Nitrate in the aquarium

[tperk9784]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10281476#post10281476 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by wooden_reefer
Moreover, I tend to think that there is a difference between using LR as the biological filter medium and cycling a tank with LR.

In cycling with LR, the LR is placed in an uncycled tank and the ammonia from dead organisms in the LR is used as the source of ammonia. I simply ask this question: for how much longer would the remaining live organisms have to live in high ammonia concentration? Do you not think that there is a good chance that the ammonia would kill some organisms? Are there any organisms known to science other than nitrification bacteria that needs ammonia and nitrite? Wouldn't longer exposure to ammonia reduce "diversity" further?

I think cycling with LR is a rather absurd concept.

I believe that if one is going to use LR as the biological filter, one should place it in a cycled tank. And be very patient. Even in a cycled tank, nitrification bateria will still grow on suitable and unpopulated media; just that it will take a while. One should put up with the nitrate factory of power filter for a while and gradually allow the LR to become biological filter. IMO

I don't really think the original intent was for people to cycle their tank with live rock. It however became common knowledge that new uncured live rock would indeed start a cycle in the tank so people would cure their rock in the tank at the same time causing it to cycle. in effect killing two birds with one stone.

I find the discovery of the lack of Bacteria deep in live rock to be very interesting. If the actual de-nitrification process is not happening in the very core of the rock how deep inside the rocks surface does the bacteria live? Would this mean that larger pieces of live rock actually provide less de nitrification than having more smaller pieces that are still large enough to provide anaerobic areas?

 

[geekreef_05]

awesome thread, im loving it.

the key here is that we dont really have enough information. anyone that's attempted reef's without LR realize that its a much slower and more difficult reef development process to deal with compared to using lots of LR.

Im also speaking as a 'natural reefer', by that I mean I no longer use a skimmer or any other mechanical filteration (other than some carbon, occasionally) in any of my reefs. This method has worked for me and my oldest tank has been up and doing well for about 5 years. I depend entirely on live rock and WC's for water quality.

Im a very diligent record keeper. That 60 FOWLR has two tangs and 7 dispair athias along with almost 100lbs of LR, arranged in a rock wall along the back of the 4' tank. The tank is fed 1 strip of seaweed and 1 frozen cube each day. It gets 4 water changes a year (50% changes); about one every three months.

And what're the param's? Pretty decent. By the time Im due for a WC nitrates are at 5 ppm. Ive continued this maintaince routine for about 3-4 years now. The tank was very slowly stocked over the course of its first year.

As a natural reefer i cant say enough good about LR. i think there is more to meets the eye here. Possibly a bacterial reaction that we are not even aware of at all occurring beneath the surface. Maybe there are other microscopic creatures at work that we're not aware of. I simply feel that we dont have all the information needed to decipher this puzzle.

 

[wooden_reefer]

I would not go so far as to say it is proof or disproof, but we can do a formal observation.

All we need to do is to sit in front of our reef tanks and take a tally of the number of times your clean up crew, each individual perhaps, picks on liverock vs picks on non-liverock surface (glass, bottom etc). For snails etc you can observe where they are, on liverock or not on liverock.

I think that after a while the idea of algae on liverock being consumed (as the major factor of lower nitrate) can be illustrated.

After estimating the relative areas, one can estimate if they have a preference of being on the surface of the liverock, munching.

 

[wooden_reefer]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10283733#post10283733 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by geekreef_05
awesome thread, im loving it.

the key here is that we dont really have enough information. anyone that's attempted reef's without LR realize that its a much slower and more difficult reef development process to deal with compared to using lots of LR.

Im also speaking as a 'natural reefer', by that I mean I no longer use a skimmer or any other mechanical filteration (other than some carbon, occasionally) in any of my reefs. This method has worked for me and my oldest tank has been up and doing well for about 5 years. I depend entirely on live rock and WC's for water quality.

Im a very diligent record keeper. That 60 FOWLR has two tangs and 7 dispair athias along with almost 100lbs of LR, arranged in a rock wall along the back of the 4' tank. The tank is fed 1 strip of seaweed and 1 frozen cube each day. It gets 4 water changes a year (50% changes); about one every three months.

