Nitrate in the aquarium

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10309721#post10309721 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by wayne in norway
I recall that when most people used just LR nitrate removal was always the subject of conversation........

In reply 'I am not certain if a lot of communication with the outside world is quite essential. There is always simple diffusion. We are talking about 24/7 and a lot of observable surface area.' Actually I'm not simple diffusion is adequate. If we have a situation where anaerobic bacteria are overlain by layers of aerobic , nitrate generating bacteria, it would seem that the nitrate must pass thro' this layer to get to the anaerobic, and it strikes me that the aerobic bacteria would resist this, , and effectively separate the anaerobic bacs. gfrom the nitrate in the tank water - if any microbiologists can coment on this, I would be grateful. The advantage of a sandbed is that advection is a forcible injection of nitrate carrying waters into the area of dentrafication

"it would seem that the nitrate must pass thro' this layer to get to the anaerobic, and it strikes me that the aerobic bacteria would resist this"

I don't know for sure but I also don't see how bacteria would resist the movement of molecules of no relevence to them.

"The advantage of a sandbed is that advection is a forcible injection of nitrate carrying waters into the area of dentrafication"

There is not a lot of forced convection of water in the DSB into the deeper layer. The water passes through on the top and to a good degree dissolved gases diffuse to and from the deeper layer. N2 just floats out.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10309721#post10309721 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by wayne in norway
If we have a situation where anaerobic bacteria are overlain by layers of aerobic , nitrate generating bacteria, it would seem that the nitrate must pass thro' this layer to get to the anaerobic, and it strikes me that the aerobic bacteria would resist this

It would seem to me that the nitrate would not have to pass through the aerobic layers as these aerobic layers of bacteria would be the bacteria producing nitrates.

By proximity the anaerobic bacteria would be covered by the bacteria that produce the food it wishes to consume.
 
tperk, i think you hit it on the head. a large portion of the nitrate i'd imagine would be from the nitrifying aerobic bacteria.

i have a verry difficult time believing that no bactiera was found inside the LR. have you ever cracked open LR? if there is no bacteria in there where is the sulfur smell and black areas coming from?

also cooking LR devoids most if not all photosynthetic life from the LR. if there was no bacteria, the cooked LR's denitrifying abilities would be severly hindered...yet it isnt...
 
I have concerns about the no bacteria claim as well. Fundamentally there may be truth, however, the lr method is based on high quality porous rock and not solid deposits. Further, if time isn't occasionally taken purging the rock of detritus things can and do take turns for the worse, this is my main concern for those who do routine maintenance by draining water via a plumbing fixture and simply replacing water; an occasional storm or hurricane is a natural cleaning force. Seasonal storms are amazing; my 100-200' beach in a rocky shoreline Caribbean bay could completely vanish with one storm and reappear with the next.

The good vrs. bad hitchhiker concerns aside, I find it very unlikely that in six months 190# of artificial rock could become quality lr. If so Florida aqua culture farms wouldn't be going through with the effort it takes laying out mined fossil deposits on the ocean floor and leaving it there for up to six years before bringing it back to dry land. Breaking open truly lr is amazing, the macro creatures living within it is why I call it "live," I can only guess about the extent of micro life found there.

Maybe I'm missing the denitrifying boat here, and one could quite likely inoculate artificial rock just as a new sand bed (with a scoop or two). In that case I would think getting a good mix of rubble/grunge from the bottoms of various different rock curers vats would be the best way to go vrs. simply adding a ten# piece from somewhere.
 
Last edited:
ALL things aside, I would imagine that those who culture their rock for 6 years do so based on looks, rather than any qauntifiable measure of benefit or life. Then again I may be 100% wrong.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10311555#post10311555 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Flint&Eric


also cooking LR devoids most if not all photosynthetic life from the LR. if there was no bacteria, the cooked LR's denitrifying abilities would be severly hindered...yet it isnt...

Theres the assumption again that LR has significant denitrifying abilities.



The denitrifying abilities NOT being affected by cooking is almost proof that either there are no denitrifying abilities, or its not bacterial. How are the bacteria staying alive? When you cook rock, the ammonia source would be gone in a week. All those bacteria would die. A couple more weeks, and all the nitrite is gone.....
 
Well, it's not exactly a long shot to imagine new anaerobic bacteria could recolonize the cooked rock. Aerobic and anaerobic bacteria are everywhere in our systems and there's virtually no way prevent their presence. Heck if I hook up a sterile denitrator it will accumulate anaerobic bacteria with a couple weeks.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10309520#post10309520 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by scarter
I would agree, however I feel that it does help to give the system a boost once in a while with someone elses sand or swap a piece of LR with another reefer.

