N/P reducing pellets (solid vodka dosing) - Split

[tntneon]

hi reefers:) ,

In my country i hear positif results and stories about a new kind of bio degradeble polymer pellet which is capable of reducing N and P , like dosing vodka.

with the advantage that the bacteria only grow on the pellets (and not on glas and other surfaces) after a while you just change your filter sock or fluidising bed with new pellets.

does anyone of you in the states has any experience with this sorts of pellets ?

i have orderd me some of these pellets
will post it when i'm gonna start to use them.

greetingzz tntneon:)

[BlueCorn]

This thread has been split.

The original thread can be seen here:

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1694529

[rickh]

I have been running pellets in a TLF reactor for 2 months with no results. The reactor is on a branch of return. The pellets tumble, not clumped, everything looks fine.

When I turn off the return to feed the pellets settle to the bottom of the reactor. When the pump is started again the pellets are blown wildly up to the top of the reactor by the sudden surge of water and air. Do you think this burst of water could be blowing the bacteria off the pellets??

Should I try a separate pump that isn't turned on and off several times a day??

Ideas??

[tntneon]

Hi rickh :) ,

I don't think that the air would blow the bacteria off .
But air tends to stick on the pellets and then they float.
Do you not see any changes in skimmate or skimmer production ?
wich brand of pellets do you use ?
is reactor output near skimmer intake ?

greetingzz tntneon :)

[rickh]

The pellets are BRS. The TLF reactor has been modified with the screens. The reactor discharge is directed into PVC fitting mounted on the skimmer pump intake. The skimmer does produce some nasty gunk, but the algae in the tank is still doing great.

Before trying the pellets I dosed Vodka for about 2 years. It worked to eliminate the algae, but the rocks and plumbing were covered in bacterial slime. I had to disassemble and clean the skimmer about every week. I stopped the alcohol and within a few months the algae was back.

I have read hundreds of posts about the Pellets over the last year before trying them and many people believe they just don't work.

R

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I personally do not see an advantage of pellets over soluble organics such as vinegar.

The only theoretical advantage was localization of the organic, but that seems to not be true in many cases as folks still can get blooms or growths elsewhere in the tank.

[Bababooy]

what are your nitrate and phosphate readings?
it has been written in this thread that's if one is higher than the other the pellets won't work well.

I am on 3 and a half weeks and the pellets seem to be working well for me but my nitrate and phosphate were in good ratio to 1 another. I am feeding much more and po4 is .02 with no3 never rising above 3 ppm. It's very early for me but so far I'm happy.

[flyin2jz]

I started pellets in a tlf reactor less than a week ago. I have seen. Huge difference in the amount of algea on the glass. Now i don't get much on the glass at all. I don't know why this is but it's amazing. My glass used to need cleaned 2 times a day and now it's on 3 days and only has a tiny bit. I'm also using microbe lift special blend to really get things moving. I have some cyano I'm trying to get rid of.

[jgsteven]

The only theoretical advantage was localization of the organic, but that seems to not be true in many cases as folks still can get blooms or growths elsewhere in the tank.

Hi Randy,

It seems to me that automatic dosing is an additional plus -- the fact that the pellets self regulate the amount of carbon they release based on the nurtrients present in the system whereas you have to measure the amount of lquid carbon-source you dose.

I have been dosing carbon, and just added a biopellet reactor. As it turns out, I was likely under-dosing the carbon as my skimmate volume is increased and I am seeing a bacterial film all over the tank. I believe this suggests I still had plenty of free nutrient that the lquid dosing wasn't taking care of (which I knew single GHA was still growing).

To your point, however, my bacterial growth has not been localized at all. I see bacterial film all over the tank.

Regards,

jgsteven

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I'm not sure I accept that difference. How can folks get cyano growing remotely from the pellets if they are not releasing organics, and if they are, how is it different?

[reeftivo]

yesterday was 1 month for me and pellets have darkened up with a slight rounding of the BRS pellets. po4 remains at .02 and no3 is now at 1ppm. Absolutely love the aquamaxx reactor. No clogging at all!

I can now go a week before I need to clean the glass. The glass only developes a dusting as compared to the light green algae I used to clean off every 3 days.

Happy so far but becoming concerned for my bubble tip since it wouldn't feed last night. It usually eats like a pig. I'm thinking it's not liking the lower levels.

Will update.

[smokey30]

Yesterday was week 3 for me and I have to say I am having great results. All of my algae has gone away I am sure it was a mixture of things that contributed to it, but I am pretty sure the pellets was the biggest contributing factor. Finally I can feed on a normal schedule without waking up to another bloom of algae, and run my lights on a full schedule. I have been cleaning my skimmer cup about every 4 days and taking out pretty much mud its awesome.

In the past I have tried the pellets with bad results and was concerned going into it for a second time, I think the biggest change that I made compared to last time was starting with a very small amount of pellets and letting the tank get used to them instead of slamming the tank with the recommended amount.

[Bababooy]

Same here! Started with half the recommended amount, soaked them for 48 hours in tank water and so far so great! I will be adding more pellets eventually but for now perameters are fine.

[reeftivo]

Lost my bubble tip!! GRRRR!

couldn't get it to feed.

Anyone else experiencing difficulty with nems while using the pellets?

the rest of the livestock is doing fine.

tivo

[gregr]

Bubble tip anemone went into the rocks and was never seen again when I put one in the tank on about month 3 of bio-pellets. It's been almost ten months that the pellets have been running now and I added a bubble tip anemone a couple weeks ago- it's doing great. Added a beautiful long tentacle anemone too and it has been fully open since 5 minutes after I placed it in the tank.
I have 3 mini carpet anemones that changed color dramatically when I started the pellets. The never shrunk or anything but on about month 7 they got their original coloration back.

I personally do not see an advantage of pellets over soluble organics such as vinegar.
How about set and forget? Get the flow right and forget about it for a few to several months-- that be one mighty huge advantage to me.

[DarkXerox]

So I'm giving up on the pellets. While nitrates have been brought to a super low level (<0.1ppm), I still get cyano elsewhere in the tank. It's been at this low level for almost a year, yet I still have cyano all over. Never had cyano before this year either. I agree with Randy, the carbon or the bacteria themselves are not being sequestered. I'm down to about .5cm of pellets in a 29g and my last experiment will be to see if keeping a very small amount will balance things out. Otherwise I'm switching the reactor to GFO in the future. Lost too many corals during this experiment and only gained a lot of sponges.

I also need to add that providing amino acids such as Aspartate and Glutamate didn't help shift consumption of phosphate fast enough to counteract the cyano's accelerated growth.

[flyin2jz]

Ive had mine online for about 2 weeks. Very little brown on the glass now and it looks like the cyno ive had is turning brownish and getting stringy like its receding. Now i am also using microbe lift along with starting the pellets so im honestly not sure which is helping the most. Sps corals are getting alot more color and are starting to grow better but i must add that i also starting dosing 2 part at the same time also. I refuse to do water changes for my cyano. Every time ive done them the stuff goes crazy like its something in the water. I have new ro filters but do not have a di cartridge. I dont have one because ive had tanks set up before that have never had cyano and my water is obviously from the same supply it was before. My neighbor also is fed from the same supply as i am and he has zero cyno so its not the water coming into the house. I do have a tds meter coming to check it just for fun. Overall i believe the pellets help a bit but am not totally convinced its just the pellets.

[tntneon]

I'm not sure I accept that difference. How can folks get cyano growing remotely from the pellets if they are not releasing organics, and if they are, how is it different?

hi Randy :) ,

The big difference in carbon dosing with pellets is the fact that you don't have to be there , for instannce if you go on a holiday you still have a carbon supplement w/o you being there.

-In the past when i only dosed vinegar / ethanol things really looked good too . but when going on holiday (2 weeks ) and then coming back was a whole other story :hmm4:
Lots of algea + white branches on acropora , this i never experienced with pellets.

greetingzz tntneon :)

[Scej12]

So I'm giving up on the pellets. While nitrates have been brought to a super low level (<0.1ppm), I still get cyano elsewhere in the tank. It's been at this low level for almost a year, yet I still have cyano all over. Never had cyano before this year either. I agree with Randy, the carbon or the bacteria themselves are not being sequestered. I'm down to about .5cm of pellets in a 29g and my last experiment will be to see if keeping a very small amount will balance things out. Otherwise I'm switching the reactor to GFO in the future. Lost too many corals during this experiment and only gained a lot of sponges.

I also need to add that providing amino acids such as Aspartate and Glutamate didn't help shift consumption of phosphate fast enough to counteract the cyano's accelerated growth.

.....don't leave my friend... I too am having issues with cyano. I've suggested in the past that it has at least some relationship with pH. I licked a couple of outbreaks in the past (one on a vodka system, and the other on bp); but have unfortunately had a relapse on the bp. The vodka system is still fairly cyano-free (maybe just a few small traces)... Here are the params of each:

Vodka System
NO3: 15ppm (and dropping after a short break from EtOH [was 0ppm 4 mos ago]
PO4: .34ppm
dKH: 7.5
Ca: 420
SG: 1.025
pH: 8.05 - 8.15

Biopellet System
NO3: 0-2ppm
PO4: 0.07ppm
dKH: 7.5
Ca: 460 (due to pH; see below **)
SG: 1.025
pH: 7.80 - 7.95

** As a result of pH reaching as low as 7.8ish, calcium has been rising from 420 even though no calcium has been dosed in any form.

I've spent a good couple of hours today blowing cyano off he rocks and vacuuming up the matting on the substrate (via a water-change routine); and have now re-instituted a lot of splashing at the point of entry into the sump from the DT. This usually raises the pH up to about 8.08-8.18 or so. I believe this raised pH was coincidental with my previous success in licking the cyano problem of the past.

It is a known fact by now that the bp as well as any other system of carbon dosing does have a lowering effect on overall pH. The pellets respirate just like any other type of fauna in my opinion, and in terms of biomass, the bacteria sustained by carbon dosing can quite conceivably pose the single largest impact on your system's respiration cycle. Remember, the bacteria population created by these pellets utilize C, N, P, and O, and as far as I can guess, anything that respirates O, exhausts CO2, thus the drop in your pH.

In a nutrient low system such as created by your biopellets, cyano bacteria... the fauna that has the ability to photosynthesize (which is a process dependent on CO2) in my unscientific opinion becomes top scavenger of excess organics and other useful trace elements.

I seriously think that the difference between a system successfully running carbon dosing (whether bp or liquid form) without cyano consequences, and that which is riddled with cyano consequences has mostly to do with the address of CO2... My pellet system has an admittedly undersized skimmer, and no refugium... I am therefore going to attempt other means of CO2 expulsion, i.e. lots of splashing, and perhaps even re-instituting a biotower since nitrates are no longer an issue.

If my current mini experiment goes well, I will be able to maintain a pH above 8.1, and hopefully will be able to report another successful battle against cyanobacteria...

Hang on in there Dark Xerox. Give me a couple more weeks to confirm this theory. Will post the results.

Regards,

Sheldon

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

The big difference in carbon dosing with pellets is the fact that you don't have to be there , for instannce if you go on a holiday you still have a carbon supplement w/o you being there.



I dose with a dosing pump on a timer that draws from a 1 gallon container of vinegar, so it runs when I am not around. :)

[tntneon]

:) , oke then that problem is covered :D
I dose my alk and Ca automaticly , what i've tried in the past was to mix my vinagar with my Ca solution .
But after a while i got black slime (bateria) in there ?
Clogging all the tubes , and reducing top-off/ Ca flow ?
Randy , do you dose it seperatly ?

greetingzz tntneon :)

[Scej12]

Okay - so after 24 hours approximately... the tank pH has risen up to 8.28 with 3 hours left within the photoperiod. This was due to the splashing of DT drain into the sump; and boosting my dKH. My dKH boost was a little much... rose up from 7.5 to 9.5, but I suspect the pH will settle to average out at 8.2 ish over the next week or two, as the dKH drops back toward 8.

Will have to wait and see if there is any change to the cyano proliferation.

Sheldon

[reeftivo]

system is still holding stable with no adverse effects at all. Went out of town for 5 days and came back to only a light dusting on the glass. animals were all fine. NO3 went from 2ppm to 5 ppm but water change brought it back down to 2pmm. My PO4 is holding at .03 and stays consistant with no rise.

still waiting for a 0 to 1 ppm reading for nitrates on my tunze measuring box kit but I'll settle for the 2 ppm it's holding at now. I will cross check the NO3 with another test kit because my tunze reagents are over a year old. No problems to date and the Mg levels I had issues with have been resolved.

I have yet to see any drop in pH other than night drop (pH 8.3-8.4 consistantly). likely because of the tunze skimmer aeration and the good surface movement.

No complaints yet!

[this is me]

5 weeks into BRS bio pellets and running GFO and things are looking good. Nitrate is close to 0 and phosphate is ~0.01-0.02. I use a NextReef SMR1 with an MJ1200 and the 250ml of pellets tumble beautifully without any clog or clumps since day one. I love the reactor so much that I'll be ordering the MR1 for my GFO and carbon.
SPS frags are starting to grow and color pretty nicely.

[reeftivo]

5 weeks into BRS bio pellets and running GFO and things are looking good. Nitrate is close to 0 and phosphate is ~0.01-0.02. I use a NextReef SMR1 with an MJ1200 and the 250ml of pellets tumble beautifully without any clog or clumps since day one. I love the reactor so much that I'll be ordering the MR1 for my GFO and carbon.
SPS frags are starting to grow and color pretty nicely.

Hi "this is me",

I notice your doing better with trates than me and we've been running them about the same amount of time. Just curious to your feeding regimen! How much do you feed? I have a low to moderate bio load (mixed reef-4 fish) and prior to the pellets I was only feeding spectrum daily for the fish with a weekly feeding of brine and coral mix for the corals. I now feed a daily cube instead of weekly (brine,mysis,spirulina,rotifersetc.). Just wondering if I may be feeding too much for such a small system. My system is 54 gallons but net is around 45 gallons.

Any suggestions are appreciated

Tivo

[this is me]

Hi Tivo,
I have more fish than I should. I hope the tang police are not around. :P
1 yellow tang
1 sailfin tang
3 chromis
2 lyretail anthias
2 onyx clowns
1 leopard wrasse

My trates used to be really high. 20ppm+ before the pellets. I went mad with the water change when I wanted to knock down my trates. But it always creeps back up to 20+ppm after the 3rd day or so of the water change. I fed about 0.5" square of Hikari mysis once a day. Rinsed and all.
After running the pellets for about a week, my trates were down to pretty much undectectable. I had to take the GFO offline for the first week of running pellets after hearing that it needs phosphate in the water to eat up the nitrate. After a couple days of undetected nitrate, I put my GFO back online. I bumped up my feeding to 1"square of rinsed mysis. I'm now able to leave the glass alone for a full week. It used to be only a couple days that my glass would be cover with green film algae.
While my trates and phosphate are low, I still see bubble algae starting to show its ugly head. I think I may have 3 tiny ones in the tank right now which I will siphon out during my waterchange. I do bi-weekly waterchange now instead of weekly. If your corals and fish are happy, I wouldn't be too worry about a little bit of nitrate. 2-5ppm is not going to hurt much. I think it will eventually be down if you leave the pellets running unchanged.

