So my tank is 6 weeks old, there's been 3 fish in it for 6 weeks, 8 fish in it for three weeks, and 13 fish in it for 1 week.
I started biopellets when i started the tank.
I've had 0 Ammonia, phosphate, nitrite, and nitrate the entire time. 6 weeks after adding fish, 0 nitrate with no water changes.
I was ready for a water change 3 weeks ago but since nitrates have been 0 I didn't do it.
I'm just wondering if there might be any other bad negative trace element build up for going this long.... I havent heard of anyone going this long with 0 nitrate.
as with all of these after the fact nutrient binders. they are not really helping the system become less eutrophic. they are only getting rid of the nutrients that are in the water column, but are not doing anything about the nutrients building up from the detritus.
the draw backs to using these are an increase in bacterial biomass, which can lead to problems with pH, and the false sense of security that your tank is running fine even though the nutrients are still building up. the pellets are just masking the effects.
PH is stable - your comment doesn't make sense Geoff. I see you as one of these old schoolers that doesn't welcome the new technology. This is pretty awesome, there is no denying it. No crapping on this parade - the biopellets are working great.
Detrius removal is accomplished by skimmers, not by biopellets.
what are you talking about. you do not understand what is going on in the system still. what have i said that does not make sense? i am all for new technology. i was on the forefront for using eductors for flow and for skimmer building. i was on the forefront for using FSB's as a substrate. i am on the forefront for using conical settling tanks for filtration. i am all for using new technology that is helpful. i completely understand what biopellets or any carbon dosing is doing. if the system has a substrate that is not siphoned on a regular basis, then the biopellets and carbon dosing is just a band-aid.
large detritus is removed by the use of the siphon, the skimmer is only able to remove the lightest bits of detritus. the biopellets are only removing the inorganic nutrients in the system by removing the bacteria that feed on them by means of the skimmer.
can biopellets and carbon dosing be used to lower nutrients? yes. it is only effective in those systems that are already setup to be oligotrophic. if not, then carbon dosing is just masking the affects of eutrophication. giving you a false sense of good health. in order to use a tool properly you must first learn how the tool really works and in what situations they are used best in.
i would like to know how you think they work. you are just looking at the results with out actually understanding why the results are what they are. it is this misunderstanding about what exactly is going on that has kept our hobby from progressing. people believing that they are doing something with these pieces of equipment, yet in reality they are just masking the real problem. the system is still building up nutrients because of the build up of detritus.
then carbon dosing is just masking the affects of eutrophication. giving you a false sense of good health. in order to use a tool properly you must first learn how the tool really works and in what situations they are used best in.
Well, then doesn't that mean that a skimmer is only "masking the effects of eutrophication"... actually...all filtration not just skimmers as all our filtration systems work on the water column and not the detritus(well except biological that breaks down detritus).
i dont have any detrius accumulation - that's what I am saying. You keep saying "masking the problem" when there is none. Skimmers remove nutrients from the system.
How do I achieve no detrius accumulation? High flow, no sand bed, and great skimmers.
The biopellets are working awesome in binding unwanted elements which are removed by the skimmers - they do leave the system, there is no "masking of the problem" going on.
Your'e trying to crap on a good news parade without any actual facts that apply to my tank.
I understand what you are saying that in some systems - IE sand bed, low flow where detrius collects more, that biopellets don't take care of all problems in teh world.
But who believes that?
No-one ever says "I have bio pellets so I don't need to remove detrius"
In my opinion Bio-pellets may end up being as revolutionary to reef keeping as skimmers have been. But there are too many old schoolers out there that when a good story is heralded on the capabilities, they come in and try to crap on the parade.
Your comments above are not relevant - everyone knows (if detrius collects) you have to manually remove it.
Thankfully so far - the only detrius colleciton in my tank is a thin film on the glass bottom that I rub off weekly which then get's dkimmed off.
I understand what you are saying that in some systems - IE sand bed, low flow where detrius collects more, that biopellets don't take care of all problems in teh world.
