellets seem to be the best thing for my tank since GFO (and much better, at least for me, since they promote biological uptake of nutrients and are easier to prevent overstripping the water of what is needed for coral growth like the purely chemical-based removal actions of GFO, which also binds-out other compounds/elements besides phosphate).
Actually I take exception to the statement that hydrocarbons are generated in anaerobic marine environments. Fossil fuels were made by buried organics being partially degraded, not by organics being generated.
In a marine environment, I do not believe that any hydrocarbons are generated. What would be the driving force?
I detail the anaerobic processes that take place in this article:
Hydrogen Sulfide and the Reef Aquarium
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-12/rhf/index.php
badonkadonk
Member
You misunderstood the intent of that statement. I was not saying that organic (plant, animal) material is deposited on the seafloor and is converted to fossil fuel (although this certainly does happen in estuarine systems, where the area is rich with plants that are eventually buried beneath a mix of sediment and overlying organics), I was using the example to illustrate (to the casual reader) that aerobic and anaerobic processes are very different - one working to mineralize hydrocarbons (aerobic) and the other to convert organic material to a very reduced state (i.e. the anaerobic conditions which lead to fossil fuels).
Along the California coast, where the waters are rich with nutrients due to upwelling, the kelp grows thick, and if you find a low energy depression while diving and care to stir up the muck you can actually find some areas with methanogenesis taking place not far beneath the surface. It is likely that some of the decaying organic material was deposited relatively recently and, I would surmise, is on its way to eventually becoming fossil fuel. The Pacific plate, which I am sitting on as I type, is subducting under the North American plate and is rich with submarine fossil fuels, as evidenced by the number of oil platforms I can see in the water in the distance on the clearest of days. I don't know enough about paleo-biology/geology to know whether these deposits were produced as a result of marine or terrestrial processes.
Along the California coast, where the waters are rich with nutrients due to upwelling, the kelp grows thick, and if you find a low energy depression while diving and care to stir up the muck you can actually find some areas with methanogenesis taking place not far beneath the surface. It is likely that some of the decaying organic material was deposited relatively recently and, I would surmise, is on its way to eventually becoming fossil fuel. The Pacific plate, which I am sitting on as I type, is subducting under the North American plate and is rich with submarine fossil fuels, as evidenced by the number of oil platforms I can see in the water in the distance on the clearest of days. I don't know enough about paleo-biology/geology to know whether these deposits were produced as a result of marine or terrestrial processes.
Well, I still disagree with the statement, unless you refer to the breakdown of some organics to form other organics as being "generation" of organics. Maybe I am just picking at your word choice, but also at the idea that it is fundamentally different than aerobic breakdown, which also produces other organics (like ethanol or vinegar) if you allow the reaction to only proceed part way.
Anaerobic processing of organics leads to the same carbon products, mostly CO2.
This is the degradation reaction using nitrate as the electron acceptor instead of O2:
organic + 124 NO3- + 124 H+ → 122 CO2 + 70 N2 + 208 H2O
and this is the overall reaction using sulfate:
(CH2O)106(NH3)16(H3PO4) + 53 SO4-- → 56 CO2 + 50 HCO3- + 53 HS- + 16 NH3 + 53 H2O + PO4---
Methane can form as a partial degradation product of existing organics. The reactions above are the reactions carried to completion.
Anaerobic processing of organics leads to the same carbon products, mostly CO2.
This is the degradation reaction using nitrate as the electron acceptor instead of O2:
organic + 124 NO3- + 124 H+ → 122 CO2 + 70 N2 + 208 H2O
and this is the overall reaction using sulfate:
(CH2O)106(NH3)16(H3PO4) + 53 SO4-- → 56 CO2 + 50 HCO3- + 53 HS- + 16 NH3 + 53 H2O + PO4---
Methane can form as a partial degradation product of existing organics. The reactions above are the reactions carried to completion.
badonkadonk
Member
Yes, I was referring to decomposition of organics, and the differences in pathways. I spent a number of years feasibility/pilot testing various industrial waste stream treatment approaches, with a bioreactor focus, and something you don't want to do is set up an anaerobic process which can easily be upset by O2 slugs. The system fails, often unelegantly, while the facultatives turn on their machinery. And the same thing happens in reverse in aerobic reactors. Bad times. Perhaps there is something similar taking place when biopellets clump. The transition to the anoxic state releases banked nutrients and possibly polymer breakdown intermediaries, based on what others have reported in their tanks (and NOVs industrially).
