Phosphate Phad?

[ReefLady]

I'm recently seeing a lot of SPS keepers running RowaPhos or Phosban consistently on their tanks.

I understand PO4 as being problematic (first-hand) and limiting growth.

But this is one direction I didn't expect to see the hobby going.

Poeple are now buying reactors for their phosphate sponges to run them 24/7. And while I'm sure the short-term results are great, especially for a system that has never had the product used before, if we've learned anything from the DSB "fad" (probably a little early to call it a fad) it's that long-term results can be unpredictable with any unexplored new equipment/filtration.

It just seems to me that we're now running one of those chemicals that were always reserved for "if you have a problem" versus everyday maintenance. Furthermore, in Borneman's "Aquarium Corals" he recommends using PO4 sponges only as a sort of last resort (my words, not his) and mentions they can negatively effect soft corals.

Have products such as PB and RP made the leap to being something only beneficial and not detrimental? How do you think Eric would feel about this "fad?"

Do you think three years from now most reef tanks will be running some sort of PO4 sponge 24/7?

And most of all.... what do you OFR's think about all this?

 

[mps9506]

I haven't had a phosphate problem with my sps tank, so haven't really really looked into phosphate "reactors"
My opinion is that once you remove the source, whether it be water supply, food, dsb or live rock leaching old nutrients, etc., and then remove available phosphate in the water column through rowaphos, etc, you should not have to run this all the time.
Most SPS keepers also run large refugiums, this should keep phosphate in check over the long run after removing most of the phosphate through a phosphate removing product.
All in all, I don't see PO4 sponges being run 24/7 for a long time.
JMO.
Plus they are expensive to run 24/7 in the long run. A jar of Rowaphos is ridcously expensive.
Mike

 

[NaH2O]

Hmmm.....I'm not an OFR, but I'll tell you my thoughts anyway

if we've learned anything from the DSB "fad" (probably a little early to call it a fad) it's that long-term results can be unpredictable with any unexplored new equipment/filtration.

I wouldn't call this a fad as much as a misrepresentation and misunderstanding on the hobbyists part (I'll insert my name here). Once people began to understand the functionality of a DSB (either by experience or through research), then we started to see people ditching the sand.

You can't argue with chemistry - it is what it is, and you can't argue with biochemistry. I just can't see how using an iron based phosphate sponge can be detrimental.

I feel that it is important to run one especially on an SPS tank, as the phosphates can inhibit growth. It is also important to run one on a bare bottom tank ---> no DSB to sink it....where is the excess going to go? Fuel algae. As far as softies go, IMO, they can get away with a "dirtier" tank in comparison to an SPS tank. Personally, I don't think that is becoming the latest "fad".....I feel more like hobbyists are beginning to realize and understand in depth what is happening in their systems. Phosphates are everywhere and are needed for survival....but we introduce so much. Food (homemade and prepared), salt mix, sand (saturated with it), calcium reactor media, the list could continue. When something dies in the tank....could be a little speck of algae....the organic phosphates, have now turned into inorganic phosphates, and will be taken up by other things and utilized. The trick is to get rid of it before you have an abundance in the system (unless you like the algae growing). This is why something like Rowaphos (as an example) is important.....why not limit the amount, so you don't get nuisance algae growth, and not limit coral growth?

Anyone have a chart comparing the different brands with their effectiveness?

 

[ReefLady]

Thanks Nikki. I didn't mean to say that this was a "fad" or a bad idea, I'm unsure and undecided on both counts. But it's definitely gaining in popularity. So I thought maybe we should discuss it. Your response makes a lot of sense.

Travis

 

[Curtswearing]

I could see running 24/7 being useful because just about everything we do adds phosphates to our tanks. I'm just not sure a reactor is necessary. I don't intend to buy any kind of reactor unless it is proven on a long term basis that this is 300% better than using it in a filter bag. However, I do use Rowaphos as opposed to all of the Aluminum-based phosphate sponges for several reasons;

1) the Aluminum-based sponges would tick off my Sarcophyton (Corky's host), and
2) It takes forever to see improvement with Aluminum-based products, and
3) The first time I used Rowaphos, I saw immediate improvement.

Because phosphates inhibit calcification and feed algae growth, I do a lot of things to limit them out of my system. As a result, I won't rule a reactor out if it proves to be a success. Here are a couple of things I do to limit phosphates....

I use RO/DI water to remove the Phosphates and Chloramines that my municipal water supplier is putting into my tap water system. I use a TDS meter to ensure that DI resins are doin' their job.

