I would stay with what works (rowa) for now, at least hold it another month.

Just Pellets alone did not work for me it has been more then 4 weeks i see no change at all, except to be honest very good SPS polyp extension in the first week.

I will continue using pellets for now and report later.

Hard to tell when my Po4 is already close to zero. I don't test for No3 (no kit)
supposedly hair algae should disappear, but it is growing at its regular rate.
I only have 4 small fish and one small hippo tang, so no bio load, my point is no miracle, nothing dramatic, no real change.
But how else i would learn if not by making a mistake?

I wouldn't really expect the hair algae to disappear overnight though. FWIW, I have hair algae growing on the top 1/2" of my overflow slats where the tangs and urchins can't seem to get at it. The problem is that even if you got your tank down to zero nitrates, the nitrates are still being produced, thus the hair algae is a consumer of nitrates alongside the pellets. So at best it might slow down a little bit but it's really going to have to be a long time before it's starved out. (I think, anyhow.)

I would be testing for nitrate to see if it's having an effect. I would be really surprised if it isn't.

The mulm production is to me more of a bit of an unfortunate side effect rather than a benefit. Perhaps if the pellets are tumbling and the mulm is sloughed off in small but continuous quantities it's more beneficial but one thing I've noticed is that if the pellets are allowed to settle for any amount of time (even just for a few hours), shaking the reactor to re-fluidize the pellets releases a .. . for lack of a better way to put it .. a crapstorm of mulm in biblical plague proportions. I've had my tank in a total blizzard situation at some points after manual agitations. I'm still trying to find the ideal balance of flow and pellet volumes for my phosban reactor to stay fluidized, it's having trouble staying fluidized, what happens is say half of it gets pushed upwards and clumps together while the bottom half stays fluidized. I might have my reactor a little bit overfull so if it continues I might be looking at upgrading the reactor or worst case maybe reducing the volume inside the reactor.

You likely have too much volume of pellets in the reactor, my pellets are running using an MJ1200 at full blast. They are churning inside the reactor very aggressively.

Ian - how much pellets did you put in? 500ml or 1000ml package?

I am running 500ml full blast.

500ml in my phos reactor too. But T'd off my sump return. I probibally need more flow. mj1200 is on the list!

Good thing the Maxijets are cheap! :lol:

What size system is that 500ml on Ian?

150G running Zeo as well. Going to add another 500ml Sunday.

I actually up'd my BioPellets to 750ml when I moved them into the fluidizer. so I am running 750ml of pellets and 1.5L of Zeolites on a 200G of water (approx water volume)

No tank before and after pictures?

Welcome to Canreef. :)

I don't really have any before/after shots, although I suppose I could dig up a photo from a month ago and take another in the same angle. But to be honest there's really not that much visually to go on. The only metric I have that something is happening is the nitrate reading.

Hey Tony, I know you have a nitrate meter but are there any test kits that you tried that compare to your meter readings?
I have kits by Salifert, Hagen, and Elos. They are all different values and hard to read. I guess I should forget about numbers and just stick to one test and look for a decrease.

I think I have both Elos and Salifert for nitrate but it's been some time since I used them. Unless it's a really low reading I usually have a really hard time with colour comparisons and there's a lot of guesswork involved. It's like you say, I end up just using them to spot trends rather than establish an actual number.

I finally got some movement tumbling the pellets, I tee'd off the aux pump and still using the Eheim.
There's 65 gph exiting the reactor so we'll see what happens. My nitrates are bad, closer to the dark side of the chart. :sad:

Thank you.

Well I was just wondering if you were experiencing the crazy colours and growth that is being experienced with vodka dosing and other similar methods (bacteria driven).

http://www.dvh-import.com/Site2/NP-r...-products.html

from Dr. van Houten
NP-Reducing BioPellets Product Guidelines
http://www.dvh-import.com/Site2/Prod...-products.html

Just an update:

Since moving the Pellets to their own fluidizer, powered by a MJ1200, I can see even quicker changes. I am running 1 full litre of the pellets now and can say that the green film algae on my glass is litterally falling off and turning a dark brown color. Any algae or other un-wanted stuff on my rocks are forming a dark brown covering on it and when I use my turkey baster to blow it off, it reveals a nice clean rock underneath.