[reeftivo]

thanks Nick

Thats funny "tang police"! Ya no kidding! I read some pretty harsh bashing from some of the "tang police" even when someones thinking of putting 1 juvinile yellow in a tank less than 55 gallons.

Sounds like yours are happy.

I'll just keep things going the way they are and if trates and Po4 increase I may cut the cubes to 1/2 daily.

So far so good!

Happy reefing

Tivo

[tntneon]

Hi Tivo,
.... I'm now able to leave the glass alone for a full week. It used to be only a couple days that my glass would be cover with green film algae.
While my trates and phosphate are low, I still see bubble algae starting to show its ugly head. I think I may have 3 tiny ones in the tank right now which I will siphon out during my waterchange....

Hi this is me :) ,

Even if you have undectectable P & N , you can experience little out breaks of algea .
I run my system for over 2 two years undectectable , but due to some dead spots (no flow) in the back corner of my tank i'll experienced alot of sedamentation of debris in that corner and after a while there has started to grow a little bit of caulerpa.
Also when something (big fireworm) in the rocks die they to will relaese P & N to the surronding rock , in wich the rock feeds the algea .
If you do your WC's regulary and keep up good husbandry it will go away.

greetingzz tntneon :)

[rkaires]

system is still holding stable with no adverse effects at all. Went out of town for 5 days and came back to only a light dusting on the glass. animals were all fine. NO3 went from 2ppm to 5 ppm but water change brought it back down to 2pmm. My PO4 is holding at .03 and stays consistant with no rise.

still waiting for a 0 to 1 ppm reading for nitrates on my tunze measuring box kit but I'll settle for the 2 ppm it's holding at now. I will cross check the NO3 with another test kit because my tunze reagents are over a year old. No problems to date and the Mg levels I had issues with have been resolved.

I have yet to see any drop in pH other than night drop (pH 8.3-8.4 consistantly). likely because of the tunze skimmer aeration and the good surface movement.

No complaints yet!

Sounds great reeftivo. I've been using zeo for a few years now and my main issue is when work and travel keep me away from my system. Pumping the stones twice a day is getting old as well.

I'm in the process of using up my zeo supplies and will be giving NP Bio-pellets a try.

[Bababooy]

If and when you transition, up remember to start with half the recommended amount of pellets. Then ramp up from there. I would also keep some of the zeo supplements like bac, snow , xtra. Sponge power should not be necessary since many report alot of sponge growth with only the pellets.

[cherubfish pair]

When comparing bp to other carbon dosing, don't forget the nutrient export if the reactor's output is directed into the skimmer. A lot of the bacteria will be pushed up into the collection cup. You don't have nutrient export with the other forms of carbon dosing.

[rkaires]

If and when you transition, up remember to start with half the recommended amount of pellets. Then ramp up from there. I would also keep some of the zeo supplements like bac, snow , xtra. Sponge power should not be necessary since many report alot of sponge growth with only the pellets.

Thanks,

I plan on a slow transition from zeo to bio-pellets. The plan is to run both reactors simultaneously. I'll start with 1/4 the recommended amount and increase each week by a 1/4 while reducing zeo in 1/4 increments.

[rkaires]

When comparing bp to other carbon dosing, don't forget the nutrient export if the reactor's output is directed into the skimmer. A lot of the bacteria will be pushed up into the collection cup. You don't have nutrient export with the other forms of carbon dosing.

I'll be placing the BP reactor in the same chamber as my skimmer. My zeo reactor is in the same chamber as my return pump. I don't get too much mulm from my stones when I pump them.

[larryfl1]

hey all,

i have been on the fence between no pox carbon dosing or pellets..i own both and have the octopus reactor if i go that route..

i am 1 week into no pox and i have a lot of cyano....

what is the pro/cons of changing to the pellet route? will it overstrip the tank for a mixed reef?

i have very heavy fish population in a 350 and feed heavily...i also can dose...

so in everyones opinion why should i change from carbon dosing that hasn't kicked in yet..but have cyano all over to bio pellets?

also if i do change over...since i have been dosing carbon for about 9 days is there any issue just sopping and changing over??

[bertoni]

Nine days isn't very long. You could give carbon dosing more time, or switch. Either should be safe enough at this point. I don't know which approach would be more effective. That seems to vary from tank to tank.

[larryfl1]

what should i do about the cyano?? do i just wait for the carbon dosing to really kick in? i have 0 phosphates already and nitrate is only about 2.5 or so...

[cherubfish pair]

What do you pellet tumblers have for tank bottoms? I can't decide between a dsb with plenum in one of my tanks or pellets. I've never tried the dsb/plenum thing and now is the time to do it if I do. I can always take out the dsb and switch to pellets.

Who knows? Maybe both will be the right combination.

[cnaegler]

I have SSB in my display and a DSB in my fuge. The DSB is more for the critters than nitrate reduction. I like a DSB, but with the pellets, i find that it's pretty much "set and forget". Of course, so is a DSB, but the pellets also keep my PO4 lower than any other nutrient export system i have used and i've tried DSB, Zeo and pellets.

[cnaegler]

what should i do about the cyano?? do i just wait for the carbon dosing to really kick in? i have 0 phosphates already and nitrate is only about 2.5 or so...

IMO, you should try to siphon as much cyano/ algae out as possible. I found that, although the pellets work great to maintain the water clarity, they don't remove cyano or algae....at least in my case. I had to manually remove it, with a toothbrush in a 300 gallon tank, a couple of times but now that it's gone i haven't seen any sign of it's return.

[HighlandReefer]

You don't have nutrient export with the other forms of carbon dosing.

Why do you say that?

[HighlandReefer]

so in everyones opinion why should i change from carbon dosing that hasn't kicked in yet..but have cyano all over to bio pellets?

Unfortunately BioPellets can be utilized by both bacteria and cyanobacteria. Both produce PHA as a energy storage mechanism. :(

Reading through this double thread, it seems to me that the biopellets are not very effective at reducing cyanobacterial growth. ;)

[flyin2jz]

Highland I'm not trying to argue but if the pellets help reduce phos and nitrate I would think it would help fight cyano. Please explain how it might not help. Just wondering because I am running pellets and fighting cyano. Thanks

[Scej12]

Unfortunately BioPellets can be utilized by both bacteria and cyanobacteria. Both produce PHA as a energy storage mechanism. :(

Reading through this double thread, it seems to me that the biopellets are not very effective at reducing cyanobacterial growth. ;)

Hi HighlandReefer - How does the equation involving PHA change with regard to EtOH or VSV as opposed to solid carbon dosing..?

Oh and BTW what is PHA and is it the bacteria that produces it?

TIA,

Sheldon

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Highland I'm not trying to argue but if the pellets help reduce phos and nitrate I would think it would help fight cyano. Please explain how it might not help.

Adding organic matter can provide food for cyano. The effect is fairly clear with some organics that adding them encourages cyanobacteria. :)

[HighlandReefer]

Highland I'm not trying to argue but if the pellets help reduce phos and nitrate I would think it would help fight cyano. Please explain how it might not help. Just wondering because I am running pellets and fighting cyano. Thanks

There is a competition between bacteria and cyano for phosphate and nitrate. Both can utilize the bio-pellets. Most cyanobacteria are phototrophic which gives them an edge to out-compete the bacteria once established. To reduce the cyanobacteria population, one would want to use a carbon source that cyanobacteria can't use. According to the scientific literature I have read, vinegar does not increase cyanobacteria growth, whereas vodka and biopellets can. Therefore vinegar would be my choice when fighting a pest like cyanobacteria. ;)

[HighlandReefer]

Hi HighlandReefer - How does the equation involving PHA change with regard to EtOH or VSV as opposed to solid carbon dosing..?

Oh and BTW what is PHA and is it the bacteria that produces it?

TIA,

Sheldon

Both bacteria and cyanobacteria produce PHA naturally within their cell structure. ;)

"Polyhydroxyalkanoates

Chemical structures of P3HB, PHV and their copolymer PHBV
Polyhydroxyalkanoates or PHAs are linear polyesters produced in nature by bacterial fermentation of sugar or lipids. They are produced by the bacteria to store carbon and energy. More than 150 different monomers can be combined within this family to give materials with extremely different properties.[1] These plastics are biodegradeable and are used in the production of bioplastics.

They can be either thermoplastic or elastomeric materials, with melting points ranging from 40 to 180 °C.

The mechanical and biocompatibility of PHA can also be changed by blending, modifying the surface or combining PHA with other polymers, enzymes and inorganic materials, making it possible for a wider range of applications.[2]


Certain strains of Bacillus subtilis bacteria can be used to produce polyhydroxyalkanoates

To produce PHA, a culture of a micro-organism such as Alcaligenes eutrophus is placed in a suitable medium and fed appropriate nutrients so that it multiplies rapidly. Once the population has reached a substantial level, the nutrient composition is changed to force the micro-organism to synthesize PHA. The yield of PHA obtained from the intracellular inclusions can be as high as 80% of the organism's dry weight.

The biosynthesis of PHA is usually caused by certain deficiency conditions (e.g. lack of macro elements such as phosphorus, nitrogen, trace elements, or lack of oxygen) and the excess supply of carbon sources.

Polyesters are deposited in the form of highly refractive granules in the cells. Depending upon the microorganism and the cultivation conditions, ****- or copolyesters with different hydroxyalkanic acids are generated. PHAs granules are then recovered by disrupting the cells [3]

Recombinants Bacillus subtilis str. pBE2C1 and Bacillus subtilis str. pBE2C1AB were used in production of polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) and it was shown that they could use malt waste as carbon source for lower cost of PHA production.

PHA synthases are the key enzymes of PHA biosynthesis. They use the coenzyme A - thioester of (r)-hydroxy fatty acids as substrates. The two classes of PHA synthases differ in the specific use of hydroxyfattyacids of short or medium chain length.

The resulting PHA is of the two types:
Poly (HA SCL) from hydroxy fatty acids with short chain lengths including three to five carbon atoms are synthesized by numerous bacteria, including Ralstonia eutropha and Alcaligenes latus (PHB).
Poly (HA MCL) from hydroxy fatty acids with middle chain lengths including six to 14 carbon atoms, can be made for example, by Pseudomonas putida.

A few bacteria, including Aeromonas hydrophila and Thiococcus pfennigii, synthesize copolyester, from the above two types of hydroxy fatty acids or at least possess enzymes that are part of this building are capable of.

Another even large scale synthesis can be done with the help of soil organisms. For lack of nitrogen and phosphorus they produce from three kilograms of sugar a kilogram of PHA.


The simplest and most commonly occurring form of PHA is the fermentative production of poly-beta-hydroxybutyrate) (poly-3-hydroxybutyrate, P3HB), which consists of 1000 to 30000 hydroxy fatty acid monomers"

[Scej12]

Both bacteria and cyanobacteria produce PHA naturally within their cell structure. ;)

"Polyhydroxyalkanoates

Chemical structures of P3HB, PHV and their copolymer PHBV
Polyhydroxyalkanoates or PHAs are linear polyesters produced in nature by bacterial fermentation of sugar or lipids. They are produced by the bacteria to store carbon and energy. More than 150 different monomers can be combined within this family to give materials with extremely different properties.[1] These plastics are biodegradeable and are used in the production of bioplastics.

They can be either thermoplastic or elastomeric materials, with melting points ranging from 40 to 180 °C.

The mechanical and biocompatibility of PHA can also be changed by blending, modifying the surface or combining PHA with other polymers, enzymes and inorganic materials, making it possible for a wider range of applications.[2]


Certain strains of Bacillus subtilis bacteria can be used to produce polyhydroxyalkanoates

To produce PHA, a culture of a micro-organism such as Alcaligenes eutrophus is placed in a suitable medium and fed appropriate nutrients so that it multiplies rapidly. Once the population has reached a substantial level, the nutrient composition is changed to force the micro-organism to synthesize PHA. The yield of PHA obtained from the intracellular inclusions can be as high as 80% of the organism's dry weight.

The biosynthesis of PHA is usually caused by certain deficiency conditions (e.g. lack of macro elements such as phosphorus, nitrogen, trace elements, or lack of oxygen) and the excess supply of carbon sources.

Polyesters are deposited in the form of highly refractive granules in the cells. Depending upon the microorganism and the cultivation conditions, ****- or copolyesters with different hydroxyalkanic acids are generated. PHAs granules are then recovered by disrupting the cells [3]

Recombinants Bacillus subtilis str. pBE2C1 and Bacillus subtilis str. pBE2C1AB were used in production of polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) and it was shown that they could use malt waste as carbon source for lower cost of PHA production.

PHA synthases are the key enzymes of PHA biosynthesis. They use the coenzyme A - thioester of (r)-hydroxy fatty acids as substrates. The two classes of PHA synthases differ in the specific use of hydroxyfattyacids of short or medium chain length.

The resulting PHA is of the two types:
Poly (HA SCL) from hydroxy fatty acids with short chain lengths including three to five carbon atoms are synthesized by numerous bacteria, including Ralstonia eutropha and Alcaligenes latus (PHB).
Poly (HA MCL) from hydroxy fatty acids with middle chain lengths including six to 14 carbon atoms, can be made for example, by Pseudomonas putida.

A few bacteria, including Aeromonas hydrophila and Thiococcus pfennigii, synthesize copolyester, from the above two types of hydroxy fatty acids or at least possess enzymes that are part of this building are capable of.

Another even large scale synthesis can be done with the help of soil organisms. For lack of nitrogen and phosphorus they produce from three kilograms of sugar a kilogram of PHA.


The simplest and most commonly occurring form of PHA is the fermentative production of poly-beta-hydroxybutyrate) (poly-3-hydroxybutyrate, P3HB), which consists of 1000 to 30000 hydroxy fatty acid monomers"

Okay - so I've read this once... looks like I'll have to study it a few more times before I'm confident that I properly understand it...:hmm4: But it does certainly give me a place to start. Thanks.

Regards,

Sheldon

[tntneon]

... Therefore vinegar would be my choice when fighting a pest like cyanobacteria... ;)
I agree that that vinegar is a very good carbon form , sometimes i dose it in combination with pellets (monthly a few times).
Also i have good results with weekly dosing DOM from coral shop , consists out of eight marine carbohydrates .

But my experiences with cyano are that they will grow in low flow area's , never have seen them grow in high flow area's (in my tank) .

There where the flow is too low , bacteria and cyano will uptake N/P but they don't have a change of leaving the system ( the way to the skimmer... :) ) and they die in that spot , toghether with higher rate of sedementation in that area (detrius build-up) it is a recipy for algea and N/P build up.
You will see it on sand surfaces to , because the flow is reduced alot due to resitance created by the that sandbed in the first couple of mm above the sandbed.
This is one of the reasons that i removed my sand bed from display , on the sand near the rocks there was always a little bit of cyano , now it's completly gone.
In my sump i still have a DSB but there i have tonnes of flow over the DSB and i don't have any cyano issues.

so redirecting a powerhead or uping the overall flow thru the system could also do some good things ( but don't disturb the sandbed to much though)
And or dosing some other carbon sources (diversity) once in a while would be beneficial too .

greetingzz tntneon :)

[oscar.millan]

Randy,

Why did you select Vinegar instead of Vodka for example?

