Integral9 February 25, 2013 Share February 25, 2013 I have just about had it with all media reactors now. By the time I change the buggers, they are so dang clogged up they just create a nitrate problem. My solution; get rid of the detritus trapping buggers once and for all. Basically I have done that with my setup, but with the exception of the media reactor. I have an Avast MD5-Tall, filled with ROX carbon from BRS. After a month or two it is so clogged up, my Mag 7 can barely push anything through it. Currently it's employed as a media reactor, but I don't see why I couldn't convert it to a bio-pellet reactor. In fact, Avast sells parts to do so, so that's pretty much a done deal. I have been researching biopellets for a little while now and I am fairly comfortable with my plan. What I am having trouble with are the conflicting reports of people saying you can / cannot have a UV w/ your reactor. To those who say you cannot, I ask why? From my perspective, the UV only kills what inside of it. So I don't see what the problem is. Is this just misinformation or is there actually something happening that would encourage me remove my UV reactor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ridetheducati February 25, 2013 Share February 25, 2013 UV is designed to kill good and bad bacteria. UV is discouraged with probiotics because it is working against you. Can both coexist, yes, optimally, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimlin February 25, 2013 Share February 25, 2013 biopellets promotes bacteria growth while uv kills whatever goes through it. ipersonally do not use a uv in thethe tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integral9 February 25, 2013 Author Share February 25, 2013 That's what I've read too. While I believe it makes sense at first, I don't see the problem once the bio-pellet is up and running with a colony of bacteria inside. I can see the UV being an issue if you were trying to start the reactor as your water column would be virtually bacteria free, but if you put microbactor in the reactor and let it sit for a day before turning it on, it would give the bacteria a chance to colonize and not be effected by the UV. It's not like the UV sends out little UV-nanobots to kill everything microscopic in the tank. Would be cool though, if you wanted to start over. Better than chlorine or muriatic acid. I digress.... So does the biopellet reactor work outside the reactor too? I thought running the effluent from the bio-pellet reactor into your PS was to remove the excess bacteria. ie: you don't want it floating around your tank as it will cause an algae bloom. Seems to me like the UV would assist with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimlin February 25, 2013 Share February 25, 2013 uv will only kill whatever goes through it so all the bacteria in the reactor and rocks should be safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldReefer February 25, 2013 Share February 25, 2013 I can't speak to UV, but I am pretty aggressive with ozone, and that has never had any impact on my huge bio pellet reactor. I love them. I feed a ton with Phosphate at 0.00 and nitrate at 0.2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaddc February 25, 2013 Share February 25, 2013 I agree with the winter meeting speaker on this. The UV lamps available to the hobby are not sufficient to really do significant damage to pelagic microorganisms. First the bulbs tend to not be industrial strength (there are exceptions I'm sure, but when I compare the high wattage bad boys we use in the lab to the ones you get at the LFS, there is no comparison). Second, the microorganisms are not exposed long enough to do real damage. When we UV treat a surface, we blast it for at least 15 minutes. My guess is that unless you make your own, you are really just giving everything a Boehner tan. Same with ozone. Organisms (people included) have mechanisms in place to repair damage caused by UV and ozone. These techniques probably become more useful the smaller the tank volume. I believe biopellets generally encourage bacteria to grow on them, so they wouldn't see the UV anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integral9 February 27, 2013 Author Share February 27, 2013 The UV sterilization I do in my tank is mainly to eliminate free floating algea, and some bacteria. I do not believe I have enough exposure with the UV I am using to eliminate viruses or parasites. I do that or get close to that with the UV I have on my QT (if my calculations are correct). I'm sure what you are sterilizing in the lab is for all of the above and then double or triple that to be sure you kill the guys who have developed SPF1000 sun screen bodies and UV filtering eyes. I believe biopellets generally encourage bacteria to grow on them, so they wouldn't see the UV anyway. That's the way I see it too, which is why I'm confused as to all these people saying it's counter-productive to run both. I guess I'll find out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaddc February 27, 2013 Share February 27, 2013 The UV sterilization I do in my tank is mainly to eliminate free floating algea, and some bacteria. I do not believe I have enough exposure with the UV I am using to eliminate viruses or parasites. I do that or get close to that with the UV I have on my QT (if my calculations are correct). I'm sure what you are sterilizing in the lab is for all of the above and then double or triple that to be sure you kill the guys who have developed SPF1000 sun screen bodies and UV filtering eyes. Coral, bacteria and algae contain mycosporine-like amino acids (Wikipedia) to counteract UV-A and UV-B. That is what leads to my thinking that hobby-grade UV lamps can't get the deed done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F&Fmgr February 27, 2013 Share February 27, 2013 The secondary benefit to running biopellets is the healthy amount of bacterioplankton that develops in the water column. I believe the UV, if strong enough with proper flow through, would eliminate this. On an ULNS the bacterioplankton feed your corals, without it I believe the potential for coral stress is high. Now on the other hand, I run Biopellets And 8x57w UV stacked consecutively above the return pump with great