New sulfur denitrator working great!

[Belgian Anthias]

Hi, my nitrates are around 25 at the moment , searching info about sulphur reactors I've found an info if I want to go down from 25 o around 2-3 , it should be set up for around 1-2 drops per second ,that's why I've set it up like that
I can change it anytime if needed , I have 0 nitrates from reactor outlet , I've never had any issues with my nitrates in 12 years in this hobby , I had an ich in my tank and Ive been feeding my fish a lot of different types of food for around 3 weeks , ich is gone but I have a nitrates spike from 1 to 23 , from that time they are on the same level

Why the choice was made to use a sulfur denitrator to reduce nitrate? Nitrate is a safely stored usable nitrogen reserve which can be used up.
Nitrate management starts with the C/N ratio of the feed, the proteïn content may not be above 35% , The food must be of marine origine( carbon source). The higher the proteïne content, the more nitrate must be produced for reducing released ammonia. it can be corrected using low protein food +- 30%.
Your effluent was 0 at one drop/sec. Why reducing the flow with 50%!!!!! to reach only 1drop/2seconds? The availability of nitrate for denitrification is reduced by 50%! This way heterotrophic remineralization and sulphate reduction ( HS production) needing anoxic conditions is promoted. The reactor is starved.
To increase the population of T.denitrificans ( sulfur bacteria) more nitrate must be entered The flow must be increased slowly until some nitrate is still present in the effluent. ( nitrite production) if one works with a drop/sec, increasing to 2 drops/s is increasing the flow with 100%, the bacteria present must double, this is only one cell division if enough T.d are present. This is not the case as they have been starved. I advise to start as it was a new project. You must decide if you want to make a BADES System. A BADES reactor is NOT kept anoxic by limiting the flow.
Increasing the flow means not only more nitrate but also more oxygen is entered, which has to be consumed . Take your time.

A BADES reactor with 5l sulfur can easily handle a flow of 10l/h till 25l/h keeping a 0 Nirate effluent. We do not recomend a 0 nitrate effluent. The effluent must always be aerated.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Nitrate management starts with the C/N ratio of the feed, the proteïn content may not be above 35% , The food must be of marine origine( carbon source). The higher the proteïne content, the more nitrate must be produced for reducing released ammonia. it can be corrected using low protein food +- 30%.

I don't agree. IMO, nitrate management is based on matching N in and N out. It has nothing to do with trying to control the C/N in foods. Your suggestion might work in some situations, but I don't see how it is generally applicable. Photosynthetic organisms are using N and not necessarily any organic C.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Why the choice was made to use a sulfur denitrator to reduce nitrate? Nitrate is a safely stored usable nitrogen reserve which can be used up.
Nitrate management starts with the C/N ratio of the feed, the proteïn content may not be above 35% , The food must be of marine origine( carbon source). The higher the proteïne content, the more nitrate must be produced for reducing released ammonia. it can be corrected using low protein food +- 30%.
Your effluent was 0 at one drop/sec. Why reducing the flow with 50%!!!!! to reach only 1drop/2seconds? The availability of nitrate for denitrification is reduced by 50%! This way heterotrophic remineralization and sulphate reduction ( HS production) needing anoxic conditions is promoted. The reactor is starved.
To increase the population of T.denitrificans ( sulfur bacteria) more nitrate must be entered The flow must be increased slowly until some nitrate is still present in the effluent. ( nitrite production) if one works with a drop/sec, increasing to 2 drops/s is increasing the flow with 100%, the bacteria present must double, this is only one cell division if enough T.d are present. This is not the case as they have been starved. I advise to start as it was a new project. You must decide if you want to make a BADES System. A BADES reactor is NOT kept anoxic by limiting the flow.
Increasing the flow means not only more nitrate but also more oxygen is entered, which has to be consumed . Take your time.

A BADES reactor with 5l sulfur can easily handle a flow of 10l/h till 25l/h keeping a 0 Nirate effluent. We do not recomend a 0 nitrate effluent. The effluent must always be aerated.