Bubble algae (valonia) can do well even at pretty low nutrient levels, so nutrients may not be the best way to deal with it. You might need manual or biological removal (like emerald crabs).
Cyano can be a problem, but phosphate reduction is often a good way and GFO is one of the best ways to accomplish that.
Cyano can be a problem, but phosphate reduction is often a good way and GFO is one of the best ways to accomplish that.
psteeleb
Team RC
I started bio pellets a couple months ago when my No3 rose to around 50. I never had No3 issues untill I started to feed more for several NPS including some gorgonia.
I started slow and even though the No3 reduced I had more negative results then I cared for. I lost xenia, coralmorphs and saw SPS damage (maybe high alk / low nutrient related). I decided to cut back on the flow through the bio pellet reactor but needed to maintain the high tumble flow so made a simple recirc addition to my TLF reactor as shown here
Since reducing the flow through the reactor to a slow stream my No3 has been stable around 2-5ppm but my SPS still seem to be somewhat challenged (not all of them, just a few). I suspect the SPS were use to growing in a high nutrient environment that no longer exists and or its a side effect of the bio pellets themself.
Although I'm trying to give the bio pellets a chance I am seriously thinking of taking other routes to deal with elevated No3.
I started slow and even though the No3 reduced I had more negative results then I cared for. I lost xenia, coralmorphs and saw SPS damage (maybe high alk / low nutrient related). I decided to cut back on the flow through the bio pellet reactor but needed to maintain the high tumble flow so made a simple recirc addition to my TLF reactor as shown here
Since reducing the flow through the reactor to a slow stream my No3 has been stable around 2-5ppm but my SPS still seem to be somewhat challenged (not all of them, just a few). I suspect the SPS were use to growing in a high nutrient environment that no longer exists and or its a side effect of the bio pellets themself.
Although I'm trying to give the bio pellets a chance I am seriously thinking of taking other routes to deal with elevated No3.
So..... Cutting long story in short - apparently the major problem on BP is the Cyano growth. And solutions may be GFO, reducing PO4, coral snow+bak....
What about reducing the amount of BP and increasing the flow via the BP reactor? Any other thoughts?
PS I am suffering from Cyano as well with BP.... Planning to suck out the top layer of sand while water changing...
What about reducing the amount of BP and increasing the flow via the BP reactor? Any other thoughts?
PS I am suffering from Cyano as well with BP.... Planning to suck out the top layer of sand while water changing...
badonkadonk
Member
I'm running about 1.2 liters of BRS biopellets with bare bottom, though I do have a 60 gallon tank that serves as a refugium and home to a blue star leopard wrasse (that I got when I used to have a deep sand bed). I put a 10" square plastic container with a few inches of sand in the refugium for a place for the leopard wrasse to tuck in for the night. That little sand bed is about the only place I get cyano (sometimes a little on the grape caulerpa). Seems that sand beds and biopellets could be an issue, maybe. Is your biopellet reactor effluent feeding into your skimmer (seems that is a much preferred configuration)? Using GFO with biopellets seems to be fighting water with fire. I would look at using macroalgae before GFO (mine started growing again after I took the GFO offline, before going to biopellets, and still grows with the biopellets (though mostly Halimeda)), but that's just a personal preference.
My personal experience with BP, my tank is a 70 gallon and I installed a TLF with TL BP also, everything went smooth for the first 3 months and then I increased the amount of BP to the recommended amount by he manufacturer. I assume this addition made something in the biological balance and I´m having a huge Cyano outbreak. Yesterday I came back to the amount of BP and will see what happens.
I disagree. All organic carbon dosing, including pellets, has the potential for substantially more N reduction than P, for well understood reasons.
So then what is left is phosphate, and GFO mops that up.
Trying to use a balanced N and P export method, such as macroalgae, seems a poor choice to me if N drops low and P remains substantial.
dose nitrogen in the form of seachem flourish nitrogen or ammonium chloride, or similar to increase nitrate levels.
organic carbon driven systems often result in nitrate limitation, and therefore you have to add nitrate back to the system in order to facilitate increased uptake of phosphate.
Cyano is usually occuring because organic carbon driven systems are usually very aggressive at removing nitrate and phosphate, and at the substrate water interface, phosphate will tend to leach from the substrate, even in small amounts. That, coupled with the fact that cyano is a bacteria, and your adding organic carbon, means that you might just get a bloom.