And what're the param's? Pretty decent. By the time Im due for a WC nitrates are at 5 ppm. Ive continued this maintaince routine for about 3-4 years now. The tank was very slowly stocked over the course of its first year.

As a natural reefer i cant say enough good about LR. i think there is more to meets the eye here. Possibly a bacterial reaction that we are not even aware of at all occurring beneath the surface. Maybe there are other microscopic creatures at work that we're not aware of. I simply feel that we dont have all the information needed to decipher this puzzle.

The natural approach to marine aquarium is not new, but very unsuccessful for a long time without LR.

I would say that LR to a large degree allows a semi-natural setup to be rather successful, at great expense however.

IMO, the degree of naturalness is more subjective than objective, and one can say that even with LR the whole setup is still more unnatural than natural.

For myself, I deliberately go for unnatural. For myself, I think the unnatural method is somewhat superior and much more economical.

 

[tperk9784]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10284453#post10284453 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by wooden_reefer
I would not go so far as to say it is proof or disproof, but we can do a formal observation.

All we need to do is to sit in front of our reef tanks and take a tally of the number of times your clean up crew, each individual perhaps, picks on liverock vs picks on non-liverock surface (glass, bottom etc). For snails etc you can observe where they are, on liverock or not on liverock.

I think that after a while the idea of algae on liverock being consumed (as the major factor of lower nitrate) can be illustrated.

After estimating the relative areas, one can estimate if they have a preference of being on the surface of the liverock, munching.

I might be thinking wrong but wouldn't cleanup crew or fish eating algae just recycle the nitrate?

I mean the fish and Clean up crew are going to consume the algae then they will Poop out waste products which will decay into ammonia and start this all over. I just don't see any conversion to nitrogen or export there.

 

[wooden_reefer]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10285045#post10285045 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by tperk9784
I might be thinking wrong but wouldn't cleanup crew or fish eating algae just recycle the nitrate?

I mean the fish and Clean up crew are going to consume the algae then they will Poop out waste products which will decay into ammonia and start this all over. I just don't see any conversion to nitrogen or export there.

They also grow bigger and a part of it is stored as body tissue.

Actually, after thinking more about it, this observation only suggests the negative. That is, if they show no preference, then I think the theory is less credible.

But say if most fish do pick on LR more often, it could also be that they eat the small animal lives on the LR, not algae.

 

[Fishbulb2]

I would hesitate to put too much emphasis on a negative finding. It's easy to imagine that the core of live rock is bacteria deprived but that the anaerobic zone lies just under the surface of the rock or something like that. Or that this particular piece of rock was void of any bacteria for a specific reason not common to other rocks in the same tank. I didn't here the talk or see a reference cited so I would pretty much take it with a grain of salt. There's nothing to review. It's an interesting concept but pretty far from "scientific proof". This industry really needs to generate funding to conduct peer reviewed unbiased scientific studies. Wouldn't that be a dream come true!

Anyways, not trying to be a "data hata". Cool topic and I hope we can learn more from it.

FB

 

[wooden_reefer]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10291086#post10291086 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Fishbulb2
I would hesitate to put too much emphasis on a negative finding. It's easy to imagine that the core of live rock is bacteria deprived but that the anaerobic zone lies just under the surface of the rock or something like that. Or that this particular piece of rock was void of any bacteria for a specific reason not common to other rocks in the same tank. I didn't here the talk or see a reference cited so I would pretty much take it with a grain of salt. There's nothing to review. It's an interesting concept but pretty far from "scientific proof". This industry really needs to generate funding to conduct peer reviewed unbiased scientific studies. Wouldn't that be a dream come true!

Anyways, not trying to be a "data hata". Cool topic and I hope we can learn more from it.

FB

I agree, that is way I asked what he meant by core.

I think LR gives a better balance between nitrification and denitrfication than any single or simple setup. That is way it works rather well.

 

[wooden_reefer]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10285045#post10285045 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by tperk9784
I might be thinking wrong but wouldn't cleanup crew or fish eating algae just recycle the nitrate?