But who believes that?
No-one ever says "I have bio pellets so I don't need to remove detrius"
In my opinion Bio-pellets may end up being as revolutionary to reef keeping as skimmers have been. But there are too many old schoolers out there that when a good story is heralded on the capabilities, they come in and try to crap on the parade.
Your comments above are not relevant - everyone knows (if detrius collects) you have to manually remove it.
Thankfully so far - the only detrius colleciton in my tank is a thin film on the glass bottom that I rub off weekly which then get's dkimmed off.
you are new to reefing. it has only been recently that people are finally realizing that detritus needs to be siphoned.
biopellets are not revolutionary. they are just another way of dosing carbon. carbon dosing could be revolutionary. biopellets is still only affecting the water going through them. vodka dosing is actually going after the nutrients within the water column of the display. this is only revolutionary for those looking to truly replicate an oligotrophic environment. it is just another tool to be misused by everyone else, just like DSB's, live sumps, macro, GFO, whatever the nutrient binder de jour is.
as for my comments before i was just clarifying how they work. i read through your signature and did not catch the lower case bb, my fault. with all of the capitals you have in there i was looking for BB. you are using this tool properly and this should be emphasized. this is not a tool to be used by people with eutrophic environments trying to fix an algae problem. it is not going to fix the problem, but it will mask it until it really gets out of hand.
as for detrital removal, even in my 100x flow tank i had to siphon detritus every week from somewhere. mainly in my sump, but even on occasion in the display as sand developed from the LR.
Wait, so you added fish the same week you initially set up your tank? With no cycling ever?
While I dont doubt what you're saying and am not calling you a liar, you'd have to understand the apprehension at such a claim. I would also like to see how your tank is doing in 4, 8, and 12 months. If it stays stable, I think thats a great way to speed enough the tank timeline.
but it was a light cycling - i didn't put a shrimp in or something, the rocks were giving off trace amounts nutrients which it cycled through. So I think the biopellets did enable a quicker cycle - but not from scratch.
Geoff -if I'm seeing the same results for the next 6 months - your comment that they are not revolutionary will look bad on your own expertise.
The fact that I could add a reactor and pellets and have it remove all these bad elements is an awesome story - more people need to understand how great these work.
Geoff -if I'm seeing the same results for the next 6 months - your comment that they are not revolutionary will look bad on your own expertise.
The fact that I could add a reactor and pellets and have it remove all these bad elements is an awesome story - more people need to understand how great these work.
but it is just another way of "dosing" carbon. the use of carbon it revolutionary. bio-pellets is just an evolutionary step. it would not have occurred without sugar dosing.
I am completely confused by this thread. Biopellets do not address cycling. I am not even sure if the OPer is using the correct terms here.
Biopellets are a form of carbon dosing (and yes, I am a doser)... it is a flawed approach but still a form. They do not address the bacterial population in the tank. Even then, it takes weeks for bio-pellets to become active and even then, if not properly aligned with a skimmer (I think recirc skimmers or water-pump fed skimmers should only use biopellets), they are not effective. Still, dosing is not recommended for young tanks. They must be 6 month to a year old in my opinion and be oligotrophic.
Geoff's point here is very important
can biopellets and carbon dosing be used to lower nutrients? yes. it is only effective in those systems that are already setup to be oligotrophic. if not, then carbon dosing is just masking the affects of eutrophication. giving you a false sense of good health. in order to use a tool properly you must first learn how the tool really works and in what situations they are used best in.
Both are a carbon source that plays into the theory that the bacterial populations of specific bacteria are carbon limited. If we cultivate these bacteria population with additional carbon then the physiological properties of bacteria (mass growth) will consume other available nutrients (often in concentrations that are extremely low to begin with) that we can skim out by exporting bacteria in the water column. Liquid dosing applies the carbon to the water column while pellets apply it to benthic (surface) environments. As a result, you have to knock off the benthic bacteria to skim it out of the system. Unfortunately, this is less consistent than already having the bacteria in the water column. In addition, there is no guarantee that the benthic bacterial mass will make it to the skimmer but there is at least guarantee that the water-born carbon using bacteria will get to the skimmer for as long as the skimmer is able to process the system. Because the liquid dosing is much more effective there is a higher risk of overdosing which is the result of massive bacterial growth consuming all available oxygen in the system. It is very similar to a hypoxic/anoxic fish-kill seen in natural environments.
