bio balls & nitrate

[Ickypimp]

Sorry to get anal here but ... The organisms in questions arent anerobes... they are FACULTATIVE anerobes,

(for those who dont know Denitrification is an anaerobic reductive mechanism in which nitrate is reduced to nitrogen gas. Facultative anaerobes are the only bacteria capable of performing this activity, a facultative anerobe will use oxygen directly for ATP (adenosine triphosphate (energy production) but in the absence of oxygen can undertake a reductive pathway to provide the oxygen required) and as i have already tried to point out once you would get little if any anerobic respiration out of these organisms, in a nano environment if water can penetrate to deliver nitrate then you can bet yer ass it can deliver oxygen too...

 

Guess what.. that means no secondary metabolic pathways and no denitrification

 

In my head i keep coming back to 2 fundamental points made earlier in this thread

 

1. A Dirty tank is a dirty tank, it dont matter what bugs you have doing what if you bioload is too great and your maintaience poor then you are gonna have issues

 

2. working on the basis that ammonia and nitrite are more toxic and harmful to your reef, i would personally favour bioballs and higher nitrate than no bioballs and have nitrite kicking around longer

 

YMMV

[icenine]

So when there isn't much anaerobic bacteria...

"Minimizing aerobic activity is the best idea"

 

Sorry but that makes no sense to me whatsoever.

[Ickypimp]

Ever since I started reefing I wish I still had carte-blanche at our scanning electron microscope facility. Sample prep is a royal PIA, but I bet the results would be cool as hell.

 

We have just upgraded out EM suite with a brand new SEM and a new TEM,

 

We have also just gotten a sweeeeet confocal microscope, i may think about doing some fluorescent hybridisation experiments to see what can be picked out

 

Big boys toys....

[Bentley007]

Bioballs do what they are designed to do. Live rock does what it does. Some of you guys are way in left field. Keep your tank clean or tear it down and give/sell your livestock.

[Undertheradar]

Ickypimp,

Anaerobic bacteria live in low to no oxygen environments, and just because nitrates can get there doesnt mean that oxygen in abundance can either. If that was true then nitrate reactors wouldnt work...nor would DSBs, plenums, or even live rock for that matter. Try splitting one piece of live rock down the middle. WIthin an inch or two from the cross-sectional surface the rock should be black. This is as a result of natural denitrification...the gasses cant escape so they build up.

 

What do you want me to say? Youre right...we should all be doing what we were a decade ago and keep wet-dry filters on nanos? Oh, yeah, because we were soooooo more better off back then. If you want to keep your reef with 1985 technology, go for it.

 

Well, I cant, nor can so many others. You are stuck in freshwater methodology..."convert ammonia and nitrite to less toxic nitrate" to deal with the problem. Truth is, nitrate is not less toxic in a reef. It inhibits calcium formation, digestion, and all inverts are sensitive to it just as much if not worse than nitrite and ammonia. In a reef, while in threory nitrite and ammonia are more toxic, they are readily and easily processed by your live rock at a much faster rate than nitrate reduction...bypassing the nitrogen cycle all together and being utilized as fuel. So to think that by converting nitrite to nitrate you are ridding your tank of toxins, you are wrong. You are processing a toxin that is easier for your live rock to process into another that is harder for it to process and just as dangerous.

[Undertheradar]

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/forumdis...?s=&forumid=112

 

^^^but hey, dont take my word for it. If you dont want to take my word for it, go ask Randy Holmes-Farley...he'll tell you as well.

 

Otherwise, unless you have any facts, maybe this thread should be left alone before someone reads it and gets the wrong idea...otherwise:

[lgreen]

i agree with undertheradar totally.

 

so the question becomes, how do we provide proper anaerobic areas in nanos which has such small suface areas of live rock and sand.

 

very interesting.

 

I've seen plenums work on 29g tanks, and i know the general answer is no, but has anyone tried to do a plenum the correct way in a nano? (1" of space, screens/mesh, 4 inches of 1-2mm sand and seen any results?

