Filter needed

[DanH]

I'm running a 12g tank with 13lb LR and a skimmer. The tank came with bio balls, ceramic rings and a foam filter which sits above a 10gph powerhead - the powerhead feeds the skimmer. I also have an additional 15gph pump which is connected to a flo divertor. All this sits in a rear compartment on the tank.

From reading various threads I have removed the bio balls and cermaic rings. I still have the filter in the tank but I'm confused. Is the filter battling with the LR for a bacteria colony? Should I be removing the filter to clean it? If so am I kiling of any bacteria that was growing? Should I just dump the filter? I have added a 1,5" "Red sea" reef Base sand spheres mixed with aragonite coral chip

 

[Anonymous]

Aerobic bacteria will grow on the filter pad, so it could be good. But, if it gets clogged with detritus, will it obstruct flow into the tank? If so, I would remove it.

Can you add a light to this compartment and grow some macro algae? That would be a great place for copepods, amphopods and worms to live and reproduce, then their larvae will feed your corals.

 

[Anonymous]

...Aerobic bacteria will grow on the filter pad, so it could be good...

Not to dispute you, but if you leave a filter pad in long enough to colonize with that type of bacteria that's not good. It contributes to higher nitrate levels just like bioballs/ceramic rings. If a filter pad is changed weekly this doesn't happen, nor does it obstruct water flow. This is the same rational against using canister filters in a reef system

 

[Anonymous]

Hey, this is a perfect spot to introduce my 10-10-10 theory! Or try anyway...

I do not think any mechanism of filtering can increase nitrate level any more than any other. Whisper filters got a rap as increasing nitrate levels, bioballs, too.

Here is why:

When we feed, we add the compounds that contribute to the ammonia cycle. Let's say for the purpose of me trying to explain this theory, that we add 10 parts of food, or 10 pof. This breaks down to the equivalent of 10 pof of ammonia, then 10 pof of nitrite, the 10 pof of nitrate. The end result can not be more than what we added to begin with, right?

So, the label "nitrate factory" is really earned because these types of filtration are really good at what they do: doing the aerobic part of the nitrogen cycle. Because the anaerobic part is missing, they are unable to complete the cycle of converting the nitrate to free nitrogen gas that bubbles out of the tank. But, this OP stated he had 13 lbs of live rock in a 12 gallon tank, so he does have the components to complete the cycle. But, adding macroalgae will help!

Ok, so if anyone can understand this theory, can you help me explain it? I suck at explaining these types of reactional theory.


10>10 cannot equal 20.

 

[Anonymous]

Hey, this is a perfect spot to introduce my 10-10-10 theory! Or try anyway...

I do not think any mechanism of filtering can increase nitrate level any more than any other. Whisper filters got a rap as increasing nitrate levels, bioballs, too.

Sorry, your premise is flawed. Types of filtration can indeed increase nitrate level simply because they trap detrious which rots and creates ammonia. Do a google search using "nitrate" and "canister" as keywords and you will find a ton of articles.

What you haven't figured in is that there are different strains of bacteria that all play a part in the ammonia cycle. A bacterial colony only grows in proportion to the available fuel. The reverse is true-when there isn't enough fuel colonies shrink. More fuel, more bacteria producing end product-less fuel, less end product. This is the reason a tank takes time to cycle, these colonies must grow enough and in proportion one to the other to be stable. Balance balance balance!

When I said that having a fliter pad full of decaying stuff is a nitrate factory and therefore a bad thing, it's because common sense says to limit the amount of ammonia initally produced in the tank because it therefore limits the end product, nitrate.

Here is why:

When we feed, we add the compounds that contribute to the ammonia cycle. Let's say for the purpose of me trying to explain this theory, that we add 10 parts of food, or 10 pof. This breaks down to the equivalent of 10 pof of ammonia, then 10 pof of nitrite, the 10 pof of nitrate. The end result can not be more than what we added to begin with, right?

Sure, you have have more output than artificially added ammonia. Ammonia and like compounds naturally form in our tanks, in addition to what we "add". You would also need to figure in the waste (ammonia) other other things already in the tank create i.e. the by products of photosynthesis, the respiration of all the critters in the tank (copepods, bacteria, etc) the death and rotting of microscopic critters. Can't really figure those numbers, can we?