But once your system in nutrient stable, and the cyano is removed manually, organic carbon dosing along with nitrate/ammonium chloride doseing to address nitrate limitation, usually results in a very clean system and the cyano doesnt usually return, if your vigilent, which lets face it, you need to be if you want to achieve good results.
thats my experience anyway.
organic carbon driven systems often result in nitrate limitation, and therefore you have to add nitrate back to the system in order to facilitate increased uptake of phosphate.
Cyano is usually occuring because organic carbon driven systems are usually very aggressive at removing nitrate and phosphate, and at the substrate water interface, phosphate will tend to leach from the substrate, even in small amounts. That, coupled with the fact that cyano is a bacteria, and your adding organic carbon, means that you might just get a bloom.
But once your system in nutrient stable, and the cyano is removed manually, organic carbon dosing along with nitrate/ammonium chloride doseing to address nitrate limitation, usually results in a very clean system and the cyano doesnt usually return, if your vigilent, which lets face it, you need to be if you want to achieve good results.
thats my experience anyway.
doctorgori
New member
I disagree. All organic carbon dosing, including pellets, has the potential for substantially more N reduction than P, for well understood reasons.
So then what is left is phosphate, and GFO mops that up.
Trying to use a balanced N and P export method, such as macroalgae, seems a poor choice to me if N drops low and P remains substantial.
yeah I was sorta thinking that also (but would have said it in a less edjumucated way)
.... besides I haven't been able to grow any macro algae at all (other than halmedia) ...well at least not when using the combination of BP & GFO ... as a thought experiment I would think that if you theoretically could, then something in that dynamic wouldn't be working, no?
Hi,
Ok, I having a lot of problems with the tank at the moment and think its possibly releated to the use of pellets or more specifically since reducing and stopping bio pellets, and would like to run the issues past you all to get a possible direction.
Tank is about 140 UK gallons and contains live rock plate mainly with a few other pieces of rock. Livestock is probably slightly on the heavy side with a yellow tang, flame angel, regal angel, copperband butterfly, two large-ish maroon clowns, three anthias, seven small black bar chromic and a sand sifting goby. Corals are predominantly SPS and LPS with a couple of clams and a few assorted zoas and ricordias along with a leather coral. Filtration is via a shallow sand bed of 1-2mm grain sand varying in depth from half to about two inches, there's some cheato in the sump and the skimmer is a good D-D ap850 needle wheel skimmer. Also at the moment there is a reactor containing about half a litre of carbon and another reactor with about 300ml of Rowaphos phosphate remover. Water movement is high with an Ocean Runner 3500 return pump, a Tunze 6055 stream and a Vortech MP40 ES.
Tank has been running well for over a year using bio pellets in a large reactor. The recommended dose for my system is about 1 litre but I have never run more than about a third to half of that. The main issue I had during this time was poor coral growth and some paling of the SPS. However over the past couple of months I have been reducing the amount of pellets to almost zero. This seemed fine and the resulting increase in nutrient improved coral colours and growth but as the level of pellets reduced cyno started to take hold. I have never been able to measure nitrate in this tank and phosphate has also been pretty much unreadable. Nitrate is tested with a new Salifert kit and as of yesterday I could get no discernible reading, phosphate is tested with a D-D (Merck) high sensitivity kit. I attributed the cyno to the rise in nutrient due to the reduction of the pellets but at the same time a started to suffer with STN on the base of some SPS. I added some GFO (Rowaphos) and carbon and dipped a couple of the affected corals in Coral RX which seemed to halt the STN. The nutrients are still reading very low but now the cyno has really taken a hold BIG time, probably the worst I have ever seen in any tank I have run, almost every surface of the rock and sand is covered with it. I am at a loss to explain why the outbreak is so bad. I am adding very little to the tan, just the occasional dose of aminos. RO water is ok, the TDS of the unit shows around 3 but the water is polished by DI resin so is then zero.
So far to try and get a handle on this I have used the GFO and carbon as mentioned above and also started dosing Fauna Marin Bak which may not be such a good idea? The issue I am struggling with after reading the problems that seem common with the use of pellets are why is the cyno so bad and where did it come from, is this a nutrient problem or something more caused be the pellets.