I mean the fish and Clean up crew are going to consume the algae then they will Poop out waste products which will decay into ammonia and start this all over. I just don't see any conversion to nitrogen or export there.

Actually, you provided a hint to, possibly, debunk the algae-not-denitrification claim.

One can make a very rough estimate of nitrogen mass balance. That is to say, can the increase in the size of the tank cleanup crew account for the nitrogen loss from the water.

I am not talking about precision, just an order of magnitude estimate.

How much increase in body tissue? What is the nitrogen content in the tissue?

The source of nitrogen is the total of all food added over time. (hopefully no removal of dead animals)

Nitrate loss by partial water change can be precisely estimated.

I think one may be able to tell from nitrogen mass balance if denitrification, N2 loss in gaseous state, is the predominant reason for lower nitrate.

 

[wayne in norway]

I am not vaguely surprised by Tim Hovanecs finding. Reefers have hung onto this 'myth' for a while, as it is a theory that kind of works, and kind of makes sense. However if you look at modern research on limestones you'll find that while they can have great porosity between carbonate grains, 1. the permeability is often hopeless, and those pores are not in much, if any, communication with the outside world, and 2. those pores are often jammed with what previously was organic material, and now is usually some kind of clay mineral. The difference in clay minerals in oxidation states is probably what is shown in those classic photos in Fossa and Nilsson et al. showing areas of aerobic and anaerobic bacteria in live rock.

It's far easier to imagine nitrafication, denitrafication occuring in biofilms on the surface, and the surface of reef limesotnes provide an excellent surface for this to take place. Because your aquarium is (hopefully) essentially an oxdising enviroment, the oxidisation of ammonia will be able to procede at a faster rate than the reduction of nitrate to nitrogen gas. Thus it is good for there to be an excess of enviroment for the reduction to take place, and thus keep up with the oxidisation of ammonia. So I think for bacterial reduction of nitrate a sand bed is a better bet than live rock as it can offer more surface area, and practical experience seems to show that - orginal berlin methods suffered, as I recall, from ongoing nitrate problems if more than lightly stocked.

However I for one have a great deal of live rock in my aquaria, and will likely continue to do so. Why - biodiversity. We don't even know what bacteria are actually responsible for these various steps in the removal of nitrous wastes, so the idea of introducing specific cultures seems ridiculous to me at this point. If I use live rock I seem to succeed quite nicely at supplying these, and many other beneficial organisms, and can provide a working enviroment without tons of extra equipment. I am loathe to criticise live rock when it has provided me with such successful aquaria.

Has anyone actually demonstrated how harmful nitrate actually is? And imean nitrate , not organic wastes that are partially oxidised to nitrate. Has anyone ever dripped an otherwise good system with ammonium nitrate to see if/when mortality occurs? I have a suspicion that we often blame excess nitrate for other chemicals (particularly dissolved DOC's) sins as it is one of the things we actually measure, and thus feel we can control.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Thanks for the perspective Wayne. I would tend to agree with most of what you have said... This is one of the better threads I have seen in a while.

 

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10283733#post10283733 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by geekreef_05
awesome thread, im loving it.

the key here is that we dont really have enough information. anyone that's attempted reef's without LR realize that its a much slower and more difficult reef development process to deal with compared to using lots of LR.

Im also speaking as a 'natural reefer', by that I mean I no longer use a skimmer or any other mechanical filteration (other than some carbon, occasionally) in any of my reefs. This method has worked for me and my oldest tank has been up and doing well for about 5 years. I depend entirely on live rock and WC's for water quality.

Im a very diligent record keeper. That 60 FOWLR has two tangs and 7 dispair athias along with almost 100lbs of LR, arranged in a rock wall along the back of the 4' tank. The tank is fed 1 strip of seaweed and 1 frozen cube each day. It gets 4 water changes a year (50% changes); about one every three months.

I've had exactly the opposite experience. The LESS rock I use, the better the tank seems to do. I'm coming from a 58g with about 25lbs of LR, a Purple Tang, three Halichoeres wrasses, two dwarf angels, and 6 assorted smaller fish... with no nitrate.

With that, I'm not sure that rock is whats dealing with nitrate. If I had to guess, it would be organisms processing things into forms that are skimmable.