results, but there are no corals in that system. Hope that helps Sean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaddc February 27, 2013 Share February 27, 2013 The secondary benefit to running biopellets is the healthy amount of bacterioplankton that develops in the water column. I believe the UV, if strong enough with proper flow through, would eliminate this. On an ULNS the bacterioplankton feed your corals, without it I believe the potential for coral stress is high. Now on the other hand, I run Biopellets And 8x57w UV stacked consecutively above the return pump with great results, but there are no corals in that system. Hope that helps Sean I agree with the first part. My guess is that some bacteria slough off of the tumbling pellets regularly and enter the water column. That bacteria would feed corals and sponges and would be a great secondary benefit. But keep in mind that the UV doesn't really kill bacteria, it inactivates it and prevents it from multiplying. UV doesn't kill people on its own -- it will cause cancer, though. Why don't we always get cancer with our tans? Because all life has evolved ways to repair the damage done by UV. When the repair pathways fail or are overrun, then bad things happen. So my point is that the inactive bacteria would still be available to be consumed or removed by the protein skimmer. It is a tough system to dial in. Aside from self-repair, particulates in the water may shield bacteria from the UV rays long enough to remain active. And judging flow is tough -- too fast and there isn't enough exposure and too slow will cause overheating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integral9 February 27, 2013 Author Share February 27, 2013 Coral, bacteria and algae contain mycosporine-like amino acids (Wikipedia) to counteract UV-A and UV-B. That is what leads to my thinking that hobby-grade UV lamps can't get the deed done. Oh they kill a great deal of what passes through them; at least mine does. After installing it, not only was the water clearer but the skimmate had a different smell; less rotting more dirt like. Which I take to mean there is less bacteria. Sure it won't sterilize at the lab grade level, but that's not it's intended purpose. I think what's expected out UV lamps in the lab can't be compared to what we expect out of them in our aquariums. It's like comparing the death star's weapon to luke skywalker's light sabre. ..... Boehner tan .... That's great. I'm going to start using that to describe all the orange tanned people I see.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimlin February 28, 2013 Share February 28, 2013 i see biopellets as something similar to harvesting chaeto, except you are using bacteria. biopellets in the reactor will feed bacteria in the reactor. the bacteria will hold on for dear life to the biopellets while also eating phosphate and nitrates as well. once it gets too big to hold on it will get pumped out of the reactor. once it is out of the reactor ideally you want to have the skimmer take it out of your system. adding a uv to the outlet of your biopellet reactor should not defeat the purpose of the biopellet. i read that bacteria do absorb nitrates and phostates, one should still run a phosphate absorbing device to prevent algae and cyano bacteria growth in the display which is why i purchased algae scrubbers for my tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesbuf February 28, 2013 Share February 28, 2013 (edited) I personally will never run a tank without a UV sterilizer. I've had ich outbreaks in every tank in the past where I didn't have a UV sterilizer setup, and yes with proper quarantine and otherwise healthy parameters. I agree with needing the proper exposure. I've been running a 57watt Aqua UV unit which according to their website is strong enough to kill parasites at around 1000gph running through it. I run maybe 500gph through it just to be safe. And (knock on wood), I've never had parasite or ich problems in my tank while this unit has been up and running. Just my experience. In regards to biopellets, I thought Sanjay had written an article about an experiment he did at Penn State that basically debunked biopellets having any positive effect?? Or even negative effects with alkalinity?? When the biopellets first came out, didn't a bunch of people have a bunch of corals die off or major negative impacts on their systems?? Please correct me if I'm wrong. I've been off this site and haven't really kept up with alot of the new literature of the hobby in the past few years, so I'm somewhat out of touch with new technologies. Edited February 28, 2013 by jamesbuf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaddc February 28, 2013 Share February 28, 2013 i see biopellets as something similar to harvesting chaeto, except you are using bacteria. biopellets in the reactor will feed bacteria in the reactor. the bacteria will hold on for dear life to the biopellets while also eating phosphate and nitrates as well. once it gets too big to hold on it will get pumped out of the reactor. once it is out of the reactor ideally you want to have the skimmer take it out of your system. adding a uv to the outlet of your biopellet reactor should not defeat the purpose of the biopellet. i read that bacteria do absorb nitrates and phostates, one should still run a phosphate absorbing device to prevent algae and cyano bacteria growth in the display which is why i purchased algae scrubbers for my tank. +1 Well put. Living things need more nitrogen then phosphorous that often leads to excess phosphorous in the tanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Origami February 28, 2013 Share February 28, 2013 In regards to biopellets, I thought Sanjay had written an article about an experiment he did at Penn State that basically debunked biopellets having any positive effect?? Or even negative effects with alkalinity?? When the biopellets first came out, didn't a bunch of people have a bunch of corals die off or major negative impacts on their systems?? Please correct me if I'm wrong. I've been off this site and haven't really kept up with alot of the new literature of the hobby in the past few years, so I'm somewhat out of touch with new technologies. I'm unaware of anything that Sanjay's