Also, the chemical compounds that form during the cycle are not simply ammonia-it forms other things as well that we don't measure with the simple test kits we have. Some are off-gassed and lost, others remain. Also PH, temperature etc will effect the outcome product. Three good articles that speak to my point:

http://www.reefs.org/library/talklog/d_ ... 81097.html
-this has a really good explanation of the different types of bacteria and how they balance.

http://faq.thekrib.com/begin-cycling.html

http://www.thetropicaltank.co.uk/cycling2.htm

So, the label "nitrate factory" is really earned because these types of filtration are really good at what they do: doing the aerobic part of the nitrogen cycle.

But we don't want that much nitrate to be produced as it is counterproductive in the first place! The whole idea in reefkeeping is to not have excess nutrients decaying in the tank so that the bacteria action (aerobic and anaerobic types) are in balance and nitrate (the end product) levels are kept at a minimum. High nitrate is almost impossible to export through water changes alone so the smart money is on not producing it in excess in the first place. Limiting ammonia production logically limits nitrate.

Because the anaerobic part is missing, they are unable to complete the cycle of converting the nitrate to free nitrogen gas that bubbles out of the tank.

So what you are saying that these types of filtration are indeed nitrate factories, and nigh nitrates are counterproductive to reefing. Which is why they are not recommended as they can produce more trouble than they are worth

 

[Anonymous]

Damn! I knew I wouldn't be able to explain it right.

In a closed system, carbon molecules are not able to break down in to more molecules than are added to begin with. What I am trying to say (badly, sorry) is that no method of converting carbon to nitrate is any more (or less) efficient than another at that conversion.

Is it the best way to filter? I don't think so, but in this case, the OP options are limited.

I do agree that removing the detritus before it is able to decompose is good, but I do not agree that killing the biofilter that is part of the system is good. Maybe he could rinse it in his water change water and have the best of both? Removing the DOC before it is able to break down is great.

So, you think he should replace the filter pad weekly? That might be best, because he will have aerobic bacteria in his system. But, it will remove a good deal of the beneficial bacteria, so he might feed a bit less that day. It would colonize quickly, of course.

 

[Anonymous]

Damn! I knew I wouldn't be able to explain it right.

In a closed system, carbon molecules are not able to break down in to more molecules than are added to begin with. What I am trying to say (badly, sorry) is that no method of converting carbon to nitrate is any more (or less) efficient than another at that conversion.

But you miss the point, the tank itself (via inhabitants doing the business of living) produce more ammonia in addition to what you the hobbiest add via feeding, etc. There really isn't a way to figure out (at the hobby level) just how much the tank alone produces so your theory of "What I put in = what I get out" is inherently flawed! Also, a tank is not a "closed system" as we add nutrients, chemicals (fresh mixed saltwater) etc all the time

Is it the best way to filter? I don't think so, but in this case, the OP options are limited.

The liverock+good stocking and maintenance are in truth all the filtration the OP needs.

I do agree that removing the detritus before it is able to decompose is good, but I do not agree that killing the biofilter that is part of the system is good. Maybe he could rinse it in his water change water and have the best of both? Removing the DOC before it is able to break down is great.

A pad would take weeks to colonize with bacteria. In the mean time it produces ammonia from rotting guck...well you know where this leads. You are overestimating the benefits of the pad vs the costs.

So, you think he should replace the filter pad weekly? That might be best, because he will have aerobic bacteria in his system. But, it will remove a good deal of the beneficial bacteria, so he might feed a bit less that day. It would colonize quickly, of course.

Read the article from RDO I posted above that explains what liverock does and what types of bacteria colonize there and re-think your position. The OP he already has plenty of liverock so has enough beneficial anaerobic bacteria already in the system provided he doesn't overburden it with excess nutrients. Again, it's all about balance.

 

[DanH]

So... as I have 12lbs of LR I dont need a filter?

 

[Anonymous]

So... as I have 12lbs of LR I dont need a filter?

If you manage the bioload well, no you don't need any extra filtration. Don't confuse mechanical filtration (mechanically taking guck out of a tank before it rots) with biological "filtration" which is the bacterial process we've been talking about. Mechanical removes stuff, but unless you clean out what the filter has removed you are back to square one as it simply decomps where it sits. Your liverock should provide plenty of biological filtration, i.e. bacteria that change the bad ammonia to the not so bad but bad in quantity nitrate. That is, unless you up the bioload to where there is more ammonia, etc than the system can handle. At that point bad things happen lol.

