Nitrate Factory

[Subsea]

As a reefkeeper of 45 years, I have used many methods to maintain marine systems. After running wet/dry filters with bio balls, I accepted the notion that bio balls were a nitrate factory and I discontinued there use more than 20 years. Over the years, I accumulated several 5G buckets of bio balls. Being frugal, I have decided to use the matrix of bags of bio balls as pod hotels. It was my intention of seeding these mesh bags with pods for customers requiring live feed. A hobiest with two pod hotels could have one in the display being depleted while the second hotel is being repopulated in refugium.

 

However, the concept that bio balls are a nitrate factory and should be replaced by rock rubble does not convince me that rubble performs de-nitrification. To be precise, denitrification is the consumption of nitrate by faculative bacteria in a reducing oxygen enviroment. The end product of nitrate is free nitrogen gas which is nutrient export. Many processes consume nitrate in our reef tanks. These would be nutrient recycling. Nitrate is required by all biomass in our tanks, including coral.

 

Considering the processes that move nutrient rich water thru internal pore spaces within the rubble, I am not convinced that rubble has enough internal volumn to perform de-nitrification chemistry. To that end, I will conduct testing on the nitrification efficiencies of different media: macro rock, ceramic rock, oolite sand and rock rubble. It was my intention to conduct a 60 day test as a training tool for my new hire apprentice. To keep this simple, I planned to compare biofiltration of bacteria alone by adding ammonia as a nutrient source and observing concentrations of ammonia, nitrite and nitrate in each test tank. At present, six tanks will be maintained: control tank with no media, 10 lbs of macro rock, 10 lbs of oolite sand, 10 lbs of ceramic rock, 10 lbs of rubble and a sponge filter. Because I will compare biofiltration efficiencies to cost, Sponge Bob may win the test. This part of test would be phase 1.

 

Phase 2 of testing will involve photosynthesis. My friend Timfish will set up a tank with leather corals and I will set up a macro lagoon. We shall see what processes nutrients in our marine eco systems. Details of Phase 1 testing criteria with quality control and quality assurance will be spelled out in the next 30 days with test to begin on 1 January. As the 10G test tanks will be on my winterized south porch, the test will be discontinued in May due to heat outdoors in the Texas Hill Country.

Laissez la bonne temps roulee,

Patrick

[nemonlizzy]

I am really interested in hearing how this turns out. I have my money on the LR for being the most efficient at filtering nutrients for the money. I found LR at $2/lb and this stuff has good coralline on it. I'm following.

[Subsea]

If efficiency is tied back into cost, then live rock will not win. Even at $2/lb it does not have the surface area of substrate. Because all live rock internal porosity is not the same, it is difficult to generalize, but I will go out on a limb and say that the surface area of Florida Crushed Coral has between 50-100 times the surface area of most live rock. I can buy dry aroggonnite for $1/lb. that would mean that if surface area is compared to cost, then using $2/lb for live rock and $1/lb for dry sand the surface ratio for bacteria to colonize is 200-1. How much money do you want to bet on your $2 live rock? I will not give you odds, but you will be betting against the odds.

 

When shallow substrate is used to perform nitrification, the two main nutrients that remain are nitrate and phosphate. Fast growing macro algae will remove both of those nutrients at the same time. This dynamic duo of a macro algae and substrate will be Phase 2 of the test and it will compare several photosyntic para dynes that are in common use.

Patrick

[nemonlizzy]

So in a sump, would you place arragonite sand in there as a media filter or would you place some type of macro material, i.e. rock rubble, ceramic, LR? I would love to see a setup that places Arragonite in their sump, not a bad idea, just seems a little funny and possibly incredibly slow filtering. I have 40 lbs of Arragonite in my 29 and I have LR rubble in my media basket inside the sump. Then Chaeto below that. I completely agree with you, combination of small rock filtration mixed with macro algae is very efficient.

[farkwar]

Well, back when I had wet dry filters and bioballs etc, one was to have a good pre-filter that trapped the detritus.

 

You were supposed to have clear water flowing through the filter by the time it hit the media.

 

I don't remember having test kits back then, so what do I know. I did have an Octopus that measured temp, ORP, and pH; which I thought was pretty cool. Don't remember checking for nitrates.

[blasterman]

Bioballs -vs- rubble is a non-argument. Neither are the offender. It's wet-dry's, rockers, bio-wheels, and other contraptions that provide no value to the nitrogen cycle that are the problem. Been reefing for 25 years and I've yet to hear a single valid excuse for these devices other than some industry is making money selling them. Bacteria in a normally stocked FW or SW aquarium respond to the bio-load in the tank. If you're running a sewage treatment plant then by all means these mechanical devices help convert ammonia to nitrogen. Otherwise, they are the poster child for solution in search of a problem in the reef industry.