The 1% rule of M. Longouet ( MAAO) has been based on a reactor able to remove 50ppm nitrate keeping a 0 nitrate effluent. This includes the consumption of oxygen entered. The reactor must be big enough to maintain the bacterial population needed to do so. If the nitrate level is decending , less nitrate can be removed maintaining the same flow. The moment will come not enough nitrate can be removed to lower the level more because the daily removal rate equals the daily production. This is the critical level. To lower the level more, more flow is needed, more oxygen is entered. The total volume of the reactor will be needed if one wants to bring the level to a level equal to the daily production. If one has a daily nitrate production of 1ppm, maintaining a nitrate level of 1ppm is only possible if a flow of the total system volume is passed the reactor once every day. The reactor must be big enough!! Not only to maintain the population needed for nitrate reduction but also to maintain the population needed to consume the oxygen needed to maintain the denitrification rate. In such a reactor aerobic remineralization and nitrification takes place, maintaining the conditions for favoring autotrophic denitrification using sulfur , a BADES biofilm system, BBS.

It is advised not to wait until the critical level is reached to increase the flow but to do this gradually following the nitrate level. Using a BADES reactor this is done from the start.

 

[Muffin87]

Frankly, I love the idea of a sulfur denitrator, but I'm really confused how you deal with phosphates with 0 nitrates. Don't macroalgae and carbon dosing need nitrate to reduce phosphates?
If you rule out macrolagae and carbon dosing for your phosphate control, you're left with lanthanum chloride and GFO. GFO is expensive and lanthanum chloride sounds like a bit of a pain to use as your main strategy of phosphate control.

Has anyone used a sulfur denitrator and managed to grow macroalgae?

 

[Belgian Anthias]

I don't agree. IMO, nitrate management is based on matching N in and N out. It has nothing to do with trying to control the C/N in foods. Your suggestion might work in some situations, but I don't see how it is generally applicable. Photosynthetic organisms are using N and not necessarily any organic C.

Are we talking about nitrogen management or managing the production of nitrate- nitrogen?

if we add food it is the intention the food is used for its purpose. if nitrogen ( nitrate?) accumulates it means to much nitrogen is added or not enough is consumed. Simple. if one uses low protein feed, less nitrogen is added and less nitrate must be produced to reduce ammonia not used for heterotrophic growth. (protein = the nitrogen source containing +- 16% nitrogen)

It is a fact nitrogen management is based on matching N in and N out. Nitrate-nitrogen management and nitrogen management is not the same thing. Nitrate management is about managing heterotrophic and autotrophic growth.! Very important in a reef aquarium.

As far as I know the end product of aerobic remineralization is nitrate, and is depending on the C/N ratio of the feed. The C/N ratio has direct influence on the amount of nitrogen left over after complete remineralization of the feed , the amount of nitrogen made available for nitrification and algae growth.

High protein feed promotes algae growth. If not enough algae growth, nitrate-nitrogen will build up.( hopefully) Using normal protein feed ( 35%) will limit algae growth and nitrate production. The higher the protein content, the more autotrophic growth will be needed to consume the nitrogen added. In most reef aquaria photo-autotrophic ( photosynthetic) growth is limited , sufficient growth is not available, meaning high protein feed will cause nitrate accumulation or a lot worse if the nitrification capacity is insufficient to reduce the sudden ammonia increase.

Using AAM, active algae management, the balance between IN and OUT can be managed as desired. No need for a denitrator.



Good nitrogen and nitrate management starts with knowing what is going IN. And about knowing what is going out.

Good nitrogen management starts with feeding food from marine origin having a protein content of max 35%.

Exporting only nitrate-nitrogen does NOT solve a thing, it does NOT change the reason why nitrate may accumulate. And leaves everything else once part of the feed for organisms able to fix nitrogen.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Are we talking about nitrogen management or managing the production of nitrate- nitrogen?

I am talking about managing nitrate so that it is not too high or too low.

The best way to do it, IMO, is unrelated to the C/N of the foods you choose to use. Foods and amounts should be chosen for the optimal health of the organisms being fed, not for other reasons convenient to the hobbyists control mechanisms.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

I am talking about managing nitrate so that it is not too high or too low.

The best way to do it, IMO, is unrelated to the C/N of the foods you choose to use.

About managing nitrate production:

Please explain why the C/N ratio of the food is not related to the amount of nitrate produced in the system by using that food.

