|
|
Post by BriMc on Jun 8, 2014 19:46:12 GMT -5
Check both types of rock you have and go from there. I am going to bet one type of the rock is leaching phosphates.
|
|
|
|
Post by BriMc on Jun 8, 2014 20:17:53 GMT -5
I think you should do a little more research about gfo before saying it only polishes off water.....though I do agree it won't magically make your phosphates disappear it will bring then down steadily and once you do get them down it wool continue to help you maintain ultra low phosphates. Witch in a reef tank is always the goal. Your always adding phosphates to your system and there will always be the need to remove them. A gfo phosphate reactor is the most efficient way to do this imho. It also helps with silicates and D.o.c. all things that feed algae. I never said it polishes off your water I stated what its original use was for before aquarist started using it by the tons because of bad maintenance practices, over feeding, and over stocking. Yes I agree everyday we add phosphate to our systems and we also prevent and remove phosphates through light feeding, not over stocking, feeding foods that do not contain large amounts of phosphates, proper skimming, and mostly water changes. If you are following the basics to keep a clean tank, not over feeding, and your phosphates are high running GFO is NOT a solution to the problem, finding the cause of the phosphates is the solution. But if you read most of the articles on GFO in the reef keeping world all authors recommend using GFO to reduce Phosphates from 0.07 to 0.00 now if that is not water polishing it is as close as you get. www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-11/rhf/ noob are you running carbon ? |
|
|
|
Post by jasonandsarah on Jun 8, 2014 20:29:31 GMT -5
That article is from 2004. Little dated
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b- Ryan [Poland] on Jun 8, 2014 21:03:45 GMT -5
Yes, ac and GFO as I mentioned in mash bag tossed in the fuge
|
|
|
|
Post by Pokahpolice on Jun 9, 2014 9:24:51 GMT -5
That article is from 2004. Little dated Just because an article is old doesn't make it irrelevant. I shared an article from Albert Thiel while talking about DOC and your response was the same. Stating that the info is dated doesn't discredit it. If you can point to some more recent information that disproves the dated information than I would agree but newer doesn't automatically mean better or more accurate. |
|
|
|
Post by Pokahpolice on Jun 9, 2014 9:27:23 GMT -5
Yes, ac and GFO as I mentioned in mash bag tossed in the fuge GFO in a mesh bag is not doing much of anything for you from what I've read. It needs to tumble for the phosphate molecules to bind to the GFO. |
|
|
|
Post by Pokahpolice on Jun 9, 2014 9:40:11 GMT -5
I think you should do a little more research about gfo before saying it only polishes off water.....though I do agree it won't magically make your phosphates disappear it will bring then down steadily and once you do get them down it wool continue to help you maintain ultra low phosphates. Witch in a reef tank is always the goal. Your always adding phosphates to your system and there will always be the need to remove them. A gfo phosphate reactor is the most efficient way to do this imho. It also helps with silicates and D.o.c. all things that feed algae. If you are following the basics to keep a clean tank, not over feeding, and your phosphates are high running GFO is NOT a solution to the problem, finding the cause of the phosphates is the solution. In the case where the source is the rock used I'd have to disagree. Using GFO may not remove the source in this case but as long as you are able to reduce them to a level where algae can not grow than you have solved the problem. The phosphates in the rock are not an unlimited supply and eventually will be eliminated. The only other way to eliminate the problem would be to remove the rock, treat it, and start over...in my opinion that treatment is worse than the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by BriMc on Jun 9, 2014 9:58:31 GMT -5
Unfortunately Bruce you are correct but that would be how to solve the problem. Phosphate leaching rock could be a problem that last for years. GFO is not a cheap media to run and also the cons of running GFO and the cost associated with running GFO replacing the rock could be the cheaper solution. GFO not only removes phosphate it removes beneficial metals and other elements. There is also questions about the amount of iron GFO is adding to the tank. Now making sense, in you find out the rock is the source of the phosphate and in noobs case it sounds like 50 pounds of rock or less and considering the amount oF money GFO and other additives that may need to be replaced costs, the amount of water changes being done, the amount of time it takes to manually remove the algae, and the frustration of looking at hair algae in the tank. Treatment or replacement of the rock sounds like a good solution.
|
|
|
|
Post by jasonandsarah on Jun 9, 2014 10:23:21 GMT -5
Once the phosphates have been leaching from the rock for this long you'd most likely have to switch out the substrate as well. Phosphates and silicates aren't bias in what they bind to there for if this is a on going problem the sand would have to be removed.
