Biopellets vs GFO

[ralph atl]

jmaneyapanda;858673 wrote: Yes, I do Ralph. Far more that merely quoting web pages, as you do. I will gladly post them tomorrow when I'm in front of them. It's real function data too. Not just a regurgitation of a popular website. You've cornered the market on that, without demonstrating any degree of understanding of it.

bashing members & trying to belittle them here as you always have.......you've cornered the market on that, for sure....


I will not be reading your posts tomorrow, so no worries!

I was actually trying to HELP the OP and THIS Thread with my experience, and I posted discussions and data & opines (only after you called me out) of some of the "reef chemists" that helped me and many around the world help make educated decisions, I have nothing to prove....just helping.

 

[rdnelson]

Lets remember to keep this discussion productive and visual. We can disagree and present our cases with out resorting to bickering. Many will learn from the information both of you provide and be able to make a more educated decision on their own. If we bicker, they will tune it out and nobody wins.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ichthyoid]

jmaneyapanda;858642 wrote: Here's something that piques my curiosity re: bio pellets, carbon dosing, etc. The bacteria that's "grown" consumes nitrate/phosphate, yes? So, why are the carbon source and/or pellets needed? Why do you have to feed a bacteria that you want to eat something pre-existing in the water? Proponents of this, please explain to me. If like to know your thoughts.

These bacteria 'feed' on (require) multiple elemental types of raw materials, which include nitrogen, organic carbon and phosphorous.

In nature, as I'm sure you know, something will be in short supply and therefore limit growth. On reefs and also in aquaria the limiting factor is always organic carbon.

The organic carbon we supply just tilts the odds in favor of more favorable conditions for growth of the bacteria, which are always there in lower numbers.

By optimizing the growth conditions for certain bacteria, we also optimize the nutrient absorption by those bacteria and the subsequent export via those bacteria via protein skimmers.

 

[jmaneyapanda]

mysterybox;858676 wrote: bashing members & trying to belittle them here as you always have.......you've cornered the market on that, for sure....


I will not be reading your posts tomorrow, so no worries!

I was actually trying to HELP the OP and THIS Thread with my experience, and I posted discussions and data & opines (only after you called me out) of some of the "reef chemists" that helped me and many around the world help make educated decisions, I have nothing to prove....just helping.

Uh....re read the thread Ralph. You're the one that got insinuative. And suggested I had no proof, just that I was trying to sell stuff. Until then, I just disagreed and asked for others opinions.

So ask for data, and the. Refuse to read or acknowledge it. Sad.

 

[jmaneyapanda]

ichthyoid;858687 wrote: These bacteria 'feed' on (require) multiple elemental types of raw materials, which include nitrogen, organic carbon and phosphorous.

In nature, as I'm sure you know, something will be in short supply and therefore limit growth. On reefs and also in aquaria the limiting factor is always organic carbon.

The organic carbon we supply just tilts the odds in favor of more favorable conditions for growth of the bacteria, which are always there in lower numbers.

By optimizing the growth conditions for certain bacteria, we also optimize the nutrient absorption by those bacteria and the subsequent export via those bacteria via protein skimmers.

Hey Bill, see what I mentioned in my previous post re: this. Why do the TOC we remove with carbon and skimmers not provide this carbon source then? Why do aquariums lacking that export mechanism not have this facultative bacteria flourish?

 

[jmaneyapanda]

For the record, I'm not saying bio pellets, carbon dosing, Gfo, etc do not work. I know they do. And I know they do well. However, I feel the pros are outweighed by the cons for most average aquarists.

 

[ichthyoid]

I believe we (you & I for sure) have seen that occur. We see the buildup of bacterial detritus in sumps & aquaria.

Without the skimmer to export them, those bacteria will eventually die and just accumulate in the tank.

So, in this case, there is no real net export of the nutrients we are seeking to limit.

What we know is this-
Phosphorous can interfere with coral calcification. High nitrate is known to have negative consequences as well.

A system with an excess of organic carbon is less of a negative issue, as far as corals are concerned.

 

[ichthyoid]

I firmly believe that many people get into trouble by looking for the 'silver bullet'.

We all want something we can just
'dump in and run'.

What is 'required' is an assessment of where the system is in nitrate and phosphate levels.

I don't think it can be over stressed-
Too little of either one (either nitrate or phosphate) can be just as bad as too much.

We need to learn to 'manage' nutrients, without trying to eliminate them altogether. This critical point seems to have been left out of the discussion, altogether.

 

[jmaneyapanda]

ichthyoid;858699 wrote: I believe we (you & I for sure) have seen that occur. We see the buildup of bacterial detritus in sumps & aquaria.

Without the skimmer to export them, those bacteria will eventually die and just accumulate in the tank.

So, in this case, there is no real net export of the nutrients we are seeking to limit.

What we know is this-
Phosphorous can interfere with coral calcification. High nitrate is known to have negative consequences as well.

A system with an excess of organic carbon is less of a negative issue, as far as corals are concerned.

I'm not sure I made my query clear- if this heterotrophic bacteria is limited by organic carbon (which is why the vodka, bio pellets, etc are used), and nitrate and phosphate are in "excess" already, why do aquarium without active TOX export (skimmers or regular carbon use) become massive phosphate and nitrate sinks, and ultimately unsightly tanks?