Starting from the information provided at the moment basic nitrogen and nitrate management would not be possible.

It is an important statement claiming nitrate production is not related to the C/N ratio of feed. It is about changing the basics for managing a closed life support system the way it is done and everybody doing it this way just have been very lucky it works. It is about the basic rules of natural growth and growth rates. This needs more explanation .

Feed is everything what is produced in the tank and what is added. Based on the protein content of the feed a certain amount of ammonia is produced . This ammonia must be reduced as fast as possible. The C/N ratio of the feed is responsible for the amount ammonia reduced by fast growing heterotrophs and the amount of ammonia left over to be reduced by slower growing autotrophs ( nitrification)

What will happen if nitrate production has no relation with the C/N ratio of feed? How the carrying capacity of the system is supported? What If the carbon availability does not influence the nitrate production, does not limit heterotrophic growth ?


Good basic nutrient and nitrogen management from the start will avoid situations where it is advised to add organic carbon compounds, carbohydrates, in an attempt to increase the C/N ratio of feed present in the tank, to make the system more heterotrophic. This when nitrate has accumulated ( too late). If the C/N ratio of feed in unrelated to nitrate production , why it is advised to add more organic carbon to increase the C/N ratio of feed present in the tank? Can you explain why there is a relation when adding organic carbon compounds, carbo-hydrates, to increase the C/N ratio of feed but claims no relation when adding food containing the C/N ratio needed to prevent nitrate accumulation?

We do know how to manage the nutrient content of a closed system . Managing means one has control, over what happens, knowing what is going in and what is going out.
We do make good use of the relation between the C/N ratio of feed and nitrate production in closed systems, we do know how it works and why.

We all know adding more organic carbon, carbo-hydrates, to the feed prevents nitrate production and will reduce the installed autotrophic carrying capacity., showing the direct link between the C/N ratio of feed and nitrate production.

I do not understand why risks are taken for changing the C/N ratio of feed present by adding carbohydrates in a reef tank if the situation can be prevented by doing the same thing by managing the C/N ratio of feed via the protein content of basic food.

Using AAM one can manage the nutrient content and bioload as desired, by feeding for the target nutrient modified food.

Good basic nutrient management starts with what is added, the protein content of the food.
Is the system able to support the bioload? It also depends on the C/N ratio of feed .

It is in the best interest and health of organisms and for the system to add food with a normal C/N ratio ( 35% protein) and from marine origin.

The C/N ratio of feed has a huge influence on the amount ammonia left over after all organic carbon present in the food has been used for fast heterotrophic growth, and is of high importance in systems having a limited autotrophic carying capacity, photo-autotrophic growth. Most reef aquaria not using bio-filters have a limited autotrophic carying capacity ( space, insufficient algae growth). The carrying capacity is the ability to reduce toxic ammonia , to reduce ammonia as fast as possible. Ammonia not used up is normally transformed into nitrate, safely stored usable nitrogen, ready to be used up by slower growing organisms, importing carbon in the system.

Feed having a high protein content has a low C/N ratio meaning more space is needed for autotrophs to reduce ammonia. If that space is not available or growth is limited by other factors, tpxic ammonia will accumulate.

Switching from low to high protein food , adding the same amount of nitrogen, may cause ammonia to build up because the autotrophic ammonia reduction capacity will need time to increase, if the space is available. Changing the protein content of feed must be done gradually over a period of time, depending on the bio-load. Using bio-filters provides the space as desired

Nitrate is an end product of aerobic remineralisation,!

All the above is not true if there is no relation between the C/N ratio of feed and nitrate production.

if one has to feed a certain amount of nitrogen to support the growth of target organisms, fish, feeding the fish with food having a protein content of 35% or 50%, this would make no difference for the nitrate production. Is that a fact?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

if one has to feed a certain amount of nitrogen to support the growth of target organisms, fish, feeding the fish with food having a protein content of 35% or 50%, this would make no difference for the nitrate production. Is that a fact?

Feeding more N to the tank (either from more food or higher N content of the food) just means you need more export of N.

Yes, you can alter the food amount or type if you want. You can also export more if you want to.