 

I've seen many experiments regarding nitrogen export, and the ones I've seen all show that macros, mangroves etc., fixate very little nitrogen compared to their mass, and it's slooooooooooow. Bacteria do a better job, but as we all know they are very fickle, and well, macros and mangroves look cool.

 

The biggest problem with testing this is actually tracking the exact amount of input waste -vs- out-put, so I'm curious as to the results.

[ndrobey]

You forgot limestone. Nitrate rich water seeping through limestone will export nitrogen gas and nitrogen-free water, via nitrate consuming bacteria.

[Subsea]

So in a sump, would you place arragonite sand in there as a media filter or would you place some type of macro material, i.e. rock rubble, ceramic, LR? I would love to see a setup that places Arragonite in their sump, not a bad idea, just seems a little funny and possibly incredibly slow filtering. I have 40 lbs of Arragonite in my 29 and I have LR rubble in my media basket inside the sump. Then Chaeto below that. I completely agree with you, combination of small rock filtration mixed with macro algae is very efficient.

 

I use aroggonite everywhere that I can. It will automatically assist with buffering and trace mineral addition, beginning at a pH of 8.05 Not sure what you meant about "Just seems a little funny and possible incredible slow filtering". Nitrifying bacteria will double their population every 20 minutes according to Ron Schmick. That a not slow to me. On the contrary, it is exponentially fast and it is automatic and will self correct when food source is removed.

Patrick

[Subsea]

Bioballs -vs- rubble is a non-argument. Neither are the offender. It's wet-dry's, rockers, bio-wheels, and other contraptions that provide no value to the nitrogen cycle that are the problem. Been reefing for 25 years and I've yet to hear a single valid excuse for these devices other than some industry is making money selling them. Bacteria in a normally stocked FW or SW aquarium respond to the bio-load in the tank. If you're running a sewage treatment plant then by all means these mechanical devices help convert ammonia to nitrogen. Otherwise, they are the poster child for solution in search of a problem in the reef industry.

 

I've seen many experiments regarding nitrogen export, and the ones I've seen all show that macros, mangroves etc., fixate very little nitrogen compared to their mass, and it's slooooooooooow. Bacteria do a better job, but as we all know they are very fickle, and well, macros and mangroves look cool.

 

The biggest problem with testing this is actually tracking the exact amount of input waste -vs- out-put, so I'm curious as to the results.

I disagree on so slooooow. What does slow mean to you and what is fast and efficient and economical. Not sure I agree with your statement that the ratio of nitrogen to mass is low and therefore ineffective. I have achieved 35 fold growth rate in 30 days using macro tumble culture. Even if your low nitrogen ratio were true, it would still be aggressive nitrogen export.

I have consulting certifications in waste water treatment and I have been reefing for 44 years. There is much similarity in the processes. My 75G Jaubert Plenum display tank on top with a 30G mud and macro filter on bottom are both very efficient processes of waste into multiple nutrient pathways that feed my clams and Sea Apples.

 

With respect to the qualitative part of the test, nutrient input will be determined by addittion of ammonia to the test tanks. As bacteria process ammonia to nitrite and then nitrate, we shall see which media effectively process nitrate. . My goal was to measure nitrogen processing ability of bacteria in different media that is commonly used in reef keeping.

Patrick

[Subsea]

While input is easy to measure as ammonia concentration in, there will be zero output, except for free nitrogen gas. The biomass growth of bacteria populations is "dynamic equilibrium" at its best. While the accumulation of this biomass is difficult to weigh, it is easy to measure the by product of the bacteria: ammonia to nitrite, nitrite to nitrate and finally nitrate to nitrogen gas.

 

For simplicity, we will assume there are no photosynthetic consumers of nitrogen. To that end, one tank will have no media and will be used as a control tank for a reference datum.

Patrick

[Subsea]

Well, back when I had wet dry filters and bioballs etc, one was to have a good pre-filter that trapped the detritus.

You were supposed to have clear water flowing through the filter by the time it hit the media.

I don't remember having test kits back then, so what do I know. I did have an Octopus that measured temp, ORP, and pH; which I thought was pretty cool. Don't remember checking for nitrates.

