Steve Wright2
New member
got me interested Michigan Mike
can you elaborate as to why you think that is please?
Why do bioballs get bashed? Scientifically...
- Thread starter SDatl404
- Start date
got me interested Michigan Mike
can you elaborate as to why you think that is please?
disc1
-RT * ln(k)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denitrification
http://dge.stanford.edu/SCOPE/SCOPE_33/SCOPE_33_2.08_Toike_251-274.pdf
http://www.gonzo.cbl.umces.edu/documents/sediments/Denitrification Report.pdf
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/m74-160?journalCode=cjm
http://www.town.orleans.ma.us/Pages/OrleansMA_BComm/bib/(78)Denitrif_Scandanavia.pdf
http://dge.stanford.edu/SCOPE/SCOPE_33/SCOPE_33_2.08_Toike_251-274.pdf
http://www.gonzo.cbl.umces.edu/documents/sediments/Denitrification Report.pdf
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/m74-160?journalCode=cjm
http://www.town.orleans.ma.us/Pages/OrleansMA_BComm/bib/(78)Denitrif_Scandanavia.pdf
brandon429
Well-known member
Good links and downloadable pdf's
Kevin you mentioned how I measure denitrification...I wish I was able to.
My point is that with every fancy research paper not pertaining to aquaria on the subject, we aren't told how many pounds of live rock to use per gallon to degas x gms/l of nitrate
Many other substrates were involved in the tests above
The fact remains yearly that occasional web reports are made regarding lr only systems with fish having zero nitrates and no skimmer, the vast majority of online reef tanks have detectable nitrate, and 100 pct of tanks I'll see in person not using a coil denitrator or biobead systems will have nitrates.
That variability negates all written benefits of lr alone being able to produce any real measurable amounts of nitrate reduction. Its only for the PhD or the lucky
John q cannot arrange live rock in any ratio of lbs per gallon to attain measurable nitrate reduction
It will be a combination of substrata yielding any results garnered
I see no documentation that says common pet store live rock fixes x gms/l of nitrate.
Perhaps live ocean rock not having aged in the aquarium has the variation to make measurable results, consistently, but just none of the rock my lfs sells which looks like 90% of tanks I see online.
Kevin you mentioned how I measure denitrification...I wish I was able to.
My point is that with every fancy research paper not pertaining to aquaria on the subject, we aren't told how many pounds of live rock to use per gallon to degas x gms/l of nitrate
Many other substrates were involved in the tests above
The fact remains yearly that occasional web reports are made regarding lr only systems with fish having zero nitrates and no skimmer, the vast majority of online reef tanks have detectable nitrate, and 100 pct of tanks I'll see in person not using a coil denitrator or biobead systems will have nitrates.
That variability negates all written benefits of lr alone being able to produce any real measurable amounts of nitrate reduction. Its only for the PhD or the lucky
John q cannot arrange live rock in any ratio of lbs per gallon to attain measurable nitrate reduction
It will be a combination of substrata yielding any results garnered
I see no documentation that says common pet store live rock fixes x gms/l of nitrate.
Perhaps live ocean rock not having aged in the aquarium has the variation to make measurable results, consistently, but just none of the rock my lfs sells which looks like 90% of tanks I see online.
Michigan Mike
Freedom costs a buckofive
I've always figured my rock was denitrifying as fast as I was importing the nitrates. Since I don't have most of the equipment that is "required" for a reef tank I wanted a low maintenance low nutrient system as possible. That's why I don't keep alot of fish in the tank.
I also have been dosing limewater/baking soda to keep from having to do a waterchange when it's not necessary.
Steve Wright2
New member
While everyone has been focusing on denitrification most fail to miss something much more vitally important... the fish and coral and the whole reason you have your tank. Bioballs simply provide surface area for bacteria to colonize in large amounts. Really this is a good idea if you have a naked tank.... now enter live rock, dry rock, fake rock.... you have introduced this to your tank to provide a natural environment for your fish to swim around, seek shelter, and your coral to grow from. Happy less stressed fish and location for coral to receive the right lighting and flow.... OK the rock provides lots of surface area as well for your biological filtration to occur and thus bioballs are a really useless waste of space. No matter the industry selling point or "nitrate factory" stigma, Through the 90's I used bioball and UV. The tank had the old dry coral etc decorations.... Now too keep with the nitrate theme my tanks through the bioball 90's were measuring 20 to 30 ppm nitrate and I regalarly lost fish. Nowadays my salifert test kits measure zero nitrate my fish thrive in a less stressful more natural environment with having only lost one fish in several years(suicide into my mp10) and I simply run rock, skimmer, UV.
