bio balls & nitrate

[MrAnderson]

Originally posted by lgreen

 

biologist study life...radioactivity kills life.

 

 

never heard of radiolabeling? I thought you said you were a molecular biologist!

 

We radiolabel proteins with S35 for cellular uptake studies, DNA with P32 for hybridizations, tritiated thymidine for cellular growth studies, plenty of applications for radioactive isotopes in biology young padawan!!

[lgreen]

well yah.

 

we try not to spill that stuff though.

 

thought you were refering more to like nuclear waste....

 

but, yah, that wouldn't make anysense in the context of our discussion.

 

stupid me.

 

anyway...

[Undertheradar]

lgreen,

sorry for the late response. I was busy getting banned over at Reef Central. Funny story really. I slammed the city officials of N.O. for their poor planning, and one of the Mods, Nanook, happens to be from Missouri, so he got all offended and banned me. Dan Rather is on Nightliune right now grillin' the mayor of N.O. as we speak... Oh well. Seems emotions are running too high for some to think. Anyways...

 

As far as the plenum goes, I wouldnt do it in the main tank in 100 years. Besides, isnt your tank set up and running already? I wouldnt mess with it. If you are trying to go more stony corals, I wouldnt do it anyways. DSBs, plenums, etc, all result in a buildup of organics that inhibits calcium formation. I must admit, I dont know how GARF and some others do it...but its just too 'iffy'. If it goes south and ends up a nitrate factory...your screwed. Something tells me that those huge skimmers that people are using with the DSBs are more the reason... eliminating the proteins that would otherwise get into the sand.

 

GARF might have a little bit of everything, but the SPS they have are pretty hardy, and beyond a few species they seem to be mostly softies. I would like to see them grow blue tortuosa. I would look into a sulphur reactor before a DSB/plenum at this point.

[lgreen]

lol....reefcenral...I am begining to wonder if they have a banning quota for each of the mods to meet daily.

 

thanks!

 

i definitley agree with not doing any thing that would just store nutrients.

 

maybe i will just stick my origional instics and plans. 1 inch in display, and just the skimmer and chaeto in sump. (this would be easier and cheaper anyway.)

 

thanks

[Undertheradar]

Thats the way many of us here in Milwaukee do it...seems to do magic. I have a friend with a 120g where all he uses is cheato and a large Euroreef skimmer...his pipe-organs and brain corals spawned last month...must work!

[Ickypimp]

Originally posted by MrAnderson

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.

 

We have alot of probes left ovet from some work we have done on 2 historical ships the Mary Rose un the UK and the Vassa in sweden, the guys were probing environmental systems to see what they could find

 

originally posted by Igreen

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 )

 

or chemists... sweet jesus i published last year with a chemometrics group in a chemistry journal ... can you say anal they wanted the moon on a stick, a pound of flesh, every single niggly detail, batch numbers for everything, manufacturerd refernces yadayadayada

 

never heard of radiolabeling?  I thought you said you were a molecular biologist!

 

We radiolabel proteins with S35 for cellular uptake studies, DNA with P32 for hybridizations, tritiated thymidine for cellular growth studies, plenty of applications for radioactive isotopes in biology young padawan!!

 

I hate using radiochemicals (and unfortunatley i am the Dept. radiological protection officer... i am big into fluorescence - microarray, real time PCR, FISH, capillary electrophoresis..etc etc...isotope work ONLY when i really really must, then i tend to leave it to one of my students

 

Strange ... i thought i was the only nerd... maybe it is a lifestyle thing that we get drawn to these hobbies, i dunno

[onthefly]

Jeez with all the "learned" people around here, you'd think we could put the bioball question to bed

 

Neo - Nice Neisseria reference....great example! My dept chair studies N. gonorrhea. At least I know where I can make a quick $50 as a test subject

[MrAnderson]

Originally posted by onthefly

... Neisseria reference.....