The big difference in carbon dosing with pellets is the fact that you don't have to be there , for instannce if you go on a holiday you still have a carbon supplement w/o you being there.



I dose with a dosing pump on a timer that draws from a 1 gallon container of vinegar, so it runs when I am not around. :)

[reeftivo]

I'm sure Randy will Chime in, but Highland reefers post has a comment which may lend some creedence as to why.

There is a competition between bacteria and cyano for phosphate and nitrate. Both can utilize the bio-pellets. Most cyanobacteria are phototrophic which gives them an edge to out-compete the bacteria once established. To reduce the cyanobacteria population, one would want to use a carbon source that cyanobacteria can't use. According to the scientific literature I have read, vinegar does not increase cyanobacteria growth, whereas vodka and biopellets can. Therefore vinegar would be my choice when fighting a pest like cyanobacteria.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I used vodka first and found it promoted cyano in my tank. Vinegar did not seem to do so, and that result has been supported by many others since then.

[reeftivo]

Hi Randy,

I transitioned from zeovit to the pellets and so far after only a month and a half I have no issues "YET". I'm going to see how this plays out for my small system.

when you transitioned from the vodka to the vinegar, did you dose any supplemental bacteria like MB7 or zeobac to get things back in balance, or did you just let the system balance itself?

[cherubfish pair]

Can bacteria and algae fight each other--much like corals do (chemical warfare)? Can they eat each other? I know phytoplankton is like a free floating algae that corals can feed off of. How well does cyanobacteria float in the water column? What coral speices can feed off of them?

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

when you transitioned from the vodka to the vinegar, did you dose any supplemental bacteria like MB7 or zeobac to get things back in balance, or did you just let the system balance itself?


No, I just relied on naturally present bacteria. :)

Can bacteria and algae fight each other--much like corals do (chemical warfare)? Can they eat each other? I know phytoplankton is like a free floating algae that corals can feed off of. How well does cyanobacteria float in the water column? What coral speices can feed off of them?



Bacteria and algae do not generally eat each other, but they can potenntially release agents to kill nearby organisms. I do not know if any corals consume cyano that is free floating.

[Bababooy]

An observation I made when I had cyano issues with zeovit was when I accidentally bumped my alk up past 8, that seemed to be when the cyano became noticeable. Wondering if others had the same experience with the pellets?

[reeftivo]

when you transitioned from the vodka to the vinegar, did you dose any supplemental bacteria like MB7 or zeobac to get things back in balance, or did you just let the system balance itself?


No, I just relied on naturally present bacteria. :)

Can bacteria and algae fight each other--much like corals do (chemical warfare)? Can they eat each other? I know phytoplankton is like a free floating algae that corals can feed off of. How well does cyanobacteria float in the water column? What coral speices can feed off of them?



Bacteria and algae do not generally eat each other, but they can potenntially release agents to kill nearby organisms. I do not know if any corals consume cyano that is free floating.

Thanks Randy,

Good to know!

So far so good, but if things go south for me, I may or may not go back to zeovit and definately will consider the vinegar. I have a couple of novatech perstaltic pumps that I can configure for dosing if I go the vinegar route.

Thanks for your remarks!

Happy reefing

Tivo

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

You're welcome.

Good luck. :)

[oscar.millan]

My biggest concern in dosing vinegar over vodka is the drop in Ph. I know all carbon dosing even vodka will lower Ph, but with an acidic carbon source such as vinegar, I expect the drop to be more significant.

If not for the anecdotal evidence found in various tank regarding cyano and vodka, I'd start dosing vodka. Am I worrying too much about the Ph drop, how much did you Ph drop when you started?

Also, in terms of price is vinegar a cheaper carbon source than vodka right? Granted you have to use more vinegar than you do vodka. Not sure that had any bearing on the decision.

Great discussion by the way, I look forward to your replies.

I used vodka first and found it promoted cyano in my tank. Vinegar did not seem to do so, and that result has been supported by many others since then.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

but with an acidic carbon source such as vinegar, I expect the drop to be more significant.

It won't be if the dose is spread out. The final effect over time is the same as vodka, not worse.

That said, you can also put solid lime into the vinegar if you are still concerned once you dose and observe pH too low. :)

Vinegar is a little cheaper.

[reeftivo]

update after lunch today!

went home for luch (only work a mile away-nice!)

PO4 is at .02 (hanna photometer), nitrate is still at 3ppm (tunze measuring box and new cheap API kit)-both are the same. Starting to see signs of cyano on the sand. Not bad but I know what cyano looks like so I slowed the output of the reactor a bit so the pellets tumble slower. my pH is at 8.4 , sg is 1.026, ca 420, kh 7.5, mg 1300. I increased flow to my vortechs in hopes that will help keep it down. lighting may or may not be an issue but I'm running a 6 month old 250wt 14k phoenix bulb on a 7 hour photoperiod and I don't have means to measure PAR but I suspect I should be okay.

I'll just stay the course with weekly 10% WC's and continue basting the sump and LR along with changing my filter sock every 3 days and see where this goes.

Tivo

[timvdb]

How far is your bulb from the water?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[this is me]

Hey Tivo,
Make sure you rinse the vial with tank water before you test. I found that if you rinse it with tap water and left it dry for the next test without rinsing it with tank water, it'll give you a higher reading.

[reeftivo]

How far is your bulb from the water?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

tank is 20" deep and I'm running the fixture at 10" above water level.

:thumbsup:

[reeftivo]

Hey Tivo,
Make sure you rinse the vial with tank water before you test. I found that if you rinse it with tap water and left it dry for the next test without rinsing it with tank water, it'll give you a higher reading.

Guilty as charged!:hmm3:

I do rinse the cupels after use and dry them with a paper towel but sometimes forget to flush with tank water before each test.

will test again today

Thanks:thumbsup:

[cherubfish pair]

but with an acidic carbon source such as vinegar, I expect the drop to be more significant.

It won't be if the dose is spread out. The final effect over time is the same as vodka, not worse.

That said, you can also put solid lime into the vinegar if you are still concerned once you dose and observe pH too low. :)

Vinegar is a little cheaper.
How much lime are you talking about and is powdered Calcium Hydroxide okay?

[cherubfish pair]

How much lime are you talking about and is powdered Calcium Hydroxide okay?
Forgot to ask, will vinegar boost alkalinity? I can't remember the chemical formula of vinegar.

[bertoni]

Nope. Vinegar will lower alkalinity a tiny bit when added. When the vinegar is metabolized by bacteria, the alkalinity will rise back up.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

If putting lime into vinegar, add enough that there is excess left on the bottom and let that mostly settle out. The solution is then stable toward degradation by bacteria because the pH is high.

That solution will be a balanced calcium and alkalinity additive, as well as vinegar additive. I used it for many months. :)

[reeftivo]

okay,

signs of cyano have subsided after lowering flow in the reactor and turning up my vortechs. Nitrate is now 0 on tunze kit and API with po4 at .02.

I have had no visible bacterial bloom. I suspect that's due to my fairly low levels of no3 and po4 when I began. The pellets do not appear any different in size or shape than when I started them, with the exception of a small percentage (<5%) that have turned to a dark reddish brown. I have my air opened much more on the tunze skimmer in order to pull wetter. As expected, the skimmate is much lighter but smells horrible. Prior to the pellets, I was used to dark, dry skimmate and I'm a little concerned whether or not the skimmate will eventually become more concentrated after time while running pellets.

anyone on pellets have any skimmate shots for comparison?

[cherubfish pair]

If putting lime into vinegar, add enough that there is excess left on the bottom and let that mostly settle out. The solution is then stable toward degradation by bacteria because the pH is high.

That solution will be a balanced calcium and alkalinity additive, as well as vinegar additive. I used it for many months. :)
So would a kalkwasser/vinegar solution have a lower pH? Would this be a safer way to make an all-at-once calcium dose?

[bertoni]

It'll have a lower pH, but the pH still will be very high. It wouldn't be good in large doses.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

You can make an all at once dosing solution this way if you carefully control the pH in it (not too high or low), but it may not be stable toward bacterial degradation in the bottle. You are effectively making calcum acetate, which is what is in Salifert's all in one. But ther product is much more concentrated, precluding bacterial growth.

[reeftivo]

You can make an all at once dosing solution this way if you carefully control the pH in it (not too high or low), but it may not be stable toward bacterial degradation in the bottle. You are effectively making calcum acetate, which is what is in Salifert's all in one. But ther product is much more concentrated, precluding bacterial growth.

good to know Randy,

I used to use Salifert AIO supplement and was considering it for dosing instead of the ESV 2 part I currently use. I guess it would be problematic to use Salifert if I'm running pellets with the added acetate-correct?

Thanks in advance

Tivo

[tntneon]

good to know Randy,

I used to use Salifert AIO supplement and was considering it for dosing instead of the ESV 2 part I currently use. I guess it would be problematic to use Salifert if I'm running pellets with the added acetate-correct?

Thanks in advance

Tivo

No problems , i use it almost 3 year every day 3 drops with good results.
I do half the recommended dosage .

greetingzz tntneon :)

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I agree I don't see a problem as long as you recognize that it too drives bacteria. :)

[tntneon]

I definitly agree :)

But Randy could you explane why some bacteria love vinegar more than vodka/pellets or others ?
But why do some bateria prefere other carbon sources ?

i dose daily 3 drops all in one
weekly 2 times 5 ml vinegar
and two times a week 1 ml of marine carbohydrates (DOM)
and of course pellets in line

to have them all satisfied :D

greetingzz tntneon :)

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

But Randy could you explane why some bacteria love vinegar more than vodka/pellets or others ?
But why do some bateria prefere other carbon sources ?

Different species and strains of bacteria have evolved different enzymes and uptake mechanisms to consume different types of food (organics), just like different birds eat different types of food (fruit, insects, nuts, etc.). :)

[reeftivo]

Update,

Things remain good although my skimmate cup gets rank by the time I get home and I can smell it in the house a little (not bad but a little).

I have to configure some kind of carbon absorber or pad I can throw in off the outlet to the cup. smells mildly like dead fish-LOL.

The Mrs. isn't all that excited with all things aquatic since it cuts into our quality time. So I feel if I don't get the smell issue resolved, it will only add fuel to the fire-LOL.

HAppy reefing

Tivo

[tntneon]

hi reeftivo :) ,

I never had any additional smell from the pellets compared with normal carbon dosing or no dosing whatsoever .
How much (regulary ) do you clean your skimmercup ?
Try to do it at least onces a week , when having smells i would do it even more often every 3 to 2 days .


greetingzz tntneon :)

[Rwpdunne]

That's one of the reasons i stopped running "pellets" the smell in the house where the tank is
since switching to zeovit I've never looked back


Robbie

[this is me]

The smell was strong during the first two weeks of running the pellets and my skimmer cup always get full in a couple of days. But ever since after that, my skimmer is skimming normal and the horrid smell stop as well. It's like after a week of very now nitrate and phosphate, the skimmer stop skimming out too much and the smell stop.

[reeftivo]

hi reeftivo :) ,

I never had any additional smell from the pellets compared with normal carbon dosing or no dosing whatsoever .
How much (regulary ) do you clean your skimmercup ?
Try to do it at least onces a week , when having smells i would do it even more often every 3 to 2 days .


greetingzz tntneon :)

Yah! I empty my collection cup daily and scrub it out with a brush I got from ATB. I clean the chamber of the Tunze foam extractor weekly when I do my WC's

I have a 4" fan which blows through the cabinet and exits the opposite side. The fan blows directly over the skimmer and cup so I suspect that's where I'm getting a bit of odor.

No biggy! I can barely smell it and my wife and visitors have never commented.

My skimmate is actually increasing and getting much darker as of two days ago. This weekend I tested and nitrate was undetectable with po4 at .02.

before pellets, when I was using zeovit I skimmed dry and was used to dark, concentrated skim. I set my skimmer wet for the pellets and until recently had not gotten the abundance of skimmate that everyone else has posted about until now. Maybe it's because my system was pretty clean to begin with? Not sure.

I'll post a pic of the skim after I get a pic tonight

Still happy

Happy Reefing

Tivo

[reeftivo]

That's one of the reasons i stopped running "pellets" the smell in the house where the tank is
since switching to zeovit I've never looked back


Robbie

Zeovit definately works!! I ran it for a year and a half but couldn't handle the dosing and reactor while away. I would ask my friends to help while I was gone but I felt it was beginning to become burdensome and just wanted to opt for something easier.

How are you handling the cost of zeo supplements? It was expensive for me even with my small system. I could only imagine the $$ with your 700ltr

[larryfl1]

hey all,

i need some opinions / thoughts..i know it all subjective but I'm confused...

I started nopox about 4 weeks ago and since i started...my nitrates are flat at 2ppm. they won't budge.. i am currently dosing 36 ml of no pox on a 300 gal tank...

during that time cyan has exploded and thought its not growing as fast now theres lots of it...

im not sure why my nitrates won't drop..they just stay 2ppm day after day....

so with cyano in the tank...do i switch to pellets? will that make my cyan worse???

im not sure what to do at this point...

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I'd suggest switching to just vinegar if cyano is increasing with other organics. GFO would also be a good way to attack the cyano. :)

[larryfl1]

What's the proper technique for vinegar? Tank is heavy fish population fed heavy. Approximately 300 gallons and mixed reef

Thanks

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Pretty much the same as vodka, but more, like 8x more. There's an article around on vodka. :)

[cherubfish pair]

I was wondering if there would be any benefit to dosing vinegar in a pellet reactor? The bacteria would metabolize acetate into bicarbonate or carbonate. Would there be any saving in not using a 2-part?

You could run a closed loop in a bucket with dilute vinegar. Put your pellet reactor pump in the bucket and reactor outlet in the same bucket until the vinegar is metabolized.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Pellets, vodka, and vinegar all end up as CO2, not bicarbonate or carbonate.

Batch processing could probably work out, but seems like a large amount of work.

[larryfl1]

I do think i want to bring the pellets online at this point..it just seems if it works its more hands off... i have no issue using gfo if i have to in the future...

so the question is the following

on approximately 350 total gallon size tank... nitrate sitting at 2ppm and phosphate undetectable.

how much pellets total?

how much and for how long as i introduce the total volume of pellets? I have read start slow and add on....

i am currently dosing no pox for the past month ... how do i transition safely off from that to the pellets?

thanks

Larry

[tntneon]

Hi larryfly1 :) ,

i would start with 500 ml's and every month you up it with 500ml , until you have about 2 L pellets in a reactor with enough flow and w/o any filterpads (they will clog very fast) .
Have a strong skimmer that is set for wet skimming .


Don't know what nopox are so i don't have any specific tips regarding this product .
Is it a kind of carbon dosing liquid ?

greetingzz tntneon :)

[larryfl1]

nopox is a form of liquid organic carbon... if i was using an equivalent like vodka for only 1 month could i just stop and put pellets on line or do i need to slowly reduce the vodka?