But in almost no circumstance do I think reefers need to focus on the C/N ratio in foods. Feeding more N, regardless of the C content of that food, will likely need more N export.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Feeding more N to the tank (either from more food or higher N content of the food) just means you need more export of N.

Yes, you can alter the food amount or type if you want. You can also export more if you want to.

But in almost no circumstance do I think reefers need to focus on the C/N ratio in foods. Feeding more N, regardless of the C content of that food, will likely need more N export.

The answer is completely beside the point. It is about nitrate management and nitrate production, not about nitrogen import or export.
The question is not answered.
You said the C/N ratio of food makes no difference for the nitrate production, I know it does make a huge difference. So we disagree . I explained why, it is just about basic nutrient management applied all over the world, You avoid answering the questions,

if one has to feed a certain amount of nitrogen to support the growth of target organisms, fish, feeding the fish with food having a protein content of 35% or 50%, this would make no difference for the nitrate production. Is that a fact?

The question is about adding the same amount of nitrogen, using foods having different C/N ratio's. One does NOT need more N export if one enters the same amount of nitrogen. ( protein is +- 16% nitrogen)
Changing the C/N ratio of food added, more or less autotrophic based carrying capacity ( nitrification, photosynthetic growth) is needed to reduce toxic amonia, ( nitrification capacity). Adding the same amount of nitrogen, the protein content of food makes a big difference, certainly in reef aquaria having a limited autotrophic carying capacity and low natural carbon import due to banning algae growth. !!!!

How much nitrate will be produced adding food containing 30% protein? Will more ore less nitrate be produced if I ad the same amount of nitrogen using food with 50% protein ( less in weight)? Well, based on the food addition only, +- 40% more nitrate may be produced. Produced nitrate has to be used up by algae growth ( organic carbon in the food is used up) , if not, it will accumulate,

If influencers tell reefers the C/N ratio of the food added does not matter , this will not help solve the problem of nitrate accumulation in reef tanks. Telling the C/N ratio of feed has no influence on nitrate production, the nitrification capacity, is telling lies. Nitrate accumulation can be avoided by basic nitrogen management which starts with the food added. The food added may have a huge influence on the C/N ratio of total feed in the tank and nitrate production, certainly in tanks with a low photosynthetic carbon import capacity, reef tanks.

If we use the same weight of food, meaning we do not take in account the difference in nitrogen content, adding 35% protein or 50% protein food, the difference in nitrate production will be huge and hopefully the nitrification capacity needed is present. A lot more nitrogen is added. (Protein is about 16% nitrogen.) One will need a lot more algae growth to remove the nitrogen ( nitrate) and more N export ( exporting growth).


Almost in no circumstances? In most circumstances it will make a huge difference especially in mixed reef aquaria with fish, because most reef aquaria do not have an easily manageable and adaptable autotrophic carrying capacity (basic bio), most reef tanks do not have a known pre-installed carrying capacity based on autotrophic or and heterotrophic growth on which one can fall back at all times. Pro's do not take the risks most reefers do.

If one is confronted with nitrate accumulation, look at what is added to the tank, but do not wait to long to make corrections. ( using AAM corrections can be made coping with all possible and sudden nutrient situations)

Avoiding nitrate build does not mean no nitrate may be produced. It means the nitrate production can be matched with the consumption and nitrogen export. That is why we recommend starters to use food from marine origin having a protein of max 35%, Once the tank will start to produce, food addition will influence the feed, and food addintion can be matched with with the production to avoid accumulation of nutrients.


Good nitrogen management starts whit what is going in, talking in account the basics of natural growth, mainly influenced by the C/N ratio of feed. ( feed is all what is produced + what is added.)

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

The answer is completely beside the point. It is about nitrate management and nitrate production, not about nitrogen import or export.
The question is not answered.
You said the C/N ratio of food makes no difference for the nitrate production, I know it does make a huge difference. So we disagree . I explained why, it is just about basic nutrient management applied all over the world, You avoid answering the questions,

OK, you control nitrate by controlling the C/N ratio in foods.

I think that is not even a sensible recommendation for hobbyists (assuming it even worked, which I don't see how it could), since that C/N data isn't available for foods in general.

I will continue to recommend better ways, such as matching input to consumption/export.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

OK, you control nitrate by controlling the C/N ratio in foods.