I soak my blender-mush in RO/DI water to strip the phosphates out of the ingredients before I feed my tank. I also feed other foods on occasion. I will strip these foods in the same manner. I also store my RO/DI water in food grade containers so the plasticizers don't leach phosphates into my top-off water.

I turkey baste my rock to get the detritus off of my rockwork and out of my system via skimming, water-changes, etc.

Maybe a reactor is the next step for me....I'm not convinced of that fact. However, I will continue to run Rowaphos in a filter-sock in my sump to remove any inorganic phosphates it can. There's only a limited time for it to be in an inorganic form in the water column before a bacteria or algae grabs it so if you can steal if from them, my opinion is to do so.

 

[NaH2O]

OOPS, travis, I didn't mean to imply that you implied it was a bad idea....lol I was just trying to make a point, as I'm sure there will be some that disagree.

and looks like I left the after my opening statement...I better edit that before someone calls me an OF*B* LOL

 

[Curtswearing]

OK...nevermind. Thanks Nikki.

 

[NaH2O]

LOL....Curt you supplemented my post well.


CPIC

 

[Curtswearing]

Typin' at the same time. However, it looks like we are in agreement though.

 

[BoomerD]

I guess I'm kind of an OFR, lots more O and maybe F than R, but...
In the "old" days, Kent Phosphate sponge was about the best we had, as I remember. I've recently tried the Phosban in a fluidized bed to try to get a handle on some of this hair algae I imported to my tank with a couple of anemones and corals. If you remember, the first trial was a real mess. The entire tank went orange. Too much flow! Now, with a mini-jet 404 doing the pumping, no problems. Things are starting to look a bit better, but the hair algae still hasn't started to go away yet. Might need a bit more in the reactor. The green micro algae on the glass is getting thinner, and easier to remove though, so I think it's starting to work. I guess I'll have to experiment with how much I put in the FBR and a bit more flow. I wouldn't want to run this stuff full time, as it IS hecka pricey, but if that's what I have to do for a while, then that's what I'll do. Two Little Fishies just came out with a phosban reactor for this stuff. Looks pretty well built. Might end up getting one. The ones I've seen run in the $40.00 range.

 

[BoomerD]

Sheesh! You know your hair algae problem is getting bad, when you have "hairy snails".

 

[sharks]

Well I’m about to finally start running the stuff I bought months ago.
I don’t look at it as chemical filtration. It’s just a more efficient absorbent material then what was previously used.
The more and more I look and read about those reefs that have stunning SPS dominated tanks.
The more I see use RP or PB.
Many now grow macro algae to absorb PO4 but now we have a man made absorbent that doesn’t leach it back when exhausted.
I do as much as I can (Time and my patience allowing) to prevent phosphates from entering my reef but IMO it can’t hurt. Well maybe my wallet a little
I hope to fire mine up in the morning and I will keep you all posted and the results.
JMO
S

 

[dgasmd]

It just seems to me that we're now running one of those chemicals that were always reserved for "if you have a problem" versus everyday maintenance. Furthermore, in Borneman's "Aquarium Corals" he recommends using PO4 sponges only as a sort of last resort (my words, not his) and mentions they can negatively effect soft corals. "

Yes, but Borneman wrote that when there was not a single PO4 remover that was not aluminum based. That stuff is nasty.

I agree with MPS9506 in that:

I haven't had a phosphate problem with my sps tank, so haven't really really looked into phosphate "reactors"
My opinion is that once you remove the source, whether it be water supply, food, dsb or live rock leaching old nutrients, etc., and then remove available phosphate in the water column through rowaphos, etc, you should not have to run this all the time.

However, that means getting rid of every single fish in your tank. That is not a choice most of us is willing to take.

Most SPS keepers also run large refugiums, this should keep phosphate in check over the long run after removing most of the phosphate through a phosphate removing product.

Actually, this is a huge misconception by most people. Most grasses we grow in refugiums do very little if nothing for phosphate levels. They are very good at adsorbing nitrates, but not the same case for phosphates.

Regardless of what anyone of us do, we cannot get rid of enough phosphates to simulate natural conditions. And while that may not affect SPS corals to the point of killing them, it does affect their growth and coloration significantly. It also affects algae growth. You want tog et rid of any algae whatsoever growing in your tank?? Get rid of the DSb, syphon detritus, skim like mad, and run a phophate absortion media. Carbon would be a plus.

Funny, pleople used to reserve carbon also for that "special moment of need only". Now everyone uses it.