[tntneon]

-I would put the first 500ml of pellets in service and keep adding the nopox for the first 2 weeks then i would gradualy cut nopox dosage to half.
When you put the next 500 ml of pellets in , you can gradualy cut nopox dosage to a 1/4.
And keep observing your tank for improvements and checking nitrates , when nitrates drop to zero i definitly would stop nopox earlyer .
Or when whitnessing a bacterial bloom (cloudy water) , i too would stop dosing nopox in that circumstances
I rather have 0.2 nitrates then zero.

greetingzz tntneon :)

[reeftivo]

Update after a couple months

Running 250ml BRS pellets

My tunze and API kits are showing no detectable nitrate and my hanna photometer is now at .01 PO4. perams are all stable but funny thing is that cyano has come back on the sand with a vengence. so either my skimmer isn't pulling enough of the sloughed bacteria out or there is just too much carbon going in (all animals are doing well). I perform weekly 8 gallon WC's on my small system and use scripps instit. NSW aerated 24hrs and it comes in a little low (ca 380-400/alk 6.5-7/Mg 1200-1280) so I bring the levels up with ESV 2 part and some mag. I had previously increased my flow in the DT and have been skimming wetter but the darn cyano is back. I'll be getting a Warner MF121 in a few days and will see if that will help out. meanwhile I'm just siphoning the top layer of sand weekly during water changes and occasionally using my eheim sludge extractor when needed.

I'm thinking of using my zeobac with pohls coral snow again since it help when I had a bout a year ago before the pellets but thought I'd see what others thought.

[larryfl1]

hey all,

i have the pellets tumbling for now about 5 days... i want to make sure they start working relatively quickly as my phosphates/nitrates are climbing..though they are low...

i just ordered zeobak... how should i dose that? into the tank? or into the reactor and how much??

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I would not assume zeobak is of any value in a case like this since it is not seemingly designed to provide suitable bacteria to grow on any particular organic material you may be using. :)

[reeftivo]

I would not assume zeobak is of any value in a case like this since it is not seemingly designed to provide suitable bacteria to grow on any particular organic material you may be using. :)

Probably safe to assume that since they are cultured to be effective on inorganic zeolites stones, but I used them in an attempt to jump start my pellets. whether or not it helped? Can't be sure! However my nitrates are non-detectable now and phosphate holds at .02 without GFO.

Still haven't got cyano to abate (sand only) but it's showing signs of weakening. It's not spreading like it was and has gone from dark red to light brown. I have installed a new 250 watt XM bulb (old one was only 7mo), increased DT flow a bit and decreased the reactor flow by half, with pellets still tumbling well. My new Warner Marine MF121 is still breaking in but seems to be helping a bit as well.

I will not hesitate to pull the reactor if I can't get a handle on the cyano (hate it!) but I'll give it more time since the animals are doing really well.

Happy new Years to all and Happy reefing!

tivo

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Probably safe to assume that since they are cultured to be effective on inorganic zeolites stones, but I used them in an attempt to jump start my pellets. whether or not it helped? Can't be sure! However my nitrates are non-detectable now and phosphate holds at .02 without GFO.

I'm less worried about the surfaces they choose to grow on than the organic matter they are capable of eating. Like giving grass to a cat, when it was meant for a cow, it isn't all the same. :)

That said, it seems like things are working out fine with the pellets so far. :)

[cherubfish pair]

reeftivo,

Since you can't siphon the cyano as it's on the sand, could you stir up the sand/cyano and let your skimmer push it up and into your skimmer's collection cup?

[Scej12]

Probably safe to assume that since they are cultured to be effective on inorganic zeolites stones, but I used them in an attempt to jump start my pellets. whether or not it helped? Can't be sure! However my nitrates are non-detectable now and phosphate holds at .02 without GFO.

Still haven't got cyano to abate (sand only) but it's showing signs of weakening. It's not spreading like it was and has gone from dark red to light brown. I have installed a new 250 watt XM bulb (old one was only 7mo), increased DT flow a bit and decreased the reactor flow by half, with pellets still tumbling well. My new Warner Marine MF121 is still breaking in but seems to be helping a bit as well.

I will not hesitate to pull the reactor if I can't get a handle on the cyano (hate it!) but I'll give it more time since the animals are doing really well.

Happy new Years to all and Happy reefing!

tivo

Hey Tivo:

Do you employ an activated carbon regime??? I was primarily focusing on pH in my own battle against cyano bacteria. I'm trying to rid an old tank of about 7 years of PO4 absorption, and so I'm dealing with my liverock cycling between GHA (first) then cyano (then repeat). As well, for the longest time I had cyano on the substrate despite establishing 0 nitrate; and phosphates fluctuating between 0.02 - 0.12 (down from 0.75, and even higher [1.5] a year ago). I've rigged up a lanthanum chloride setup which has been running for about 3 months now.

In trying to pick this annoying problem apart I've raised the pH up from 7.8 to 8.2, however there was no immediate result after about 1 month of elevated pH - the cyano still persisted on the substrate and on the liverock. I then noticed that the water colour appeared very yellowish indicating a high level of dissolved organics. Admittedly, I'd pulled the activated carbon for some time as I was trying to minimize the risk of head and lateral line erosion on my tangs. However based on the visibly observable organics, I decided to dump in another large hit of carbon on this large system... there was almost an immediate result on at least the substrate cyano proliferation, not to mention the clarity of water. Another week later, and I hit the system with another large dose of carbon just to finish polishing the water of excess DOCs. Now about a week and a half later, and all of the cyano on the substrate has completely disappeared.

Now I'm about to arm myself with a couple of gallons of magnesium and resume blowing the rocks off with a powerhead while the lanthanum chloride system deals with the leaching phosphate over the next few months or so... The idea being that I will finally be able to establish a strong coralline dominance on the liverock.

In summary, although I can acknowledge that biopellets tend to feed cyanobacteria; my thoughts are leaning toward solutions that deal with raising pH to address the autotrophic (photosynthesizing) feeding ability of this nuisance; as well as employing strong DOC removal. I would think that when all else is in check, the balance of the problem might be solved by focusing in on these two factors...

Low nutrients; high pH; low DOC; and good flow...

Regards,

Sheldon

[cherubfish pair]

Scej12,

What is your lanthanum chloride setup like?

[Scej12]

Just a simple jury-rig consisting of a maxijet 600 which pumps a slow feed up to an I.O. pail rigged with a drain which feeds directly into my skimmer. I fit a rio pump output nozzle (the one with the venturi port) onto the suction side of the maxijet 600 so that I can attach a feed line from a LaCl3 dosing jug (approx 1:100 mix w/ RO/DI). In this way I was able to use the maxijet to pull in LaCl3 and mix it with the tank water before being delivered to the I.O settling pail. I posted some pics on the LaCl3 thread here (http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1474839&page=19).

The system worked okay with one main inconvenience - I have to pull apart the powerhead and attached venturi to clean out the LaPO4 precipitate every couple of weeks. The lanthanum chloride mix that I have is being fed at a rate of about 1 drop per 20 seconds constantly; and over time the precipitate blocks up the venturi right at the point it mixes with system water. Nonetheless it works well enough to manage years of stored phosphate, so I'll have to design a proper reactor to deal with the precipitate plugging up at the point of entry.

Regards,

Sheldon

[reeftivo]

reeftivo,

Since you can't siphon the cyano as it's on the sand, could you stir up the sand/cyano and let your skimmer push it up and into your skimmer's collection cup?

Thanks,

I've been using my little battery operated eheim sludge extractor to just sweep the top 1/4 inch of the sand a couple times a week. when I use the eheim I always get a good amount of junk in the screen filter. I also siphon and baste my rock weekly when doing Wc's. I try not to disturb the lower levels of the sand and concentrate on the surface only.

Keeping up the good fight;)

Tivo

[reeftivo]

Hey Tivo:

Do you employ an activated carbon regime??? I was primarily focusing on pH in my own battle against cyano bacteria. I'm trying to rid an old tank of about 7 years of PO4 absorption, and so I'm dealing with my liverock cycling between GHA (first) then cyano (then repeat). As well, for the longest time I had cyano on the substrate despite establishing 0 nitrate; and phosphates fluctuating between 0.02 - 0.12 (down from 0.75, and even higher [1.5] a year ago). I've rigged up a lanthanum chloride setup which has been running for about 3 months now.

In trying to pick this annoying problem apart I've raised the pH up from 7.8 to 8.2, however there was no immediate result after about 1 month of elevated pH - the cyano still persisted on the substrate and on the liverock. I then noticed that the water colour appeared very yellowish indicating a high level of dissolved organics. Admittedly, I'd pulled the activated carbon for some time as I was trying to minimize the risk of head and lateral line erosion on my tangs. However based on the visibly observable organics, I decided to dump in another large hit of carbon on this large system... there was almost an immediate result on at least the substrate cyano proliferation, not to mention the clarity of water. Another week later, and I hit the system with another large dose of carbon just to finish polishing the water of excess DOCs. Now about a week and a half later, and all of the cyano on the substrate has completely disappeared.

Now I'm about to arm myself with a couple of gallons of magnesium and resume blowing the rocks off with a powerhead while the lanthanum chloride system deals with the leaching phosphate over the next few months or so... The idea being that I will finally be able to establish a strong coralline dominance on the liverock.

In summary, although I can acknowledge that biopellets tend to feed cyanobacteria; my thoughts are leaning toward solutions that deal with raising pH to address the autotrophic (photosynthesizing) feeding ability of this nuisance; as well as employing strong DOC removal. I would think that when all else is in check, the balance of the problem might be solved by focusing in on these two factors...

Low nutrients; high pH; low DOC; and good flow...

Regards,

Sheldon

Thanks sheldon!

Yes, I use carbon but I was using it passively.The way I was using it when I was running zeovit. I have since started running the carbon in my TLF reactor and maybe that's what is starting to help. My pH is always 8.3 to 8.4 so hopefully the combination will continue to help!

I could deal with the cyano since it isn't affecting the animals at all, but it always looks so dirty to me and thats why I can't stand the stuff. even in little patches:mad2:

Tivo

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

The system worked okay with one main inconvenience - I have to pull apart the powerhead and attached venturi to clean out the LaPO4 precipitate every couple of weeks. The lanthanum chloride mix that I have is being fed at a rate of about 1 drop per 20 seconds constantly; and over time the precipitate blocks up the venturi right at the point it mixes with system water. Nonetheless it works well enough to manage years of stored phosphate, so I'll have to design a proper reactor to deal with the precipitate plugging up at the point of entry.

Regards,

Sheldon

I would just qiualify that statement that the solids are going to be mostly lanthanum carbonate, not lanthanum phosphate, although there will be small amounts of the latter. :)

[Scej12]

Thanks sheldon!

Yes, I use carbon but I was using it passively.The way I was using it when I was running zeovit. I have since started running the carbon in my TLF reactor and maybe that's what is starting to help. My pH is always 8.3 to 8.4 so hopefully the combination will continue to help!

I could deal with the cyano since it isn't affecting the animals at all, but it always looks so dirty to me and thats why I can't stand the stuff. even in little patches:mad2:

Tivo

Yeah I'm beginning to think that passive carbon use on cyano-feeding forms of carbon dosing (i.e. vodka; bp) might not be enough. I could swear that I could exhaust a full gallon of carbon within a week on a 450 gallon system. This is why I started to worry about affecting tangs with HLLE.

Since I reunited with my formerly aggressive carbon routine, the cyano has completely cleared off the sand, but is still hanging onto the rocks which I'm resisting blowing off until i get my magnesium supply restocked... but I literally went from matted substrate to clean substrate within a week and a half of activated carbon bombardment. Since the first gallon (jug) of black diamond activated carbon appeared to have a positive result, I went ahead and added a second jug a week later, as I'm sure the first was probably pretty close to being exhausted by then (the water was quite yellow prior).

My activated carbon is in mesh bags but when I finally get around to rejigging the filtration system, I'll likely run the carbon in a reactor that drains directly into a skimmer as a measure to address the HLLE concern.

Let me know how it goes though, I'm betting that when you get your DOCs down, the cyano will clear. Just keep in mind that the level of DOCs that result from bp carbon dosing is likely high enough to exhaust your activated carbon much quicker than normal application.

Regards,

Sheldon

[Scej12]

I would just qiualify that statement that the solids are going to be mostly lanthanum carbonate, not lanthanum phosphate, although there will be small amounts of the latter. :)

Thanks Randy! Good to know.

Sheldon

[reeftivo]

Yeah I'm beginning to think that passive carbon use on cyano-feeding forms of carbon dosing (i.e. vodka; bp) might not be enough. I could swear that I could exhaust a full gallon of carbon within a week on a 450 gallon system. This is why I started to worry about affecting tangs with HLLE.

Since I reunited with my formerly aggressive carbon routine, the cyano has completely cleared off the sand, but is still hanging onto the rocks which I'm resisting blowing off until i get my magnesium supply restocked... but I literally went from matted substrate to clean substrate within a week and a half of activated carbon bombardment. Since the first gallon (jug) of black diamond activated carbon appeared to have a positive result, I went ahead and added a second jug a week later, as I'm sure the first was probably pretty close to being exhausted by then (the water was quite yellow prior).

My activated carbon is in mesh bags but when I finally get around to rejigging the filtration system, I'll likely run the carbon in a reactor that drains directly into a skimmer as a measure to address the HLLE concern.

Let me know how it goes though, I'm betting that when you get your DOCs down, the cyano will clear. Just keep in mind that the level of DOCs that result from bp carbon dosing is likely high enough to exhaust your activated carbon much quicker than normal application.

Regards,

Sheldon

Awsome Sheldon!

Good info and the carbon seems to be limiting the cyano growth so far. A day and a half after switching from passive to the reactor and the sand is still looking good. I thought for sure when I went home for lunch that I would start seeing signs of growth again but it looks the same. There are only small signs of light brown cyano in areas where I could not see when siphoning last. Nothing like the dark red I was getting before!

I was using the KZ carbon passively but since going with the pellets, I've been using kent reef carbon. Much cheaper and seems to work well enough.
I was changing out the carbon monthly with zeovit. Do you think I should step that up to bi-monthly?

Looks like there's hope afterall

Tivo

[Scej12]

I would do a Bucket-Test... i.e. take a white pail of system water and compare it (colour-wise) to the same colour pail of RO/DI water. the latter should be absolutely clear or at-least bluish in hue. If your tank water is not close to your reference colour, I'd interpret that as you having some visible organics dissolved in your system.... and therefore refresh your carbon.

It has been said that vinegar unlike many of the other carbon dosing strategies seems to least (or not-at-all) feed cyanobacteria. I'm currently testing my hypothesis that if we can limit DOCs by way of heavy activated carbon filtration (or even ozone), then we might be able to deal with the cyano-breeding potential of the other forms of carbon dosing.... But again I should emphasize that it should be a multi-pronged approach consisting of addressing Nutrients; pH; Flow; & DOCs.

But to answer your question as to carbon frequency, I would say that should be determined (at least initially) by guaging your system by way of a Bucket-Test.

Let us all know how it turns out!

Regards,

Sheldon

[reeftivo]

thanks for the suggestion!

I'll get a couple pails and give it a shot this weekend!

