N/P reducing pellets (solid vodka dosing)

[Genetics]

I think it has some possible merits. Once the price drops to a reasonable level it may become a good additive to have around. I would be interested to see what happens with this product on a larger scale. Would it have similar issues as that of organic dosing if too much is added? What happens when the pellets become miniaturized? Would they start moving with the current and end up in the display?

[jptenklooster]

The polymer does not dissolve by itself and needs to be released by enzymes produced by the bacteria. When all paperwork is finished (should be tonight) then I can give some more info on the exact polymer. Waistproducts of the polymer are CO2, H2O Ca2+(low) and CO3 (low), so no risk there. The pellets are consumed very slowly, so for most people it will probably take at least 1 year before half of it is gone, but we wanted to be on the save side because we have been able to test it only for 6 months now. In my system after 6 months I think only 25% is reduced by the bacteria (this is with heavy feeding for my gorgonia).

Naturally, if you can handle your tank without any problems by just adding wodka or sugar and don't mind adding it on a daily basis, don't let me stop you (although wodka dosing can be easily combined by using the pellets). I just came up with this idea because I could not dose enough wodka to reduce nitrates without getting a massive bacterial bloom in my tank.

We currently have no information on which bacteria can and will grow on the pellets in your tank, but that bacteria are growing there very efficiently is clear from everybody who has tested it for me thus far.

In addition, it is not only nitrate reduction as a result of denitrification and thus N2 production, it is mainly immobilisation of nutrients by forming a large biomass, although there will be some anaerobic bacteria there as well, similar to the bacteria on your teeth, you will get layers of aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. Thus far we did not observe any H2S production, even in tanks without measurable nitrates left.

It is true that Charles delbeek had the pellets for testing as well, however, he emaild me 2 days ago that he did not get around to testing them.

Regards,

Jean Paul

Originally Posted by tatuvaaj

Randy,

Naturally

I was just describing my experiences with this form of filtration. IME the bacteria do seem to trap whatever is dissolved from the pellets (as seen by very fast biomass production and the lack of typical signs of DOC dosing).

Maybe the carbon in the pellets is only available through enzyme activity and thus controlled by the bacteria? In any case, dissolution and resulting leak of DOM doesn't seem to be problem in my case.

[timwijgerde]

Originally Posted by Plantbrain

Seems like they are preying on ignorance and using marketing/trends etc to sell the product. Sugar is not hard to use or buy.

Tom

Tom, I would be careful with uttering such statements. No one is saying you should stop using sugar or a similar form of DOC. Although Randy Holmes-Farley has fairly pointed out that questions remain to be answered regarding the biochemical processes that occur on or around the pellets, many hobbyists have successfully used this product on their aquarium.

Like Tatu said, bacterial growth seems to be rather restricted to the filter itself. Combine this with a skimmer and a significant proportion will be removed. The species of bacteria which grow on the pellets are not exactly known, but this must be more or less a reflection of what is already present in the aquarium. Of course, more research would be welcome (and several microbiologists have offered their help I believe, so hold on to your horses) but as of yet these effects are clear:

- significant reduction of nitrate and phosphate in the aquarium, provided that adequate amounts of pellets are used (about 1: 500 ratio for most tanks)

- very high production of bacteria in the filter

- no visible effects on the water column, i.e. bacterial blooms as can be the case with Wodka or sugar

- no apparent stimulation of cyanobacteria in the aquarium

Tom, calling Jean-Paul ignorant and having a lust for $$$ is simply unfair. The man has a Ph.D. himself and is not just fooling around. Of course more information about the causal effects of the pellets are more than welcome, which will slowly be released when this is available.

Please treat every product with caution, and maybe a little paranoia, but do not dismiss it directly. Or continue dosing sugar, which no one claims doesn't work. This method is simply less time-consuming, and restricts bacterial growth to the filter rather than causing an aquarium-wide bloom.