I think that swapping out for new rock and sand every once in a while is ok however I wouldn't take it from someone elses system as their aquarium probably won't have any more diversity than yours. I would go to a lfs and buy a couple pieces of cured rock instead.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10312967#post10312967 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley
Theres the assumption again that LR has significant denitrifying abilities.



The denitrifying abilities NOT being affected by cooking is almost proof that either there are no denitrifying abilities, or its not bacterial. How are the bacteria staying alive? When you cook rock, the ammonia source would be gone in a week. All those bacteria would die. A couple more weeks, and all the nitrite is gone.....

I believe the theory behind cooking rock is to force the bacteria to feed upon the detritus built up/stored in the rock.

Wouldn't the decaying material on the surface and inside the porous openings of the rock be considered the ammonia source?

I think cooking rock would be more evidence that the de-nitrifying properties are not algal but more bacterial.
 
One of the fundamental issues unaddressed by this thread is that we have both organic and inorganic nitrate present in our systems. No one critter completes the nitrogen cycle by itself. That completion is accomplished by different organisms. The end result is that one of three methods is needed to reduce nitrate. Assimilation is one, fixation another and denitrification the third. Assimilation is organic in nature and results in cellular building blocks such as nucleic acid. Fixation is typically performed by cyanobacteria and generally occurs when a system is kept chronically deficient of organic, iirc, nitrate. Denitrification is the reduction of inorganic nitrate by anaerobic bacteria resulting in nitrogen gas.

"Detritus" can actually serve a useful role by providing an anaerobic environment. However, that is not exactly a stable situation in most reef tanks so a sand bed provides a more viable alternative.

I have never placed much stock in my LR being much more than a more pleasing alternative to bioballs. I have not counted on it to reduce my nitrates, organic or not. Prior to mixing a DSB with exportation, I found exportation and water changes to be the only manageable method to predictably lower nitrate below the purported dangerous level. My exportation, today, is not so much intentional as it is necessary to the cultivation of micro-fauna.

Granted, back in the day, we struggled much more with the so-called "nuisance algae" outbreaks. With today's knowledge and technology, it is a much rarer occurence to find that same outbreak in an established tank with the same degree of husbandry. I seem to read more often of problems with cyano outbreaks than I do of algal outbreaks because it seems that we know that algal outbreaks are symptomatic of insufficient equipment, inadequate husbandry, tank age or a combination of the same.

Now, if I am misremembering my biology, I apologize but those are the principles under which I have worked for quite a while. I was very pleased when I first read Dr. Jaubert's research, because, for me, it explained and made practical a method by which we can reliably introduce true denitrification to our systems. We need not hope that we have sufficient sand in the bed to bind up the nitrate but, rather, we can set up a sand bed that provides an adequate duplication of one of the ocean's means of remaining virtually free from nitrate by virtue of the osmotic qualities of a plenum's reservoir.
 
"Fixation is typically performed by cyanobacteria and generally occurs when a system is kept chronically deficient of organic, iirc, nitrate."

Yes, I seldom here people discuss N2 fixing in aquarium.

Could it be that in soil the N2 gas can permeate while in entirely submerged environments the N2 has a hard time reaching the submerged substrate?

I don't know if N2 fixing is naturally important in bottom of lakes, etc. May be N2 fixing bacteria are not mostly waterborne in significant numbers.
 
This is an excellent debate hitting a lot of good points. Lets be frank, while the nitrogen cycle is discussed as a series of sacrosanct points it would seem some, if not many of the details are based on theory rather than experiment.

Some points to argue - nitrogen fixing - wooden reeefer, you contradict yourself a little in your last post when you acknowledge the role of 'fixing' nitrogen by cyano. , and thne wonder if N2 fixing bacteria are present in significant numbers - I tihnk most of us would acknowledge (usually sadly) that cyano is present in large amounts, but is hopefully managed except in unfortunate circumstances.

Advection - maybe forced injection is too strong a term, but it seems to have been demonstrated that advection is a method of moving water thro' sandbeds. I could not say whether it is more important than diffusion, but they're both there.
trpeek hits an interesting point when he notes that with a layer of aerobic on top of anaerobic bacteria, the nitrate is generater in the aerobic layer, and 'passed onto' the anaerobic. I have no argument with that, however what is the situation for nitrate hanging around in the water column. Does that go thro' the layer of aerobic bacteria, or is it bounced? I don't know.

I have questions about the relative vigour of the reactions that oxidise ammonia and reduce nitrogen. It seems to me that in a strongly aerobic enviroment (our tanks) it is much easier for a bacerial enzyme to oxidise something than for another to reduce, fighting the oxidative enviroment as well. Thus you would need a far greater population of reducing bacteria, as they work more slowly I presume. Is that correct? If so, that can explain a lot about sand bed seeming more effective than surfaces (live rock, or even worse, bioballs) at dealing with nitrate - more area for populations of reducers.