I would think that ANY of the inputs could be a limiting factor, i.e. free carbon, nitrate or phosphate, so rather than saying free carbon is THE limiting factor, I'd say that it could be A limiting factor.
As to your hypothesis, I wouldn't see why that couldn't be part of the equation, however what "naturally occurring" reasons would there be to generate that free carbon, the system only has whatever we have put into it, rock, substrates, water changes, supplements, foods, fish, etc...
I am looking at my Dr F&S catalog (with the copperband on the cover) and came across the bioballs on page 28. Their description states "unique geometric design dramatically increases surface area for more beneficial bacteria".
Ok that has been a selling point and has been discussed in this thread as one of the reasons to use bioballs. That statement has been around since the 80s probably and I still have and use some in my fw system. About 3 or 4 times a year I wash the BB off and throw them back into the filter. I am not worried about they loosing their filtration abilities because my bacterial community should be stable enough to re-seed quickly.
But that surface area is external. The ball is plastic and imprevious therefore the internal section of the ball is wasted space.
If you have ever made diy rock or taken lr and cut it with a tile saw there is a tremendous amount of surface area in the rock and not all of it is in the anoxic/anerobic sections of the rock.
It would be nice to be able to quantify the amount of surface area per a defined amount of rock or ball and figure out which has the greatest surface area.
I know I have read about those bio blocks with "50 sq. feet of surface" but didn't see any.
Carry on.
Ok that has been a selling point and has been discussed in this thread as one of the reasons to use bioballs. That statement has been around since the 80s probably and I still have and use some in my fw system. About 3 or 4 times a year I wash the BB off and throw them back into the filter. I am not worried about they loosing their filtration abilities because my bacterial community should be stable enough to re-seed quickly.
But that surface area is external. The ball is plastic and imprevious therefore the internal section of the ball is wasted space.
If you have ever made diy rock or taken lr and cut it with a tile saw there is a tremendous amount of surface area in the rock and not all of it is in the anoxic/anerobic sections of the rock.
It would be nice to be able to quantify the amount of surface area per a defined amount of rock or ball and figure out which has the greatest surface area.
I know I have read about those bio blocks with "50 sq. feet of surface" but didn't see any.
Carry on.
disc1
-RT * ln(k)
There's not going to be a rule saying so many pounds of rock clears so much nitrate because rock doesn't clear nitrate. It depends on bacterial load, porosity, and a huge number of other factors. It may very well be the case that in many situations it is not sufficient. I think we can clearly see that by the number of people who still have high nitrate in their water.
But that doesn't mean that the process never happens.
You are 100% correct that bio-balls are just another surface area, the thought is that live rock has more surface area per volume, however that is highly dependent on the rock and how porous it is.
The bio-balls aren't useless though, if you don't have enough lr in the main display to process nutrients (again because we tend to push our systems) then they can do additional processing in the filter area, now the question of if you should replace those bio-balls in the filter with more LR I think is what most people are discussing and even more recently higher surface area products like Matrix.
Again I think this all comes down to how much processing you need to have per your bio-load + feeding.
Do you think that the nitrates were causing you to lose fish? 20 to 30 although high for inverts is not deadly for most saltwater fish. You may have a lot of algae (if you have other contributors like phosphate) but I wouldn't expect die off.
Suicide into my mp10 - OUCH!
+1
If you understand how all the pieces work together then you can create the system you want, the best you would ever get on a "rule" would be a starting point, there are simply too many variables. Theoretically we can have a great discussion, which I'm enjoying here, but if you are looking for specifics then we would need specifics about the system and I'd be more than willing to try and help if I can.
Its similar to the "how many fish per gallon can I have" its an impossible question to answer that simply. A 3 inch royal gramma isn't near the bio-load / oxygen consumption of a 3 inch tang, and that doesn't even take into account the fact that the tang is going to grow quite a bit more.
ok can say for sure that only half pound rock per gallon(used figi if that helps) is plenty for zero ammonia and nitrite on well stocked tank. Now too little rock means lttle area to build a aquascape for plenty of coral and fish hiding locations. Back in the day I had zero visible algae in tank and never had to clean glass or anything. UV kept it spotless. I think having a display where my fish had to essentially sleep out in the open was probably stressful to them. My point was if you provide a comfortable environment for your livestock by default you will have plenty of surface area for bacterial colonization. Rock in the sump is a choice and yet it is just one of those things that hobbiests do that is completely useless unless they happen to have a naked tank with practally nothing in it other than the livestock.
