can't seem to figure out lowering nitrates

[yacn]

I'm trying to figure out the best method to lower nitrates and keep them low. I've gone through so much effort, time, comedy of errors and old school outdated stuff that I'm not sure what to do anymore....LOL

My tank is 11 years old. 150 DT on 1st floor with 40 gallon sump in basement. Using Iwaki 70 pump for return water to DT, and built manifold to supply water to other equipment. My DT has 150 pounds of live rock, lots of mushrooms, lots of zoas and one leather with 10 reef safe fish. I've slowly over many months siphoned out the 6 to 8 inch deep sand bed (it was actually crushed coral) which my LFS told me was main culprit to my nitrates being over 160+. I also removed bio balls from my sump which I was told from local aquarium maintenance company was a nitrate holding magnet too. Additionally I siphoned out the 2 to 3 inches of sand and crushed coral out of sump fuge area, got rid of fuge light and chaeto too. Did I mention prior to doing all of this I haven't done a water change in over a year! I think I completed the above tasks back in Jan/Feb of this year. I've always been running an adequate protein skimmer, and started running bio pellet in a reactor since 2016. I just found out a couple of weeks ago the bio pellet reactor is undersized for my system! I'm using Two Little Fishies 150 reactor, and need to have something large enough to hold at least 3 cups of bio pellets. Prior to using bio pellets I vodka dosed for several months, and began to see my nitrates lower but did see some cyano growing on substrate plus travel for work prevented me to continue vodka dosing so I switched to bio pellets.

I now have bare bottom DT and bare bottom sump. Since the beginning of 2018 I've been doing bi-weekly water changes using RO water and Coral Pro Salt mix, plus blowing off my live rock with a power head to try and lower my nitrates. Sometimes the water was so dark and murky with crap from blowing off the live rocks I could barely see my hand inches from the glass. Water changes have varied from 40 gallons to as many as 100 gallons. About 2 months ago I finally got the rocks clean from holding all the compacted detritus, and the water isn't nearly as cloudy as it once was after blowing off the rocks during water changes. I added a Maxspect 250 gyre about 3 months ago to help with flow and to help keep detritus from accumulating in DT.

I've seen my nitrates drop as low as 10 after doing a 100 gallon water change but they seem to hover between 20 and 40 and phosphates between 1 and 2. The last test I did this past Sunday had my nitrates at 40 and phosphates at 3. All other test parameters have been normal. I beginning to think my live rock is holding nitrates but LFS and another fish forum told me they don't. Not sure what to believe anymore.

I purchased an ATS from Turbo Aquatics and hooked it up 3 weeks ago. I did my first cleaning of the ATS this past Sunday....mainly removing slime algae. Its too early to expect an affect from the ATS yet. Hoping it will grow hair algae soon and help my system.

I'm contemplating either getting a larger bio pellet reactor so I have the appropriate amount of bio pellets for my size tank, or switching over to vinegar dosing and purchasing a dosing unit. I would also dose alk, calc, and mag if going the route with dosing vinegar.

Do I even need to have bio pellets or consider dosing vinegar once the ATS is mature and running properly with hair algae harvesting?

Any advise, suggestions, experiences are appreciated. Advantages and disadvantages to options being considered above would be nice to know. Also curious if I'm doing too much, not enough, or making more mistakes....maybe I just give what I'm doing more time and not change anything??

 

[WV Reefer]

I'm trying to figure out the best method to lower nitrates and keep them low. I've gone through so much effort, time, comedy of errors and old school outdated stuff that I'm not sure what to do anymore....LOL

My tank is 11 years old. 150 DT on 1st floor with 40 gallon sump in basement. Using Iwaki 70 pump for return water to DT, and built manifold to supply water to other equipment. My DT has 150 pounds of live rock, lots of mushrooms, lots of zoas and one leather with 10 reef safe fish. I've slowly over many months siphoned out the 6 to 8 inch deep sand bed (it was actually crushed coral) which my LFS told me was main culprit to my nitrates being over 160+. I also removed bio balls from my sump which I was told from local aquarium maintenance company was a nitrate holding magnet too. Additionally I siphoned out the 2 to 3 inches of sand and crushed coral out of sump fuge area, got rid of fuge light and chaeto too. Did I mention prior to doing all of this I haven't done a water change in over a year! I think I completed the above tasks back in Jan/Feb of this year. I've always been running an adequate protein skimmer, and started running bio pellet in a reactor since 2016. I just found out a couple of weeks ago the bio pellet reactor is undersized for my system! I'm using Two Little Fishies 150 reactor, and need to have something large enough to hold at least 3 cups of bio pellets. Prior to using bio pellets I vodka dosed for several months, and began to see my nitrates lower but did see some cyano growing on substrate plus travel for work prevented me to continue vodka dosing so I switched to bio pellets.

