pellets ?

Thanks for sharing your experience, there are some gorgeous tanks out there that use bacteria driven filtration. I have played with it for a few years now and can say it will lower excess nutrient levels. The key is to not overdue it and watch things for signs of excess.

The biggest reason I feel the need to post on certain threads like this is I don't want someone, esp "newbies" to read this and think it's A.. the only way to a sucessful reef, B.. that it's safe with no chance of side effects in large amounts.

 

Posted By rc1214b on 10/18/2010 03:55 PM
I would like to add my 2 cents on a few things.
First, I highly doubt many reef tanks are "carbon" limited as it's secreted daily by corals, added by phytoplankton and by numerous other methods. What our tanks are limited by is water volume and biodivesity. 
It is limmited in proportion to no3 and po4.

 

Please explain what you mean?

 

Limitation of organic carbon vis a vie NO3 and PO4 is presumed as a basis for organic carbon dosing. Heterotrophic bacteria use all three( C,N,P) and can be limited by a lack of any one of them.The commonly referenced ratio is the Redfield ratio based on measurements Redfield performed on phytoplankton at 116parts C to 16 parts N to 1 part P. This exact ratio varies from organism to organism but the Redfiled ratio provides a good perspective on relative concentrations of these 3 nutrients in marine life.
In a fed tank there is little chance for a P limitation. Surface reef waters hold only about .005ppm . Nitrogen deficiencies may occur with carbon dosing but again in a fed tank it's unlikely since the food will add it as it breakdown and surface reef waters hold only about .2ppm. Some dose amino acids like aspartic acid as an extra nitrogen source and other percie ved benefits..
Edit: not my words but this is what I ment.

 

I'm aware of the ratio, simply feeding also raises the TOC. Can you please post link to this article?

 

Yes please Bill, I would really like to read the rest of that.
I would also like to add to Ryan's point: Even with what seems at this point (limited time span) to be great success, great care must be taken. Mainly for newbies or those of us who get lazy (I have certainly done it) this is not a cure for poor husbandry but hopefully an additional technique to give the life in our tanks a better home for a longer time. Because this is relatively new follow the very slow guidelines given in the currently available literature even though it seems a bit ridiculous. With Vodka anyway, the quantities seem minute. There shouldn't be the same dangers with the pellets it doesn't sound like.

 

Sorry guys don't have a link for yea. That info was taken from a post on the RC ecobak thread. I agree it's not a cure all and there is no substatute for good husbandry.

 

I'm glad we can have a decent educational thread and not take things personally. We can all learn something new, I for one wish I knew tons more about coral reefs.

From everything I've absorbed in the past, i'm becoming a bit dated now on new products as I'm not on threads as much anymore but the basics should be roughly the same. This is only my interpretation

The ratio you quoted does give some insight to how things are consumed, but like the quote says it varies depending on organism and it was perfomed on phytoplankton. I'm assuming that since we keep corals, have some algae growth we should have plenty of available carbon. The problem is that we don't have a way to test for levels in our tanks. With such diverse levels of bacteria we don't know which species we have and which ones might be limited. Adding something that increases any species or limits another can be risky as there is a food chain that can become stressed. Adding sugar for example might cause a strain to explode but vinegar does not feed the same type as well. That was the big reason why VSV was talked about and some companies offer vials of bacteria to help repopulate different strains. My concern is that we take caution when manipulating things as powerful as bacteria. When I first heard about this I thought... how bad can sugar be to a tank? I did some basic reading and started dosing, I quickly saw how powerful it can be. Corals can change from orange to pink, green to light green almost yellow, etc. High levels of certain bacteria can kill coral, animals, etc

IMO the hobbiest who constantly has extremely elevated levels or N or P has other issues that need to be corrected in order to have a strong basis for a healthy tank. Whether they have low levels of bacteria due to recent cycle, new rock, etc or they do not use proper filtration, flow, etc to keep things in check. A simple water change or two can also have a similar effect on N & P without the risks.

For those who are going this route, keep an eye on things, we all probably have that one coral that seems to change as soon as anything is outa whack. Use that as your canary coral. Like Joel said, take er slow and follow guidlines given. I would watch lighting levels a bit when you start to hit that clear tank look. Light will penetrate deeper and be more powerful. Try to stick to a regimen so you know what is causing changes.

Like I said above, there are some gorgeous tanks out there that use bacteria driven methods. I only want the average joe to read up a bit on it and scrutinize what is said from everyone. I hope they are with this post from me as well. In fact, I hope hobbiests do that with any method, fad, product or advice. Every tank is different and what worked for me may or may not for you.

Here is just a quick article to show how neglect can cause a lost tank
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SU/coral_bact_oct06.php

Out of curiousity, is there a recommended flow rate for these pellets?

 

I agree with you 100%. WM sugests a flow rate of 100gph but this has been found to cause the pellets to clump together with bactera and the reactor to become somewhat stagnent. The best way to run them is to add just enough flow to get the pellets to gently tumble.