Now as I posted what seems like years ago, the little filter pad will trap bigger chunks of stuff and is worthwhile if you change it regularly. There are lots of tanks that have nothing but pumps and liverock, I've kept almost all my tanks that way with a notable addition-a skimmer.

A nano sized skimmer would be helpful if you have room for it because skimming removes guck before it can cause trouble. Barring that, Macro does a similar thing, it uptakes the excess nutrients-denying them to the bacteria that make nitrites/trates. It grows, and you then remove the excess nutrient from the tank by harvesting the extra algae growth.

 

[SnowManSnow]

GJ Law!

<-- nods

 

[Anonymous]

Good luck!

 

[cindre2000]

SeahorseWhisperer_ I think I see a "problem" in your premise. The reason wet dry and filter pads are considered nitrate factories is because of their inherent design. Not that they have a particular type of bacteria- though that is part of their design. The reason protien skimmers are so effective is because they remove the waste, unlike the previous two that just trap it. Since the skimmer removes the waste it will cause the net amount of waste in the system to decease, while the wet dry and particle filters leave it in the system.

Thus:
In a wet dry or canister filter system, you put in 10part of food and get 10parts waste (since the waste never leaves the system).

In a protein skimmer system you put in 10 part food and it removes 8 parts waste (in the collection cup).

Live rock is also efficient because it eventually removes the waste from the system (as Nitrogen gas), which the wet dry and filter pad cannot do.

 

[Anonymous]

Hmmm, I really have a failure to communicate here...

Ok, first, it is not my theory. It is something I read in a research paper a while back that I thought I could convey better. I'll try to find where I first got thinking about it and link it, or maybe it is better to just let it go....

So, I was trying to refer to the OP's thought about his filter pad. I would think this area would be a completely aerobic place. This area, with it's strong super saturated with oxygen area will only produce nitrate. The 10-10-10 theory is that in an oxygen rich environment, you cannot get more molecules of broken down carbon than is in the system at any given time. His system needs aerobic bacteria, and if it is on the filter pad or the substrate or on the outer areas of his rock, it still cannot produce more nitrate than the system has carbon molecules.

The live organisms will reuse and continue the break down process everywhere: the bacteria, the spawn of the microfauna, ect. But, their growth is limited by the available carbon.

Skimming removes DOC before it breaks down. A completely different process than an aerobic filter pad, which is what I was trying to discuss.

Live rock has deep anaerobic areas that continue the carbon to nitrogen compound process, eventually resulting in free nitrogen gas.


Geez, to think I was going to let you guys in on my "Bring Back the UGF" campaign......

 

[Anonymous]

Ok, I realy screwed up your thread by introducing a more advanced concept. This is the new reefers forum and I sorta got side tracked. Forgive me?

So, back to the original questions:
Is the filter battling with the LR for a bacteria colony?

IMO, not really. The live rock is mostly for anaerobic (with low oxygen or hypoxic) bacteria. The filter pad will provide aerobic bacteria. Both are needed in a SW tank, but the aerobic bacteria is on the outer edges of your rock, and in the upper inches of your substrate. You really don't need the filter batting for more surface area for aerobic bacteria.

Should I be removing the filter to clean it? I wouldn't, but you could.

If so am I kiling of any bacteria that was growing?
Yes.

Should I just dump the filter?

Like I mentioned above, you could empty the area, add a light and grow macroalgae there. It would provide nutrient uptake, plus be a great refuge for microfauna.


And, like I said above, good luck and welcome to the wonderful world of reefing obsession!

 

[Anonymous]

SeahorseWhisperer_, color me stupid, but why are you talking about carbon, when the issue is ammonia (a nitrogen waste product)? Taking the concepts down to that level is making things waaay too complex.

Apologies to the OP, but threadjacking is a tradition here at RDO :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

I know. I should have posted this on the general reef keeping forum. Sorry?

 

[Anonymous]

probably would get more attention there.

 

[DanH]

Thanks for all the advice, being a newbie sucks!

How about keeping the filter and cleaning it in water I remove from the tank during water changes. Would this be a good idea?

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks for all the advice, being a newbie sucks!

How about keeping the filter and cleaning it in water I remove from the tank during water changes. Would this be a good idea?

Shrug. It still has stuff decaying in it, and will clog up faster than a new one will.

 

[Ef3s]

It makes no logical sense to say that 2 exact tanks exact livestock rocks and sand, would have 2 different nitrate readings simply becuase of the type of filter on the tank....