[lgreen]

If a plenum doesn't work in a nano, i wonder if there is any way to replicate the ionization gradient thingy that occurs in plenums. I wonder along with using particle charge and osmosis and diffusion if something could be made to replicate this. Perhaps like rolling a bunch of 1/4"-1/2" tubing together and setting it in the back compartment of a tank. You would have to completely submerge it first and get the air out, but I wonder if 2-4 feet of tubing coiled up, with no water moving in an out could creat a anaerobic zone in the coil and then particle charge from the lack of oxygen would draw nitrogen in. dont know.

 

Of course that wouldn't be big enough to work, and may just be plain rediculous, but I thought i would just throw it out there to get people thinking.

 

sorry just the crazy rantings of a scientist.

[Undertheradar]

Accordong to that Sand Mail guy, plenums rely on temperature gradiants that develop from one end of a tank to the other. Because of this, there is a minimum size of about a 20L because if you go under this, you really arent going to get ANY flow...then you end up with sand that starts turning black and green with deposits. I tried it in a nano...in a remote 10g even (so you can have a low flow low light area which is key for a plenmum). I also had one on a 60g...much better results...but I still took it down. I have settled on a skimmer + chaeto mud fuge combo that works very well.

 

Also, with a nano sized plenum, they can go south that much faster than larger ones (the patches that develop spread fast and can pollute a nano so fast its silly...I had it happen. The whole idea of a DSB or plenum, not to mention the space it takes up, is just not worth it in a nano considering you can just do a water change so easily in one. Ways to help with ammonia, nitrite, and even nitrate removal are still refugiums, skimmers, and LR.

 

Or, if you want to go off into the mad-scientist end...look into denitrification reactors...and not the ones with bio-balls inside or siporax where you have to dose sugar or alchohol..there is a new kind out there with very good results>>>the sulphur reactor. It even doubles as a calcium reactor and is really pretty cool. I see a future for this one...simple to use and even make as well. I am starting to tinker with it myself.

 

http://www.marinedepot.com/aquarium_filter...tor.asp?CartId=

 

http://mars.reefkeepers.net/USHomePage/USA...tionSoufre.html

 

http://www.aquaticeco.com/index.cfm/fuseac...d/4912/cid/1387

 

http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/pfk/...p?article_id=15

[lgreen]

interesting.

 

I've never heard the temp thing before.

 

My info about the charge gradient came from Dr. Bob Goemans, author of Live Sand Secrets.

 

So you seem well researched in this area. I am considering putting a plenum in my 58g system. What do you think? I like the whole ecosystem style setup (w/ a euro-reef of course!) but just haven't done much reseach on mud systems. I will have to do some more reading before I change anything I guess. Live Sand Secrets really got me set on the plenum, but like many of the experts are moving over to the mud/caulerpa systems.

 

thank for the info!

[Undertheradar]

Shimek says the same thing about the temp gradients. but you knew that already...http://www.nano-reef.com/forums/showthread...&threadid=64649

 

Go to GARF and learn all you want about mud filtration if you havelt already. They even have a DIY miracle mud formula there. There results have been great...a friend of mine did the 'bulletproof reef' that GARF adverts by starting with dry rock and seeding it with GARF grunge. I was very critical of it, but in the end I was jealous. Good stuff.

 

I would say for your 58 it depends on the critters. I like to use NNR methods on softy tanks. Xenia, GSP, Rics, Zoos, Shrooms, etc, all love the buildup in organics that DSBs, plenums, and mud filters will develop. In these tanks I like to go skimmerless, with caulerpas even among the macros. In a stony coral tank, I stay away from anything that adds or stores organics. I only use LR, a large skimmer, and chaeto/grassilaria algae (caulerpas give off toxins that slow stony coral growth). I would base it on that.

 

If you do go the mud/plenum route, I am a huge advocate of doing it in a remote tank. Your main tank has alot of flow and light...as well as large chunks of rock on parts of the sand. If you use a seperate tank, you can feed it with a small pump and keep it in little to no light...much better conditions for a DSB/plenum. It also keeps all the sand open for critters to cultivate. Mud is the only one that can be combined with high flow and light...its just too dense for high flow and light to undermine the anaerobic areas. Either way, having a remote tank is a big bonus so you can keep an eye on it...and, if things dont work out...simply disconnect it. If you do a DSB in the main tank...you are stuck with it.