Gfo really isn't that expensive and a container last a long time. It sounds like noob is already using gfo so it really wouldn't be much of an investment. Especially compared to removing all the live rock and sand and starting from scratch? Who wants to do that?
The phosphates can only leach for so long and gfo last 60+ days in most cases with many uses in one container. I guess I don't see the big down side? I see little to no reduction in other metals while using gfo, magnesium would be a noticeable one you'd think? My mag levels are consistently the same with little dosing.
|
|
|
|
Post by jasonandsarah on Jun 9, 2014 10:27:30 GMT -5
That article is from 2004. Little dated Just because an article is old doesn't make it irrelevant. I shared an article from Albert Thiel while talking about DOC and your response was the same. Stating that the info is dated doesn't discredit it. If you can point to some more recent information that disproves the dated information than I would agree but newer doesn't automatically mean better or more accurate. Only in these two cases have I said this and it's mainly because of the advances in technology and knowledge since these articles were written. I mean in 2004 gfo was just coming into the hobby if I remember correctly? So how could they of possibly known everything there was to know about it? I'm not saying there isn't accurate information in either article but I believe there's some inaccurate information in both and I believe I did show evidence of that with the doc article? |
|
|
|
Post by Pokahpolice on Jun 9, 2014 10:50:46 GMT -5
Unfortunately Bruce you are correct but that would be how to solve the problem. Phosphate leaching rock could be a problem that last for years. GFO is not a cheap media to run and also the cons of running GFO and the cost associated with running GFO replacing the rock could be the cheaper solution. GFO not only removes phosphate it removes beneficial metals and other elements. There is also questions about the amount of iron GFO is adding to the tank. Now making sense, in you find out the rock is the source of the phosphate and in noobs case it sounds like 50 pounds of rock or less and considering the amount oF money GFO and other additives that may need to be replaced costs, the amount of water changes being done, the amount of time it takes to manually remove the algae, and the frustration of looking at hair algae in the tank. Treatment or replacement of the rock sounds like a good solution. Years? Not sure how that's possible but I've never researched phosphate leaching rocks :-) Did you read that somewhere? I'm not saying it's wrong but I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around it. |
|
|
|
Post by BriMc on Jun 9, 2014 11:33:57 GMT -5
No I have lived it and have had it happen to customers where they have bough dry rock that has been in tanks for years and recycled. Also I got a back of Marco rock that had this issue. Rock is porous and can absorb all sorts of stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by BriMc on Jun 9, 2014 12:52:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by BriMc on Jun 9, 2014 12:58:45 GMT -5
Just because an article is old doesn't make it irrelevant. I shared an article from Albert Thiel while talking about DOC and your response was the same. Stating that the info is dated doesn't discredit it. If you can point to some more recent information that disproves the dated information than I would agree but newer doesn't automatically mean better or more accurate. Only in these two cases have I said this and it's mainly because of the advances in technology and knowledge since these articles were written. I mean in 2004 gfo was just coming into the hobby if I remember correctly? So how could they of possibly known everything there was to know about it? I'm not saying there isn't accurate information in either article but I believe there's some inaccurate information in both and I believe I did show evidence of that with the doc article? Jason not busting on you but let's see advances in technology, GFO nope the formulation and minerals haven't changed, Reactors and filter socks nope have not changed, Packaging from a company stating it is the latest greatest yep that changed. I am by no means an article junkie and have not read an article concerning anything on reefing in many years but I am glad I read this one as GFO is great for reducing Phosphate but look what it does to your ALK. |
|
|
|
Post by jasonandsarah on Jun 9, 2014 13:09:02 GMT -5
www.advancedaquarist.com/2012/2/chemistryHow new would you like? [/qote] I don't need any articles really. I personally have 0 phosphates and run gfo when needed. I have never ever seen a drop in ph when gfo is added? Has anyone else? I really don't see anything in that article saying that gfo only removes small amounts of phosphates either? Anyways I was only trying to help out noob and not get into a gfo battle with anyone. I know I personally love gfo and would only run it in a reactor. In this case as to algae and tank success I believe my tank speaks got it self. Removing all your sand and rock and replacing it with new sand and rock is always an option. Not a great option but an option none the less. |
|