I appreciate your help!

Tivo

[Scej12]

No worries... it would be nice to confirm the effectiveness a DOC removal focus on several other systems so that we can all get a little more out of this whole carbon dosing/bacteria-based-filtration approach we've grown so fond of!

Sheldon

[reeftivo]

update;

was still battling cyano and did the bucket test suggested by Sheldon.

No distinguishable color difference using two white 1 gallon open top pails. I tested twice. I had to go out of town for a week so I decide to take the reactor off line before I left and figure things out when I returned. Shortly before I left, I started a kalk/vinegar batch to be dosed while I was gone to keep perams somewhat stable until I returned. When I got home the Cyano was gone.

HMMM?

I am dosing 2tsp of kalk/40ml of vinegar per gallon of RO/DI and dosing 5ml 8 times a day with my novatec pump. I have an aqua house pump that I will soon get online but for now I'm in no hurry to resume the pellets.

[bertoni]

Did anyone feed the tank while you were gone?

[larryfl1]

hey all,

i switched to bio bellets about 5+ weeks ago... i started with about 2.5 nitrates and about .3 phosphates...

before switching i had some cyano issues so i have been trying to reduce the phosphates with gfo...currently I'm down to .12

currently I'm doing a 3 day lights out to kill off the cyano and wet skim...

i have not seen any change of nitrates they are still 2.5...so that makes me think the pellets haven't kicked in yet.... agree?

how do you get the pellets going when you start with relatively low numbers???

i have 2 liters of vertex pellets in the system.

[reeftivo]

Did anyone feed the tank while you were gone?

With the pellet reactor I was feeding spectrum pellets for the fish and a 1/2 cube of mix reef (cyclo,rotifer,mysis etc.) daily. While out, I left my wife to the task and only had her give spectrum pellets and a couple drops of pohls CV daily.



Tivo

[reeftivo]

hey all,

i switched to bio bellets about 5+ weeks ago... i started with about 2.5 nitrates and about .3 phosphates...

before switching i had some cyano issues so i have been trying to reduce the phosphates with gfo...currently I'm down to .12

currently I'm doing a 3 day lights out to kill off the cyano and wet skim...

i have not seen any change of nitrates they are still 2.5...so that makes me think the pellets haven't kicked in yet.... agree?

how do you get the pellets going when you start with relatively low numbers???

i have 2 liters of vertex pellets in the system.

may want to try some MB7 or zeobac mixed with tank water in a syringe injected directly into the reactor pump intake. I did 1 drop of zeobac with a pipette into the pump every other day and after two weeks my trates started dropping.

Couldn't hurt to try some bac or MB7.

[bertoni]

Hmm, maybe while you were gone, the feeding level was lower. :)

[reeftivo]

LOL, Not that I didn't trust my wife but feeding was definately lower! I'm sure that helped.

The Mrs. has never taken much of an interest in anything aquatic (sadly) but she seemed to do a good job with the feeding while I was gone.

I reduced my feedings in a similar manner with the pellets in hopes to combat the cyano but my corals (especially the LPS) reacted with little to no extension. They just puckered up and were not happy and the cyano still didn't receed.

For now I'm going to stay with the kalk/vinegar dosing and see how that progresses.

Tivo

[sirreal63]

I am going to re-post something I posted in another thread, but it should probably be posted here as well. My experience with NP bio-pellets since June or July of 2010.

Something to think about with pellets. The bacteria colonize the surface of the pellet and use the carbon as food along with NO3 and PO4, this we know. What happens when you tumble the pellets too much? They collide with each other, slough off the bacteria that is trying to consume the pellet and the friction will wear down the pellets, and that little bit of pellet that is ground off floats freely in the aquarium, where it settles and is consumed by bacteria in the tank, not just in the reactor. White bacteria slime in your tank anyone?

The whole idea of tumbling pellets got started by people being concerned by anoxic areas in the reactor. Yet many people initially just hung them in the sump in a mesh bag, and the guy who first started using this product did it in an open top canister. Mfg's grabbed onto the tumbling thing and started building reactors that did just that. But no where was it ever shown that it was needed. Things just morph and turn into what they are, with nothing to back them up.

I have been using pellets since June or July of 2010, I have had a fast tumble, a slow tumble and no tumble. What I have noticed is that with a fast tumble the pellets wear down quickly, but do not lower nutrients any better than a slow tumble, and the last thing I tried was just having them in a canister filter where they did not tumble at all. They worked the same and I did not have to have as many pellets to do the same job.

There was a study where pellets ( a different composition but still a carbon source) were put into varying sizes of sand, large and small, no tumble, just pushed into the substrate, and they did the job, they worked better this way with large grain sand. I am not ready to push pellets into my sand, or run them in a sand filter, but the point is that a tumbling reactor isn't needed, and if friction is truly wearing them down and sloughing off the bacteria from the collision of the pellets to each other then that is not a good thing.

I do not know everything about these pellets, and in fact no one does, these are not researched and produced for the aquarium market, so we have to learn about them as we go. We have let manufactures of acrylic tubes dictate to us how pellets are to be used, but in reality they just grabbed onto what people were doing in the beginning with pellets and have created their own market for pellet reactors, and have people just starting with them convinced that tumbling reactors are the right way to use pellets. It is only right for the mfg's as they can sell overpriced acrylic tubes. :-)

If you go back to the beginning of this thread and read the whole thing, you will see what I am saying. There are many ways to use pellets, and based on my own experience, tumbling reactors are not the best way. YMMV

FWIW, I have never had a bacterial slime issue, never had a bacteria bloom but I did, in the beginning, use too many pellets for my bio-load and stripped the water of NO3 and PO4, stripped so much that chaeto dissolved and I only had to clean my glass every week or two, and it wasn't algae, just bio-film that collects on glass. After cutting down the quantity of pellets greatly and slowing the flow in my home made reactor I was able to grow chaeto again and the tank looked much better. I almost killed my corals by stripping too much out of the water. At this point I began playing with different ways to use pellets, I stopped trying to get a tumble, just a slight movement of the pellets, and then took them offline for a while. When I put them back, I just tossed a handful into the bottom of my canister filter that I run carbon and GFO in. Once again they went to work and kept my nutrients in check. They do not tumble at all in the canister, but they do have good water flow over them.

Something to think about. :-)

[cherubfish pair]

I am going to re-post something I posted in another thread, but it should probably be posted here as well. My experience with NP bio-pellets since June or July of 2010.

Something to think about with pellets. The bacteria colonize the surface of the pellet and use the carbon as food along with NO3 and PO4, this we know. What happens when you tumble the pellets too much? They collide with each other, slough off the bacteria that is trying to consume the pellet and the friction will wear down the pellets, and that little bit of pellet that is ground off floats freely in the aquarium, where it settles and is consumed by bacteria in the tank, not just in the reactor. White bacteria slime in your tank anyone?

The whole idea of tumbling pellets got started by people being concerned by anoxic areas in the reactor. Yet many people initially just hung them in the sump in a mesh bag, and the guy who first started using this product did it in an open top canister. Mfg's grabbed onto the tumbling thing and started building reactors that did just that. But no where was it ever shown that it was needed. Things just morph and turn into what they are, with nothing to back them up.

I have been using pellets since June or July of 2010, I have had a fast tumble, a slow tumble and no tumble. What I have noticed is that with a fast tumble the pellets wear down quickly, but do not lower nutrients any better than a slow tumble, and the last thing I tried was just having them in a canister filter where they did not tumble at all. They worked the same and I did not have to have as many pellets to do the same job.

There was a study where pellets ( a different composition but still a carbon source) were put into varying sizes of sand, large and small, no tumble, just pushed into the substrate, and they did the job, they worked better this way with large grain sand. I am not ready to push pellets into my sand, or run them in a sand filter, but the point is that a tumbling reactor isn't needed, and if friction is truly wearing them down and sloughing off the bacteria from the collision of the pellets to each other then that is not a good thing.

I do not know everything about these pellets, and in fact no one does, these are not researched and produced for the aquarium market, so we have to learn about them as we go. We have let manufactures of acrylic tubes dictate to us how pellets are to be used, but in reality they just grabbed onto what people were doing in the beginning with pellets and have created their own market for pellet reactors, and have people just starting with them convinced that tumbling reactors are the right way to use pellets. It is only right for the mfg's as they can sell overpriced acrylic tubes. :-)

If you go back to the beginning of this thread and read the whole thing, you will see what I am saying. There are many ways to use pellets, and based on my own experience, tumbling reactors are not the best way. YMMV

FWIW, I have never had a bacterial slime issue, never had a bacteria bloom but I did, in the beginning, use too many pellets for my bio-load and stripped the water of NO3 and PO4, stripped so much that chaeto dissolved and I only had to clean my glass every week or two, and it wasn't algae, just bio-film that collects on glass. After cutting down the quantity of pellets greatly and slowing the flow in my home made reactor I was able to grow chaeto again and the tank looked much better. I almost killed my corals by stripping too much out of the water. At this point I began playing with different ways to use pellets, I stopped trying to get a tumble, just a slight movement of the pellets, and then took them offline for a while. When I put them back, I just tossed a handful into the bottom of my canister filter that I run carbon and GFO in. Once again they went to work and kept my nutrients in check. They do not tumble at all in the canister, but they do have good water flow over them.

Something to think about. :-)
Iteresting observations. Could you get a picture of some chipped up pellets?

[sirreal63]

I could break one with a hammer, but not sure what that will show, they are the same on the inside as the outside.

[tntneon]

I do not know everything about these pellets, and in fact no one does, these are not researched and produced for the aquarium market, so we have to learn about them as we go. We have let manufactures of acrylic tubes dictate to us how pellets are to be used, but in reality they just grabbed onto what people were doing in the beginning with pellets and have created their own market for pellet reactors, and have people just starting with them convinced that tumbling reactors are the right way to use pellets. It is only right for the mfg's as they can sell overpriced acrylic tubes. :-) .....

....I have never had a bacterial slime issue, never had a bacteria bloom but I did, in the beginning, use too many pellets for my bio-load and stripped the water of NO3 and PO4, stripped so much that chaeto dissolved....

Something to think about. :-)


+1 , nice said sireal63 , the idea to use an open type "jar " or "vaze" to put the pellets in was to keep it simple an inexpensive.
And the mesh bags in my case had a film on it after only 2 days , probably reducing the flow thru it , and as manufacturer had said at that time , that it was dangerous when flow was to strongly reduced (anoxic conditions).
So it seemed alot easyer to just dump them in an bucket or vaze an let the flow from display do there job in tumbling or in my case a slow boilling movement.

As for the Chaeto i had the the same issue , if you really don't measure (salifert) NO3 anymore then it's time to reduce the pellets or you won't have any chaeto left.
I though that if i would feed more it could compensate for that .
But as the corals grew i had a dead spot (flow ) in my nano where food left overs /mulm and bacteria began to accumalate , NO 3 didn't rise at all but in this area caulerpa started to grow from the detrius as soil .
Now the caulerpa is getting under control , i only feed fish now and add a few drops of salifert all-in one , no more daily plancton or just occaisionaly.


greetingzz tntneon :)

[sirreal63]

Thanks tntnean. I would like to say that I am in no way telling anyone that what they are doing with their pellets is wrong, but I do hope to open back up this dialogue of how to use them the best. Pellets have been on the market for us for a few years now, some people have had great success with them, some have not. Could that be in the way we employ these pellets?

I started looking at how we were using pellets after my water stripping in the beginning. These are just my observations, someone else may have other observations.

1. We want to keep as much of the bacteria inside the reactor as we can. Is this important?
2. We want to provide adequate flow of oxygenated water to the bacteria. I have employed very slow flow and never had any signs of sulfides or anything negative from slow flow. Any reactor can have issues if the flow is stopped.
3. We want control over the nutrient removal rate. Currently we do this by controlling the amount of pellets in the reactor, is that the only way?

The current reactors on the market do not do a very good job at #1 and #3, in fact some of them are just ludicrous. I saw the video for the CadLights conical one that whirls them like a blender. The way I see it, we want the pellets to have as much bacteria on them instead of sloughing the bacteria off and letting it escape the reactor. That crazy flow seems like it would impede bacterial population on the pellets and release too many to the tank. Is that really what we want and does it matter?

I watched the Reef Dynamics video and had warm fuzzies. I had been looking at making one that was recirc but with the move and my impending back surgery I did not give it a lot of time. This reactor seems to solve the problems, we can control the tumble, control the flow and thereby control the nutrient consumption. So far it is the only reactor I have seen that meets the goals I have for pellets. No I am not pushing this reactor, but I do like the way it is designed and that is my only point.

My biggest thought and concern is #1, how important is it to try and keep as much of the bacteria contained in the reactor as we can and what, if any are the issues with colliding the pellets against each other?

[96p993]

sirreal do you have any proof of the releasing of the bacteria as the pellets rub together and the overall release back into our system? Tests, reports, documentation...

Im not saying you are wrong but would like to do a bit more homework on your posts...

Thanks

[sirreal63]

I wish such a thing existed. There will be friction when the pellets collide, and based on my own experience, my pellets decreased in size faster when in a fast moving reactor, and decreased less when in the bottom of a canister filter where they did not move at all. Both ways kept my NO3 in check, but with the reactor the pellets dissolved faster. Friction from the collision will wear down the pellets, where does that little bit of pellet go? Is it in solution moving through the aquarium where bacteria consume it in the main system? Given the flow from the reactors on the market, I would say yes that it is not contained in the reactor.

I do not know of any study that supports this, it is, as I said, just my observation. Logically you would expect friction from the pellets colliding with each other, and you would expect that the bacteria on the pellets would also be disrupted from that collision and friction. The bacteria are already in our water, throughout the system, but the food source is the carbon in the pellets, which have a slow dissolution rate on their own, that is what they were originally designed for, to break down in landfills.

[tntneon]

1) I think that the bacteria will be concentrated on the surface of the pellets , but that they also release into sytem , else you could not skim them away (---> very important IMO).
That they wil realease into sytem what in it self is no bad thing as corals too feed on bacteria , if met to the following export conditions IMO

To be able to skim them away one must be sure that you have no deadflow spots , because then bacteria + nutrient will sinck in this area , having a area where it all builds up----> high flow in display very important + skimmer performance and maintenance important.

So i don't think it is important to keep the bacteria in the reactor .

2) Don't know for sure , mine always have boiled and never had any issues with rotten egg smell

3) I think that would be the safest way, as one limits the other .
One could say more feeding could resulte in more N & P 's , but be double sure you have enough flow and skimmer performance else you have bad issues ( algea , cyano ,... )

These are my findings , i'm not gonna tell this is the way or the holy grail to do it , just some observations .....

greetingzz tntneon :)

[sirreal63]

Good points tnt, I would add that I haven't noticed any decrease in skimmer output no matter where the reactor output was. With the canister filter, the output was back in the display, with no change in skim. I do have very high flow in the display and low flow through the sump. With the reactor, the output was into the container that held the skimmer. The skim was the same.

Since the move I have not put the pellets back in service, I broke the canister filter, so I may just hang them in a mesh bag in the sump while I work on my reactor.