In my 12 year 75G Jaubert Plenum on top, detritus is broken up by bio balls before entering mud filter. In 12 years it has gotten slightly deeper and feels spongy to the touch. This organic soup of detritus and worms feeds Red Tree Sponges, Sea Apples and clams. This week, I replaced fast growing Caulerpa with two deep water red macros, Red Grapes and Dragons Breath. At present, in the refugium, I dialed output of two blue LED spectrums, 450nm and 420nm, down to 30% with a 45 PAR. We shall see how to grow Red Grapes.

I never test.

Patrick

[Nocturnal]

Bioballs -vs- rubble is a non-argument. Neither are the offender. It's wet-dry's, rockers, bio-wheels, and other contraptions that provide no value to the nitrogen cycle that are the problem. Been reefing for 25 years and I've yet to hear a single valid excuse for these devices other than some industry is making money selling them. Bacteria in a normally stocked FW or SW aquarium respond to the bio-load in the tank. If you're running a sewage treatment plant then by all means these mechanical devices help convert ammonia to nitrogen. Otherwise, they are the poster child for solution in search of a problem in the reef industry.

 

I've seen many experiments regarding nitrogen export, and the ones I've seen all show that macros, mangroves etc., fixate very little nitrogen compared to their mass, and it's slooooooooooow. Bacteria do a better job, but as we all know they are very fickle, and well, macros and mangroves look cool.

 

The biggest problem with testing this is actually tracking the exact amount of input waste -vs- out-put, so I'm curious as to the results.

 

Back when those were hot I always associated them with "maximizing your fish stock" as that is/was often the goal with fish only tanks. IMO, even if there were some value to the devices it seems like nobody is crazy enough to stock fish or other animals at anything resembling a max load in a reef tank.

[Subsea]

They are a tool, just as a skimmer is a tool. I use bioballs in front of mud and macro filter of my refugium. They promote good water gas oxygen exchange and assist in breaking up detritus to be assimilated into mud filter.

Patrick

[bob115]

Figure I'll give this a bump to see if there's an update on the experiment.

 

Also could I inquire into the particulars of your mud filter? It's gotten me curious.

[Subsea]

Biofiltration media test study has competed with operational upgrades to maximize utilitarian macro tumble culture. I have six biofiltration case studies at one month old. Too early with preliminary data.

 

 

With respect to mud filter:

My oldest set up is 12 years old. 75G Jaubert Plenum on top with a 30G mud/macro filter on bottom. First compartment is 4" wide, bio balls break up detritus where unfiltered tank water enters second compartment 3" above top of mud. The mud filter is the largest compartment at 24". Initially I grew Caulerpa Prolifera on a 24 hour on light cycle. System was 5 years old when I purchased it. In 12 years, I have added nothing. When I removed fast growing Caulerpa, the holdfast would bring up black foul smelling stuff. In those 12 years, it has increased in depth slightly to just over an inch in depth. It is crawling with bristle worms and feels spongy to the touch. The pods are in the macro filter. I feed heavy with sponges, sea apples, clams and mixed soft corals and decorative macro algae in main display. With three tangs grazing on Caulerpa Paspaloides in display, there is much nutrient recycling going on. I also export nutrients by prunning and selling this fast growing feather Caulerpa.

Laissez la bonne temps roulee,

Patrick

[Nocturnal]

I applaud the approach you are taking. Most of the knowledge we have in this hobby is based on crowd sourcing anecdotal information. Anyone taking a scientific approach gets a big thumbs up from me.

 

Btw, nitrate factory would be a great band name.

[Subsea]

Patrick

Can you post a pic. Or one of your vids that has this in it, please?.

TIA

And I definitely am getting a red tree sponges.

Are these available to purchase through your commercual site? Any special care requirements?

Do you have any colorful sponges for low flow areas like my refugium.? I have dozens of pineapple sponges growing in there already, with the tank only a few months old. I would just like some colored sponges as well.

 

Sea Apples and Red Tree Sponges like high flow that brings the food to them. While I have cut sprigs of Red Tree Sponges and have reproduced them in my tanks on a limited basis, I do not sell them. After I make this post, I will go to my PC and link some photos.

Patrick

[Subsea]

http://www.austinreefclub.com/topic/29636-christmas-in-the-tropics/#entry229204

 

The Red Tree Sponge was gifted to me a few days before Christmas. It was collected by Richard Harkins of Tampa Bay Saltwater. The sponge was 16" tall but developed a white fungus within 48 hours. As I saw it slowly being consumed, I cut off 6" tips of the tree sponge three weeks ago. I will take a picture with my iPad and post to the same link that I just gave you. The ARC sight is very easy for me to post pictures using my ipad. I just hired a new apprentice who is going to assist with picture posting and website developement.