I think that is not even a sensible recommendation for hobbyists (assuming it even worked, which I don't see how it could), since that C/N data isn't available for foods in general.

I will continue to recommend better ways, such as matching input to consumption/export.

Assuming it even worked? !! You do advise changing the C/N ratio of feed by adding organic carbon, carbohydrtates, I assume you do know how it works, about how installed autotrophic carrying capacity, the nitrification capacity is removed to be replaced by fast heterotrophic growth.
Basic management of the C/N ratio using the foodsource uses the same basic natural principles but is a lot more system and user friendly, does not include the risks dosing carbohydrates, can not lead to overdosing, can not lead to killing or bleaching corals, and is done to match nitrate production with nitrate consumption, is not done for the wrong reason, reducing a high nitrate level. ( fast growing heterotrophic bacteria use ammonia, not nitrate) Using the foodsource drastic changes are avoided, are not possible.

A great deal of scientific research has been carried out past decades regarding the regulation of the nitrogen balance and the distribution of the carrying capacity between heterotrophs and autrophs based on the C/N ratio of the food, concerning managing closed marine life support systems. Everything has been examined and tested, the how and why, down to the smallest detail. This information is also very important to those who have been advised to add carbohydrates to change the C/N ratio present in the tank, without being properly informed of known possible side effects and consequences.
Commercial products sold for that purpose do provide little or no information about possible side effects , one has no clue how much carbon is added, the content is unknown, In what way the C/N ratio of feed is changed? And yes , these products do what they promise to do, the rest is the responsibility of the user.


it is sensible trying to mange the nitrate production , matching nitrate production and fotosynthetic consumption, preventing nitrate will accumulate.
The protein content of food should be basic information, and is part of basic nutrient management of closed systems

but it has nothing to do with the way everyone can easily adjust the nitrate balance if they so wish, but especially with the provision of correct information. I don't want to persuade the user to do or not to do something, but that if one makes a decision it can be done on the basis of correct information, without being misled.
to provide basic information provide to you in a previous discussion about the same subject?
Nitrate accumulation is easily avoided? Apart from managing the nitrate production ratio using the C/N ratio of feed one must also manage the nitrate consumption and nitrogen export. When the carbon source of feed is used up, this must be done by producers, photosynthetic organisms. This can be done using AAM, active algae management.

C/N data isn't available for foods in general. Correct, the protein content is generally available. How difficult it me be ? It is basic knowledge. For aquarium use one can use the protein content, the final result is the same.
The protein content of most natural feed is available. if it is about commercial food, one should not use food from a supplier not providing basic information. Quality foods and feed media including the info of what they contain are available for those who wish to know what is added to the tank.
The C/N ratio of basic food is directly linked to the protein content

Regardless of the protein content, the carbon content of a feed is always taken to be 50%. To get the C:N ratio, one has to find the N%. This is done by dividing the protein by 6.25. For example, for a shrimp feed with a crude protein of 21%, the N content is 21 divided by 6.25 = 3.36%. Thus the C:N ratio of the feed is 50 divided by 3.36 = 14.88:1 or close to 15:1

C/N = 50/ ( P / 6.25) ref: MB biovlokken, voedsel

Commercial flake food offered for seawater aquariums usually has a protein content of +- 40% and some even more than 50%. In addition, it sometimes contains carrots, celery and even garlic. In a marine environment, feed containing land plants ( cellulose) is very difficult and not completely broken down (formation of detritus)
The presence of cellulose, a multiple sugar, also gives a false impression of the C/N ratio of the food as some of the organic carbon in cellulose cannot be used by most marine organisms, promoting nitrate accumulation.

You continue to recommend better ways? You recommend to match input to consumption/export. Everybody will agrees about that. Everybody will like to follow that recommendation. HOW?

Maybe you want to continue to recommend other ways ? Till now other recommendations did not solve the recurrent problem of nitrate accumulation? Other recommendations try to battle symptoms but do not help to cure. I think preventing is better as curing. I am looking out for an other better way .
We do have AAM to manage the nutrient content and export. I have no knowledge of a better way to solve the recurrent problem of nutrient accumulation. In the case of using AAM the C/N ratio of feed is part of basic management, important to match nitrate production with consumption and growth.

