Bio Balls Cause High Nitrates Fact Or Fiction ?

[emmsy]

Hi guys, I have a marine tank aswell as my trop tank. I have an ehiem pro 2 filter with bioballs and filter floss and rawaphos. All the levels are good in my tank. A little unauthodox I grant you, but it works for me

Emma

 

[andywg]

Do you have any science to back up this statement?....



I personally can't see any reasons for a nitrate factory.....

Just like you, I personally cant see... ect. Some one is living up to their self assesment "bully"

So that is a no then?

And you thought the above was bullying? I would have said it was a constructive rebuttal of your unsupported statements. When asked to support your view you have resorted to an ad hominem attack rather than provide some backing of your view.

 

[Adrinal]

And your facts to back up your claims?


Bacterial flock is a mucus not tubes of air or water. It takes quite a bit of force to just blow off a big boogie

 

[Adrinal]

"But water is still flowing through your tank. If you have live rock (or any other nitrate export facility) and bioballs then the nitrate from the bioballs will get pushed around in the water and dealt with by whatever you use."


But the rates can't be equal and thus the imbalance. Aerobic bacteria is just that fast and effective.

 

[Adrinal]

1) Used only bioballs and did not perfrom regular water changes
2) Used bioballs with live rock and didn't take any care to ensure the bioballs were maintained properly

Where are you getting this data from?

How many people successfully have zero nitrates when just using live rock on a normally stocked tank?

every one I know (as long as they have high flow with those rocks I don't know anyone running bare bottom with any readings of nutrients.

 

[andywg]

1) Used only bioballs and did not perfrom regular water changes
2) Used bioballs with live rock and didn't take any care to ensure the bioballs were maintained properly

Where are you getting this data from?

From reading reports of people such as Rob Fenner and Scott Michael and looking at the history of keeping marine aquaria. When bioballs came in people thought they were great as they process ammonia nad nitrite so effectively. However, when people did not maintain the media very well and/or did not perform water changes then nitrates would rise.

How many people successfully have zero nitrates when just using live rock on a normally stocked tank?

every one I know (as long as they have high flow with those rocks I don't know anyone running bare bottom with any readings of nutrients.

Then you don't know that many people on this forum. Look at how many people are having to use refugiums and water changes to keep nitrates down.

The important things to remember are on this point is that yes, if you only have aerobic media then nitrates will accumulate faster than a system that has nitrate removal, but that is because nothing is dealing with the ntirates, the nitrates are not generated any quicker by any means. The only way nitrates can be generated quicker is by processing ammonia and nitrite quicker. If bioballs process ammonia and nitrite quicker then they are making it so that far more toxic compounds are present far less often, which can only be described as good.

If you are really saying in your post about equilibrium that the aerobic process of ammonia is too quick for LR or anything to keep up with nitrates (but it is fine with the rate at which LR does it) then you are saying that LR is processing ammonia slower, which in my view is far worse than nitrates.

 

[andywg]

And your facts to back up your claims?

It's a simple fact of science that in a very well circulated system (such as many a salt water tank) a balance will form, that is you will end up with the same amount of nitrates in the water no matter where in the tank you are taking the water from. The end result is that it doesn't matter where the nitrates are created, they will soon be blown to the area where nitrates can be processed.

Bacterial flock is a mucus not tubes of air or water. It takes quite a bit of force to just blow off a big boogie

So you are now saying that the aerobic bacteria (which need oxygen to process ammonia and nitrite) live right next to the anaerobic bacteria, rather than, say, on the very outside of the rock where the largest supply of food and oxygen will be?

Between the outside of the live rock (where it is more ideal for the aerobic bacteria) and the inside of the rock (where it is anoxic and ideal for the anaerobic bacteria) there will be a hypoxic zone. Considering that aerobic bacteria need oxygen by their very nature, I would be surprised if any meaningful amount of nitrogenous waste processing takes place in the hypoxic area, meaning there has to be some method for the nitrates to pass along from the outside to the inside without them entering the water column.