This thread has grown a lot since you started it, and my hope is that the people who have been using this product will chime in and relay their experience. There have been many different implementation of this product, reactors of many styles, mesh bags, canister filters, etc.

[96p993]

I have been using a modded reactor for several months now, 100% of the affluent enters my skimmer. My tank is a 39x24x22 rimless with 2 MP10 and 1 MP40 in the tank for water movement. The tank itself is rather new and I have some algae growing on the rocks right now. Im not sure if its a bit of new tank syndrome or if the pellets are causing an issue. I have recently started adding vinegar to my ATO which runs through a kalk stirrer to add a 2nd carbon source as well as get a bit more punch from my kalk. At this time Im really deciding on whether to take my bio pellets off line and see what the vinegar can do for me.

[cherubfish pair]

sirreal63,

I think part of the reason for the pellet tumble is to help slough bacteria. The sloughing process is nutrient export harvested by skimmers.

The nutrient cycle involving pellets is as follows: nutients enter the tank in the form of food, the food is assimilated by plants and animals, the plants and animals excrete wastes and mineralize after death, the bacteria on the pellets assimilate the excretement only to be sloughed from the pellet and skimmed out of the water by protein skimmers.

I agree with you on the Reef Dynamic pellet reactors. They look like an awesome product. I think they are overpriced though. :)

[bertoni]

Some people also speculate that instead of skimming bacteria, carbon dosing mostly skims byproducts of the bacteria's metabolism. I have no idea what the primary export actually is, personally.

[Hujoweforum]

I am Running those little devils for over two years.Two Liters of pallets
In 120 G system.From my experience:
Low oxygen,low Ph and week skimmer Will cause a lot of problems.
And getting a little bit deeper in the problem proper gas exchange
Co2 -oxygen Will save everybody Many headaches.
Growth of bacteria rely on the level of oxygen in the filter and carbon.
By choking them in a little towers with high-pressure and higher level of Co2.
Little fellows will not be very happy.

[sirreal63]

Cherub, you will get bacterial slough off with slower flow as well and will do a better job of containing the bacteria in the reactor and what bacteria is released from the reactor should be of a higher concentration for the skimmer to aid in removal. At least that is how I see it, although when I ran these in my canister filter, the effluent was into the display about as far from the skimmer as possible and it made no difference, the skim was the same, but I prefer to run the effluent right to the skimmer intake. I do understand the process of how pellets work. One thing about the RD reactor, the flow adjustments are tunable and as much appear to be able to tune the effectiveness of the bacteria, (edit, quantity of bacteria by limiting the available nutrients) and it may be that what is actually happening is the oxygen is the control mechanism that limits the nutrient removal via slower flow through the reactor. This approach appears to work, though I have never done it to the extreme that Jeff did. If we can control the bacteria by limiting the oxygen and prevent the reactor from producing nasties then that is indeed a good thing.

Jonathan , thanks for chiming in. Didn't AA do a study and determined that some bacteria seem to be skimmable and others not? That seems kind of interesting to me.

Hujo, what problems did you have? Low oxygen and dangerously low PH in our tanks is a rare issue. What happened in your case?

My goal is to examine what we are doing with these pellets, it may be the best way, but it may not. I went back to see where the idea of fluidizing them came from, it was the importer of this product originally. He was trying to sell pellets to the aquarium industry, and I am always leary of people with a monetary goal. In my 29 years of sales, marketing and product development, I know to never trust anyone who stands to profit's advice. We learn by questioning and this product has been available long enough for some questions to be asked. My own observations in the 18 months I have used it and the different ways I have used it have made me think. Are we using these things correctly and is there a better way?

[bertoni]

I think some bacteria are skimmable, and they might be a major or the major export form for pellets, but I don't know of any studies on this issue.

[sirreal63]

This is the one I was referring to.

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2011/3/aafeature

[cherubfish pair]

I think we need to think of this methodology like bacteria are our friends. The bacteria incorporate our excess nutrients into their tissues and multiply. By skimming off the bacteria, we remove the excess nutrients from our tanks and this also removes some bacteria thereby creating more food than is needed by the pellet imbedded bacteria. There is extra food now that gives the bacteria a source of energy to multiply and become sloughed off and so on.

The RD reactor seems to have a more efficient design. It passes a sample of water through the pellets more times than the other reactors and gives the bacteria more time to feed on the excess nutrients in a given amount of time. I don't see any change in the rate of sloughing with the RD design though.

[sirreal63]

The rate of change would by way of the valve on the recirc flow, from a slow tumble to a very fast one. No question that it has been the reactor that has intrigued me the most. Maybe because I had in my head to do something similar, but Jeff nailed it better than I could have.

I know bacteria are our friends. :-)

[cherubfish pair]

So you first saw it [RD] on YouTube too?

[sirreal63]

Yes, a few weeks ago, I haven't gone back to see if any additional ones are made. I am little far from California and plan to keep it that way. :-)

[cherubfish pair]

I emailed Jeff about a smaller reactor and here's his answer:

I do have plans for an HOB/NANO Bio-Pellet reactor. As soon as the current backlog of Bio-Pellet reactors is shipped out I can get to work on testing the design I have in mind. I hope to release it sometime in April/May of this year.
~Jeff Macare, Reef Dynamics

[Aquarist007]

Bacteria exists in a biofilm that coats live rock, substrate, etc etc.
Similarily in the np pellets reactor.
The biofilm is not easily removed by skimming nor is it easily removed by increase flow through the pellet reactors. Any bacteria that does become water borne is easily removed by skimming. This keeps the system healthy and stops the accumulation of unwanted forms of bacteria ie cyano.
The reason we want lots of flow through the reactors is to bring more nitrates and phosphates to the bacteria and not the other way around.
If you dose the system with carbon then you are increasing the bacteria level in the system and this can cause some problems that switching to the pellet reactors solved

[flyin2jz]

I sure can tell when the reactor is off. I had a pump fail this week and the tank was quickly covered in brown film. Got it back online yesterday and it's gone this morning. Pretty amazing stuff for sure. Added a few more pellets for fun also. If ur on the fence give it a shot u will be glad u did.

[Aquarist007]

I sure can tell when the reactor is off. I had a pump fail this week and the tank was quickly covered in brown film. Got it back online yesterday and it's gone this morning. Pretty amazing stuff for sure. Added a few more pellets for fun also. If ur on the fence give it a shot u will be glad u did.

I agree with you completly--I see the same thing if the reactor gets plugged:thumbsup:

[Aquarist007]

IMO this is a useful thread to follow with this one.

Most people get caught up in the use of carbon dosing for reducing nitrates and phosphates.
Another great use is for allowing us to create a more nutrient rich environment for our corals.
But, you have to increase your feeding along with the np pellets and have a very good skimmer.
It's not bacteria that increase coral growth, although it seems to get the credit for it--its the increase in nutrients that you are allowed to create due to the work of the bacteria on the biofilm of the pellets

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1843241

[larryfl1]

i need some advice...

i have been running just under 2 liters of pellets on a reef octopus reactor... nitrates have stayed low around 3-4 and phosphates are go from .08 to .3 depending if i use gfo...

this has been for about 10-12 weeks....

i just moved everything to my newly received reef dynamics react... (very nice..)

so the question is why do i not see phosphates or nitrates dropping further..they just stay around the same levels...

tank size is about 325 gallons....

do i need more pellets???

thoughts / advice???

[sirreal63]

those parameters are well within the testing range of error. I would leave it and watch the tank to see if it is high or low.

[sirreal63]

ThankCapn fro bring your observations and keeping this thread relevent. I apologize ahead of time for my rambling thoughts, I had back surgery last week and am still heavily medicated, so my thought process's are hindered.

Any bacteria that does become water borne is easily removed by skimming. This keeps the system healthy and stops the accumulation of unwanted forms of bacteria ie cyano.

Capn...have you discovered something different than the AA articled discussed, where the rate of removal was only 28-39% at max and best case scenario? Sources?
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2011/3/aafeature
It also points to much lower bacteria counts in a carbon dosed reef tank, and that skimming is not effective in removal of excess bacteria.


The reason we want lots of flow through the reactors is to bring more nitrates and phosphates to the bacteria and not the other way around.
We really want to bring them what they can consume with the turn rate in the reactor, but based on the science that I have found, it is the oxygen that seems to be the limiting factor, have you found something else?
http://scialert.net/fulltext/?doi=jfas.2012.150.161&org=10
This article seems to be suggesting that the increase in oxygen levels corresponds to an increase of bacteria in the system.


My experience agrees somewhat, but do we want the flow so high that bacteria leave the reactor in large quantities from being sloughed off or do we want to contain them as much as possible? Only asking here, because I have run high flow and low flow and have recently been just running them in the bottom of a canister filter and have found no difference in keeping my parameters in check. High flow did however cause the pellets to lose size much faster.

If you dose the system with carbon then you are increasing the bacteria level in the system and this can cause some problems that switching to the pellet reactors solved
Explain, having done liquid and solid carbon dosing since about 2005/6, I see very little difference in the end result, but find the pellets easier.

[drtrash]

Been running biopellets for a year but have had Cyano (brown) for last few months and can't seem to get rid of it. Should I take pellets offline or what. N & P are 0

[kzooreefer]

Some people also speculate that instead of skimming bacteria, carbon dosing mostly skims byproducts of the bacteria's metabolism. I have no idea what the primary export actually is, personally.

To my understanding the only metabolic by-product is nitrogen gas. The bacteria that can utilize carbon and nitrates are facultative anaerobes and live in the water column. In the presence of oxygen they will use it as the electron donor and not the nitrogen. But if you drive up the carbon raising the C/N ratio makes the bactria utilize the nitrogen and not the oxygen. This is how the wastewater treatment industry uses Klebsiell sp. of bacteria to denitrify wastewater using ethanol as the carbon source. As for the phosphate the majority is used up when the bacteria mutliply for cellular construction. So to export phosphate you need to remove the bacteria from the system thats where the skimmer comes in.

[bertoni]

I suspect that the bacteria we are feeding have more outputs than nitrogen gas. For various reasons, people have claimed that the main export is not bacteria, but bacterial byproducts, but I don't know of any large amount of hard data, if any at all.

[Aquarist007]

Been running biopellets for a year but have had Cyano (brown) for last few months and can't seem to get rid of it. Should I take pellets offline or what. N & P are 0

I had a similar problem with that for about 4 months in one the tanks I look after. I finally gave up on the standard methods and used Red Slime remover and turned the lights off for three days. Gone--that easy--and no harm to the system

[Aquarist007]

To my understanding the only metabolic by-product is nitrogen gas. The bacteria that can utilize carbon and nitrates are facultative anaerobes and live in the water column. In the presence of oxygen they will use it as the electron donor and not the nitrogen. But if you drive up the carbon raising the C/N ratio makes the bactria utilize the nitrogen and not the oxygen. This is how the wastewater treatment industry uses Klebsiell sp. of bacteria to denitrify wastewater using ethanol as the carbon source. As for the phosphate the majority is used up when the bacteria mutliply for cellular construction. So to export phosphate you need to remove the bacteria from the system thats where the skimmer comes in.

I understand and agree with most of what you are stating.
I was under the understanding, however, that anerobic bacteria ---esp the denitrifiers had to live in a less then aerobic conditon such as the inner regions of reef rock?

[Aquarist007]

ThankCapn fro bring your observations and keeping this thread relevent. I apologize ahead of time for my rambling thoughts, I had back surgery last week and am still heavily medicated, so my thought process's are hindered.

Hope you are recovering. I have to apologize that I have not read that article yet.When I find time to read it I will answer your posts.

[Mrmole]

Dear you all, please excuse my intrusion but I being a beginner in this hobby and to this forum, I got lost on this 170+ replies thread. Can someone please recap with a simple answer for me if of course there is such an answer: Can these pellets replace vodka dosing? Thank you all.

[bertoni]

In some cases, yes. Tanks seem to behave differently with carbon dosing, though.

[Mrmole]

Thank you bertoni, do you recommend me using this method? Having in mind that I just started reefing a year ago, switched from freshwater. I am dosing vodka at 50ml/day with NO3 @ 10ppm on a 100g system (including sump) with sps and little lps. I have only a hippo tang and 3 clowns, a chromi and damsel. i feed everyday with JBL flakes very little portion just as little as I can grab on my finger tips.

[bertoni]

If you want to try something else, pellets might be okay. What's the goal? Less maintenance?

[Mrmole]

Yes sir, less maintenance. Since I never used pellets before I bought little fishies plastic pellets today see how it goes before switching again to the vodka solids when they are available.

[Aquarist007]

Yes sir, less maintenance. Since I never used pellets before I bought little fishies plastic pellets today see how it goes before switching again to the vodka solids when they are available.

have you tested for nitrates and phosphates as yet. If they are zero and you have little to no visible algae then it is possible that you don't need to carbon dose at all.
The only advantage of carbon dosing with undetectable nitrates and phosphates might be to allow you to overfeed your tank making a more nutrient rich environment for corals

[sirreal63]

Capn...he is already dosing carbon via vodka at 50ml/day with NO3 @ 10ppm on a 100g system. :-)

Mrmole, when you make the switch, start with about 1/4 of the recommended dose and test daily, add pellets until nutrients reach a stasis. It may take several days in between each pellet addition to get the nutrients where you want them. Out of curiosity what did the PO4 test at? The pellets can and do replace the liquid carbon, to answer your question.

[Mrmole]

OOPS... sorry i meant dosing vodka 5ml/day... 50ml/day would be a little off...

[Aquarist007]

ThankCapn fro bring your observations and keeping this thread relevent. I apologize ahead of time for my rambling thoughts, I had back surgery last week and am still heavily medicated, so my thought process's are hindered.

Hi Jack
Hope you are feeling better.
My thoughts from the article--sorry for not returing your post earlier but IMO there should be a discussion of it which does not seem to have happened here.
1. From first hand experience I feel that the skimmers function is to remove dead bacteria from the system.
Now I believe that dead bacteria does not thrive in the bacteria film and thus the skimmer will be affective in reducing it
The article did not mention where the bacteria counts were just live bacteria, dead or a combination of both.
Thus it is difficult to conclude from that article that the skimmer is not affective in reducing the dead populations of bacteria.

2. We are aware that the bacteria exist and multiply etc in a biofilm. Again how is the measurement of this taken since these bacteria are not water borne.

3."My experience agrees somewhat, but do we want the flow so high that bacteria leave the reactor in large quantities from being sloughed off or do we want to contain them as much as possible? Only asking here, because I have run high flow and low flow and have recently been just running them in the bottom of a canister filter and have found no difference in keeping my parameters in check. High flow did however cause the pellets to lose size much faster."

This has been much in debate in my area(Southern Ontario)
Do you run the pellets in a reactor or cannister or just in a bag in the sump.
One very experienced reefer and respected colleague runs the pellets in a bag in the sump--when I questioned this he stated that in order for nitrate reduction the bacteria had to be in an anerobic condition and that this was negated by pellets moving quickly in an external reactor.