[ksed]

As Tim mentioned above, and in my opinion one of the great benefits is the lack of bacterial blooms,it seems to be restricted to the reactor or pellets.

The only concern that I may have is the fact that the pellets may be made of plastics which sounds harsh and toxic even though they may not be, but perhaps JP or Tim may shed some light on this.

Thanks

Kevin

[NaClH2Opgh]

Originally Posted by ksed

As Tim mentioned above, and in my opinion one of the great benefits is the lack of bacterial blooms,it seems to be restricted to the reactor or pellets.

The only concern that I may have is the fact that the pellets may be made of plastics which sounds harsh and toxic even though they may not be, but perhaps JP or Tim may shed some light on this.

Thanks

Kevin

This is exactly my point though. Everyone keeps putting bacterial blooms out there like it will happen without a doubt if you carbon dose with vodka or sugar. This is NOT true. If you follow directions correctly you will not get one. I have never had a bacterial bloom after a year and half of dosing vodka.

[jptenklooster]

The pellets are fully biodegradable and the only products produced are CO2 and H2O together with some Ca2Co3, which is used as a filler (around 5%).

so no dangerous toxins are present in these polymerbeads.

Originally Posted by ksed

As Tim mentioned above, and in my opinion one of the great benefits is the lack of bacterial blooms,it seems to be restricted to the reactor or pellets.

The only concern that I may have is the fact that the pellets may be made of plastics which sounds harsh and toxic even though they may not be, but perhaps JP or Tim may shed some light on this.

Thanks

Kevin

[jptenklooster]

I agree that to a certain level that this (bugs bloom) does not happen, however, in my own reeftank I try to combine acropora together with gorgonia, featherstars, sponges etc... and under my feeding regime I had to add so much wodka that I observed a lot of free bacteria and eventually the corals got covered by bacteria as well. As soon as I stopped dosing wodka, they dissappeared, but then nitrate levels would rise again. So for me the pellets are working really well and I hope other people will like them too (Despite the higher price then wodka, but then again zeovit is also very expensive and nothing more than alcohol and vinegar given to rocks that contain bacteria).

Originally Posted by NaClH2Opgh

This is exactly my point though. Everyone keeps putting bacterial blooms out there like it will happen without a doubt if you carbon dose with vodka or sugar. This is NOT true. If you follow directions correctly you will not get one. I have never had a bacterial bloom after a year and half of dosing vodka.

[catastrofe]

Originally Posted by jptenklooster

The pellets are fully biodegradable and the only products produced are CO2 and H2O together with some Ca2Co3, which is used as a filler (around 5%).

so no dangerous toxins are present in these polymerbeads.

Will the use of enzyme products have a negative impact on the beads?

[kaskiles]

Originally Posted by jptenklooster

...with some Ca2Co3, which is used as a filler (around 5%)

Ahh, so the Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3) filler is what keeps this organic media from floating in water? Or is the polymer density greater than water?

[jptenklooster]

the polymer density is higher that water and the CacO3 is used as a filler.

depends on the enzym product. I did not test any, but what kind of products are you thinking of?

[catastrofe]

Originally Posted by jptenklooster

the polymer density is higher that water and the CacO3 is used as a filler.

depends on the enzym product. I did not test any, but what kind of products are you thinking of?

Zeovit's Zeozyme and Coral Snow. I'm not sure if Coral Snow is enzyme based but I know that Zeozyme is. . .

[jptenklooster]

I have no idea what zeozyme is exactly, so I can't give you an answer to that one. If it is killing bacteria, then it would have a negative effect. If it consists of enzymes that can degrade proteins then it should only have effect on bacteria in very high dosis (because it will degrade the proteins in its plasma membrane, but corals would be easier victums to that, so I gues that is not a problem). If the zeozyme consist estherases, then it might help to degrade the pellets, but again I have no idea what is exactly present in this zeo product.