 

It demontrates that bug metabolism is extremely dynamic... The bugs are constantly spooled up for switching metabolic pathways. Nitrate reductase is already produced and available for work and the bugs can actually gravitate back and forth between aerobic and anaerobic reactions instantly. It's not like a receptor goes off when there's no O2 and the bug needs to go through a round of transcription/translation/reproduction or anything like that - they're constantly up to speed, they've adapted to an extremely changeable environment.

 

Anyhow IMO if you keep the bioballs free of detritus I don't see how it could be a problem. If you don't produce ammonia you won't get a backup of nitrite.

 

Also, it's worth pointing out that many, many different approaches work successfully for reefs. As an extreme example, I've actually seen UGF systems, years old, with thriving stonies.

 

lgreen if you want to try out a plenum, do it right and go for it.

[onthefly]

There's a guy at RC (I think PaulB) who has a mixed reef about 100-150ga that has been up (reportedly) for something like 15-20 years.

 

He uses a Rev UGF....go figure!

[lhooq]

I think if someone wants to use bio-balls, go for it. I've been running an eclipse 5g with biowheel (omg) and eclipse filter/carbon cartridges for over a year with no problem. I feed heavily by many aquarist's standards- up to twice a day. I've never had a fish/invert/coral die; algae is never a problem, except coraline growth on the tank walls; everything is thriving. I never dose. I do monthly 50% water changes. I find light temperature and oxygen has much more impact that bio-wheels. BL- there are no hard rules here.

[MrAnderson]

Yeah Randy Holmes Farley (chem forum guy) on RC uses bio-wheels, I think you can make almost anything work in a reef if you factor in strengths, weaknesses, and limitations of a given system. You just need to give it some thought during setup..

[Undertheradar]

Well, who knows what other methods he is combining with the bio-wheels, but I doubt that the wheels are the last thing in his treatment system.

 

For most of us, bio-wheels (very different from the larger KENT rockers), and bio-balls are nitrate factories that should be avoided. But if there is something else in our system to then deal with the nitrate I can see why this would be okay.

 

I see bio-balls mixed into those 'eco-system' fuges...to make some nitrates in case the system doesnt have enough and the macros start to starve. (Ideally, our systems should and can be run with 0 nitrates...so adding wheels and balls makes no sense usually). Also, there are certain species of xenia that feed off of low lever nitrates...so this could be another reason. As well as clams...but they feed off of ammonia and nitrite directly (as do many macros)...so making nitrate to eliminate other things that phososynthetic oganisms use seems to be a waste of time to me. The one exception to all of this that I can see would be if a person were to use a denitrification chamber in an otherwise sterile tank, and the tank's main source of filtration was dependant on the conversion of all waste into nitrates for the nitrate reactor to remove it. This method is tricky...a reactor that goes bad can result in either more nitrates being released or sulphur dioxide being released...for the reef experienced only it seems.

[bjn]

I am a PRO-ponent of bio balls and a firm believer in any surface area maximization husbandry strategy - this discussion remains unsettled as far as Im concerned, just as every preceeding one has!

 

I have enjoyed reading this latest string of posts - many (and usually the most passionate people)are rife with error and full of presumption...while I could make a hundred comments I think the wisest thing I even read in this entire biblical investigation of aquarium law is "export excess Nitrate with H2O changes" - sometimes the deepest Wisdom, is found in the quitest voice.

 

everyone claims this scientific bent around here so lets do an experiment and stay true to science....here is my proposal...

 

its much harder to argue with success than it is to argue with some 15 year old pot head so....I suggest the Pro Bio Ball people simply post photos of their tanks and the ANTI Bio Ball people post pictures of thiers - the proof is always in the results -who cares what Anthonly Cavlo says or any of his clones at WWM or any other self proclaimed expert using big words to solve simple problems - let the results speak!!!

[onthefly]

The purpose of the forum is debate and learning. Do us a favor and help us out by pointing out what you believe is false.