 

[BeanAnimal]

There could be many reaons for what you see Rich. More rock also allows more places for detritus and uneated food to decompose instead of being exported. So flow patterns and general husbandry become very large part of the equation.

 

[RichConley]

Bean, I definitely think thats a factor. (flow, etc)

It brings me to the conclusion though, that either LR is a lot better at doing what it does than we think it is, or its not really doing what we think it is.

(IE, 12 fish with 25lbs of LR)

 

[tperk9784]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10302525#post10302525 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley
I've had exactly the opposite experience. The LESS rock I use, the better the tank seems to do. I'm coming from a 58g with about 25lbs of LR, a Purple Tang, three Halichoeres wrasses, two dwarf angels, and 6 assorted smaller fish... with no nitrate.

With that, I'm not sure that rock is whats dealing with nitrate. If I had to guess, it would be organisms processing things into forms that are skimmable.

Thats sounds like the most reasonable explanation to me.

Rich is an advocate of lots of flow which would in turn keep those skimmable things suspended in the water long enough to reach the skimmer and be exported.

 

[Aquarist007]

Wow--this is the best thread to come along for awhile

One of the other concepts not mentioned(probably a myth) is to
encourage the growth of corraline algae over the live rock to take surface area away from algae--in the light of the above is this not being detrimental to the algae growing who are consuming the nitrates.

another question is--who more effeciently lowers the nitrate level--bacteria or algae?

and a third thought is that perhaps a refugium has a better role as a biological filter rather then providing copepods. Maybe we should be upping the flow through these and not worrying about the feed they provide.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I think it serves a prupose but as I have said (and others have elaborated on), I don't buy the bacteria deep in the rock crap

In full disclosure, I have a fairly large amount of rock in my system. Partly because that is/was conventional wisdom and partly becuase I do feel it offers a lot of diversity for habitat. My sump has become a feather duster and sponge haven.

 

[ralphie16]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10270039#post10270039 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by billsreef
Dr. Tim Hovenac recently spoke at my local club on the subject of bacteria in tanks. He had some interesting discoveries on the subject of LR. There was no, yes no, bacteria in the core of the rocks. The theory of bacterial denitrification in the core of LR turns out to be one of those aquarium myths. From talking to Tim Hovenac, it seems most likely that he nitrate reduction we all saw from adding LR and yanking out our bio balls back in the day has to do with all the various algae on the rock surfaces assimilating the N. So growing algae is definitely a great way to reduce N loading in your tank, and it also helps reduce P.

Sulfur denitrators are interesting. They work, but they also increase the sulfate levels in the tank water. So you want to keep up with your water changes to keep the sulfates down.

why do i have such low nitrates after I have cooked my rocks, hence ridding them of all visible algae?

I have a total of 6 different tanks, some fish only and some with corals. I have only one tank where I cooked the rock and the nitrate levels are still very low. I did the rock cooking as an experiment and so far have not seen any negative consequences. the only difference I see is less algae and lower phosphate levels, and of course lots less "shedding" from the rocks to siphon out.

 

[ralphie16]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10281023#post10281023 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by wooden_reefer
I don't think you would have much more diversity if the rock is collected in about the same locale. If it is not, then it is diversity that was never used.

Would a random sample of 10,000 people in LA has detectably more diversity than 100,000 people also randomly sampled?

yes, a sample of people from around the world would have more diversity then a sample from Los Angeles.

many of the creatures on the live rock in the ocean are found only in certain areas just like many fish are found in only certain areas. hence live rock from different parts of the world would provide a much more diverse "creature" population

 

[BeanAnimal]

Don't mistake habitat for diversity.

MOST of my rock was dry terestrial rock from florida. You can not tell the difference between it and any of the "live rock" that is mixed in with it.

I think this hobby has a very large misconception of what "live rock" even is. Put it in the tank and it becomes "live".

We gain diversity by importing corals and fish from various parts of the world. Start a tank with dry base rock, add water and salt. Add a fish and a few corals. You will soon see copepods, amphipods, worms, etc. All without adding a piece of "live rock" or a pound of "live sand".

Bean