[ksed]

Originally Posted by jptenklooster

The pellets are fully biodegradable and the only products produced are CO2 and H2O together with some Ca2Co3, which is used as a filler (around 5%).

so no dangerous toxins are present in these polymerbeads.

Thanks JP

[Genetics]

The polymer does not dissolve by itself and needs to be released by enzymes produced by the bacteria. When all paperwork is finished (should be tonight) then I can give some more info on the exact polymer. Waistproducts of the polymer are CO2, H2O Ca2+(low) and CO3 (low), so no risk there.

Jean Paul, do you have any guidelines for the best method of flow through a cylinder with these pellets? Would you recommend adding enough flow to suspend the pellets which may increase bacterial sloughing? What are your thoughts on bacterioplankton output from these pellets?

I just came up with this idea because I could not dose enough wodka to reduce nitrates without getting a massive bacterial bloom in my tank.

I looked around for similar media because some had mentioned this and was unsuccessful. Also, I know daily dosing turns many people off and would like an alternative. So hopefully this works out well without gross side effects.

[Plantbrain]

Originally Posted by timwijgerde

Tom, I would be careful with uttering such statements. No one is saying you should stop using sugar or a similar form of DOC. Although Randy Holmes-Farley has fairly pointed out that questions remain to be answered regarding the biochemical processes that occur on or around the pellets, many hobbyists have successfully used this product on their aquarium.

I never disputed that claim either.
I agreed with Randy.

Tom, calling Jean-Paul ignorant and having a lust for $$$ is simply unfair.

You are going off topic by playing this personal Troll card here. End it now or should we get the mods to baby sit for you?

I have never said that he nor anyone specifically was ignorant nor suggested he was anything, nor "lust" of any sort. These are false claims you assumed and came up with all on your own.

The man has a Ph.D. himself and is not just fooling around. Of course more information about the causal effects of the pellets are more than welcome, which will slowly be released when this is available.

A degree does not imply it is a wise management decision nor did I suggest it was "fooling around". Great, he is doing something that can potentially help, I'm just questioning is it really worth the tradeoff/cost benefit vs sugar.

That is on topic.
See the difference?
Attack the idea, not the person.

This method is simply less time-consuming, and restricts bacterial growth to the filter rather than causing an aquarium-wide bloom.

Is it really less time consuming?
A dosing drip for sugar is easy to add.
Time management issue trade off removed, for a few $.

Aquarium wide blooms are likely due to the loading rates, pulsed too much.
Folks get a little whacky and lard things on at times, just add too much carelessly, we are human and do stuff like that and get over zealous.
That's a human factor I'd argue.

We could also add sugar to things like agar, pellets for a slow rate of diffusion, Sugar infused clay also would provide slow release + provide high surface area for bacterial colonization.

Likely would not last as long as say a polymer and not be as localized, but would be cheaper. Adding sugar to these products above would release more C than this product. Aquarist own errors and pulsing too much and then not waiting for settling seems more likely to me.

Cost is a factor.
Cost benefit is also a factor.

Adding sugar at a steady low rate works well and avoids the tank wide issue, that has been demonstrated. Dosing it steady at a low rate is all that is needed to relieve the C limitation for the bacteria.

I'm certain tank to tank differences occur, and the rates of dosing folks will add will vary(sugar/this product, booze etc). A product that is steady in it's rate diffusion and low, would allow the user to add more/less to suit and monitor their NO3 levels carefully (assuming they know how and can use calibration standards to make a confident management decision). Some might buy that.

I do not argue that and it might lead to other better methods/info along the way. I just want to see how the trade offs are somehow better than say a sugar drip dosing might be.

So far I remain unconvinced.
It's more localized, but is there really this implied real risk to tank wide issues if some C is floating around(and how much C is required for that to occur? You think it is the same for all aquariums? (I don't) Or is that merely a function of poor aquarist usage/loading rates? For the latter, this product might help.