I would really appreciate a discussion by you and others on this point.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

This has been much in debate in my area(Southern Ontario)
Do you run the pellets in a reactor or cannister or just in a bag in the sump.
One very experienced reefer and respected colleague runs the pellets in a bag in the sump--when I questioned this he stated that in order for nitrate reduction the bacteria had to be in an anerobic condition and that this was negated by pellets moving quickly in an external reactor.

I would really appreciate a discussion by you and others on this point.

There are at least two issues here.

The first is that for organic carbon dosing of any kind to work (and by that I mean reduce N and P), there need not be any anaerobic consumption of the organic. Simple aerobic growth of bacteria takes up a lot of N and P as they incorporate these into their tissues and then are exported or consumed by other creatures 9or just build up tissue mass in the system).

The second is that a biofilm may form on the pellet surface, and at the bottom of the biofilm, where the bacteria are actively degrading the pellets, oxygen may be in relatively short supply. In that case, nitrate may serve in place of O2, causing a larger reduction of nitrate than is proportional to the phosphate that is taken up. This is the traditional anaerobic respiration that takes place in live rock and deep sand, etc. So one need not necessarily have the water surrounding the pellets be low in O2 for anaerobic respiration to take place. However, it may (or may not) happen more extensively if the water does have reduced O2. In any case, that difference won;'t impact phosphate reduction. :)

[Mrmole]

great questions. I am also looking forward to the answers.

Hi Jack
Hope you are feeling better.
My thoughts from the article--sorry for not returing your post earlier but IMO there should be a discussion of it which does not seem to have happened here.
1. From first hand experience I feel that the skimmers function is to remove dead bacteria from the system.
Now I believe that dead bacteria does not thrive in the bacteria film and thus the skimmer will be affective in reducing it
The article did not mention where the bacteria counts were just live bacteria, dead or a combination of both.
Thus it is difficult to conclude from that article that the skimmer is not affective in reducing the dead populations of bacteria.

2. We are aware that the bacteria exist and multiply etc in a biofilm. Again how is the measurement of this taken since these bacteria are not water borne.

3."My experience agrees somewhat, but do we want the flow so high that bacteria leave the reactor in large quantities from being sloughed off or do we want to contain them as much as possible? Only asking here, because I have run high flow and low flow and have recently been just running them in the bottom of a canister filter and have found no difference in keeping my parameters in check. High flow did however cause the pellets to lose size much faster."

This has been much in debate in my area(Southern Ontario)
Do you run the pellets in a reactor or cannister or just in a bag in the sump.
One very experienced reefer and respected colleague runs the pellets in a bag in the sump--when I questioned this he stated that in order for nitrate reduction the bacteria had to be in an anerobic condition and that this was negated by pellets moving quickly in an external reactor.

I would really appreciate a discussion by you and others on this point.

[Aquarist007]

There are at least two issues here.

The first is that for organic carbon dosing of any kind to work (and by that I mean reduce N and P), there need not be any anaerobic consumption of the organic. Simple aerobic growth of bacteria takes up a lot of N and P as they incorporate these into their tissues and then are exported or consumed by other creatures 9or just build up tissue mass in the system).

The second is that a biofilm may form on the pellet surface, and at the bottom of the biofilm, where the bacteria are actively degrading the pellets, oxygen may be in relatively short supply. In that case, nitrate may serve in place of O2, causing a larger reduction of nitrate than is proportional to the phosphate that is taken up. This is the traditional anaerobic respiration that takes place in live rock and deep sand, etc. So one need not necessarily have the water surrounding the pellets be low in O2 for anaerobic respiration to take place. However, it may (or may not) happen more extensively if the water does have reduced O2. In any case, that difference won;'t impact phosphate reduction. :)

thank you--ask for help and you get the best:beer:

I am confused by the first answer. I was taught that within the nitrogen cycle that it was aerobic bacteria that converted ammonia to nitrites.
It was the anerobic bacteria --two strains-one converted nitrites to nitrates and the other nitrates to nitrogen gas.
From what I am reading aerobic bacteria also uptake nitrates?
I realize that is a very simplist view--but I am in the maintenance business and always geared filtration methods away from bioballs etc to live rock because it was the live rock that could support the anerobic bacteria to reduce the nitrates

[bertoni]

Nitrate is used as an oxidizer by anaerobic microbes, I think. Nitrogen is a macro-nutrient and I thought that many aerobic organisms can take up nitrate and use it for all the proteins and other nitrogen-containing compounds produced by growth.

[Aquarist007]

Nitrate is used as an oxidizer by anaerobic microbes, I think. Nitrogen is a macro-nutrient and I thought that many aerobic organisms can take up nitrate and use it for all the proteins and other nitrogen-containing compounds produced by growth.

I understand what you are saying as far as aerobic bacteria using "some" nitrates.It must be a very small amt in proportion used by anaerobic bacterize otherwise our systems could live on bioballs and we not need live rock, which we know is not true:)

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Yes, bacteria growing anaerobically use nitrate both as an N source to produce their own tissues, and as a source of "oxygen", producing N2. Aerobic bacteria use it only for building tissues.

But, driving enough aerobic bacterial growth with an added carbon source can potentially drive N and P down if sufficient amounts are added. :)

[Aquarist007]

Yes, bacteria growing anaerobically use nitrate both as an N source to produce their own tissues, and as a source of "oxygen", producing N2. Aerobic bacteria use it only for building tissues.

But, driving enough aerobic bacterial growth with an added carbon source can potentially drive N and P down if sufficient amounts are added. :)

this is very very useful information---thanks very much:thumbsup::thumbsup:

[tntneon]

Yes, bacteria growing anaerobically use nitrate both as an N source to produce their own tissues, and as a source of "oxygen", producing N2. Aerobic bacteria use it only for building tissues.

But, driving enough aerobic bacterial growth with an added carbon source can potentially drive N and P down if sufficient amounts are added. :)

+1 ,again learned alot from you Randy :beer:
So one could conclude that when having High N your better of with more anaerobic condintions ( meshbag ) , as here the bactria consumes no3 for tissue buildup and needs no3 to asperate (o2)---> reducing it directly into N² gas.

-What are your thoughts concerning flow in a carbon driven reeftank (high or low) , i tend to think when having poor flow or a deadspot that bacteria and detrius sedements in that area .
And can act as a nutrient sinck.
So my thought are more flow when carbon dosing.

-last week i added some pellets that i contained in a jar filled with fresh water , that had been standing there for half a year.
Oh man did that stinks !!!!! the smell of rotten egg was immense and not healthy , i almost got nausea from it.
Outside i rinsed the pellets untill they didn't stink anymore , before adding in my reactor.
I didn't whitnessed any rotten egg smell.
Leaving me to think that enough flow is needed to prevent sulphuric gas (H²S aka rotten egg).
Once in the reactor they do there job in keeping everything in check.


greetingzz tntneon (John) :)

[Aquarist007]

+1 ,again learned alot from you Randy :beer:
So one could conclude that when having High N your better of with more anaerobic condintions ( meshbag ) , as here the bactria consumes no3 for tissue buildup and needs no3 to asperate (o2)---> reducing it directly into N² gas.


I believe we also could extrapolate if having nitrate problems ===add more live rock--somewhere in the system display tank, sump, refugium

[cherubfish pair]

Don't forget the nitrifying anaerobic bacteria in the liverock cannot be harvested for nutrient export. That's what protein skimmers do for the pellets. They harvest for nutrient export. Just my 2 cents.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Yes, more live rock can help denitrification, and adding organic carbon can as well, since that process may be carbon limited in many cases. :)

There may be many reasons to set a particular flow, but I'm not sure exactly how denitrification relates to flow. To much flow through sediments may make the water never become anaerobic, but a little will help bring organics and nitrate into the right areas. :)

[sirreal63]

Thanks Capn, I am better, still on pain meds but not as much. I was away this weekend and stuck using an ipad for posting, and wasn't going to try and type this much on it. There is no place like home.

Hi Jack
Hope you are feeling better.
My thoughts from the article--sorry for not returing your post earlier but IMO there should be a discussion of it which does not seem to have happened here.
1. From first hand experience I feel that the skimmers function is to remove dead bacteria from the system. I agree and I can see the difference in my skim when VSV or pellets are being used.
Now I believe that dead bacteria does not thrive in the bacteria film and thus the skimmer will be affective in reducing it Actually I don't think dead bacteria thrive in any conditions, they are, well, dead, but I understand what you are saying. :-)
The article did not mention where the bacteria counts were just live bacteria, dead or a combination of both.
Thus it is difficult to conclude from that article that the skimmer is not affective in reducing the dead populations of bacteria. No they did not, but I don't think they counted the bacteria by hand, and could only estimate total amounts, both dead and living, I am not sure if they have the ability to differentiate between the two, so I read it as total bacterial count.

2. We are aware that the bacteria exist and multiply etc in a biofilm. Again how is the measurement of this taken since these bacteria are not water borne. Are you sure the bacteria are not water borne? If they were not then where does the bacterial bloom come from? Have I been falsely working under the assumption that bacteria are in the water and on all surfaces in the tank? It is my understanding that bacteria can be be water and air borne, which makes sense to a lay person. :-)

3."My experience agrees somewhat, but do we want the flow so high that bacteria leave the reactor in large quantities from being sloughed off or do we want to contain them as much as possible? Only asking here, because I have run high flow and low flow and have recently been just running them in the bottom of a canister filter and have found no difference in keeping my parameters in check. High flow did however cause the pellets to lose size much faster."

This has been much in debate in my area(Southern Ontario)
Do you run the pellets in a reactor or cannister or just in a bag in the sump.
One very experienced reefer and respected colleague runs the pellets in a bag in the sump--when I questioned this he stated that in order for nitrate reduction the bacteria had to be in an anerobic condition and that this was negated by pellets moving quickly in an external reactor. I have run them in a fast moving reactor, a slow moving reactor and in the bottom of a canister filter with GFO and carbon. None of these have shown any difference in nutrient reduction, they all have worked the same. Early on before commercial entities began saying a reactor was the way to run them, people hung them in bags and open top containers and they worked and were not tumbling. I am not so sure that hanging them in a bag would produce anoxic conditions for any great length of time, oxygen is abundant in most reef tanks and is not a limiting factor, even in a bag in a sump there is water movement around and thru the bag and if nutrients are finding their way inside the bag, it almost makes some sense that oxygen is too. I don't think I would intentionally try and run them in true anaerobic conditions, but that may work to a degree as well as Randy has pointed out, but I would be afraid of the dangers of running them that way.

I would really appreciate a discussion by you and others on this point.

What got me looking into the way we are using these pellets is the flood of reactors on the market, some seem silly to me, and made me question it. Having used them in a variety of ways effectively, and remembering that when we started with them, people used them in numerous ways, and they seemed to work just as well. This led my feeble mind to wonder if we really needed to tumble them, my own experience did not prove that we did, as they do not tumble in my canister filter.

I look at videos like this, and wonder if it is an environment conducive to bacterial growth, or if it hinders them, and just grinds them up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3ZXKWzJBEI&feature=player_embedded

http://youtu.be/m3ZXKWzJBEI

In my own fast moving reactor the pellets were losing size much more quickly than the slow moving one. I attributed this to friction, not increased bacterial growth and the nutrient levels remained the same whether they were moving fast or not at all. With the pellets crashing violently into each other, it would seem to not only slough off dead bacteria, but live ones as well. I am curious if anyone knows if it makes a difference in reality. Randy, I would enjoy your input on this, your knowledge is always welcomed, I think I have learned more from you than anyone on RC.

[Bugger]

There may be many reasons to set a particular flow, but I'm not sure exactly how denitrification relates to flow. To much flow through sediments may make the water never become anaerobic, but a little will help bring organics and nitrate into the right areas.

So you mean no oxygen correct. Is there a positve to having the pellets tumble or do you believe that it might have a negitive effect, Or do you not know.
Do these pellets work better in or out of a reactor. Will they still work to any effect in a overflo box.

[cherubfish pair]

I don't think vodka, vinegar, or sugar could lend themselves to denitrification as well as pellets if the proper flow directs the sloughed bacteria from the pellets into a skimmer's intake of water. The bacteria from vodka, vinegar, or sugar is not directed into a skimmer's intake of water for proper harvesting of nutrient export where the excess nutrients are contained in the tissues of these bacteria.

[bertoni]

The pellets seem to require a lot of flow to keep them from sticking together and forming anoxic zones. I'd stick to a reactor, personally.

[cherubfish pair]

I emailed Reef Dynamics again about his nano pellet reactor and he has more plans for it now.

Here is the email:

Thank you for your e-mail. We are currently preparing for the MAX trade show at the end of the month. It is possible that I will have a prototype of the Nano-BPR at the show, but at this time there is not an official timeline for release. It will be desgined for systems up to 50 gallons.



Please let me know if you have any further questions, I will be happy to help.

Sincerely,
<img title="signature image" alt="" border="0">
Jeff Macaré

[Bugger]

The pellets seem to require a lot of flow to keep them from sticking together and forming anoxic zones. I'd stick to a reactor, personally
I know your probally right although dont we want anoxic zones for the type of bacteria we want to grow,

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

In my own fast moving reactor the pellets were losing size much more quickly than the slow moving one. I attributed this to friction, not increased bacterial growth and the nutrient levels remained the same whether they were moving fast or not at all. With the pellets crashing violently into each other, it would seem to not only slough off dead bacteria, but live ones as well. I am curious if anyone knows if it makes a difference in reality. Randy, I would enjoy your input on this, your knowledge is always welcomed, I think I have learned more from you than anyone on RC.

Thanks! :)

I can certainly believe that fast tumbling makes the pellets disappear faster. I can think of a number of reasons, as you have mentioned, and which one or ones it is might be hard to determine. I'm not even sure whether a thicker coating of bacteria on the pellets would make the pellets break down slower or faster.

Part of that uncertainty comes from not knowing what is the limiting factor is the breakdown of the polymer into consumable smaller bits like monomers. Do these polymers hydrolyze even in the absence of bacteria, or do bacteria speed the process greatly, perhaps by locally lowering the pH (which is well known to accelerate the hydrolysis of such chemical bonds as hold the pellets together)? If so, how much is that pH lowering impacted by availability of nutrients and the thickness of the bacteria layer? A thick layer will hold in CO2 better, lowering the pH, but it might exclude nutrients like N and P from getting to the surface, slowing CO2 production. Simple hydrolysis of the compound itself will produce acidic conditions, and a thicker coating of bacteira may hold that in better, accelerating the process.

How localized is the effect to the very outer layer of material, or does it get weakened deeper into the plastic, allowing for the possibility of tumbling and bumping to break out larger chunks that might otherwise stay in place longer?

[sirreal63]

Isn't it great when questions only bring on more questions? :-)

I am not sure there is one right answer, these products haven't worked exactly the same in everyone's tank. Some had zero nutrient reduction with them, others had bacterial blooms, heavy cyano, white bacterial masses covering the rock and tank, etc. Some of us have had them work exactly as liquid carbon, so I am not sure we will ever nail down a perfect formula for success.

[tntneon]

Isn't it great when questions only bring on more questions? :-)

I am not sure there is one right answer, these products haven't worked exactly the same in everyone's tank. Some had zero nutrient reduction with them, others had bacterial blooms, heavy cyano, white bacterial masses covering the rock and tank, etc. Some of us have had them work exactly as liquid carbon, so I am not sure we will ever nail down a perfect formula for success.