Patrick

[BattleAthletics]

My LFS's owner said instead of him using bio balls which were expensive back in the day for him, had used little green army men as a bio ball replacement. He mentioned that what you need is surface area for bacteria reproduction.

[Subsea]

My LFS's owner said instead of him using bio balls which were expensive back in the day for him, had used little green army men as a bio ball replacement. He mentioned that what you need is surface area for bacteria reproduction.

 

Instead of bio balls, I used gravel from the highway department. Patrick

[Tochtli]

A good person to ask about this topic would be AZDesertRat (I hope I got the name right).

[Subsea]

Initial groundwater analysis for Middle Trinity Aquifer at 900' was done by Lower Colorado River Authority at a cost of $323. Of special interest to reefers is high concentration of calcium and magnesium as major nutrients and negligible nitrate and phosphate. It is the equivalent of lime water and it goes straight into my reef tanks. Of special interest to a mariculture facility is iron and sulfur concentrations as minor nutrients. Also of special interest to reefers is low nitrate and low phosphate in ground water. As a mariculture facility, I plan on using potassium nitrate and dipotassium phosphate to supplement macro growth.

 

As a more economical option for scientific lab results, I have elected to use Ward Labs. For a cost of $61, I get pertinent information of my groundwater. For a cost of $5.50 I get scientific documentation to compare against my Pinpoint Nitrate monitor.

 

Let the testing begin.

Laissez la bonne temps roulee,

Patrick

 

 

 

[Subsea]

Testing has begun.

 

Eight 10G tanks using Middle Trinity Aquifer water with Instant Ocean added to a SpG of 1.025 are in the test. Tim's bacteria were added to the first six, tanks. The last two tanks are control tanks, to allow a base line datum measurement.

 

At 0900 hrs, 4ml of clear ammonia were added to each tank. At 0915 hrs, total ammonia test was done using API test kit with a resultant measurement of 2 ppm. Prior to addition of ammonia, using calibrated Pinpoint Nitrate Monitor all tanks showed nitrate at less than 1 ppm. I will continue to add the same amount of ammonia to each tank, when ammonia levels are not detectable with API test kit. When a tank reaches a nitrate level of 100 ppm, ammonia additions will be discontinued.

 

As my home hobbiest site is Austin Reef Club, I will post more in depth information and constantly monitor for responses at that site on my sponsor forum AquacultureRanch. Please join me there if you wish quicker response or more in depth information.u

Laissez la bonne temps roulee,

Patrick

http://www.austinreefclub.com/topic/29402-biofiltration-chemistry-of-rock/page-3#entry233915

 

 

PS. Correction to addition of ammonia, I am maintaining between 1-3 ppm ammonia. When nitrate concentration reaches 100 ppm, addition of ammonia will be halted until nitrate falls below 50 ppm. At these levels, the API test kits are accurate and easy to distinguish colors.

 

 

[Nano sapiens]

For what it's worth, a few of my thoughts on the subject.

 

In recent years the notion that denitrification occurs only in slow flow, anoxic regions has been refuted. Nitrification/denitrification occurs efficiently in any location where aerobic and anerobic conditions occur in close proximity. A good example is a relatively shallow, relatively 'clean' aragonite sand bed where the sand grain's micro pores allow anerobic bacteria to reside in very close proximity to aerobic ones.

 

Live rock rubble can initially be quite effective at this task due to it's large surface area and capacity to harbor aerobic and anerobic micro sites, but at issue is the fact that it clogs easily with detritus due to settling and advection. Once this happens, the nitrification/denitrification process becomes severely impeded due to lack of flow into the rubble's interior spaces and as a result nitrates build up in the water column.

[Subsea]

For what it's worth, a few of my thoughts on the subject.

 

In recent years the notion that denitrification occurs only in slow flow, anoxic regions has been refuted. Nitrification/denitrification occurs efficiently in any location where aerobic and anerobic conditions occur in close proximity. A good example is a relatively shallow, relatively 'clean' aragonite sand bed where the sand grain's micro pores allow anerobic bacteria to reside in very close proximity to aerobic ones.

 

Live rock rubble can initially be quite effective at this task due to it's large surface area and capacity to harbor aerobic and anerobic micro sites, but at issue is the fact that it clogs easily with detritus due to settling and advection. Once this happens, the nitrification/denitrification process becomes severely impeded due to lack of flow into the rubble's interior spaces and as a result nitrates build up in the water column.

If the rock rubble was the only process up taking nitrates, this would indeed be true. Macroalgae, microalgae, bio films and coral all uptake nitrates

Patrick