Now, let's return to the original question again, can bioballs be a nitrate factory?

To be a nitrate factory it will have to create an increase of nitrates larger than that you would see if the live rock wasn't processing nitrates (an increased production of nitrates). As we all understand nitrates are formed by NOB converting nitrites (which have been converted from ammonia/ium by AOB) into nitrates.

Therefore, the controlling factor in all of this is the level of ammonia/ium production. The higher this figure is, the higher nitrites will be produced, and thus nitrates. Simply putting bioballs in will not cause more ammonia to be produced, therefore nitrite production will not go up, and nitrates will also hold steady.

If you replace live rock with bioballs then you will notice an increase in nitrates, this will not be because the nitrates are created quicker, but just becasue you have removed a source of nitrate export, much like many on here would notice if you removed their macroalgae refugium.

One caveat to the above is that bioballs can become clogged up with detritus that in a live rock based tank may well have been consumed by microfauna. Instead this entirely breaks down into ammonia/ium and subsequently nitrites and nitrates. This need for maintenace makes it a poorer choice in reefs than live rock which is pretty much "fire and forget" in that you don't have to perform any specific cleaning and the live rock more than keeps up with the ammonia/ium production. Once you are running large tanks full of big messy predators then the balance tends to shift towards bioballs in a trickle tower.

 

[Adrinal]

"If you replace live rock with bioballs then you will notice an increase in nitrates, this will not be because the nitrates are created quicker, but just becasue you have removed a source of nitrate export, much like many on here would notice if you removed their macroalgae refugium."


I certainly do not have the ability to contest anything you have said, and all seems pretty reasonable. The common consensus in this neck of the woods is: "if the above statement is true, why even use bioballs (or other such aerobic only media)?"

 

[andywg]

The common consensus in this neck of the woods is: "if the above statement is true, why even use bioballs (or other such aerobic only media)?"

The simple answer is because (despite what many reefkeepers seem to think) not everyone wants a reef. If you want to keep a high bioload tank with sensitive fish then bioballs are great as they can process ammonia and nitrite quickly and cheaply, and will also leave a tank free of rock formations, and thus with room for fish like rays to swim in.

Also, not everyone can afford live rock, and the bioballs do just as good a job at the essentials (keeping ammonia and nitrite down).

In a reef system they are best superfluous, and at worse a cause of "unnecessary" maintenance but once you are in the realms of FOWLR and FO then they become quite handy indeed.

 

[Adrinal]

 

[Fatty]

It seems like my first post has not been read??

It states why bio balls would produce nitrate in a form not readliy de-nitrated by the LR, i.e. into the free flowing water column, and not within the confines of a queing system within the rock. (see previous post)

Also the link I posted shows how flow around the rocks is independant to the flow through the rocks.

I know someone who took there external cannister filter off there reef tank and made no other changes and the nitrate dropped... and there does seem to be a reason for that, the queing theory..Previous post

 

[andywg]

It seems like my first post has not been read??

It states why bio balls would produce nitrate in a form not readliy de-nitrated by the LR, i.e. into the free flowing water column, and not within the confines of a queing system within the rock. (see previous post)

Also the link I posted shows how flow around the rocks is independant to the flow through the rocks.

I know someone who took there external cannister filter off there reef tank and made no other changes and the nitrate dropped... and there does seem to be a reason for that, the queing theory..Previous post

But you do not explain the point that most of the nitrate will be created on the very outside of the live rock, where the best supply of food and oxygen will be. For your theory to be the entirely correct way the NOB would have to be purely expelling nitrate in one direction: towards and into the rock. What happens to all the nitrate produced on the surface of the rock but not near any tubes for microfauna to push the water into the rock (assuming that that is the cause of the water moving into the rock)? What happens when the queue is full?

