someone please make sense of it for me!

[dgasmd]

OK. I am in the process of setting up my new 125 reef tank and have been reading here and in other places for over 1 year. I have a very strong background in biology/zoology and physiology, but I have been hearing something that makes no sense whatsoever to me, so I am kindly asking someone with a better understanding to explain it to me.
Most people is in agreement that even in tanks with LR as the main biological filter, bio-balls (or whatever other plastic media) should be removed from sumps because it becomes a "nitrate factory." This makes no sense. If a tank has fish and other bioload producing ammonia-to-nitrites-to-nitrates, bioballs or not this gets processed by the rock just the same. What difference does it make to the bacteria in the rock whether it was bacteria in the rock or in the bioballs that turned the ammonia to nitrates?? Either one of the 2 or combined should yield the same amount of end product. I would venture to guess that the LR+bio-balls would have a faster turn over rate and more capacity to process the ammonia and nitrites should the system or biological load get larger, but at the end both would produce the same amount of nitrates.
What am I missing here??

 

[Jawbone]

Well I guess it would not make a difference to the tank but look at it this way.

If you provide all the fitration in your tank via chemical or mechanical systems then your Live rock will not need to be alive or it will not be as "alive" as live rock in a tank with less mechanical or chemical filtration.


The law of use and disuse... or, Use it or lose it.

Kinda why we lost our tails eons ago because we didnt use them any more (if you believe in the evolution thing.

 

[Jawbone]

Oh I forgot,

The point being that you are trying to create a Reef Tank not a better fish tank filter system

 

[Ben1]

I also think that bio balls can collect organics, which leach off into the tank. Also some have little sponges inside them, which also creates problems forming a new way for organics to get trapped. On/In the bioballs the organics dont have a way to get processed.

In the tank the debris gets trapped in the rock and sand bed where it is prosessed by pods, worms ect. as they eat it it gets broken down. This is better then letting it all get broken down into ammonia/nitrite,nirate.

HTH

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: Ben ]</p>

 

[Anonymous]

dimaggio,

You are partially right. In any given situation, a certain bioload will output the same amount of nitrates.
You need to understand that the filtration cycle goes from amonia, to nitrites, and then nitrates. But nitrates are not the end of the cycle. Nitrates can be reduced to nitrogen gas and complete the nitrogen cycle. If the nutrients are left in the form of nitrates because the tank can't reduce them to nitrogen, then the nitrates build up in the water and can only be controlled by massive water changes.
If you have a DSB where anarobic conditions allow this reaction, nitrates can be reduced to nitrogen and off-gased or removed from the tank. Live Rock can also reduce some nitrates.
So if a constant amount of nitrates are produced and only part are further reduced to nitrogen, then you have a buildup of nitrates in your tank. Trickle filters, mechanical filters, bio-balls, and cannister filters all do a very good job of reducing ammonia to nitrates, but thats all thay do. They only handle half of the nitrogen cycle.

[ April 25, 2002: Message edited by: cwa46 ]</p>

 

[2poor2reef]

Dimaggio, your thinking is right on the money. We need more people who don't tout the party line when they don't understand how it works. My thinking piggybacks on cwa46's.

The problem with bioballs, besides having the tendency to trap detritus which is a different issue, is that they reduce organics to nitrate as cwa46 said. But the microbes that can complete the reduction of nitrate are in your live rock and deep sand bed. The nitrates have to travel there, if they are going to get reduced at all prior to a water change, and this exposes the nitrate (fertilizer) to anything that is siftinf the wtaer column looking for nutrients (i.e. algaes, etc.).

So the problem is really one of proximity. Ideally you want the microbe that reduces amonia to nitrite living directly next door to the one that processes nitrite into nitrate and likewise nitrate into nitrogen gas, etc. That's what happens in the strata of a dsb and in the pores of the rock. That way there is less opportunity for the organisms we don't want to proliferate to take advantage of the nutrients. My thoughts.

 

[Mouse]

2poor2reef as allways on the ball.

I am also of a mind that the bactereal colonys work better when in one location, this then allows the colony to become more dynamic in controling bioload shifts. Where as if you have lots of small colonys all over the place, one may starve and crash, while another grows, and you would end up with quite an unstable system, bits popping up all ovr the place. If the bactereal colony is in one place, then if it starves it gets smaller, and when its fed it gets bigger. Theres no other like community to deal with, therefore less anomily.

 

[Anonymous]

Mouse,

What are your trying to say? Diversity is bad? I guess I don't understand what you are advocating.

 

[danmhippo]

Hmmm, how come no one mentioned about the fact skimmers and macro algae are more efficient at removing (taking nutrient up in macro algae's case) nutrient at its raw form and ammonia. With such a large surface area the bioballs has, any raw nutrients gets converted into NO3 so fast that skimmer may not have the chance to pick them up in time.

Bioball is a large nitrate factory simply because it is too efficient at doing what it does best. Wet/dry is great for FO tanks when NO3 level is not a critical concern.