 

Originally posted by bjn

everyone claims this scientific bent around here so lets do an experiment and stay true to science....here is my proposal...I suggest the Pro Bio Ball people simply post photos of their tanks and the ANTI Bio Ball people post pictures of thiers - the proof is always in the results -who cares what Anthonly Cavlo says or any of his clones at WWM or any other self proclaimed expert using big words to solve simple problems - let the results speak!!!

 

Problem with your proposal....is it is not true to science, is not an experiment, and does NOTHING to argue the point. People can successfully run Bioballs. Several times in this thread people (myself included) have stated, "if you keep them clean they're fine". There are too many unknowns in individual tanks for anyone to conclude "yah or nay". Now, take 2 indentical tank (substrate, LR, live stock, equipment, feeding, salt, and dosing) and put bioballs in one of them. That is a bit more scientific (not perfect, but better).

 

Why take biological filtration away from your LR?

[bjn]

well, I would only offer one logic chain that may me be right and may be wrong, but one I use.

 

On a toxicity scale I believe in equal quantities that Ammonia is dramatically more toxic than Nitrite which is significantly more toxic than Nitrate, which in this stable form is certainbly toxic, but only at higher levels...in that order. A descending LD 50 if you will if you exposed subjects to like ppm doses. LD stand for lethal dose.

 

In my reef, and lets not forget we are talking in the context of extremely fragile NANO REEF volumes of fluid, my biggest concern is Ammonia first and formost. If by the verbage "nitrate factories" are produced in my inert media (bio balls) then that means in order to return that increase in Nitrate, a heckuvalotta AMMONIA had to have been removed which is my first objective.

 

If its being suggested that with Bio Balls that Nitrate PRODUCTION is possible to outpace Ammonia/NITRITE REMOVAL then I will stand corrected. They are directly connected and matter cannot be created or destroyed, only re-arranged.

 

I can easily regulate discernable Nitrate through a weekly 10% water change, vigorously limit feeding and make sure nothing rots or dies without removal - I would rather have Excess Ammonia handling capacity and deal with Nitrate export, before I would want to split hairs about Nitrate Anerobic metabolic processes.

 

When we describe biological filtration, I also feel most would not argue that AEROBIC metabolics run at a higher rate than AnAerobic metabolism. Given that in my tank, a Nanocube DX thingamojig, the BIO BALLS are technically submerged, I benefit slightly from Aerobic metabolic function - but not nearly as much as I would if they were exposed to air with a trickle plate which speeds up the Nitrogen cycle reaction.

 

In my mind, if your struggling with Nitrate management as your key management issue and want deep sand beds or other control commitments hanging out the wazoo, then I say your problem is somewhere further up the chain with Ammonia or Nitrite, and by enhancing THOSE as the management priority, rationalized by adding in bio balls et el optimized area plastic spheres - you might have some spare capacity in case of a loss of balance in the system for whatever umpteen million possible reasons - if you accidentally drop a chilly cheese dog in your tank, none of this will matter anyway!!

 

Is this somehow subtractive to the factual and amazing capacity of my exsiting live rock to do everything its already doing anyway, no.

 

remove the Nitrate with new water...plain and simple...take five minutes in these little tanks - get a rigid tube and some airline tube and vaccuum away, take it down about an inch or so and then refill with temp adjusted new H20. If your thinking closed system, your not going to ever have things literally growing, vs just subsisting. and that assumes your not over managing some other aspect of the tank.

 

If you do this without fail, you will actually see a micro-cycle in your tank repeating with respect to algae, copepods and other life forms if your observant. Recognition of these cycles allows you to know where your tank "is" at any present time.

 

these are just my thoughts and experience, but I aint nobody!

[onthefly]

Originally posted by bjn

If by the verbage "nitrate factories" are produced in my inert media (bio balls) then that means in order to return that increase in Nitrate, a heckuvalotta AMMONIA had to have been removed which is my first objective.