A lot of hobbyist use very expensive equipment and follow recommendations to correct what basically went wrong,
They are waiting for a better way.


In a closed system it is not only about nitrogen import and export, it is about the ability to reduce ammonia, which depends on the C/N ratio of feed.

 

[nldemo]

This is a photo of why I plan to replace my sulfur reactor with a biopellet one. Despite the reactor destroying nitrates just weeks after starting operation, it eventually gets mucky like this for me and no longer works. That media is a lost cause, I would have to buy all new and pure sulfur is not the easiest to find.

 

[Sean Clark]

This is a photo of why I plan to replace my sulfur reactor with a biopellet one. Despite the reactor destroying nitrates just weeks after starting operation, it eventually gets mucky like this for me and no longer works. That media is a lost cause, I would have to buy all new and pure sulfur is not the easiest to find.

That is a very small amount of sulfur media to be running. I keep mine clean by keeping light off of it. No build up like what you are experiencing. Rinse off the sulfur beads and reinstall good to go. I guess I do not understand the desire to use biopellets in lieu of this method.

 

[nldemo]

That is a very small amount of sulfur media to be running. I keep mine clean by keeping light off of it. No build up like what you are experiencing. Rinse off the sulfur beads and reinstall good to go. I guess I do not understand the desire to use biopellets in lieu of this method.

Yea, I tried using less media with the theory that more media was causing a bacteria die off quicker. It didn't really pan out for me though. Mine is in the sump, no lights. Not sure what the main cause of the mulm is.

With biopellets, they will dissolve over time so no need to worry about cleaning off the media and restarting the reactor every few months. That and no need to dose Alk daily. I'm just not sure if I can find a recirculating pellet reactor big enough for my 300gal.

 

[1ocean]

I built a sulfur reactor using two Used red octopus reactors I picked up . Saved $$$$.
1 reactor for sulfur the other for ARM. Water from reactor1 (sulfur gets sent to reactor 2 (ARM) and then back into the sump. Been on my 300 build now for 2 months, so far so good....

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Assuming it even worked? !! You do advise changing the C/N ratio of feed by adding organic carbon, carbohydrtates, I assume you do know how it works, about how installed autotrophic carrying capacity, the nitrification capacity is removed to be replaced by fast heterotrophic growth.
Basic management of the C/N ratio using the foodsource uses the same basic natural principles but is a lot more system and user friendly, does not include the risks dosing carbohydrates, can not lead to overdosing, can not lead to killing or bleaching corals, and is done to match nitrate production with nitrate consumption, is not done for the wrong reason, reducing a high nitrate level. ( fast growing heterotrophic bacteria use ammonia, not nitrate) Using the foodsource drastic changes are avoided, are not possible.

A great deal of scientific research has been carried out past decades regarding the regulation of the nitrogen balance and the distribution of the carrying capacity between heterotrophs and autrophs based on the C/N ratio of the food, concerning managing closed marine life support systems. Everything has been examined and tested, the how and why, down to the smallest detail. This information is also very important to those who have been advised to add carbohydrates to change the C/N ratio present in the tank, without being properly informed of known possible side effects and consequences.
Commercial products sold for that purpose do provide little or no information about possible side effects , one has no clue how much carbon is added, the content is unknown, In what way the C/N ratio of feed is changed? And yes , these products do what they promise to do, the rest is the responsibility of the user.


it is sensible trying to mange the nitrate production , matching nitrate production and fotosynthetic consumption, preventing nitrate will accumulate.
The protein content of food should be basic information, and is part of basic nutrient management of closed systems

but it has nothing to do with the way everyone can easily adjust the nitrate balance if they so wish, but especially with the provision of correct information. I don't want to persuade the user to do or not to do something, but that if one makes a decision it can be done on the basis of correct information, without being misled.
to provide basic information provide to you in a previous discussion about the same subject?
Nitrate accumulation is easily avoided? Apart from managing the nitrate production ratio using the C/N ratio of feed one must also manage the nitrate consumption and nitrogen export. When the carbon source of feed is used up, this must be done by producers, photosynthetic organisms. This can be done using AAM, active algae management.