 

[ReefLady]

Originally posted by dgasmd
Yes, but Borneman wrote that when there was not a single PO4 remover that was not aluminum based. That stuff is nasty.

You probably just answered the crux of my question right here.

I seem to remember a time when everyone ran carbon all the time, then it fell out of favor except for "special occasions." IIRC, this was due to people saying that A) the carbon could leach PO4 back into the water and B) that carbon would strip the water of trace elements.

I think the PO4 thing is largely ignored now, as I remember it being proven this was not the case when using high-quality carbon. However, not sure what "final word," if any, exists regarding the stripping of trace elements.

Now back to the PO4 question- I'm setting up a 180 now and would definitely consider adding a PO4 reactor, if for nothing else to be there when I need it. Considering the improvements in PO4 sponges and the fact that I'm still experiencing hair algae issues on some of the LR that will eventually go into the tank, sounds like a wise investment of $40 or so. It does, however, sound like there are alternatives to using a reactor, one of them being a canister filter that could house both carbon and PO4. So now will we see the canister filter coming back into favor on reef tanks? How's that for stirring the pot?

After all, I could get a HOT magnum for about the same price, just hang it on the sump and not worry about plumbing it in or buying an additional pump, and could put all kinds of good stuff in there.

Travis

 

[dgasmd]

I personally wouldn't get a canister filter. They have too much flow through them and also have limited space for media as well. If it was me, I would get 2 flow though chambers (call them reactors if you'd like) and use each for its particular purpose. Put the necessary shut off valves and you can disconnect them from the line when you want to. Much neater and easier to work with too.

As far as carbon, I personally wouldn't be concerned too much with the stripping of trace element issue. God knows we have too much of all of them anyway, so a little stripping may be a good thing in my view. Even if you are using a carbon of "high quality", which ususally equals to expensive, I would put some of the carbon in a small container with some RO/DI water of 0 TDS and let it sit there for about an hour. Then, test the water for phosphate with a salifert kit. Most people I know that are to the max with their tanks have found that even the same brand of carbon that most times will test 0, from time to time will have some phosphates in it.

The last thing about both substances, carbon and phosphate removing media, is that both need very little flow to pass through them. Just enough to mantain the media moving, but not enough that it is tumbling. This allows the most amount of surface area to be exposed and you get the most for your money.

 

[mps9506]

Originally posted by dgasmd



However, that means getting rid of every single fish in your tank. That is not a choice most of us is willing to take.

hmm, I recently removed the only fish in my tank
I'm going crazy over sps apparently :0
Any ideas on what macros actually remove phosphates from the water column?
Mike

 

[ScottT1980]

I think I remember asking Boomer or mojo the same question. I wish I could find phosphate uptake efficiency data in the literature but my attempts to do so have failed. Although, NCSU does not exactly have the best marine biology/ecology databases available to it. Does UNCW have anything?

Take er easy
Scott T.

 

[dgasmd]

They are all about the same and very poor at it. At least that is as far as I know. I am always open to someone teachingme something new.

 

[middletonmark]

Well, an interesting question Travis ... and discussion.

I guess I'd fall in the `don't consider it mandatory for all, but interested to try it' camp. No reactor here, just a low flow area of my sump has a bag of Phosban right now.

As I know how things are without running it [pretty good, actually] ... I figured it was worth a try. Like anything I felt I needed a good baseline before starting it, now in week 3 of running a test of it.

To keep in mind with some of the media chamber things is that they're almost designed with tank-size in mind IMO. The TLF one is made to run a can of Phosban, enough for 150 gallons. So on my 58g SPS tank, while I guess I could just load it up every six months or something ... I'm going low-tech for the minute. Might even DIY a chamber, seems like a simple enough task.

I dunno. I kind of feel that something's out of whack if you need to run this 24/7/365 ... it's easy to import and stock too heavily and all. It scares me that this will become something overhyped, or helpful in facilitating `insta-tanks' that seem to pop up here and there.

Heck, I'd love to have some fish I can't support the waste from ... and this would facilitate things Although I'd just rather see if it makes my SPS frags become a `jungle' just a little quicker.

Without getting a real balance in the tank prior to using one of these ... it just seems like a nutrient band-aid like a DSB would be. Masking the problem.

Where while I see their use, it ain't no substitue for nutrient-balance and getting import/export in agreement.

 

[sharks]

Can anyone tell me how long it takes for the tank to clear?
I just hooked up a fluidized filter with PB and here is how it looks after 15-20 min.
The fish and corals look fine just wondering when it will clear up.
TIA
S