I am considering a number of routes to try and improve the situation. These are to dose with a new bacteria culture to increase the level of competing strains and keep up the dosing of the Bak or vinegar or to reintroduce the pellets to the tank in the hope that they will pull any nutrient level down again. As mentioned previously the measurements of nitrate and phosphate are all very low (too low!) so I can't really see how going back to the pellets will help. However I had no cyno at all while using the pellets but I am concerned about the excessively low nutrient conditions these pellets can bring to a tank. As stated above, since cutting back on the pellets the corals have never looked better although the STN was a big worry.
I've done some reading on this and other threads which seems to back up the theory that the pellets are somehow causing this problem by depositing material back into the system or by causing ultra low nutrients but I don't see why it has taken more than a year for the problem to present itself and also why the cyno has take off to the massive extent that it has.
I would appreciate help in getting a handle on this problem. It seems the more I research this, the more conflicting information there is out there!
Many thanks,
Cam.
Ok, I having a lot of problems with the tank at the moment and think its possibly releated to the use of pellets or more specifically since reducing and stopping bio pellets, and would like to run the issues past you all to get a possible direction.
Tank is about 140 UK gallons and contains live rock plate mainly with a few other pieces of rock. Livestock is probably slightly on the heavy side with a yellow tang, flame angel, regal angel, copperband butterfly, two large-ish maroon clowns, three anthias, seven small black bar chromic and a sand sifting goby. Corals are predominantly SPS and LPS with a couple of clams and a few assorted zoas and ricordias along with a leather coral. Filtration is via a shallow sand bed of 1-2mm grain sand varying in depth from half to about two inches, there's some cheato in the sump and the skimmer is a good D-D ap850 needle wheel skimmer. Also at the moment there is a reactor containing about half a litre of carbon and another reactor with about 300ml of Rowaphos phosphate remover. Water movement is high with an Ocean Runner 3500 return pump, a Tunze 6055 stream and a Vortech MP40 ES.
Tank has been running well for over a year using bio pellets in a large reactor. The recommended dose for my system is about 1 litre but I have never run more than about a third to half of that. The main issue I had during this time was poor coral growth and some paling of the SPS. However over the past couple of months I have been reducing the amount of pellets to almost zero. This seemed fine and the resulting increase in nutrient improved coral colours and growth but as the level of pellets reduced cyno started to take hold. I have never been able to measure nitrate in this tank and phosphate has also been pretty much unreadable. Nitrate is tested with a new Salifert kit and as of yesterday I could get no discernible reading, phosphate is tested with a D-D (Merck) high sensitivity kit. I attributed the cyno to the rise in nutrient due to the reduction of the pellets but at the same time a started to suffer with STN on the base of some SPS. I added some GFO (Rowaphos) and carbon and dipped a couple of the affected corals in Coral RX which seemed to halt the STN. The nutrients are still reading very low but now the cyno has really taken a hold BIG time, probably the worst I have ever seen in any tank I have run, almost every surface of the rock and sand is covered with it. I am at a loss to explain why the outbreak is so bad. I am adding very little to the tan, just the occasional dose of aminos. RO water is ok, the TDS of the unit shows around 3 but the water is polished by DI resin so is then zero.
So far to try and get a handle on this I have used the GFO and carbon as mentioned above and also started dosing Fauna Marin Bak which may not be such a good idea? The issue I am struggling with after reading the problems that seem common with the use of pellets are why is the cyno so bad and where did it come from, is this a nutrient problem or something more caused be the pellets.
I am considering a number of routes to try and improve the situation. These are to dose with a new bacteria culture to increase the level of competing strains and keep up the dosing of the Bak or vinegar or to reintroduce the pellets to the tank in the hope that they will pull any nutrient level down again. As mentioned previously the measurements of nitrate and phosphate are all very low (too low!) so I can't really see how going back to the pellets will help. However I had no cyno at all while using the pellets but I am concerned about the excessively low nutrient conditions these pellets can bring to a tank. As stated above, since cutting back on the pellets the corals have never looked better although the STN was a big worry.
I've done some reading on this and other threads which seems to back up the theory that the pellets are somehow causing this problem by depositing material back into the system or by causing ultra low nutrients but I don't see why it has taken more than a year for the problem to present itself and also why the cyno has take off to the massive extent that it has.
I would appreciate help in getting a handle on this problem. It seems the more I research this, the more conflicting information there is out there!
Many thanks,
Cam.
Similar threads