+1 , :)

-If thicker layers of bactria would exist in the outer layer of slowmoving pellets , and with more CO2 would build up in these layers , wouldn't that be the limiting factor for bacterial growth .
In other words , do we not want the excesive CO2 to be removed ?
With more flow.

-I just changed my pellet reactor it is now a longer , but smaller in diameter concical vaze.
Due to this form i now have much faster movement , the only difference is that the reactor bottom is clean no detrius or others keep behind in the reactor , the tank looks the same , healthy and clear water :)

greetingzz tntneon :)

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

+1 , :)

-If thicker layers of bactria would exist in the outer layer of slowmoving pellets , and with more CO2 would build up in these layers , wouldn't that be the limiting factor for bacterial growth .
In other words , do we not want the excesive CO2 to be removed ?
With more flow.


Low pH might mean pH 7 or 6. That's a fine pH for bacterial growth, and if it means more food is released, that may be good.

I'm not certain about pellets, but the ester groups that are breaking down are acid catalyzed when present in dissolved molecules, and so each full pH unit below pH 7 means a factor of 10 increase in hydrolysis rate.

They may also be base catalyzed, in which case every full pH unit above pH 7 can mean a factor of 10 increase in hydrolysis rate.

So it isn't clear what pH is "optimal". :)

[cherubfish pair]

+1 , :)

-If thicker layers of bactria would exist in the outer layer of slowmoving pellets , and with more CO2 would build up in these layers , wouldn't that be the limiting factor for bacterial growth .
In other words , do we not want the excesive CO2 to be removed ?
With more flow.

greetingzz tntneon :)
BTW, is there a hobbyist CO2 test kit?

[bertoni]

No, there's no useful carbon dioxide test kit for saltwater. You can get a meter, I think, but they are quite pricey, as I recall.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

CO2 is easily determined by knowing the pH and the carbonate alkalinity. If pH is low, CO2 is high, etc. :)

[Aquarist007]

Great discussion gentlemen:beer:

Could you not measure the pH of the water leaving the reactor and use that measurement to determine the effectiveness of the pellets and reactor?

[Aquarist007]

Yes, more live rock can help denitrification, and adding organic carbon can as well, since that process may be carbon limited in many cases. :)

There may be many reasons to set a particular flow, but I'm not sure exactly how denitrification relates to flow. To much flow through sediments may make the water never become anaerobic, but a little will help bring organics and nitrate into the right areas. :)

This brings us back to the basic delima of whether to use carbon dosing eg vodka or polymers in a reactor

I was always taught to keep the flow low in a rock refugium to give the bacteria a chance to work on the water column.

[Aquarist007]

So you mean no oxygen correct. Is there a positve to having the pellets tumble or do you believe that it might have a negitive effect, Or do you not know.
Do these pellets work better in or out of a reactor. Will they still work to any effect in a overflo box.

Bugger,
an anerobic area is an area low in oxygen
an anoxic area is an area devoid of oxygen
The strains of bacteria we are referring to here in the nitrogen cycle can't survive in an anoxic area

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

This brings us back to the basic delima of whether to use carbon dosing eg vodka or polymers in a reactor

I was always taught to keep the flow low in a rock refugium to give the bacteria a chance to work on the water column.

While my refugia naturally have low flow, I cannot imagine that the bacteria would not grow well in higher flow around the rocks. On live rock, they can get into pores and such where flow is lower, if they want to. :)

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Great discussion gentlemen:beer:

Could you not measure the pH of the water leaving the reactor and use that measurement to determine the effectiveness of the pellets and reactor?

Maybe, but I doubt the effect is large enough to accurately detect the difference unless the flow is quite slow. :)

[KingAmir]

Hi Randy Holmes-Farley,

I'm a BIG fan of vinegar dosing. Currently i'm experienced Good Nitrate and Phosphate reduction in my tank. BUT, My Question is, i've reach to a point which is My Phosphate is 0 ppm but i still gt excess nitrate in my tank 1-2ppm. What does it means?

My undestanding is, Bacteria will digest - Vinegar + Nitrate and Phosphate. When the Phosphate is undetectable but Nitrate still spike, is it possible with further addition of vinegar it will reduce Nitrate? :headwally:

Thx in advance.

[bertoni]

Our measurement equipment has limited accuracy, so it's possible that dosing will reduce the nitrate further even if the phosphate is undetectable. Another issue is that organisms might be able to get phosphorus from sources other than phosphate.

[KingAmir]

Our measurement equipment has limited accuracy, so it's possible that dosing will reduce the nitrate further even if the phosphate is undetectable. Another issue is that organisms might be able to get phosphorus from sources other than phosphate.

Thx Bertoni.

Your opinion could make sense on this matter. But, Do u know or even can find a literature review on "what baceria that has been cultivated" in major vinegar carbon source?

[bertoni]

I've never seen anything like that. You could try the various online aquarium magazines, I guess.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Hi Randy Holmes-Farley,

I'm a BIG fan of vinegar dosing. Currently i'm experienced Good Nitrate and Phosphate reduction in my tank. BUT, My Question is, i've reach to a point which is My Phosphate is 0 ppm but i still gt excess nitrate in my tank 1-2ppm. What does it means?

My undestanding is, Bacteria will digest - Vinegar + Nitrate and Phosphate. When the Phosphate is undetectable but Nitrate still spike, is it possible with further addition of vinegar it will reduce Nitrate? :headwally:

.

Yes, vinegar will generally lower nitrate more than phosphate and the ratio is not fixed.

Howe are you testing phosphate?

[KingAmir]

Yes, vinegar will generally lower nitrate more than phosphate and the ratio is not fixed.

Howe are you testing phosphate?

Thx Randy,

I send my water to LFS here in Malaysia. He do check phosphate for me using Hanna Checker and the Nitrate using DD Solution. I hope, i day i can get undetectable nitrate.
FYI, i am using Deltec APF600 Skimming, and the result was very good dark & more bubble in skimmate.But, now my maintenance dosage already reach 40ml daily vinegar.
I do not see any negative impact in my tank, since all my coral and sps were doing ok.I need ur opinion ABOUT my maintenance and my NP reading randy. It is weird i reach UNDETECTABLE PHOSPHATE but still get excess NITRATE.

[Bugger]

Why not gt the best of both world! dose the vinegar and use he pellets. Its highly unlikely that the pellets can compete with all the surface area that the bacteria can grow on in your tank threw venegar dosing. No.
btw Im new to this and can you tell me how much venegar is to be dosed. my tan is 100gal

[KingAmir]

Why not gt the best of both world! dose the vinegar and use he pellets. Its highly unlikely that the pellets can compete with all the surface area that the bacteria can grow on in your tank threw venegar dosing. No.
btw Im new to this and can you tell me how much venegar is to be dosed. my tan is 100gal Hi Bugger, you should read and understand carbon dosing approach to reduce NP in ur tank.Pls visit this link http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2008-08/nftt/index.php EVERY tank is different. I guess it is counter productive TO run Biopellets and vinegar dosing at the same time.

[Aquarist007]

Hi Bugger, you should read and understand carbon dosing approach to reduce NP in ur tank.Pls visit this link http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2008-08/nftt/index.php EVERY tank is different. I guess it is counter productive TO run Biopellets and vinegar dosing at the same time.

It's not conterproductive but generally not advised because you are adding another carbon source, increasing the bacteria and chance a bacterial bloom breaking out in your system.
However with an excellent protein skimmer it is possible
I have a few tanks that I maintain where the owners have insisted in overstocking. In those cases where the nitrates and there is physically no more room for live rock I have added two reactors of pellets. This has reduced the nitrates and not caused any problems with excess bacteria

[KingAmir]

It's not conterproductive but generally not advised because you are adding another carbon source, increasing the bacteria and chance a bacterial bloom breaking out in your system.
However with an excellent protein skimmer it is possible
I have a few tanks that I maintain where the owners have insisted in overstocking. In those cases where the nitrates and there is physically no more room for live rock I have added two reactors of pellets. This has reduced the nitrates and not caused any problems with excess bacteria

I Agree with u,

The key here is "POWERFUL SKIMMER" to skim out dead bacteria and organic compound.

[Aquarist007]

Here are some keys points from an article. The article is by a commericial product manufacturer that might not be a sponsor on here so I will not link to it. I am not copying more then 10 per cent of it so I think I am safe.
IMO it seems to contract what is posted here about the production of hetertrophic bacteria and there use in our systems so I would appreciate input

Key Points

True nitrifying bacteria are strictly aerobic autotrophs. They can only use nitrogen from inorganic sources such as ammonia and nitrite. Nitrosomonas (ammonia-oxidizers) and Nitrobacter (nitrite-oxidizers) are the most common.

Heterotrophic bacteria are generally considered to be organic sludge degraders. They are mostly from the genera Bacillus and Pseudomonas. Most of these are facultative anaerobes; meaning they can function with or without oxygen. They will do completely different functions depending on the level of dissolved oxygen present.

Heterotrophic "nitrifiers" prefer to obtain their nitrogen from organic sources such as decomposing organic debris. Those that can convert ammonia do so only when an organic nitrogen source is not available. This is unlikely to happen in an aquarium or pond where fish are present. The explosion of "nitrifying" bacteria products in the industry is due to research that some heterotrophs can use ammonia-nitrogen. However, this is under ideal laboratory conditions.

Heterotrophic "nitrifiers" generally cannot utilize nitrites. Only a few species are capable of reducing nitrite to free nitrogen, but, under strictly anaerobic conditions.

Scientific studies indicate that, depending on species, between one thousand to one million heterotrophic bacteria cells are required to perform the same ammonia conversion rate as one Nitrosomonas bacteria cell.

"Product x" has a cell count of 30 million bacteria per ounce, 50% of which is Nitrosomonas and 50% Nitrobacter. To obtain the same ammonia conversion rate, a competitive product composed of heterotrophic "nitrifiers" would require the addition of 15 trillion bacteria. This would probably require several gallons of another product. No quantity of heterotrophic "nitrifiers" would reduce the generated nitrites.

Heterotrophic "nitrifiers" can also operate in the reverse direction; that is they can convert nitrate to nitrite or ammonia, especially during times of low dissolved oxygen levels. In a pond, this could potentially happen during the hours before sunrise when DO levels are at their lowest.

There are no dry forms of any bacterial product that can contain viable Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter cells. Unlike heterotrophs, they cannot form spores so they cannot survive any type of drying or freeze-drying process.

[sirreal63]

I have read that before...on the Bio-Spira website circa 2003, and had to do with the nitrogen cycle and why Bio-Spira works where the freeze dried bacteria product did not. Not the same thing as what we are doing with carbon dosing.

[Aquarist007]

what exactly does the mulmum produced in the reactors consist of?

[ReefUrchin]

After reading this whole thread for 2 weeks with every second of my time, I have come up with a few scenarios.

1) On initial purchase of pellets, why not soak them in tank water in a bucket with sugar and a pump, or, even better, in a reactor to work out the kinks. I think that the pellets would only work with what it gets saturated in, hence Daves attempt to add sugar which worked. Soaked in tank water for a millennia didnt do anything, maybe it finally got a deep saturation of something that could biologically activate them. Still makes me wonder why a little, but, if we soak them in sugar for X amount of time it, just before the water gets too funky, they would be charged and ready?

2) Since Peroxide is a bacterial fighting solution, some peroxide in the tank to kill it? Hey, thats another experiment, but possible avenue for cyano?

3) I definitely think pellets and vinegar could be a big hit in the right proportions, but, thats not a true hands off process, but, if you want no cyano, Absolute 0 N and P, I would think using bios to pull down the onslaught of P, then, when cyano kicks in and N is low, back off the pellets while adding vinegar and pulling some pellets and then back off the vinegar until you et a equilibrium going.


Just a few whacky ideas I had to post after all that reading, lol.

[MedRed]

Just an update... I've been running bio pellets since October 2010 on my tank and I've had zero issues with cyano or anything else. I set up my pellets while the tank cycled and didn't add any livestock until 3 months later.

[dowtish]

Just an update... I've been running bio pellets since October 2010 on my tank and I've had zero issues with cyano or anything else. I set up my pellets while the tank cycled and didn't add any livestock until 3 months later.

Same here. Ive been running Ecobak for the life of my tank. Started them as soon as the tank cycled. 18 months now. Not a single issue with it. Absolutely had nothing but great results from it. Although, now that my tank is fully stocked, and I am feeding heavy, i did see my phosphates creep up to 0.26. I added 40ml of new pellets, increased the tumble a bit, and in 3 days it had dropped to 0.08. But would not go down any further. I ended up adding 6 tbl spoons of GFO and now they are 0.02.

It seems to me that folks that add these to their existing systems, were adding too much too fast. Hence the issues.

[Aquarist007]

Getting rid of cyano is a breeze if you use ethromyacin. It doesn't harm fish or corals either.

[Mrmole]

Do you guys have any long term problem with running bio pellets? Like coral losing color? Turning brownish?

[Aquarist007]

Do you guys have any long term problem with running bio pellets? Like coral losing color? Turning brownish?

Just the opposite Mrmole.

The algae in the coral is naturally brown in colour. What can happen in situations without the proper lighting is that the algae multiply in order to compensate for the lack of photosynthesis that they can perform for the coral needs. As they increase their numbers the coral assumes the brown colour.
IMO you need to address your lighting needs and just as importantly the placement of your corals in your tank.
Can you provide details about your lighting and the corals you have?

[Mrmole]

I have been running Pellets for at least 6 months now. I have 15 fish in a 100G tank. They are mostly chromis and anthias, the only big ones are the hippo tang and the yellow tang. Besides I have a tomato and 2 clarkies.

Test: No3 2ppm, Po4 0.04

The lighting fixture is a 2 x MH 150W and 4 T5 actinics.
When you say adjust do I increase or decrease intensity?

[Aquarist007]

I have been running Pellets for at least 6 months now. I have 15 fish in a 100G tank. They are mostly chromis and anthias, the only big ones are the hippo tang and the yellow tang. Besides I have a tomato and 2 clarkies.

Test: No3 2ppm, Po4 0.04

The lighting fixture is a 2 x MH 150W and 4 T5 actinics.
When you say adjust do I increase or decrease intensity?

with the observations you have given me I would say decrease intensity.
This can be accomplished by moving the corals down from the light, reducing the photoperiod and or raising the light fixture.

[thecoralreefer]

Sorry boys but it seems to me that you all still fighting the worst problem in reef keeping.
I want to feed more but my tank gets dirty.
Duh.
I have had several reefs along the way. 29 bio did so well w pc's I did maybe 5/6 wc a year. This thing had a frog and a torch that covered the front of the tank.
yes I had a low bio load but I still believe in 1" for a qft. Why do you need all this extra stuff Just drop your feeding and stimulate the water well. If you think a REEF does not flow then just go swim in Bali or Florida Or Manilla or well get the point?
Feed the fish Just don't pollute the water. Change a filter pads or sock and well, Mechanical works if you use it.

[sirreal63]

Are you saying what works in your tank will work in every tank?