[Ickypimp]

Originally posted by Undertheradar

Ickypimp,

Anaerobic bacteria live in low to no oxygen environments, and just because nitrates can get there doesnt mean that oxygen in abundance can either.

 

Dude if you had read what i posted you will probably grasp that i know the diffrernce between anerobes and aerobes, .

 

Truth is, nitrate is not less toxic in a reef.  It inhibits calcium formation,

 

Funny when i did chemistry calcium was elemental, you wanna try getting your reef to form gold... it will be much more profiable

 

...bypassing the nitrogen cycle all together and being utilized as fuel.

 

Sounds fantastic, evidence please, publication reference(s), organisms involved, biochemsitry taking place metabolic pathway overview, not saying you are wrong but this is an advanced thread, you seem to have a good grasp of biology, i have several pieces of paper, and a job in a research facility and a nice big EU research grant that may suggest that i am up to taking onboard the information you are trying to convey at a slightly more detailed level...

 

Also lets keep it scientifically accurate as i have said 3 times thes organisms are infact FACULTATIVE anerobes, a low oxygen environmet is microaerophillic or anoxic

 

Like i say i dont doubt you are right but, at least in my eyes you have to prove it by presenting evidence to that effect, "because i say so" dont cut it, neither do pseudoscientific explanations like it gets used as fuel, unless you are a well know peer that is deserving of a certain amount of kudos, which you are not...

 

you are right about the fact that i am looking at this with FW eyes, that is until recently all i kept, however in my defence if you read these boards you , will also find a mountain of posts that suggest that the nitrogen cycle works in exactally the same way as in a fresh water environment and that nitrate being exoprted during water changes is healthier than having nitrite and ammonia hanging around

 

Once again i reinforce the point that a nitrate farm can only exist if there is sufficient nutrient for the microbes to produce it... bioloading and housekeeping, as i have stated are key

 

The last point i would like to make is the way you come across, you seem... well a tad hostile, now i know the inrernet is a very 1 dimensional format and that 2 people can read the same post and it mean 2 different things to them.

 

i dont know if you have seen Matilda, it is a kids film my little girls favoriteheres a line from it, Danny Devito is talking to his daughter matilda

 

because I'm big and you're small. I'm smart and you're dumb. I'm right and you're wrong

 

thats how i read it dude, if thats not how it was intended then i appologise

 

I am of the opinion that it is FRIENDLY debate and the exchange of opinion, ideas and philosophies that help to progress pastimes like reef keeping, if this board is just another mines bigger than yours ####ing contest then i quit now... there are too many egos in the world as it is

[icenine]

OK, who has the nutshell? because this should go in it:

 

"the nitrogen cycle works in exactly the same way as in a fresh water environment and that nitrate being exported during water changes is healthier than having nitrite and ammonia hanging around"

 

Now there is something that not only makes sense but also that I've seen lots of working examples of in nano reefs..... good luck with the nano plenums (really).

[Undertheradar]

Icky & ice,

I never said that the nitrogen cycle doesnt work in our reefs, merely, its not the cycle that we want to rely on. If we relied on it instead of other methods, our water would turn yellow, our inverts would die, and phosphates would surge. Dont get me wrong, the regular old-school nitrogen cycle is fine to rely on in fish-only systems...but if you intend on keeping inverts, its gotta go.

 

And yes, there are many organisms in the reef that eat ammonia and nitrite directly. Thats why us going and imposing the nitrogen conversion is a step backwards in mostr cases. C'mon, if we were still just relying on the good-'ole nitrogen cycle what would the point be behind live rock, skimmers, etc? Hello 1985 & wet-dry filters! Yeah, cuz I could keep an anemone alive for a whole week then...lol.