I might agree with that.
Still a drip with sugar should also be able to achieve the same result for most any tank. Start slow and do so progressively, not add tiny amount, then get impatient and add too much etc. I think if you go stepwise and add the sugar slow and progressively, you should not get a tank wide bloom.

This product would make that process potentially easier.





Regards,
Tom

[tatuvaaj]

Originally Posted by Plantbrain

End it now or should we get the mods to baby sit for you?

Tom,

You have powers to do that? I certainly hope not.

[Plantbrain]

Originally Posted by kaskiles

Ahh, so the Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3) filler is what keeps this organic media from floating in water? Or is the polymer density greater than water?

Could hard fired porous clays be used?
I ask because clays can be infused with Fe, Cu and Mo and other trace elements that also enhance bacteria cycling rates, particularly with respect to Fe, Cu and Mo for NO3=>**=> N2 reduction and also would be localized. These are required for denitrification to occur. Not just sugar/reduced carbon.
While CaCO3 could be infused with these, seems tougher to make and adding these should enhance bacteria cycling rates, times and efficacy of the desired process particularly in such a lean high alkalinity system where metals are in very short biolavailable supply. Porous clays also have massive surface area for bacteria and high CEC which would extend the life span of the product.


Regards,
Tom

[Plantbrain]

Originally Posted by tatuvaaj

Tom,

You have powers to do that? I certainly hope not.

Haha.
If folks stay on topic and do not get personal. Then such "powers" are not required. Heated debates on ideas, concepts etc are fair game.

Regards,
Tom

[cvye]

I'm gonna give it a shot. Cost should be less than the zeovit system and more than manually (or auto-dosing sugar etc.). I like the idea of a localized colony (similar to zeovit) and hope it would improve my cyano issues. We'll see. I've tried zeovit when it first was introduced; it improved coloration of my corals, but didn't do much for algae (Derbesia) issues. I suspect this will be similar. Derbesia are good at surviving at very low nutrient concentrations.

[fernandokng]

Plantbrain, you're right about keeping things fair and learning more about the product at hand. AndI just re-read what you wrote, and I'm not sure how the bolded part doesn't come across as personal. Perhaps, I'm misreading something.

Originally Posted by Plantbrain

Personally, I'd just stick with sugar and be done with it.
Easy, dirt cheap, available, easy to do without changing much.
Seems like they are preying on ignorance and using marketing/trends etc to sell the product. Sugar is not hard to use or buy.

Regards,
Tom

[recife111]

Adding vodka/sugar is not exactly safe and many hobbyist have issues, also found that some corals do not like the addition of vodka.

This product has a controlled use of a carbon source going into the tank, so only what is required by the bacteria is used,

Have some product coming so will try it on my SPS tank.

[Jk5]

To Timwijgerde and jptenklooster...

Please, give us more reports how the bacterial mass going out of the pellets is feeding the inhabitants of the tank.


I have seen your post in the Netherlands forum there was 1 case of white water.

My assumption is that water flow and the mode of use of this pellets is not fully stablished yet...
And these diferent conditions could have effect on the way of no3 and po4 removal.

I have seen in the Netherland forum, in the beggining jptenklooster tried to work with a flow of 1 liter /hour like a denitrator.

[Jk5]

Link to the Netherlands forum...
It is a very interesant link. 4 pages

automatic translation.
http://translate.google.es/translate...hl=es&ie=UTF-8

[Frogmanx82]

I have a lot of feather dusters, am I better off letting the bacteria into the tank or should I try to skim it out?

[NaClH2Opgh]

Originally Posted by recife111

This product has a controlled use of a carbon source going into the tank, so only what is required by the bacteria is used,

It's statements like this that drive me nuts. How is this any more controlled than metered dosing of vodka. You cannot control what the bacteria consume and that what they don't consume is skimmed out AND goes back into the display tank. There is no way for you to know except by testing and observation just like vodka dosing.

please also list the coral that don't like vodka dosing because I have sps, lps, softie, zoa's and clams.