I now have bare bottom DT and bare bottom sump. Since the beginning of 2018 I've been doing bi-weekly water changes using RO water and Coral Pro Salt mix, plus blowing off my live rock with a power head to try and lower my nitrates. Sometimes the water was so dark and murky with crap from blowing off the live rocks I could barely see my hand inches from the glass. Water changes have varied from 40 gallons to as many as 100 gallons. About 2 months ago I finally got the rocks clean from holding all the compacted detritus, and the water isn't nearly as cloudy as it once was after blowing off the rocks during water changes. I added a Maxspect 250 gyre about 3 months ago to help with flow and to help keep detritus from accumulating in DT.

I've seen my nitrates drop as low as 10 after doing a 100 gallon water change but they seem to hover between 20 and 40 and phosphates between 1 and 2. The last test I did this past Sunday had my nitrates at 40 and phosphates at 3. All other test parameters have been normal. I beginning to think my live rock is holding nitrates but LFS and another fish forum told me they don't. Not sure what to believe anymore.

I purchased an ATS from Turbo Aquatics and hooked it up 3 weeks ago. I did my first cleaning of the ATS this past Sunday....mainly removing slime algae. Its too early to expect an affect from the ATS yet. Hoping it will grow hair algae soon and help my system.

I'm contemplating either getting a larger bio pellet reactor so I have the appropriate amount of bio pellets for my size tank, or switching over to vinegar dosing and purchasing a dosing unit. I would also dose alk, calc, and mag if going the route with dosing vinegar.

Do I even need to have bio pellets or consider dosing vinegar once the ATS is mature and running properly with hair algae harvesting?

Any advise, suggestions, experiences are appreciated. Advantages and disadvantages to options being considered above would be nice to know. Also curious if I'm doing too much, not enough, or making more mistakes....maybe I just give what I'm doing more time and not change anything??

Were you actually having any problems with the tank other than the numbers being high?

 

[yacn]

I've lost some fish, inverts, and other corals

 

[Livinlocal]

Looks like you are taking all of the right steps, except where you said you took the refugium out. That is going to be your main exportation of nutrients, I would put it back ASAP along with getting a powerful light. My kessil H380 and refugium export ALL of my nutrients. I have to daily dose nitrates now, and All I have for filtration is a skimmer and carbon. I don’t use filter socks either.

If I were in your shoes, I would adjust all of the powerheads so they get more water contact with the rock. The bacteria in the rocks is what is really going to help, and the only way for the bacteria to help, is by the most amount of water flow over the rocks. You did great by getting the detritus off, but you will need that constant flow.

I would also be weary of adding more biopellets, especially in this scenario. I’m 100% against them, but if you do decide to go that route, don’t just upgrade your reactor and add the correct amount. Do it slowly or you’ll have worse problem. If you need 2 more cups, only add 1/4 cup a week until you reach your desired levels. I e seen tons of people crash their tanks by not adding the media slowly.


Another thing I do to keep the detritus from settling, I put powerheads in the very back/bottom section of my display so they are constantly blasting the rocks in the back for added filtration.

 

[gcarroll]

Since you have recently invested in a ATS, why not allow it some time to get established and do it's job before making more changes. In the meantime, keep doing water changes.

 

[yacn]

Looks like you are taking all of the right steps, except where you said you took the refugium out. That is going to be your main exportation of nutrients, I would put it back ASAP along with getting a powerful light. My kessil H380 and refugium export ALL of my nutrients

I bought an ATS which I thought is supposed to be better than a fuge. The space I have in my sump for a fuge doesn't seem like enough area to be an effective fuge.

I also mentioned I installed a gyre 250 to increase the flow

Thank you!

 

[chipmunkofdoom2]

I bought an ATS which I thought is supposed to be better than a fuge. The space I have in my sump for a fuge doesn't seem like enough area to be an effective fuge.

I also mentioned I installed a gyre 250 to increase the flow

Thank you!

