I'm planning an upgrade in 2014 and have never used or found interest in biopellets before. After some recent research online and discussions with fellow reefers, the benefits of using biopellets now seem rather intriguing. I'm currently running a 40B with 2" sand in the display and a 4" DSB in the sump/fuge with chaeto/caulerpa. I also house my skimmer and phosban reactor in the sump as well. I have no nitrates issues whatsoever even with overfeeding and phosphates are also in check. For the 125 gallon reef upgrade, I'm now wondering about eventually ditching the macro and DSB from the sump and focus mainly on the biopellet reactor, skimmer, and LR for filtration. I'm also planning on using chemi-pure elite as needed, but I'm not sure If I should also have a separate phosban reactor in addition to the biopellets? Looking to see what peoples thoughts are on this matter. Any info or help would be greatly appreciated.
Biopellet reactor - Yes or NO???
- Thread starter BEAU_RN
- Start date
Help Support Reef Aquarium & Tank Building Forum:
mfinn
Surgeonfish
So why do you want to change?
If it ain't broke...............................................................
NanaReefer
Well-known member
mfinn
Surgeonfish
NC2WA
Well-known member
If you set this up correctly, you should not have a need for chemi-pure at all. To me the words chemi pure should not be in your planning at all.
If space is an issue and you can't go big on sump, you still want to get a good quality skimmer as mentioned in bullet number 1.
- Go big on sump with properly sized skimmer (meaning get a skimmer that is rated for at least 200 gallons more if fish bio load is heavy)..IMO the skimmer is the brain of the tank, you go cheap and under skim, your system will suffer (with nuisance alage, increased levels of nitrates and PO4, etc.)
- Add fuge with plenty of macro
- Make sure you have plenty of circulation
If space is an issue and you can't go big on sump, you still want to get a good quality skimmer as mentioned in bullet number 1.
Well, by smaller I meant downsizing from the original sump/fuge plans of about 3 40B tanks linked together down to only 2... But yea I agree on bigger is better for sumps
Yea so my current 40B reef system setup is exactly all that you've said above. This method is what I'm looking to continue only in a much larger application either 125 or maybe a 180 display plus sumps. Simply trying to see if maybe adding a biopellet reactors to my current methods would be doable since I do like the idea that the byproduct of biopellets provides food for the corals continuously. Kinda getting the feeling so far that people have mixed feeling on the benefits or use of biopellets so far.
NC2WA
Well-known member
Beau
Fwiw I run a biopellet reactor.
The only reason I do is I have a high fish bio load
I think biopellets are like UV..Either u like them or you don't
I like and run both on my system
Fwiw I run a biopellet reactor.
The only reason I do is I have a high fish bio load
I think biopellets are like UV..Either u like them or you don't
I like and run both on my system
NC2WA
Well-known member
Then make sure you ger a really good skimmer..basically buy the best darn skimmer your budget can afford
Yea I'm with you there. Looking to get the new reef octopus dcs170 or dcs200 with dc pump. Lots of $$$ indeed, but I def like the dc pump and controller functions. :music:
charlieoross
New member
hey I was wondering where in your line of filtration do you put your UV when also using a biopellet reactor?
NC2WA
Well-known member
For me it would be last in line
Ichthys
Well-known member
A potential problem with this logic is that just because we dont think its not broke, doesn't mean its not broke. What I am trying to say is this.. in another thread here at RF there was a good discussion with Boomer about Phosphate. the short of it is that we can not adequately measure the type of phosphate we care about in our systems with the test kits most of us use. I don't remember the details, but basically, just because your test kit says zero phosphate, doesn't mean you are ok.
Add to this that most reefers buy a test kit and use it till it runs out so are using old expired kits, who knows what our reef chemistry truly is.
Now I am not saying add every gadget in the world just to be safe, I am simoply saying that I believe many of us operate under a semifalse sense of security because of inadequate testing, kits, processes, or interpretation.
does any of that make sense?
NC2WA
Well-known member
danny,
it does, but it sounds like you are entering into the "moron cycle" (no disrespect here, it is just what the cycle is called).
it does, but it sounds like you are entering into the "moron cycle" (no disrespect here, it is just what the cycle is called).