All I can say is this stuff is working. Haven't tested nitrates yet, but will probably do that tonight.

Ok Tony, it's been almost 6 weeks since you started, what is your conclusion at this point. I ask becasue I want to know if the results are anything echoed by the creator. He states that it would take 2-4 weeks to see progress. What positives, if any, have you observed up to this point. Negative? I am all for it if you does what it claims, as I am in need of such remedy for my large fish population. Tell us the real truth.:wink:

Pretty much full on win in my opinion. To me the most telling thing is that in a single-passthrough Phosban reactor running maybe 3/4litre of pellets that the water at the input had a nonzero nitrate reading, and the water exiting at the output had a zero nitrate reading, not just a slightly reduced reading an actual zero reading. Thus the turnover proportion through the reactor versus the tank volume becomes the limiting factor in how fast you will see nitrate reduction in your tank.

In a nutshell, I would say it does what they claim, but if anything what we can learn from this thread is that how you run it is the most important variable. The pellets will do nothing for you or in fact can make nitrates worse if just run passively - they need to be fluidized 24/7. So the the reactor you choose needs to be sized appropriately or you have to tailor back the volume so that the reactor you do use can appropriately energize the pellets without clumping issues or slamming into the top of the reactor and gumming up. The slightest obstruction at the output means the mulm will not have a chance to escape and it's amazing how fast it builds up and then the pellets start to congeal together. It's important to have a strong skimmer removing mulm from the water column.

But compared to other methods I've run - ULNS, sulfur denitrators, chaeto, remote DSB's .. this one seems the most win. ULNS work better for visual results but involves more labor, my sulfur denitrators never dented my nitrates and I tried many different configurations, chaeto never makes a dent for me, and neither did remote DSB.

I would totally recommend for a heavy FOWLR as well as a reef.

Another thought - I would say it's more important to have the reactor charged up and able to run energized pellets without intervention, than the actual total volume of pellets itself. Ie, if the recommendations are 1 litre per 100g, but your reactor can only reliably fluidize say somewhere between 1/2 - 3/4 litre of pellets, then run the 1/2 - 3/4 instead, and just plan to reload the reactor more often than you might with the larger volume.

NP biopellets for the win!! I agree 110% with what Tony said. We got our pellets at the same time. Before pellets I had a nitrate reading of 8 (with a pinpoint meter). Two weeks later that dropped to 4ppm. 4 weeks later I'm sitting at 0 ppm. I can't explain what else could have pulled my nitrates down other than the pellets :-D.


I do have a small amount running passivley along side the main batch in my phosban reactor but will soon be looking into getting a larger reactor to house all 1000mL worth of pellet.

From what I gather so far, it seems that the more fluidize pellets you can create in the reactor, the better the results are. With that in mind, can you actually have too much flow that can somehow adversely be detrimental? If not, then why not super-fluidize the pellets in a larger recirculating reactor and control the throughput by other means.

I am thinking of a recirculating design like a ca reactor with the throughput being determined by the size of the a feed pump and/or valve. Of course it wouldn't be drops per minute but rather gph for the effluent and you would need two pumps in this setup. what's your thought on this?

I was thinking along the lines of that myself Will, at the very least maybe a circular flow style reactor; since I have had a few incidents of the pellets clumping up on me - it would be nice to find a more trouble-free way to run it (for now I'm just going to go with a larger reactor so that the pellets can move around more freely).

My guess on a recirculation/multipass reactor however is that it would probably be not as good. The mulm production of these pellets is insane and if not actively shed from the reactor, as it is produced, seems to act as a binding agent for the pellets and they eventually stop fluidizing and then you have to manually stir them up to re-energize them and you also end up releasing a LOT of mulm (I think there's such a thing as "too much of a good thing" in this case). Just my guess though.

Plus though, seeing as single pass is enough to emit effluent with 0 nitrates, there may not be that much benefit to going beyond that. My tank bioload is huge and single pass seems enough to make that zero.