Neither a refugium or algal scrubber is objectively better. Some people have trouble getting macro algae to out-compete nuisance algae. For these reefers, a scrubber might be a better fit. Some people don't want the complexity of a scrubber and just want to toss a ball of algae in their sump. For these people, a refugium with macro algae will be better. The best one is whichever one works for you and fits with your overall system design.

Personally, I would choose one method of nutrient reduction and stick with it. If you're going to do organic carbon dosing (biopellets or vinegar), do that. If you're going to use an ATS, do that. If you're going to rely on water changes, do that. Using all of these methods and changing things around frequently is going to make it difficult to determine which method contributed most to the benefits you see. There are benefits to organic carbon dosing and there might be reasons why you would do this long term in addition to running a successful scrubber, but personally, I would play around with that later once the tank has stabilized.

I would personally try the ATS and take everything else offline. The scrubber needs time to get going, but if you give it enough nutrients and flow, it'll take care of the problem. The reason I would choose the scrubber over other methods is because it's self-limiting: when nutrients are present, it grows. When there are no nutrients, the scrubber stops growing new algae. This prevents nutrients from going too low. Vinegar or other organic carbon sources will drive nutrients down to zero and keep them there.

EDIT: As noted below, claiming that organic carbon dosing "will" drive nutrients down is not accurate. When dosed incorrectly, organic carbon can drive nutrients too low. When dosed appropriately, this is not a concern. The balance, however, can be hard to strike without some experience and attention to detail.

 

[Livinlocal]

I bought an ATS which I thought is supposed to be better than a fuge. The space I have in my sump for a fuge doesn't seem like enough area to be an effective fuge.

I also mentioned I installed a gyre 250 to increase the flow

Thank you!

I missed the part about the ATS. I agree with the post above, sticking with one will work best otherwise they will compete against each other and not works as efficiently.

I did see the post about your gyre 250, but I’m referring to direct waterflow onto the rocks, and not just more water movement in the tank.

 

[gcarroll]

Neither a refugium or algal scrubber is objectively better. Some people have trouble getting macro algae to out-compete nuisance algae. For these reefers, a scrubber might be a better fit. Some people don't want the complexity of a scrubber and just want to toss a ball of algae in their sump. For these people, a refugium with macro algae will be better. The best one is whichever one works for you and fits with your overall system design.

Personally, I would choose one method of nutrient reduction and stick with it. If you're going to do organic carbon dosing (biopellets or vinegar), do that. If you're going to use an ATS, do that. If you're going to rely on water changes, do that. Using all of these methods and changing things around frequently is going to make it difficult to determine which method contributed most to the benefits you see. There are benefits to organic carbon dosing and there might be reasons why you would do this long term in addition to running a successful scrubber, but personally, I would play around with that later once the tank has stabilized.

I would personally try the ATS and take everything else offline. The scrubber needs time to get going, but if you give it enough nutrients and flow, it'll take care of the problem. The reason I would choose the scrubber over other methods is because it's self-limiting: when nutrients are present, it grows. When there are no nutrients, the scrubber stops growing new algae. This prevents nutrients from going too low. Vinegar or other organic carbon sources will drive nutrients down to zero and keep them there.

I agree the OP should give the ATS a true chance to take care of the problem. however I would expand on your comment on algae scrubber vs carbon dosing.

"The reason I would choose the scrubber over other methods is because it's self-limiting: when nutrients are present, it grows. When there are no nutrients, the scrubber stops growing new algae. Because algae is not as effective/efficient as bacteria at binding nutrients it never truly reaches zero keeping your system in the ideal range of nutrient levels. This prevents nutrients from going too low. Vinegar or other organic carbon sources can make bacteria so efficient that they can drive nutrients down to zero and keep them there, however you can also control nutrient binding by limiting the amount of carbon available to the bacteria."

Both methods are very effective for keeping a reef tank, however the algae due to its inefficiencies is much more foolproof. I never recommend someone get into carbon dosing unless they completely understand how and why it works. Unfortunately, the number of reefers using this method far exceeds the number of people who understand the method.

 

[chipmunkofdoom2]

I agree the OP should give the ATS a true chance to take care of the problem. however I would expand on your comment on algae scrubber vs carbon dosing.

"The reason I would choose the scrubber over other methods is because it's self-limiting: when nutrients are present, it grows. When there are no nutrients, the scrubber stops growing new algae. Because algae is not as effective/efficient as bacteria at binding nutrients it never truly reaches zero keeping your system in the ideal range of nutrient levels. This prevents nutrients from going too low. Vinegar or other organic carbon sources can make bacteria so efficient that they can drive nutrients down to zero and keep them there, however you can also control nutrient binding by limiting the amount of carbon available to the bacteria."

