Mix Phosguard and Biopellets?
- Thread starter RSMRyan
- Start date
StevesLEDs
RS Sponsor
Phosguard absorbs phosphates, and biopellets are essentially porous media to grow bacteria, just as your liverock and existing filter does, to reduce nitrates.
That said, for tanks packed with live rock, biopellets are useless, but for smaller aquariums BC29 and under, it could prove beneficial.
They serve two different purposes and work in two different ways on two different time scales, phosguard is good for about 4 days before it saturates with phosphates, and biopellets are designed to be left in long term. Biopellets won't do any good for you in 4 days.
Hope that helps?
Jeff
That said, for tanks packed with live rock, biopellets are useless, but for smaller aquariums BC29 and under, it could prove beneficial.
They serve two different purposes and work in two different ways on two different time scales, phosguard is good for about 4 days before it saturates with phosphates, and biopellets are designed to be left in long term. Biopellets won't do any good for you in 4 days.
Hope that helps?
Jeff
It is usually not a good idea to mix media like this. Ideally you should use different reactors. You'll find out that different media like different flow rates, also some media such as Phosguard is very hard and if that media is mixed with a soft media, such as carbon, it will tend to grind up the softer media. Note - there are quite a few "famous brand" medias out there that do mix multiple medias together. I recommend avoiding them and buying bulk media.
If your really stuck, you could place each media in it's own media bag, but this is usually not ideal.
If your really stuck, you could place each media in it's own media bag, but this is usually not ideal.
chipmunkofdoom2
Well-Known Member
@StevesLEDs , If I understand the meaning of your post correctly, that's not quite the function of biopellets. Biopellets fall in the category of organic carbon dosing. Live rock hosts nitrifying bacteria that turn waste into ammonia > nitrite > nitrate (the "cycle" as almost everyone knows). Biopellets work differently. Biopellets are essentially a sugar source designed to promote the growth of heterotrophic bacteria. During their growth, the bacteria consume dissolved nitrates and phosphates as part of their development. When the bacteria die, they are removed via protein skimming. You won't encourage these bacterial strains to grow simply by having a lot of live rock. There are lots of very dense, very porous media out there that do what you describe (essentially emulate live rock), but biopellets are not one of them.
@RSMRyan I personally would not run both in one reactor. To go even farther, I would probably only run one or the other on any given system. If your phosphates are under control by using GFO or another phosphate absorbing media, then you will likely be able to keep nitrates in check with water changes and good husbandry. Conversely, if your system is maintained at ULNS levels by dosing an organic carbon source (biopellets, in your case) then there will be very little, if any phosphates to be removed. The caveat of course is if your system has a powerful source of phosphorous that puts your system far outside any sort of approximation of the Redfield ratio.. but that's another thread for another time.
TL;DR: I'd only use biopellets or GFO on any given system, not both, and not in the same reactor.
@RSMRyan I personally would not run both in one reactor. To go even farther, I would probably only run one or the other on any given system. If your phosphates are under control by using GFO or another phosphate absorbing media, then you will likely be able to keep nitrates in check with water changes and good husbandry. Conversely, if your system is maintained at ULNS levels by dosing an organic carbon source (biopellets, in your case) then there will be very little, if any phosphates to be removed. The caveat of course is if your system has a powerful source of phosphorous that puts your system far outside any sort of approximation of the Redfield ratio.. but that's another thread for another time.
TL;DR: I'd only use biopellets or GFO on any given system, not both, and not in the same reactor.
Last edited:
Very interesting! Thanks for the feedback everyone.
@chipmunkofdoom2 can you direct me to said RedField Ratio?
@chipmunkofdoom2 can you direct me to said RedField Ratio?
chipmunkofdoom2
Well-Known Member
Sure, here's the Wikipedia.
The basic idea is that most microscopic organisms that live in the ocean, including the heterotrophic bacteria that carbon dosing is supposed to grow, use a set ratio of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus in their development. That ratio is stated to be 106:16:1 for carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus respectively. What this means is that generally speaking, for every unit of phosphorus a bacterium uses to grow, it needs 16 units if nitrogen and 106 units of carbon. While we don't know for certain if this ratio applies exactly as described to the bacteria grown by carbon dosing, some reefers have found at least the principle to be accurate: carbon dosing will remove a lot of nitrates and some phosphates. Additionally, pioneering dosers over on RC have noticed that if you're missing nitrates or phosphates, carbon dosing is not quite as effective. This would support the idea that carbon dosing follows some approximation of the Redfield ratio.
Now again, take this all with a grain of salt. While we as hobbyists have found some ground rules that cause one to be successful with carbon dosing, and while we know how to make it work, we still haven't verified what we're experiencing scientifically. Reports on RC seem to suggest that some formulation of the RR is at play, but there's no hard data to back it up. Suffice it to say if you're missing either nitrogen or phosphorus, you may see limited impact from carbon dosing, as others who have gone before us have. This is why running GFO can potentially impact the effectiveness of organic carbon dosing.
The basic idea is that most microscopic organisms that live in the ocean, including the heterotrophic bacteria that carbon dosing is supposed to grow, use a set ratio of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus in their development. That ratio is stated to be 106:16:1 for carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus respectively. What this means is that generally speaking, for every unit of phosphorus a bacterium uses to grow, it needs 16 units if nitrogen and 106 units of carbon. While we don't know for certain if this ratio applies exactly as described to the bacteria grown by carbon dosing, some reefers have found at least the principle to be accurate: carbon dosing will remove a lot of nitrates and some phosphates. Additionally, pioneering dosers over on RC have noticed that if you're missing nitrates or phosphates, carbon dosing is not quite as effective. This would support the idea that carbon dosing follows some approximation of the Redfield ratio.
Now again, take this all with a grain of salt. While we as hobbyists have found some ground rules that cause one to be successful with carbon dosing, and while we know how to make it work, we still haven't verified what we're experiencing scientifically. Reports on RC seem to suggest that some formulation of the RR is at play, but there's no hard data to back it up. Suffice it to say if you're missing either nitrogen or phosphorus, you may see limited impact from carbon dosing, as others who have gone before us have. This is why running GFO can potentially impact the effectiveness of organic carbon dosing.
MatroxD
Active Member
Simply put, no, you cannot mix the two in a single reactor.. The basic guise is pellets are long term and phosguard definitely is not.. And the pellets are not a chemical absorption media(they are a biological or bacterial facilitating media, if you want to call then that), while phosguard is..
So definitely no, you don't want to do a mix of these together in the same reactor..
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
So definitely no, you don't want to do a mix of these together in the same reactor..
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk