Prolonged use of NP Pellets

Joined
12 Oct 2011
Posts
1,102
Reaction score
57
Location
Westville , Durban
Hi Guys,

Having searched and read through most of the posts on NP Pellets, i would like to know of success stories or failure from using NP Pelletts, reason being is in the initial stages during the hype alot of success stories were told, id like to know from long term users what their opinions are, as ive heard of softies bleaching as a result of stripping the tank of Nitrates and phosphates.

I set up my sump to utilise a DSB however i came accross the NP Pellet debate and am currently opting to go this root but would like to know if im heading on the right track. Ive read that more success was gained when using it on initial startup so i plan to do just that as the tank is not yet up and running.


As the sump was planned to house a dsb and fuge id like to know if a fuge can be kept whilst using NP Pellets? If im not using maro algea will the pods survive in the dark within some LR rubble? I will mod the sump if need be. Most guys place NP Reactor in return chamber and feed the overflow from reactor to skimmer inlet, could i restructure my sump so that i can have NP Reactor > SKimmer> Phos Reactor > Refugiam> Return. The fuge is purely for housing of pods as i would like to keep a mandarin in the future.

Total System Volume is +-720 litres. Will a Reef Octopus NW 200 rated at 900 liters be sufficient or should i supplement with another.

I will endevour to stock lightly in the initial stages and should i find Nitrate and Phosphates not reducing i could supplement with a bigger skimer later as im aware that a skimmer 3 times the volume is required for pellets. Will a much less rated skimer not prevent nitrates and phosphates from being stripped entirely?

I will be running phos remover in a Reef Oct reactor.

How many guys using pellets have less than 3 times the rated Skimmer?
 
Hi Guys,

Having searched and read through most of the posts on NP Pellets, i would like to know of success stories or failure from using NP Pelletts, reason being is in the initial stages during the hype alot of success stories were told, id like to know from long term users what their opinions are, as ive heard of softies bleaching as a result of stripping the tank of Nitrates and phosphates.
If you get the right amount of pellets for your system you wont experience problems with bleaching because of low nutrients.
As with any low nutrient system (not just pellets) if its to low the corals will battle, even the most fussy SPS need some sort of nutrients and keep that in mind
My system is running for 6 months now and my experience is just getting better and better with pellets
I set up my sump to utilise a DSB however i came accross the NP Pellet debate and am currently opting to go this root but would like to know if im heading on the right track. Ive read that more success was gained when using it on initial startup so i plan to do just that as the tank is not yet up and running.
I say Decide what filtration you wanna run, use it from the start and stick with it

As the sump was planned to house a dsb and fuge id like to know if a fuge can be kept whilst using NP Pellets? If im not using maro algea will the pods survive in the dark within some LR rubble? I will mod the sump if need be. Most guys place NP Reactor in return chamber and feed the overflow from reactor to skimmer inlet, could i restructure my sump so that i can have NP Reactor > SKimmer> Phos Reactor > Refugiam> Return. The fuge is purely for housing of pods as i would like to keep a mandarin in the future.
A fuge with algae is a BIG NO NO when using NP Pellets, in a short basic explnation, the two filtration methods counter act one another and what ends up happening is that you will have very low phosphate or nitrates and then extrmley high levels of the other one.
NP Reactor>skimmer>fuge (no algae)>return that is the best sump set up IMO for pellet system
Total System Volume is +-720 litres. Will a Reef Octopus NW 200 rated at 900 liters be sufficient or should i supplement with another.
You cant supplement with another skimmer you need another bigger one
I will endevour to stock lightly in the initial stages and should i find Nitrate and Phosphates not reducing i could supplement with a bigger skimer later as im aware that a skimmer 3 times the volume is required for pellets. Will a much less rated skimer not prevent nitrates and phosphates from being stripped entirely?
I would say 2 times will be fine unless you want a full on SPS reef with the best colours ever
I will be running phos remover in a Reef Oct reactor.
No Need (especially in the start)
How many guys using pellets have less than 3 times the rated Skimmer?
Mine is rated for double and is working perfect
Answers in red
 
Thanks for the quick response.

I will replace my NW200 for a highr rated skimmer then, any ideas on a good skimmer in the Reef Octo range that will handle 3 time the volume, the reason i say Reef Octo is that the NW200 is still in the box and im sure I could exchange with a cash difference at the LFS I purchased it from. Perhaps I can send my phos reactor in as well as its still in the box and get a bigger skimmer and only get a phos media if i need to in the future.
 
hammerhead, before i asnwer fully, can you tell me what you intend to keep. is it a mixed reef with a few softies a couple of Lps, maybe a clam or three and some fish.

or is it a sps dominated system with a low fish load and lots of internal flow.

is your focus on fish (mandarins and the like) or on sps corals?
 
Hi Crispin, the tank will be softies with a few LPS and maybe clam or two once i get more accustomed so yes a mixed reef more softy dominated, i intend to have max 10 medium to small fish maybe less.
 
Hi Crispin, the tank will be softies with a few LPS and maybe clam or two once i get more accustomed so yes a mixed reef more softy dominated, i intend to have max 10 medium to small fish maybe less.
well to be honest for a system like that I wouldnt go with NP pellets and extreme low nutrient set up.

i would have a decent skimmer, a good refugium with macro algae or perhaps an ATS (have you read about turf scrubbers?) with some carbon in a fluid reactor and some phosphate remover in another reactor.

Lighting would be more moderate too, as would flow and the corals you like wouldnt suffer bleaching from dropping nutrients too low.

It souns to me like you have a pretty good idea on your sump deseign already but why not post a few pics of it so we can help you ste it out for long term success to achieve what you want to achieve:)
 
i think id personally put the cash towards a better skimmer and use that as a primary export of nutrient rather than using the same money on NP reactors and media
 
Thanks Crispin i do have a thread on my current build,

Hammerheads New Tank Build - Marine Aquariums of South Africa herewith the link, i did manage to sort out the leak :).

I wanted to enter the hobby in the new age hence looking at alternatives. Puts a new perspective on things.

I guess il go back to the original design Skimmer > DSB/Refugiam/ATS > Return + Phos Reactor.

with all the new developments in the hobby im at wits end trying to achieve the best possible filtration method.

Ive read up on DSB's and im sure if i set it up correctly it could/will work. If in the near future if i find myself battling with GHA as a result of high nutrients and phosphates i may consider it in the next setup. Then il be better prepared.

Thanks for putting things in perspective, let me learn to walk before i run and break bones instead :whistling:

Tank Specs:
1300 X 650 X 600 (H) 550 (WL) 10mm Glass Euro Braced, C2C with a bean animal overflow
Sump Specs:
1200 X 550 X 450 (H) 300 (WL) 6mm Glass and a huge DSB.

55234ecb7ea65d992.jpg



the other reason i wanted to go pellets was to incl. a RO chamber within the sump as less space will be required. Il use a bucket as originall intended.
 
Last edited:
Guys a friend of mine has a softy and LPS dominated system and he has a NP pellet reactor and a DSB and macro algea and you must see his system.

The only thing is if you have a DSB and the NP pellets the NP pellets will cause the DSB to develop slower but it will still work.
 
Just to add; instead of using 100ml/100L use only 50ml/100L.
The dossage is 50ml - 100ml/100L
Also decide how much you want to add and devide in 4 and add that per week otherwise you will get an algea bloom and can cause the softies to bleach.
 
Last edited:
i am going to add NP pellets to my softie system but at less than half the reccomended dosage. keep an eye on my thread and lets see how it pans out.
 
I have softies in my tank (in fact 90% softies) and I am running NP Pellets I dont understand why you must use such old methods like a DSB when there are better ones out there.
I find the pellets to be a lot more hassle free (when set up properly) then any other filtration method i have tried
Also trust me just cause you run pellets does not mean you will achieve a ultra low nutrient system, there are so many factors to this its not even funny, food, livestock and the list goes on
If by using pellets ment that you were guaranteed a low nutrient system, trust me they would be the biggest invention of this century, relatively bigger than the combustion engine
 
HH, that looks like a lovely tank and buildt you have there, ive just skimmed through your thread on it. I would suggest thinking about space fora RO chamber and ATU, i personally think those two are essencial to a stable sump, which in turn is essencial to a stable system.

for what you are aiming at achieving a sump like i spoke about before will stand yuou in realy good stead. especially if you get a refugium going above the dsb with a strong population of pods in sump and tank. Just remeber that pod populatiosn realy need time to be well established before they get predated aopn, so give them time before you add any fish that might eat them so that later down the li9ne you can get that pair of mandarins you so want.
 
I have softies in my tank (in fact 90% softies) and I am running NP Pellets I dont understand why you must use such old methods like a DSB when there are better ones out there. well one good reason to use a propperly set up DSB is that they work. another is they give you far better biological filtration over a wider range of organisms and they offer a really good area to grow pods and the like. All of which will stand HH in good stead with the system that he is aiming at.
I find the pellets to be a lot more hassle free (when set up properly) then any other filtration method i have tried. Agreed, pellets in a properly set up reactor, with the mulm skimmed off correctly are an excelent forward movement in this hobby. Easier than carbon dosing with many beniffits. I just dont feel its in HH best intrests with regard to what he wants to keep.
Also trust me just cause you run pellets does not mean you will achieve a ultra low nutrient system, there are so many factors to this its not even funny, food, livestock and the list goes on. Ultra low nutrient systems (running the knife edge as such) only have advantages to a certain aspect to reefing, and NP pellets by no means guarentee this in their own right. as you say theer are too many dynamic aspects to a reef to guarentee it every time.
If by using pellets ment that you were guaranteed a low nutrient system, trust me they would be the biggest invention of this century, relatively bigger than the combustion engine
NP pellets maybe a relativley new method of carbon dosing.

DSB's might have been around longer.

But by no means would i say that the one method has over taken the other and i wouldnt suggest that DSB's have run their course as being useful biological filtration systems.

well not in my opinion at any rate
 
There is a very good article on NP pellets in the latest coral magazine- long and short they work well in some systems but not in all alot depends on the type of bacteria culture that they develop and often this is different in each system and how good your skimming is.

Also they must not be run with high kh or you can expect coral deaths - Kh - must not go over 9-10 when using these pellets
 
Last edited:
thanks guys for all the responses, i think im too new to this and as i mentioned before let me start off with a system that i can manage first, i.e keep stable water parameteres. once i get the feel of it, i will consider other methods if the need arises. For now i will go the DSB route.

Crispin, i will incl an ATU with the RO reservoir being in a bucket as i want to keep my DSB as large as possible.

Thanks again for putting things in perspective.
 
thanks guys for all the responses, i think im too new to this and as i mentioned before let me start off with a system that i can manage first, i.e keep stable water parameteres. once i get the feel of it, i will consider other methods if the need arises. For now i will go the DSB route. Sane decision:)

Crispin, i will incl an ATU with the RO reservoir being in a bucket as i want to keep my DSB as large as possible. I hear you, and its a good ploy. I love a good fat dsb, indeed i often run them in tank to make them as big as possible. But i also have 100l RO resivoir on an 800l tank and i fill it once every two weeks or so. Having a big enough resivoir that you can basically forget about the top ups is very useful, so by all means go with a bucket, just make sure its a biggish one and that you get used to checking it has water in it.

Thanks again for putting things in perspective.
my pleasure :)
 
A fuge with algae is a BIG NO NO when using NP Pellets, in a short basic explnation, the two filtration methods counter act one another and what ends up happening is that you will have very low phosphate or nitrates and then extrmley high levels of the other one. NP Reactor>skimmer>fuge (no algae)>return that is the best sump set up IMO for pellet system

This is about this Redfield ratios correct?
History

In his 1934 paper, Alfred Redfield proposed that the ratio of Nitrogen to Phosphorus in plankton resulted in the global ocean having a remarkably similar ratio of dissolved nitrate to phosphate (16:1). Redfield felt that it wasn’t purely a coincidence that the large oceans would have a chemistry perfectly suited for the requirements of life.
In his hypothesis he suggested that if the ocean were to be devoid of life then the chemical compositions would be significantly different from its actual composition. He determined this ratio empirically by analyzing thousands of samples of marine biomass from all of the ocean regions.
In 1958, almost a quarter century after first discovering the ratios, Redfield proposed the seminal idea of "the biological control of chemical factors" in the ocean (Redfield, 1958). He considered how the cycles of not just N and P but also C and O could interact to result in this match.

Interested in this point the redfield ratios would be messed up is that what you are saying ? That there wont be enough phosphate and nitrate and carbon ? However lets say you have an ATS using up alot of nitrate and phosphates and biopellets doing the same but also providing carbon for bacteria, why would they counteract one another wouldnt it get to a point that there was very low nitrate and phosphate because both algae and bacteria are using it instead of just the one.

I dont understand why one would become much higher then the other ( nitrate /phosphate) as both sources are using both except bacteria are also using the organic carbon so perhaps organic carbon would increase?

can someone make better sense of this please im struggling to understand the implications

In the ocean a large portion of the biomass is found to be nitrogen-rich plankton. Many of these plankton are consumed by other plankton biomass which have similar chemical compositions. This results in a similar nitrogen to phosphorus ratio, on average, for all the plankton throughout the world’s ocean, averaging approximately 16:1. When these organisms sink into the ocean interior, their energy-rich bodies are consumed by bacteria that, in aerobic conditions, oxidize the organic matter to form dissolved inorganic nutrients, mainly carbon dioxide, nitrate, and phosphate.
Redfield explained the remarkable congruence between the chemistry of the deep ocean and the chemistry of living things such as phytoplankton in the surface ocean. Both have N : P ratios of about 16:1 in terms of atoms. When nutrients are not limiting, the molar elemental ratio C:N : P in most phytoplankton is 106-16-1. Redfield thought it wasn't purely coincidental that the vast oceans would have a chemistry perfectly suited to the requirements of living organisms.
Although the Redfield ratio is remarkably stable in the deep ocean, phytoplankton may have large variations in the C:N : P composition, and their life strategy play a role in the C:N: P ratio, which has made some researchers speculate that the Redfield ratio perhaps is a general average rather than specific requirement for phytoplankton growth (e.g., Arrigo 2005) as no theoretical justification for Redfield ratio has ever been found.
Makes me think that if more nitrate is being used than phosphate with biopellets there will come a time when nitrate will become so low that biopellets wouldnt work anymore and phosphate, cArbon would then increase, but here i could see the ATS using up that phosphate as algae doesnt need carbon to use up nitrate or phosphates.??

Anyone able to simplify all this?
 
Last edited:
This is about this Redfield ratios correct?


Interested in this point the redfield ratios would be messed up is that what you are saying ? That there wont be enough phosphate and nitrate and carbon ? However lets say you have an ATS using up alot of nitrate and phosphates and biopellets doing the same but also providing carbon for bacteria, why would they counteract one another wouldnt it get to a point that there was very low nitrate and phosphate because both algae and bacteria are using it instead of just the one.

I dont understand why one would become much higher then the other ( nitrate /phosphate) as both sources are using both except bacteria are also using the organic carbon so perhaps organic carbon would increase?

can someone make better sense of this please im struggling to understand the implications

Makes me think that if more nitrate is being used than phosphate with biopellets there will come a time when nitrate will become so low that biopellets wouldnt work anymore and phosphate, cArbon would then increase, but here i could see the ATS using up that phosphate as algae doesnt need carbon to use up nitrate or phosphates.??

Anyone able to simplify all this?
i'll have a stab at giving MY thoughts and understandings and see what you make of it. Im certainly not qualified enough to demystify it but i can add 2 c as such.

If i may be so bold achillies, i think you are looking at Carbon, Nitrogen, Phosphate as physical amounts or quantaties (which to a degree they are) and not in terms of ratios which is the level with which we need to focus on them.

Ive farmed organically for most of my life and have extensive experience in compost (how we make it, how we use it, and how to make it right.) Ive given talks around the world about the 'art' and science of making compst and the same principles abound in out small boxes. The only advantage we have in land based compost production is that we have a good guess at the amount of Carbon and the amount of Nitrogen (C:N ratio) and work on a system of supplying 25-30 parts C to 1 part N. Same principle here (16:1 if redfield is correct, although ive read that others think it shoukld be ahigher ration, closer to 25:1).

In land based agriculture our biggest difficulty in getting a good compost going is that there is often an EXCESS of Carbon and too little N. If you have excess C your rate of composting slows drastically, if you have excess N you get an anerobic ROTTING process, ie smelly pile of rotting matter. So we build the heaps with a failrly good assesment to the amount of C and N we have available. The other ration that is of paramount importance is water (moisture) to oxygen (air). Too wet and not enough oxygen leads to anerobic rotting, too dry (too much oxygen) and the microbes can survive. As we have too much carbon we add lots of nitrogen (chicken manure for example) and the compost process goes fast and furiously, untill carbon is converted and N is converted and the two ratios differ so that there is nothing for the microbes to matabalise (hectic simplification of a complex process) and thus the heap cools and humic and fulvic acids are produced, which are usable by plants and used as fertiliser.

Relivance to aquariums? We know we have an excess N in our systems. We know it comes in different forms but we are primarily concered with the oxidative process of converting N in the forms of NO2 to NO3. Again simplification. With too high a N ration present we need to add the carbon in some form untill we reach the golden ratio for the microbes to have optimal conditions to process N through its cycles. I dont care which carbon source you use (vodca dosing, NP pellets etc etc) they are both essencially introducing Carbon as a food source for bacteria to process N and to a degree phosphates.

'
Makes me think that if more nitrate is being used than phosphate with biopellets there will come a time when nitrate will become so low that biopellets wouldnt work anymore and phosphate, cArbon would then increase, but here i could see the ATS using up that phosphate as algae doesnt need carbon to use up nitrate or phosphates.??

I agree with you thinking here, but its simply a question of Nitrogen being used (lowered in the ratio) and thus an excess of carbon in the pellets or vodca slowing the rate at which the microbes (bacteria primarily) convert the available N, or more correctly the unavailable N. But its not an increase in the amount of carbon, simply a shift of the ratio wherby the Carbon is in excess.

the ability of bacteria to convert NO3 in a low oxygen environment (its not aneobic in the true sence) is where i think NP pellets (bound, constantly available carbon source as opposed to vodca which is free and replenished in peaks as its dosed) might outprerform a dsb, simply as the bacteria in the inner workings of the Pellets (low oxygen) have a better access to carbon, and N than would bacteria in the lower reaches of a dsb whereby carbon needs to filter down and through a layer of sand before an environment condusive it its use is found.

BUT
I my thinking is that with pellets in a reactor giving the optimal conditions for bacterial growth by supplying as good an environment for bacterial growth as we can (food in form of N and C, oxygen and free flowing water constantly replenishing used up incredianst) will be a better conversion of N through its cycles, but it comes with the difficulty in that we dont know the ratio's available, the conditions available and the speed with which its all happening. That leads to problems (in the case above a lowering of one ellement in the ratio leads to a lower rate of conversion) whereas a dsb and LR combination allows the process to convert at a lower rate, yet more consistant performance.

simply put its the rabit or the tortoise and as the fable goes, the tortoise wins in most cases simply because the rabbit runs out of energy (N?).

man thats hard thinking on a birthday!
 
Back
Top Bottom