'i have a verry difficult time believing that no bactiera was found inside the LR. have you ever cracked open LR?<many times, and hundreds of other rocks too> if there is no bacteria in there where is the sulfur smell and black areas coming from?<you can see this in all sorts of rocks. In this case the bacteria might have been there at burial, and be long dead... The main deal is the question re communication with the ouside world.>

also cooking LR devoids most if not all photosynthetic life from the LR. if there was no bacteria, the cooked LR's denitrifying abilities would be severly hindered...yet it isnt...<surface bacteria?>

One thing I've noted is that some people with big algae battles are never able to get back to a good situation, despite skimming, phosphate removers and so on - maybe the algae has outcompeted their bacteria to such an extent that the bacteria are almost all dead with only relic populations, if anything, left.
 
rich, tperk hit it on the head. there is plenty of nitrogen and ammonia loaded in the rocks to sustain the bacteria. and imo points heavily to the fact that there is anaerobic bacteria...

when getting into organic and inorganic introgen it becomes very tricky, and like was said before based mostly on theory as we do not have the tests or info.

i'd love to see tests done on totm's total nitrogen and carbon levels...obviously they're dealing with nitrate quite well and we could learn a few things in those areas. nitrogen limitation can be a be problem...but that's another issue...

wayne, i agree somewhat. not the most scientific but based on my experience liverock can become overloaded from nutrients etc. locking up these nutrients and seriously hinder it's denitrification abilities.

again jmo.
 
In my humble estimation you must take into account the type of microhabitat created in each aquarium with regards to its nitrate export abilities.

A BB tank where the owner is judicious in his feedings, has good flow, and vacuums off the bottom will have a low nitrate reading. So too with the DSB approach where you can witness denitrification by the nitrogen bubbles in the substrate.

As far as this study is concerned, I do not believe it. Life always finds a way to proliferate. Inside the pores of live rock there ARE anaerobic zones ready and waiting to be colonized by bacteria. To believe this is not happening is nonsense.

If he is arguing the fact it is not "efficient" means of nitrate export I could go along with that. However, to say it isn't happening at all when all the conditions are ripe for such life to breed is just dumb.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10319889#post10319889 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Flint&Eric
rich, tperk hit it on the head. there is plenty of nitrogen and ammonia loaded in the rocks to sustain the bacteria. and imo points heavily to the fact that there is anaerobic bacteria...

But that makes no sense. Ammonia can't get "stored up" when theres ammonia eating bacteria around. Bacteria will reproduce until theres no food left. Then they'll die.

You can't 'force' bacteria to eat the ammonia in the rock, because if its there, theyre eating it already. Bacteria are extremely simple creatures. If theyre not starving, theyre reproducing.
 
I don't believe he meant ammonia was being "stored" in the live rock.

I believe live rock is much more porous than we give it credit for an able to have a good enough transfer of nitrate to it to support the life.
 
I am not saying the ammonia is stored in the rock as ammonia but as detritus. I am saying the detritus thats built up in the rock will decay producing ammonia.

Cooking rock is where you force the bacteria to feed on the food stored in the rock by removing all other food sources.
 
I don't believe live rock is especially porous on a micro scale. And even if it was it's all overlain with a smear of bacteria that may or may not allow nitrate to pass. The whole theory is built on a couple of conjectures that are quite rocky.

I agree that all tanks are different. The role of bacteria, and presence of nitrate in BB tanks is interesting. Some people have thought it possible that by keeping bare bottom, skimming like crazy and removing all detritus you can remove all the stuff before it even becomes nitrate. Well as far as I can see, yes you can remove the stuff you see, as fish poop, but fish also excrete considerable ammonia each day directly into the water common, and as far as I know (and please correct me) that stuff cannot be skimmed out, and thus you still need a fully functioning N cycle in BB tanks even assuming the starting premise that you can all the fish poop out is correct. Now don't get me wrong, I've seen some stunning BB tanks, but lifes not all roses, and they still need to reach a balance that works. I am guessing there are also plenty BB tanks that do have nitrate problems. before you know it the mags will be stuffed with ads for denitrators, then sand beds, algae will be back in fashion and we'll be full circle.
 
Here's a really tenuous argument - who can show me a scientific study saying level x of nitrate is fatal to organism y. We know phosphate is immediately harmful to stony corals , and we understand the mechanism. But nitrate ?
Do we blame nitrate as we measure it. Is the damage really done by DOC's or somesuch that we don't measure, but usually kind of runs in parallel. That would explain apparently healthy tanks that have high nitrates.
 
Back
Top