I would wager it is far more likely that the NOB will react with the water on its cell boundary into the general body of water as that is where it can obtain its needed nutirents from than to take nutrients from one side and only expel them into a tube on the other side. Such a system would create one side of the cell with a higher nitrate concentration than the other, meaning the bacteria is having to push nitrates into a higher concentration area.

I also can't see anything in Dr Shimek's article about nitrates queuing in the live rock waiting to get into the interior, all his article really discusses is quite how water gets in and out of the rock.

Could the drop in nitrates from the cannister filter removal be beacuase they didn't clean it out often enough and as such it had rotting material in it? Quite possibly. Anecdote is not very good to rely on. There is probaly someone who changed from cannister to live rock and got a nitrate spike, it doesn't prove anything. Regardless, cannisters and bioballs are two different things. One is a type of filter, the other a filter media.

 

[Fatty]

But you do not explain the point that most of the nitrate will be created on the very outside of the live rock, where the best supply of food and oxygen will be.

If you take the first 1/2 " into the rock as being rich in nutrient and oxygen, which is reasonable as LR has loads of holes easily big enough for oxygen and nutrient to get into, that's a huge surface area compared to what you can see on the surface. So most of the surface area is actually just inside the rock, or at all of the thousands of tunnels entrances.

I also can't see anything in Dr Shimek's article about nitrates queuing in the live rock waiting to get into the interior, all his article really discusses is quite how water gets in and out of the rock.

I guess I didn't make that clear, the 'queing' theory is my idea of trying to qualify why nitrates in the water column are not assimiliated as quickly as nitrates created by the LR. (debatable I know)

Could the drop in nitrates from the cannister filter removal be beacuase they didn't clean it out often enough and as such it had rotting material in it?

True enough.

I did think Dr Shimeks article was very interesting, besides anything else.

 

[andywg]

If you take the first 1/2 " into the rock as being rich in nutrient and oxygen, which is reasonable as LR has loads of holes easily big enough for oxygen and nutrient to get into, that's a huge surface area compared to what you can see on the surface. So most of the surface area is actually just inside the rock, or at all of the thousands of tunnels entrances.

I doubt that 1/2" into the rock will have anywhere near as much oxygen and nitrite as on the very surface of the rock, so most of the bacterial growth will be on the surface leading to most of the nitrates being released into the water.

I guess I didn't make that clear, the 'queing' theory is my idea of trying to qualify why nitrates in the water column are not assimiliated as quickly as nitrates created by the LR. (debatable I know)

How do you know that nitrates in the water column are not processed at the same rate as those that come from live rock? I still contend that most nitrates (if not all) that live rock produces will spend time in the water column as the bacteria are not going to be that discerning about where the nitrates leave the cell.

 

[Fatty]

I doubt that 1/2" into the rock will have anywhere near as much oxygen and nitrite as on the very surface of the rock, so most of the bacterial growth will be on the surface leading to most of the nitrates being released into the water.

Ok, so 1/4", it doesn't matter how deep, the point is it oxygen rich water will be passed into the rock to an extent by the animals living within in it. And we all know how porous LR is, with many holes and many sizes of holes, so the actual surface area of the rock is effectively multiplied dramatically from what you can actually see (directly in contact with free flowing water column).

How do you know that nitrates in the water column are not processed at the same rate as those that come from live rock? I still contend that most nitrates (if not all) that live rock produces will spend time in the water column as the bacteria are not going to be that discerning about where the nitrates leave the cell.

I do not 'know', I just speculate, that's why I'm saying my theory. I agree that bacteria will not care where the nitrates come from. But due to Dr.S's article on water flow, it clearly shows that the flow through the rock is down to animal life not external flow, so it's my queing theory again, and assuming that most of the surface area with the bacteria producing nitrate is within the surface porousity which has better access to the center of the rock, therefore better access to the de-nitrating bacteria.

I'm, not saying this is what happens, I'm just saying I think that it's likely and I havn't heard anything to suggest it definately doesn't... and I know I have no conclusive evidence to show that it does happen either, but that's what makes it a disscussion!