The analogy I use for the carbon dosed/ bio pellet systems is they are right rope walkers. When you are spot on perfect with the proper carbon dosing and export at the same time (by whatever means), all eyes are on you and you're a hero. However, one tiny misstep on either side, and it's a long fall down. I don't feel this is understood and applied appropriately enough for aquarists to apply broad scale. How many cases of carbon dosing end up with cyanobacteria explosions, crashes, or bacterial blooms? A lot from my observations.

 

[ichthyoid]

We are on the same page here

 

[kf2008]

I offer nothing substantive, nor shall I take sides. I find the above discussion to be equal parts informative and comical. That is all.

I'm 39k in the air and chuckling.....nice way to conclude a long day.

Mods - delete my response to your hearts' content.

 

[ichthyoid]

I am now dosing nitrogen in the form of amino acids.

Sure, others have done it, but I'm just calling it what it is.

In all ULNS systems, the Redfield ratio is tilted a bit in favor of elevated phosphorous, at end of curve.

So, we need to add a little extra nitrogen to pull the phosphate down to where desired.

 

[ralph atl]

Ok, here is a study on the effectiveness of various phosphate removal products by Prof Dr Ing M Jekel, Technical University Berlin, Department of Water Quality Control.
it contains isotherm charts


reviewed are Rowaphos (Iron based), Elimiphos (Aluminium based) among others....

just saying...............:tongue:


I also believe that most aquarists looking to move into the realm of sps, will need to understand how important removing phosphates, trates, and the managing and maintaining of bacteria in their system in a balance way.

 

[ryansg1986]

zeroKilo;858652 wrote: I'm no biochemist but from what I've read the bacteria in question consume phosphate, nitrate, and carbon. Since the goal is to minimize phosphate and nitrate in the system, adding carbon eliminates it as the limiting nutrient and the other two can be fully depleted. The bacteria can then be consumed by larger organisms or exported directly (skimmer).

"Since the goal is to minimize phosphate and nitrate in the system"

If that is the goal, of the ORIGINAL question, Matrix Rock and Phosguard are both, SAFE and EFFECTIVE ways of dealing with Nitrates and Phosphates. For someone starting out, I would recommend using these products, over Vodka dosing and using GFO in a tank. I would think a beginner could have some serious problems.

But this thread is far from where it started. Cant wait to see some factual data, I agree that referencing other forums, or other people personal experience means nothing to me. I run phosguard and haven't seen any signs of leaching in my tank, but that is an observation, not a study. :fish:

 

[ralph atl]

Ummmm, if you read my last post there is an actual study with factual data....showing that Iron based ROWA is more effective than Aluminum like Phosguard, lol.

Most reefers consider Randy Holmes-Farley more knowledgable than just "discussions from other forums"....

Continue to use what you like, even though the evidence and support states otherwise......

 

[bluespot]

ichthyoid;858710 wrote: I am now dosing nitrogen in the form of amino acids.

Sure, others have done it, but I'm just calling it what it is.

In all ULNS systems, the Redfield ratio is tilted a bit in favor of elevated phosphorous, at end of curve.

So, we need to add a little extra nitrogen to pull the phosphate down to where desired.

Couldnt agree more. People that dont add extra nitrogen to their tank often have a sizeable amount of phosphates remaining. A lot of them run gfo, etc. to get rid of it. The concept of adding more potential "waste" aka nitrates to the tank to eliminate the remaining "waste" aka phosphates seems like a backwards thing to do. That is exactly what people should do to complete the Redfield ratio more efficiently. You need 16 units of nitrogen to bond 1 unit of phosphorous. Thus if you still have phosphates, add the needed nitrogen and it will be eliminated just like Bill is stating.

Conversely people that have high nitrates and low phosphates (from gfo, etc.) can have the opposite problem getting rid of the nitrates. I have known people that add foods and supplements high in phosphates on purpose until their nitrates have fallen.

 

[ichthyoid]

Also, there are 5 units of organic carbon required for every 8 units of nitrogen.

That almost never happens in a reef aquarium. The carbon is below this amount. That is why we carbon dose.

 

[ichthyoid]

I hope that everyone reading this thread realizes the difference between nutrient 'management' and nutrient elimination.

We need to manage the nutrient levels, in proper proportion AND amounts, in order to obtain optimum growth.

Eliminating one or more nutrients is a sure way to kill corals.

Nutrient management requires work by way of testing.

 

[joseayes]

I do understand it, and as others I do research as well when giving my opinion to others, and even so I could be wrong, and just for the note, I had provided my information and data to proved and I was also had those passive aggressive accusations in another thread.
It is more important for me the actual information, experiences and all the information provided to get more knowledge to use or confront any problem on your aquarium reef than any accusation received
As this stated, I do, as well, require to remove this and any other comment that it went out of topic, by mods consideration, and just leave the real information that will help others.
Thank you.

 

[ralph atl]

ichthyoid;858809 wrote: I hope that everyone reading this thread realizes the difference between nutrient 'management' and nutrient elimination.

We need to manage the nutrient levels, in proper proportion AND amounts, in order to obtain optimum growth.

Eliminating one or more nutrients is a sure way to kill corals.

Nutrient management requires work by way of testing.

Totally agree, albeit in a heavily fed tank and a decent bioload this would be extremly difficult to do. However, in a nominally stocked system, using all these systems (or many together) could very well "effectively" eliminate needed nutrients. I find many (or most) aquarium enthusists, needing to export more nutrients than not.......not realizing how detrimental trates can be until they put a birdsnest in their tank, and worse, how phosphate has now bound up in their rock and will continue to leach out for months while beginning using systems to export phates.