Using gfo

[+KimP]

Just curious about how others use gfo and possible ways to reduce stripping the phosphates too fast. Has anyone tried limiting how much is pulled from the water by just reducing water flow through the reactor? I was thinking if I just added a little gfo and kept the flow the same, I'd imagine it'll just pull out a bunch at once until it's full, still removing too much at once. I like Richard's idea of running a few reactors at once, that seems optimal, but I can't manage that level of maintenance right now. So I thought maybe it won't matter how much gfo I have in the reactor if I can control how much gets pulled out by controlling how much water is going through the reactor. Thoughts?

[victoly]

Id start with 50% recommended dosage with low flow and just test for a few days.

[jestep]

I ended up with 4 reactors on 1 week alternating schedules, so each reactor has GFO for 4 weeks before replacement. Start using 25% of recommended in each one. By the time you get to the 4th, the first is mostly exhausted so you can gradually increase in each one until you get a balance.

If you can't do 4, even running 2 or 3 at the same time makes a huge difference. I found the biggest problem with just running 1 was the bounce whenever I would replace it each month or so. I think I saw Richard L using this or a 3 reactor method first so there's definitely other ARC members doing it.

[+KimP]

I ended up with 4 reactors on 1 week alternating schedules, so each reactor has GFO for 4 weeks before replacement. Start using 25% of recommended in each one. By the time you get to the 4th, the first is mostly exhausted so you can gradually increase in each one until you get a balance.

If you can't do 4, even running 2 or 3 at the same time makes a huge difference. I found the biggest problem with just running 1 was the bounce whenever I would replace it each month or so. I think I saw Richard L using this or a 3 reactor method first so there's definitely other ARC members doing it.

That was my thought. I guess I'll have to decide what I can realistically manage. Doesn't actually sound like any more work to maintain, just added cost for another reactor.

[Bpb]

Once you reduce your phosphates to ideal levels I'd just test every couple weeks and see if changing it is even necessary. Once you run it for a few months, you may not need it anymore. I ran it in one half of the brs dual reactor for a year and just changed it monthly as recommended without ever testing. Once I started testing, saw that I didn't need it. Pulled it. 6 months later, still dont need it.

[Timfish]

Just food for thought but the phosphate, P04, level in the water I used for your water change that appeared to get rid of your algae problem was between 2 and 5 ppm using my API test kit. The biology in our systems need phosphates and some systems (like Peeperkeepers for example using a version of a zonal system with no skimmer) may be using up the phosphates and do not need GFO. In my experiences phosphates do not equate to nuisance algae issues and 80 - 90% of the nuisance algae problems I do see disappear on their own with only minimal manual intervention on my part. Here's an interesting paper on corals needs for phosphates: http://jeb.biologists.org/content/214/16/2749.full

[Bpb]

I've seen Timfish mention this time and time again. While I don't understand the science behind it as well as him, I agree. Nuisance algae and phosphate test results have never been correlated for me. On top of that every algae bloom I've ever had has also passed. I recently battled cladophora to levels I've never seen in pics or otherwise. Massive tufts, A little fish nibbling and some manual removal, and not panicking...and today I've noticed it's virtually gone...mostly on its own. same thing happened with bubble algae

Edited October 26, 2014 by Bpb

[victoly]

For me the disconnect was testing methodology. Until I started getting really obsessive with clean glassware, my tests weren't repeatable nor did they correlate with algae observations. Now, when I get up in the 0.15 and above range, I get algal growth beyond what is visually appealing to me.

[Timfish]

I agree, with testers that are using the absorption spectrum of a specific wavelength of light like the Hanna checkers where a smudge from a finger print can change the results having sparkling glassware would be an absolute necessity. With Elos's high resolution test kit where I'm looking down through a little over 3" of water with both a reference and test samples I'm surprised at how small a difference in color can be detected. When dealing with higher levels I'm quite happy with API. In this instance I could say the shade correlated to maybe 3.0 ppm but giving the range it fell in on on API's color chart seems more than adequate. One observation using both test kits together is they support each other. That is if the API is showing .25 to .50 ppm the Elos will be more accurate, will give a wider range of shading, but the reading will fall in the range of the API. As far as the haze that can build up over time on glassware the Elos comes with new test tubes so that's never been an issue. With the API, since I use many of their test kits, I always am getting new test tubes and it's pretty obvious when older tubes are setting next to new tubes when it may need to be tossed.