Now, I do not recommend carbon for regular nutrient control. Remember, the more nutrients, the higher likelihood for a hypoxic event. Rather, the system should be a mature and pristine system that is much closer to being nutrient poor than one might thing. Carbon dosing is the method to get a clean system even cleaner. Thus it really is not a method for nitrogen control because a system should be nearly nitrate-free to begin with. Thus water changes and other proper husbandry efforts such as detritus removal are more effective for general nutrient control and a heck of a lot safer for the system.
Carbon/Vodka/VSV/probiotics is not like playing with fire... it is playing with nuclear fire.
Oh, just to be a heckler and all..
I feel as if there should be a differentiation made between "trace elements" and "nitrates" or phosphates for that matter. NO3 and PO4 are compounds, not elements. Though of course these compounds are composed of elements.
Just figured I would throw that out there.. Just to avoid any confusions or further arguments over semantics.
vodka dosing and biopellets are different in that bio pellets are contained in a reactor, and the output can be skimmed so that the bound elements are actually removed.
Before I start, a really good general read into probiotics is in Coral Magazine. Sept/Oct 2010 issue. Definitely worth the time.
Yees, biopellets can only get to what is pumped into the reactor and thus it is only addressing nutrients the water column. Vodka/liquid dosing, while concentrated in the water column can reach nutrients anywhere in the system although the bacteria is skimmed out of the water column.
Bio pellets are amazing if you have the right setup. It is better than vodka dosing because it is in a contained environment THAT CAN FORCE THE REMOVAL OF UNWANTED SUBSTANCES
AND IM TIRED OF SO CALLED EXPERTS TRYING TO POOH POOH ON THEM - THEY ARE AWESOME. THATS WHY I MADE THIS POST.
Solid carbon dosing (bio pellets) mainly consists of a few things:
Nitrate laden Bacteria is removed via the protein skimmer
Bacteria directly converts nitrite into nitrous oxide so nitrate is never produced
Bacteria consumes nitrates and processes them down into nitrogen gas
Nitrate laden Bacteria is consumed by tank inhabitants like corals and sponges
You really have no clue what you are doing other than regurgitate the marketing on the package. If you do not realize that Vodka is doing everything that bio-pellets are doing but is being more effective at it from a systems approach then I can not help you. Those bullets sound more like a DSB advert as well except for the skimmer part. Also, carbon dosing is not all about nitrates... it is about phosphates as well. That is the other major benefit. In the end, the skimmer is not removing nitrogen per say, it is removing bio-mass that has trapped nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon, and other organics.
You are wrong future doc on saying vodka is better - because vodka dosing is not as effective at removing those nutrients. It may bind them better but removing them from your system is more effective using a reactor followed by skimmer.
vodka dosing does not ultimately rely on bacteria "in the water column"...the bacteria will form colonies... folks that vodka dose and use filter socks often report of the filter sock clogging up daily while still mostly clean due to the colonization on the filter sock. Also they may tend to get the white film on the glass...also evident of colonization of bacterial colonies.
Yes, liquid dosing does feed benthic bacterial communities as well but that is not what the skimmer can get unless it is knocked off. That is the major difference. Bacteria does not just live on surfaces, it also lives in the water column too. Also, those benthic bacterial blooms are a warning sign that an hypoxic moment is likely. Those bacterial mats indicate that there is ample nutrients available just like cyano on a sand bed or on the glass. However, unless those colonies are accessed by the skimmer, then they can be problematic.