said on this, but that may just be because I've not looked. What you may be referring to is the rash of burnt SPS tips that followed on the heels of various forms of carbon dosing under relatively high alkalinity conditions (9+ dkH). In summary, burnt SPS tips were observed in Ultra Low Nutrient Systems (ULNS) and was tied to alkalinity levels. When alk levels were reduced to (typically) 8.5 dKH or lower, the SPS recovered. Other than that, I don't know of any negative effects on alkalinity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Origami February 28, 2013 Share February 28, 2013 +1 Well put. Living things need more nitrogen then phosphorous that often leads to excess phosphorous in the tanks. Interesting statement. Living things are composed of less phosphorus than nitrogen and, therefore, decomposition often adds these in relatively correct proportions for reuse. There is a phenomenon, however, where if you deplete the bioavailable phosphorus using chemical adsorbants, that nitrate reduction can stall because living cells need both. That is, you can wind up with unconsumed nitrate because the system is phosphate-limited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaddc February 28, 2013 Share February 28, 2013 Interesting statement. Living things are composed of less phosphorus than nitrogen and, therefore, decomposition often adds these in relatively correct proportions for reuse. There is a phenomenon, however, where if you deplete the bioavailable phosphorus using chemical adsorbants, that nitrate reduction can stall because living cells need both. That is, you can wind up with unconsumed nitrate because the system is phosphate-limited. Correct. That points to the delicate balance. The phosphate adsorbant will disrupt the balance by removing so much phosphate that nitrate is in excess. If the imbalance is extreme, then the excess nitrate and phosphate-depleted environment could lead to negative effects. Perhaps even the collapse of macro algae? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesbuf February 28, 2013 Share February 28, 2013 I had no idea that many people were still running biobellets. Maybe I need to go read up some more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integral9 February 28, 2013 Author Share February 28, 2013 (edited) I personally will never run a tank without a UV sterilizer. My sentiments exactly. I have had similar experiences with ich on my tanks w/out a UV. Which is one of the 2 reasons I would like to keep my UV. The other being, I would have to replace the pump on my reactor to something smaller than a Mag 7 as well as re-plumb the entire loop. In regards to biopellets, I thought Sanjay had written an article about an experiment he did at Penn State that basically debunked biopellets having any positive effect?? Or even negative effects with alkalinity?? When the biopellets first came out, didn't a bunch of people have a bunch of corals die off or major negative impacts on their systems?? I don't know anything from Sanjay specifically, but I have read and heard comments from people around the interwebs regarding the use of bio-pellets and describing a condition in which if the effluent from the biopellet reactor is not run through a protein skimmer or discharged near the intake of a protein skimmer, you could easily end up with algae blooms and nitrate problems because the bacteria from the reactor die off in the DT introducing the nutrients they consumed back into the water. I also read about a problem early on in the use of biopellets where the pellets were not made from the 100% biodegradable plastics and thus introduced toxic chemicals into the tank. I believe that was a problem with using the industrial grade pellets that were intended to be mixed into other plastics to make the plastic biodegradable. I don't think this is a problem with using any of the products intended to be used as bio-pellets in our hobby. I had no idea that many people were still running biobellets. Maybe I need to go read up some more. I thought Bio-pellets were fairly new (3-4 years maybe). Are you confusing bio-balls and bio-pellets? (seems to be a common mistake) fwiw: I loop back all my filtration to the filter sock except my skimmer. I would do that one too, but I would have to use a larger filter sock to accommodate the extra 1" pipe and I just don't have enough room for a 7" filter sock. Edited February 28, 2013 by Integral9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesbuf February 28, 2013 Share February 28, 2013 Nah, I ran biopellets when they first came out. I've never used bioballs, nothing but nitrate factories from everything I read over a decade ago. I never noticed a difference when I ran the biopellets so I coudln't justify the cost. They were a good deal more expensive when they first came out. I tried them because it was back when carbon dosing was being used more and more and the concept of the biopellets seems good in theory. I looked and I can't find the article where Sanjay evaluated biopellets. Really weird. I specifically recall him not being overly impressed with them. I've read a bunch of other stuff on biopellets and it appears I may have not used them long enough to see full effect. I used them when they first came out and they were really really new. Maybe I'll give them another try with my bulkreefsupply order tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zygote2k February 28, 2013 Share February 28, 2013 Why don't you try it and see what happens? Then you'll know whether or not it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesbuf February 28, 2013 Share February 28, 2013 Thats the plan. I'm getting the liter pack from BRS in my order. Was gonna start up carbon and GFO again, but I'll try this again instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimlin March 2, 2013 Share March 2, 2013 hmmm, wonder if you could prevent the die off by dosing a small amount of vodka to the tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ridetheducati March 2, 2013 Share March 2, 2013 Thats the plan. I'm getting the liter pack from BRS in my order. Was gonna start up carbon and GFO again, but I'll try this again instead. Get the Warner pellets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now