 

[danmhippo]

BTW, Mouse, you gotta start talking/typing like americans do. Poeple can really get lost when you are not speaking English......& sleepy....

 

[dgasmd]

Well, thanks for all the replies. I think danmhippo has the most sense in his answer. At least to me that is. Unfortunately Mouse, your bacteria location has no validity here since bacteria is really stupid and could care less whether the others are nearby or far. Their nutrient is in the water and they all get it just the same regardless of whether is one large colony or 5 million little ones. The only place where location comes in play for bacterial colonies is when they have very limited space for growth. That is when competition takes place and the one type with the most nutrition will always thrive and the ones with the least will perish.

 

[SPC]

Posted by dimaggio:
Unfortunately Mouse, your bacteria location has no validity

-uh oh

Steve

 

[Anemone]

Dimaggio,

CWA46 and 2poor2reef have answered your question well. It really comes down to the proximity of the nitrate production to its consumption. If your primary biofilter is live rock and/or live sand, the nitrate is produced close to the low-oxygen zones in which bacteria that break down the nitrate proliferate. Very little of the nitrate produced here "escapes" into the water column.

Contrast this with a system using both bioballs and live rock. The bioballs are a perfect, large-surface-area growth medium for the nitrate-producing bacteria (as well as the nitrite-producing bacteria, but that is immaterial). Bacteria will grow here - resulting in less bacteria growth on the live rock (same food input = same amount of bacteria, just in different places). This means that nitrate will be produced that has nowhere to go but into the water column (from the bioballs). This nitrate must circulate throughout the tank and permeate deeply into the live rock or live sand (deeper than it would if the bioballs didn't exist, because there is less bacteria in the rocks utilizing the available oxygen, meaning the low-oxygen zones are deeper in the rocks/sand).

The bioball/live rock system is very inefficient in processing nitrate - getting all the water deep inside the rocks or sand bed in order to utilize all the nitrate just doesn't happen. So, you have measureable nitrates, where with live rock/live sand only systems, you often have no measureable nitrates (at least as far as hobbyist level tests are concerned).

Kevin

[ April 26, 2002: Message edited by: Anemone ]</p>

 

[adamsaquatics]

My bio balls had something growing on them, so I went to the doctors, and she exclaimed ICK! or was it EEEK! I'm not sure. She said my Bio LOAD was too high and I should really think about letting my tank settle down a bit. I over feed and add too many chemicals to the system she explained," its those bad habit that are catching up with you," but I told her "if I don't use them I'll loose them" so here we are, to bio ball or not, That is the question. I don't think they have any use in a reef tank. George

 

[danmhippo]

You take what to the doctors? What doctor? Please don't tell me its the vet inside the P**co! Did they scrape the stuff off on the Bioballs and examine under microscope? How did they come to the conclusion it's ick?

 

[SPC]

Your chasing your tail here Dan

Steve

 

[danmhippo]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by SPC:
<strong>Your chasing your tail here Dan

Steve</strong><hr></blockquote>

Tail, what tail?

 

[dgasmd]

Anemone (Kevin):
Your explanations sound good, but let me ask you the following. Where i you et a this info? Was this all scientificly proven with experiments or was it someone's best guess as to what "they think" happens?
I don't mean to be offensive or a smart a....s here, but for as long as I have been reading in these forums and having fish tanks for that matter I have come to hear so much that has no scientific basis. It is quite understandable since most of the people that has fish and reef tanks are not scientists but rather the average joe. I am very ignorant myself as to how thinks work in reality, but I am sure most other people are too. I guess the difference is I don't believe everything I hear even if it works. It might work, but it doesn't mean it is because of most of the reasons we attribute to it.
Thanks again for all the replies. They have been educational.

 

[danmhippo]

Dr. Ron Shimek has published/made available many articles about DSB and the roll of critters in the sandbed. Try his articles in the Reefcentral library.

http://www.reefcentral.com/library/DrRon.htm

 

[mpoed1]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by dimaggio:
<strong>OK. I am in the process of setting up my new 125 reef tank and have been reading here and in other places for over 1 year. I have a very strong background in biology/zoology and physiology, but I have been hearing something that makes no sense whatsoever to me, so I am kindly asking someone with a better understanding to explain it to me.
Most people is in agreement that even in tanks with LR as the main biological filter, bio-balls (or whatever other plastic media) should be removed from sumps because it becomes a "nitrate factory." This makes no sense. If a tank has fish and other bioload producing ammonia-to-nitrites-to-nitrates, bioballs or not this gets processed by the rock just the same. What difference does it make to the bacteria in the rock whether it was bacteria in the rock or in the bioballs that turned the ammonia to nitrates?? Either one of the 2 or combined should yield the same amount of end product. I would venture to guess that the LR+bio-balls would have a faster turn over rate and more capacity to process the ammonia and nitrites should the system or biological load get larger, but at the end both would produce the same amount of nitrates.
What am I missing here??</strong><hr></blockquote>

My understanding is sequence rather than all or none. I put a biological filter after my protein skimmer. Putting the skimmer first presents a site to remove nitrites before they oxidize to nitrates.