Bio pellets are amazing if you have the right setup. It is better than vodka dosing because it is in a contained environment THAT CAN FORCE THE REMOVAL OF UNWANTED SUBSTANCES
AND IM TIRED OF SO CALLED EXPERTS TRYING TO POOH POOH ON THEM - THEY ARE AWESOME. THATS WHY I MADE THIS POST.
Solid carbon dosing (bio pellets) mainly consists of a few things:
Nitrate laden Bacteria is removed via the protein skimmer
Bacteria directly converts nitrite into nitrous oxide so nitrate is never produced
Bacteria consumes nitrates and processes them down into nitrogen gas
Nitrate laden Bacteria is consumed by tank inhabitants like corals and sponges
If not nitrate is never produced -- point #2 -- how are there nitrates for the bacteria to consume -- point #3? That makes no sense at all, not sure where that information came from.
Someone better tell my corals that they need to start "eating" all that nitrate laden bacteria that they are set up to consume.
You are wrong future doc on saying vodka is better - because vodka dosing is not as effective at removing those nutrients. It may bind them better but removing them from your system is more effective using a reactor followed by skimmer.
vodka dosing does not ultimately rely on bacteria "in the water column"...the bacteria will form colonies... folks that vodka dose and use filter socks often report of the filter sock clogging up daily while still mostly clean due to the colonization on the filter sock. Also they may tend to get the white film on the glass...also evident of colonization of bacterial colonies.
Thanks Geoff - it sounds like we are coming to agreement with your above comments - I just get senstive with all the pooh poohing of bio pellets by people that do not use them. Or people that have to comment every time Bio pellets are mentioned that things that should be common sense - removing detrius for example.
Geoff - its to the point here that it isnt even worth discussing with you. You dont even have an active tank. I dont want to get into an argument with you. It would be worth no more getting into an argument w AZ desert rat on RO /DI. I think you are wrong - your entire emotional reaction to this post is wrong.
the results on my tank are amazing and you can't argue with it - no matter how much you want to argue with me on "what I understand."
Im trying to get past you supposed experts of opinion - because i think if others tried bio-pellets they would see the same great results.
My prediction is that your comments here will look silly in a couple years when this has become the standard in reef keeping.
Geoff - its to the point here that it isnt even worth discussing with you. You dont even have an active tank. I dont want to get into an argument with you. It would be worth no more getting into an argument w AZ desert rat on RO /DI. I think you are wrong - your entire emotional reaction to this post is wrong.
the results on my tank are amazing and you can't argue with it - no matter how much you want to argue with me on "what I understand."
Im trying to get past you supposed experts of opinion - because i think if others tried bio-pellets they would see the same great results.
My prediction is that your comments here will look silly in a couple years when this has become the standard in reef keeping.
I completely understand what geoff and doc are saying. geoff is just saying that the reactor is not mandatory to keep a tank clean. he is not saying is crap or junk and not to use it but siphon is the best thing you can do out of all the tools that are sold. Everything else is optional just to help out.
Ok, to ask a question....vodka dosing dangers are mostly bacterial bloom and dangerous drops in PH...
Do the reactors limit this as a problem thus maybe making it 'safer'.
Other than Future Doc leaving a link on "sudden mass loss" and saying he hopes it doesn't happen to me (time will tell, and I'll post what happens) no-one here is:
1) refuting my results
2) prediciting that my tank or inhabitants will be negatively affected. (and explaining why)
Absent of those comments - all this other conversation is goblety ****.
The bio pellet concept can be explained as simple as follows:
Provide a special place where unwanted elements in the water column is fed to bacteria that can consume them, and those negative elements either stay in the biopellet reactor or are forced through the skimmer to be removed.
Provide a special place where unwanted elements in the water column is fed to bacteria that can consume them, and those negative elements either stay in the biopellet reactor or are forced through the skimmer to be removed.
Why is a "special place" different from any other carbon dosing? What are the "negative elements?" Bacterial flock?
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
The Reef Tank
2.7M posts
79.2K members
Since 2000
A forum community dedicated to reef aquarium owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about flora, health, behavior, housing, adopting, care, classifieds, and more!