GFO vs Si

ScottF

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 3, 2024
Messages
697
Reaction score
337
Location
Miami
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I run GFO (Rowaphos) to control PO4, but I also dose Si because I have photosynthetic sponges. I feel like the Si is reducing the potential for the GFO to absorb PO4 and the GFO is just absorbing the Si that I am dosing. It seem like a whole lot of wasted money.

I tried running AFO (Phosguard) in the past and it leached a bunch of aluminum into the water and killed my toadstool leather. For a while I was dosing a mixture of calcium hydroxide and vinegar as a source of carbon, but my reef didn't seem to like the increased bacterial load in the water column.

I also run a sulfur reactor that keeps my NO3 pegged at 9. I'm convinced that I could take a dump in my tank without much of an increase in NO3. The sulfur denitrator is super effective. I wish everything just worked as well as my sulfur reactor. So I'm only looking for a solution to control PO4. Not NO3.

I do also use some lanthanum chloride (Phosphate Rx, Phosphat-E), but I'm concerned with residual build up of lanthanum chloride since it does show up as a pollutant on my ICP tests and I also have fish that are sensitive to lanthanum like yellow tangs and a foxface.

Is there a better way to remove PO4 that doesn't also remove Si? Is there something that will remove the residual lanthanum? Is there a safer way to dose lanthanum than just adding it to my overflow that drains into my roller mat?
 

Randy Holmes-Farley

Reef Chemist
View Badges
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
89,230
Reaction score
92,237
Location
Massachusetts, United States
Rating - 0%
0   0   0

mcarroll

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Jan 8, 2012
Messages
15,213
Reaction score
8,968
Location
Virginia
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Is there a better way to remove PO4 that doesn't also remove Si?
What is PO4 when not treating the tank?

By this time we've all had a chance to see some amazing reefs (some even have corals spawning) that run beautifully at "alarmingly high" nutrient levels. Maybe it's time to reasses and consider whether phosphate needs to be controlled at all?

IMO there is **some** support in the literature for keeping N "low(er)" for the benefit of corals but there's no reason I can see for keeping phosphates artificially depressed. Maybe just try easing up on the phosphate control?
 

TOP 10 Trending Threads

WHAT AMOUNT OF LIVE ROCK AND SAND SHOULD BE PRIORITIZED FOR OPTIMAL BIODIVERSITY/FILTRATION?

  • 100% live rock + bagged sand

    Votes: 34 28.3%
  • 100% dry rock + 100% live sand

    Votes: 41 34.2%
  • 50/50 live/dry rock, 50/50 live/bagged sand

    Votes: 27 22.5%
  • 75% live rock, 25% live sand

    Votes: 10 8.3%
  • 25% live rock, 75% live sand

    Votes: 8 6.7%
Back
Top