 

I really have nothing more to say. What you are looking for is stated in any number of better reef keeping books by Baensch, Thiel, Holmes-Farley, Shimek, etc...on my bookshelf. Any info I would be giving you from this point on would be found there, and I would just be relaying the info. So why not go over to Reef Central, make a post in Randy Holmes-Farley's section, and get it right from the source? I thought you wanted the simple answer, but if you want to get technical...its over there.

[lgreen]

well, guess who has a remote tank connected to the 58g. just got to figure out what the crap to put in it.

 

I live about 10 miles from GARF. Lots of people in idaho do the bullet proof reef and I too have seen great results. GARF uses plenums on lots of their tanks too.

 

I think I will just stick with the plenum, unless someone wants to talk me out of it.

 

thanks

[Undertheradar]

Well, lgreen,

What do you plan on keeping in there? Softies? SPS? Clams? That would weigh in my decision heavily.

[lgreen]

a little bit of everything of course.

 

GARF also keeps a little bit of everything in there tanks.

 

A lot of people in my area who have incredible tanks also use the bullet proof reef method w/ plenum. Those people also keep a little of everything and quite a few fish with that system and a large skimmer and it seems to work awesome.

 

pretty sure I will do the plenum.

 

I'm thinking it might be better to do the plenum in the display tank though because my sump/refugium below it also has to house my big honking euro-reef 6-2+ skimmer. What do you think? Unfortionatly I am almost out of room in my room, so i don't think adding an additional tank for a plenum could happen.

[MrAnderson]

Originally posted by Ickypimp

Sorry to get anal here but ... The organisms in questions arent anerobes... they are FACULTATIVE anerobes,

 

Dude, it doesn't matter...

 

I think you're underestimating the power of a localized microenvironment to drive selective events (in this case quasi-Lamarckian evolution, if you get my drift). Just because water can penetrate, doesn't mean that O2 can't get depleted along the way. To suggest that denitrification doesn't occur in aquariums because it's just not possible for anaerobic microenvironments to exist seems a bit odd to me; it's a big little world in there.

 

You don't even necessarily have to have the bugs in question deep in a crack, the bottom layer of a biofilm will do. A good analogy is a blood-borne Neisseria sp. infection, here's a facultative anaerobe that grows perfectly well in an environment with O2, depletes localized O2 and rapidly switches back and forth to and from anerobically reducing nitrate (the classic microbiological test for N. mucosa along with selective media). It's not about whether O2 is there or not, it's whether it's in limiting quantities.

 

This is why I say it doesn't matter...

 

BTW, nice score on the confocal. I'm a little confused about what oligos and/or antibodies you'd use for FISH, or the point of the experiment in the first place. If it's for IDs your gonna have a panel of oligos for hybs the whole width of your bench. I hope you're the PI, an experiment like that is gonna cost a decent amount.

[lgreen]

wow...other molecular biologists here huh...

 

In about a week I am supposed to start phage display/bioatinilation for heparin sulfate glycoproteins in certain body tissues.

[Undertheradar]

Im not even gonna pretent to know what you just said...lol. Im just an engineer.

[lgreen]

undertherader,

 

did you have any comments with regards to my post before the last one?

 

thanks for your help/info/opinions.

[MrAnderson]

Originally posted by lgreen

wow...other molecular biologists here huh...

 

In about a week I am supposed to start phage display/bioatinilation for heparin sulfate glycoproteins in certain body tissues.

 

ouch - sounds monotonous

 

BTW if you want to impress your PI, spell biotinylation right - you must've stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

[lgreen]

lol,

 

most true biologists don't worry about minor detail such as spelling (unless your getting published. then you get an english professor to proof read for you )

 

we are also well known for making messes and not cleaning them up.

 

I think the phage display kit only comes with about 10 runs in it for $500.00, so shouldn't be too bad as we probably will only buy a few of these kits.

[MrAnderson]

Originally posted by lgreen

...we are also well known for making messes and not cleaning them up.

 

especially radioactive messes!

 

lgreen, I thought you were a college student...

[lgreen]

lol....i think your confusing a biologist with a chemist, physicist, or the u.s. gov., we don't play with radioactive stuff much.

 

biologist study life...radioactivity kills life.

 

yes, i am a college student.

 

doing independent research with the molecular biology professor.