Ichthys
Well-known member
no disrespect taken, I understand the concept of fiddling with things ad infinitum until you have more crap in your system than you can cope with. I have seen tanks with coral and fish with nothing more than a heater and HoB filter, and I have seen systems with automated everything, kalk, calcium reactor, gfo, biopellets, carbon, zeovit, vodka, dosing pumps, UV, the list of things you can add goes on forever.
For many hobbyists the goal is to have a successful salt water aquarium. The definition of successful is wide and varied. In my eyes, there is a difference in simply keeping the livestock alive and having the livestock THRIVE. To me this means good growth of desirable specimens while keeping undesirable specimens in check. For us this means water chemistry kept within some pretty tight parameters.
Lets use a sample of "wild" water taken directly from a reef in a pristine location as our reference. We want to get as close to this as possible in our closed systems. If we are 96% there with current equipment, and adding gadget "a" will increase our system to 96.5%, is that worth the investment? Will corals live and grow at the 96% standard? Will they grow better at the 96.5% level. Is it worth x number of dollars to inch ever closer to the 100% benchmark? These are questions that only the individual hobbyist can answer, and for many of us, the drive to inch ever closer to that 100% "gold standard" is part of the allure of the hobby, while for others as long as things arent jumping out of the tank or dying, then they call it good.
We can see parallels in other hobbies. Computers, is it worth upgrading to more RAm or a SSHD or configuring a Striped RAID array in order to improve load times by seconds or fractions of a second? For some spending 200 bucks on faster ram in order to shave 2 seconds of a load time is worth it.
Cars- Is adding performance air intakes or fuel additives worth improving performance by a small increment?
I know like I seem to be rambling, but seriously, questions like.. should I add a bio pellet reactor or should i dose vodka, or should i have a fuge are dependent on so many variables that they approach irrelevance. In the end the question one must ask is this. Am I content with current parameters or do i wish to invest x number of dollars for y amount of improvement.
PS look at my sig line lol. Glass, water, fish, all else is extraneous, that kinda sounds opposite of someone with as many reactors and gadgets as i have on my system lol.
For many hobbyists the goal is to have a successful salt water aquarium. The definition of successful is wide and varied. In my eyes, there is a difference in simply keeping the livestock alive and having the livestock THRIVE. To me this means good growth of desirable specimens while keeping undesirable specimens in check. For us this means water chemistry kept within some pretty tight parameters.
Lets use a sample of "wild" water taken directly from a reef in a pristine location as our reference. We want to get as close to this as possible in our closed systems. If we are 96% there with current equipment, and adding gadget "a" will increase our system to 96.5%, is that worth the investment? Will corals live and grow at the 96% standard? Will they grow better at the 96.5% level. Is it worth x number of dollars to inch ever closer to the 100% benchmark? These are questions that only the individual hobbyist can answer, and for many of us, the drive to inch ever closer to that 100% "gold standard" is part of the allure of the hobby, while for others as long as things arent jumping out of the tank or dying, then they call it good.
We can see parallels in other hobbies. Computers, is it worth upgrading to more RAm or a SSHD or configuring a Striped RAID array in order to improve load times by seconds or fractions of a second? For some spending 200 bucks on faster ram in order to shave 2 seconds of a load time is worth it.
Cars- Is adding performance air intakes or fuel additives worth improving performance by a small increment?
I know like I seem to be rambling, but seriously, questions like.. should I add a bio pellet reactor or should i dose vodka, or should i have a fuge are dependent on so many variables that they approach irrelevance. In the end the question one must ask is this. Am I content with current parameters or do i wish to invest x number of dollars for y amount of improvement.
PS look at my sig line lol. Glass, water, fish, all else is extraneous, that kinda sounds opposite of someone with as many reactors and gadgets as i have on my system lol.
mfinn
Surgeonfish
I guess if you want to spend your time in the hobby looking for problems or looking for a excuse to buy another piece of equipment, then more power to you.
The op said he was not having issues, but was wondering if he should add another piece of equipment.
IMO, the less moving parts, the less chance of problems.