C/N data isn't available for foods in general. Correct, the protein content is generally available. How difficult it me be ? It is basic knowledge. For aquarium use one can use the protein content, the final result is the same.
The protein content of most natural feed is available. if it is about commercial food, one should not use food from a supplier not providing basic information. Quality foods and feed media including the info of what they contain are available for those who wish to know what is added to the tank.
The C/N ratio of basic food is directly linked to the protein content

Regardless of the protein content, the carbon content of a feed is always taken to be 50%. To get the C:N ratio, one has to find the N%. This is done by dividing the protein by 6.25. For example, for a shrimp feed with a crude protein of 21%, the N content is 21 divided by 6.25 = 3.36%. Thus the C:N ratio of the feed is 50 divided by 3.36 = 14.88:1 or close to 15:1

C/N = 50/ ( P / 6.25) ref: MB biovlokken, voedsel

Commercial flake food offered for seawater aquariums usually has a protein content of +- 40% and some even more than 50%. In addition, it sometimes contains carrots, celery and even garlic. In a marine environment, feed containing land plants ( cellulose) is very difficult and not completely broken down (formation of detritus)
The presence of cellulose, a multiple sugar, also gives a false impression of the C/N ratio of the food as some of the organic carbon in cellulose cannot be used by most marine organisms, promoting nitrate accumulation.

You continue to recommend better ways? You recommend to match input to consumption/export. Everybody will agrees about that. Everybody will like to follow that recommendation. HOW?

Maybe you want to continue to recommend other ways ? Till now other recommendations did not solve the recurrent problem of nitrate accumulation? Other recommendations try to battle symptoms but do not help to cure. I think preventing is better as curing. I am looking out for an other better way .
We do have AAM to manage the nutrient content and export. I have no knowledge of a better way to solve the recurrent problem of nutrient accumulation. In the case of using AAM the C/N ratio of feed is part of basic management, important to match nitrate production with consumption and growth.

A lot of hobbyist use very expensive equipment and follow recommendations to correct what basically went wrong,
They are waiting for a better way.


In a closed system it is not only about nitrogen import and export, it is about the ability to reduce ammonia, which depends on the C/N ratio of feed.

My statement about “assuming it even works” obviously relates to your assertion about controlling ratios in foods. That is what I do not see how it can work while using any normal foods.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

In a closed system it is not only about nitrogen import and export, it is about the ability to reduce ammonia, which depends on the C/N ratio of feed.

I do not agree. Ability to reduce ammonia does not require any organic carbon and is never deficient in any operating reef tank after cycling.

 

[1ocean]

Yea, I tried using less media with the theory that more media was causing a bacteria die off quicker. It didn't really pan out for me though. Mine is in the sump, no lights. Not sure what the main cause of the mulm is.

With biopellets, they will dissolve over time so no need to worry about cleaning off the media and restarting the reactor every few months. That and no need to dose Alk daily. I'm just not sure if I can find a recirculating pellet reactor big enough for my 300gal.

Check out "Parkers Reef" video, he talks about and shows different types of sulfur reactors and how to make them and also the formula of how much sulfur to use per gallons of water to ARM... Good starting point, it will give you ideas, it helped me when I was doing research and was tired of refug's and the mess.. So on my 300 build I did away with refug idea.
From your picture of your sulfur reactor, do you have enough sulfur for your size tank, seems like a small amount. I also built mine as two separate reactors, so that if I have to clean out or add more (ARM) to the reactor I will not disturb the sulfur reactor.
I hope this helps...Please also remember everyone has suggestions and everyone has different sucess/failure stories, you just have to find what works for you as I had to.....so far....
Ciao....

 

[nldemo]

I also built mine as two separate reactors, so that if I have to clean out or add more (ARM) to the reactor I will not disturb the sulfur reactor.
I hope this helps...Please also remember everyone has suggestions and everyone has different sucess/failure stories, you just have to find what works for you as I had to.....so far....
Ciao....

from my experience, it's the sulfur that will need cleaning over time. The ARM should be fine.

 

[1ocean]

from my experience, it's the sulfur that will need cleaning over time. The ARM should be fine.

cool. either way having it in two separate reactors helps..with the issue of cleaning and not disturbing the sulfur