Both methods are very effective for keeping a reef tank, however the algae due to its inefficiencies is much more foolproof. I never recommend someone get into carbon dosing unless they completely understand how and why it works. Unfortunately, the number of reefers using this method far exceeds the number of people who understand the method.

I would not make any changes to my original statement.

By what measure is either of these methods more or less efficient than the other? Are we talking energy efficiency? Or time efficiency? Or does "efficient" relate to equipment needed, since scrubbers need a feed pump and plumbing, while dosing vinegar just requires a dosing pump?

Additionally, for a new hobbyist, it would be easy to infer that "more efficient" or "less efficient" means one of these methods is better or worse than the other. Neither of these methods is inherently better than the other, and both have been used with great success.

I agree with your sentiment, but I don't think attempting to classify either methods as inefficient or efficient is helpful. One of these methods (algae) tends to be a little more fool-proof and does not tend to reduce nutrients to problematic levels. The other (organic carbon dosing) can be overdosed and can cause problems if nutrients are driven too low.

 

[gcarroll]

I would not make any changes to my original statement.

but you did…

The other (organic carbon dosing) can be overdosed and can cause problems if nutrients are driven too low.

You used the word “can” instead of “will” which changes the original statement completely.

By what measure is either of these methods more or less efficient than the other? Are we talking energy efficiency? Or time efficiency? Or does "efficient" relate to equipment needed, since scrubbers need a feed pump and plumbing, while dosing vinegar just requires a dosing pump?

Efficient as in: bacteria will take up nitrate and phosphate faster than algae given a sufficient carbon source and oxygen. It will continue until either nitrate of phosphate reaches zero. The rate in which it can bring down these nutrients cannot be matched by algae. Of course that tanks into account that the bacterial system is given all the tools it needs to thrive.

Additionally, for a new hobbyist, it would be easy to infer that "more efficient" or "less efficient" means one of these methods is better or worse than the other. Neither of these methods is inherently better than the other, and both have been used with great success.

I agree, that is one way to interpret but in this case I am saying one has to potential to be much faster than the other.

 

[yacn]

Thank you! I’ll just give it more time and continue frequent water changes. I’m a bit unsure whether I should take the bio pellets offline until the ATS starts to mature more. Maybe I’ll keep it running until the pellets dissolve away so it reduces over time

 

[chipmunkofdoom2]

Efficient as in: bacteria will take up nitrate and phosphate faster than algae given a sufficient carbon source and oxygen. It will continue until either nitrate of phosphate reaches zero. The rate in which it can bring down these nutrients cannot be matched by algae. Of course that tanks into account that the bacterial system is given all the tools it needs to thrive.

There are no objective, peer-reviewed scientific data that show definitely that bacteria will take up nutrients faster than macro/micro algae. There are also no data that show that the speed of nutrient of bacteria reduction cannot be matched by algae. If these are your opinions, that's fine, and you're welcome to them. You cannot, however, claim these are definitive truths without providing some pretty compelling and rigorous scientific studies and data. As I said in a previous post, this is unnecessary anyway: both of these methods work very well, both have pros and cons, and both have caveats. Which one is more "efficient" is not of critical importance to the hobbyist who is just looking to reduce nitrates and phosphates.

I might not have used the exact same wording I did when I wrote my original post. It's a waste of everyone's time and R2R's server space to copy/paste or quote myself directly. I maybe should have said that organic carbon dosing "can" reduce nutrients too low instead of saying that it "will." However, I did not alter the meaning of my original post by introducing inconsequential and unsubstantiated externalities. My original point, that I prefer algae filtration over organic carbon dosing because it is self-limiting, stands. My objections to your edits of my post also stand, for the above reasons and the reasons in my previous post.

 

[yacn]

I'm wondering since my bio pellet reactor is undersized for my system .... does it make sense to keep it running with the ATS. I'm supposed to have 3 cups of bio pellets and I only have about a cup to a cup and half running in my reactor.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I'm wondering since my bio pellet reactor is undersized for my system .... does it make sense to keep it running with the ATS. I'm supposed to have 3 cups of bio pellets and I only have about a cup to a cup and half running in my reactor.

If nitrate drops below your target, I'd remove it. If not, I'd keep it running.