IMO, something like TLF phosban reactor might be too tight for us to achive the fluidization we want without it binding and clogging. In a larger reactor, you will definately be able to turn up the flow and super charge the pellets in a way that I think it is meant to be. I have a huge recirculating reactor powered by an 500gph pump that I think will keep the pellets nicely suspended to do the job. With this level of flow within the reactor, the pellets shouldn't encounter the binding problem, especially if it's composed of light weight polymers, and the mulm should not be noticable as it sheds. For the throughput I am considering a 200-300gph pump, or might even consider gravity feed.

Ya, when I get my new skimmer, I'll be retiring my DIY recirc. That might make a nice in sump reactor too?

I have to agree with Tony. I initially put the pellets in the ZeoRX and saw some mulm and changes, but still could not get the green film on back glass to go away, it would dissapate but still form in a different area.

Since putting them in a deltec fluidizer, and only a week later, wow what a difference. No green algae film forming and everything else falling off the back walls.

They do work, if setup properly

with these pellets one would not run macroalgae as well, correct?
assuming no nutrients for the algae to grow.

I have been running a chaeto fuge but have noticed a significant slowdown in its growth since starting. I'm considering stopping running it altogether, just haven't quite pulled the plug on it as yet.

My HOB CPR Fuge is now useless and grows nothing after bringing the pellets online. I will be removing it soon.

when will the 1000ml be in stock?

1 Week

Lucky me, I ordered the last batch. Hmmm I should resell mine for a profit now.

J/K

I order 2L but not sure how much i am going to use for my 180G tank, any left over, i am willing to part for anyone want to use it right away at cost.

Ian, do i start 500ml or 1L? I have 2 TLFs that i can use

I am about to pull the plug on my chaeto as well. Probably a good idea sooner rather than later because if the chaeto starts to starve and die off it will release nutients back into the system. I will be happy to see it go as chaeto has been frustrating to maintain for me. Plus now I can turn off the 'fuge light. Lights out for the 'fuge I guess :-). .. Say goodnight Gracie.

put the whole L in. 500ml in each TLF. From all the writups in how these pellets work, you can't have to much. They just wear out slower.

+1, it would be very difficult to overdose the pellets!

Hey Guys , i e-mailed my questions to the web site stated on the package and here is his response.
One of the points he makes is that you can Not overdose, however i talked to one of the trusted long term J&L personnel and he told me that when he doubled the pellets he had a bacteria bloom in hie tank. Anywho below is the response to my questions.

Morning !

The exact amount is hard to tell because of the bioload of the tank. You can not overdose the product. The guide line is 50-200ml of pellets per 100L of water

The more water thrugh the pellets, the better.

It is best to use the BioPellets in a fluidized bed filter, so yes it is best that they thumble. They can also being used in a canister filter, but keep the flow through in mind.

The production of mulm is not necessory. It is a benefit if it happens because it will serve as food for small animals.

If the pellets are in a fluidized bed filter, then no need to shake the pellet. If they are in a canister filter, I would say yes.

Best Regards / Met vriendelijke groet,

Dennis van Houten

D. van Houten (Import-Export-Euro*Depot/Distribution)
Postbus 5081
9700 GB Groningen, The Netherlands

Tel: +31 (0)6 51717084 Fax: +31 (0)50 5777204

----- Original Message -----
To: info@dvh-import.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 11:37 AM
Subject: BioPellets


Good morning.
Can you please elaborate on the exact use of the pellets in terms of the following

The exact ammount of pellets per 100 liters
The exact amount of flow thrugh the pellets
Shuld the pellets thumble or be at rest
Is the production of mulm necessory or not, some people report a lot of white mulm some none at all
Should pellets be shaken regulary or left alone

Thanks for sharing that. Just as I thought, the more flow throughput the better the pellets will perform. At a high flow rate the mulm is not going to be visable as the fast moving water will carry away any particals shedding from the pellets.

So how many gph is everyone running through their reactor?

I'm running 900gph and have not had much issues with mulm after I sliced my phosban filter pads I'm half :). I would recommend doing this if you are going to use a phosban. Enkmat works too.

What I want to know is, what ever happened to the notion of having too much flow through a media reactor? I thought that too much flow would not allow for enough contact time for the bacteria to consume the passing nutrients?