aandfsoccr04
Active member
brandon429
Well-known member
quick summary again, cant resist
if you set up a tank with purely bioballs as the filtration, enough to cover the waste generated from 2 fish, and you set up the exact same tank with live rock as the only filtration, the nitrates will be: exactly the same
Thats important to keep in mind since the topic is comparing bioballs and rock and nitrate. we have been falsely told that live rock and the bacteria within will reduce nitrates to the point there is a measurable difference, it wont. it will happen on paper, but you'll never be able to measure it whatsoever.
if you set up a tank with purely bioballs as the filtration, enough to cover the waste generated from 2 fish, and you set up the exact same tank with live rock as the only filtration, the nitrates will be: exactly the same
Thats important to keep in mind since the topic is comparing bioballs and rock and nitrate. we have been falsely told that live rock and the bacteria within will reduce nitrates to the point there is a measurable difference, it wont. it will happen on paper, but you'll never be able to measure it whatsoever.
disc1
-RT * ln(k)
I've shown you at least two peer reviewed articles where it was measured in small reactors not unlike an aquarium.
But hey, if it didn't work in your tank and it makes you feel better to think that means it could never happen anywhere then that's fine.
Last edited:
rrasco
Active member
While we know denitrification CAN take place inside LR, I think it's unsafe to rely on it.
For me, biofiltration has and always will be to convert ammonia into nitrates while relying on WCs for nitrate export. Whether that happens on bioballs, ceramic rings, or LR...I could care less. LR has the added benefit of possible denitrification. I would never EXPECT my LR to convert nitrates. With the technologies out there to help, denitrification is certainly possible outside of LR and if you want to run them or have the equipment, more power to you. If denitrification occurs in my LR, great, but if it never happens or is on such a small scale I can't tell, I have other methods to rely on. I think WCs should be key as they also replenish trace elements, but it certainly is nice to know that if nitrates becomes a problem you have other options: ATS, fuge, biopellets, etc.
And FWIW I don't run bioballs, not on any SW system anyways, those are all LR.
For me, biofiltration has and always will be to convert ammonia into nitrates while relying on WCs for nitrate export. Whether that happens on bioballs, ceramic rings, or LR...I could care less. LR has the added benefit of possible denitrification. I would never EXPECT my LR to convert nitrates. With the technologies out there to help, denitrification is certainly possible outside of LR and if you want to run them or have the equipment, more power to you. If denitrification occurs in my LR, great, but if it never happens or is on such a small scale I can't tell, I have other methods to rely on. I think WCs should be key as they also replenish trace elements, but it certainly is nice to know that if nitrates becomes a problem you have other options: ATS, fuge, biopellets, etc.
And FWIW I don't run bioballs, not on any SW system anyways, those are all LR.
Khemul
New member
The problem there is variables. There are a lot of unknown variables in aquariums. You can set up those two identical systems, and you may see wild differences just based on random chance.
It'd be hard to truly do that experiment scientifically outside of a lab setting. Just the different growth patterns alone of the bacterial colonies in the two setups could skew the results.
It'd be hard to truly do that experiment scientifically outside of a lab setting. Just the different growth patterns alone of the bacterial colonies in the two setups could skew the results.
Ok...now I move into my next factual situation...going from bioballs to FOWLR...
The year was 1997... owning my 90gal aquarium I decided to provide a live rock aquascape and ditch the ornamantal rocks...Having been told I could remove bioballs as rocks would support bacteria I set upon to do just that. I bought 60lbs rock and aquascaped my display over time of say a month or two...once sure ammonia and nitrate from any mini cycles were all stabilized I started removing bioballs and within a couple of weeks were free of them...
Mainitaining same husbandry of 15gal weekly water changes I found myself over the course of a few months maintaining a low 5 to 10ppm nitrate vs the 20-30ppm I had before....so...in summation, the change over did in fact reduce nitrate levels over 50%....yes I still had nitrate yet at a highly reduced amount. Only other filtration was the filter pad and UV....
So, in my experience, live rock does provide nitrification vs bioballs... However it does not bring about the zero nitrate most desirable....
Next step.... the protein skimmer....
brandon429
Well-known member
Disc I might have missed the detail in checking the links, but in the reactors was it just live rock and water or were other potentially reductive substrates involved, I really did peruse the links but might have missed that.
Assuming it was strictly a live rock comparison, its very safe to say anecdotally we can't repeat the results consistently, whatsoever. Anyone relying on live rock/bacteria within to reduce is asking for disappointment
Assuming it was strictly a live rock comparison, its very safe to say anecdotally we can't repeat the results consistently, whatsoever. Anyone relying on live rock/bacteria within to reduce is asking for disappointment