I totally agree, It's not the inert media that's the problem (as many have said), but the detritus that collect there over time. Also, you'd never see the NH3 (regardless of the level), because Nitrosomas are too effecient at metabolising it. If your Nitrosomas numbers are high enough to handle an NH3 level that high (assuming no chili cheese dogs or dead fish), then your Nitrobacter numbers would be equally high, so Nitrite would also be "undetectable". However, the end product (and we'll call it end product because the denitrification reactions occur at such slower kinetics a build up would occur (in this theoretical example)

 

If its being suggested that with Bio Balls that Nitrate PRODUCTION is possible to outpace Ammonia/NITRITE REMOVAL then I will stand corrected. They are directly connected and matter cannot be created or destroyed, only re-arranged.

If the nutirent/detritus levels are there....nitrate will accumulate.

 

I can easily regulate discernable Nitrate through a weekly 10% water change, vigorously limit feeding and make sure nothing rots or dies without removal - I would rather have Excess Ammonia handling capacity and deal with Nitrate export, before I would want to split hairs about Nitrate Anerobic metabolic processes.

The only problem with this is "bioaccumulation". Say your bioballs and other filtration produce 100mg of NO3 a week. You do your religous 10% weekly w/c's....at the end of the month you have 309.51 mg NO3. Of course this is assuming minimal denitrification..but the point is made.

 

When we describe biological filtration, I also feel most would not argue that AEROBIC metabolics run at a higher rate than AnAerobic metabolism. Given that in my tank, a Nanocube DX thingamojig, the BIO BALLS are technically submerged, I benefit slightly from Aerobic metabolic function - but not nearly as much as I would if they were exposed to air with a trickle plate which speeds up the Nitrogen cycle reaction.

My point is simple.....the bioballs add additional "aerobic" surface area to colonize aerobic bacteria. Why take that away from your liverock?

 

Is this somehow subtractive to the factual and amazing capacity of my exsiting live rock to do everything its already doing anyway, no.

I disagree, but I'm not familiar with the compartment size, so I don't know how many bioballs we're talking about, that obviously has alot to do with it....but again, why take away from the LR?

[Micro-Reefs Aquariums]

Onthefly, holds a very important claim in science. The scientific method works when we hold science in a controlled lab. By keeping the two tanks identical in all forms except for one with bio-balls and the other without, we are isolating any changes to just the bio-balls.

 

The other method that the others proclaimed will bring about too many confounding variables that will give un-conclusive evidence of any statement.

 

Onthefly, you are using science as it is meant to be used. I'm a college instructor and only tip off my hat at your statement.

 

I will be very interested in seeing any results you get on your venture to illustrate your hypothesis that might become scientific fact.

 

Good luck,

 

Mike Guerrero

[bjn]

i keep hearing the charcterization or phrase "take away from your live rock" - could you please explain that?

 

I think what I have taken away most from these exchange is that the bio-ball buys view nitrate as the exportable end product where the other guys look at a more remote end product as being the "end product" and management focus - Im happy to manage out the nitrate and fear ammonia

 

Here is one thing Ive left off thats huge...

 

when I do that weekly h20 draw down/ refill I run one sponge in chamber 1 fairly high up in the chamber...once per month I gently pull it out and plunge it in salt water that basically gets poured out so I fill a small container with drawdown - then I vigorously compress he sponge in that water = pour it out and repeat three or so times - the h2o will turn black for the most part and this is my way of attaining some mechanical filtration as well as thriving bio bacterial diversity within the sponge by not rinsing in fresh - anyway, its no different than a bio ball, its just massive surface area source for the real nano guys, the freakin bacteria - nothing "advanced" about that, but it works - dude

 

Im no instructor of anything, but these are good exchanges

[onthefly]

When I say, "take away from your LR" this is what I mean.....

 

Say you have a nutrient level/bioload of "X". Since bioload and bacteria levels are precisely linked...you have a specific sized population of bacteria to metabolize "X" (give or take a million:) ).

 

What is the one thing you "probably" won't mess with in your tank? Your bioballs, your filter sponges, socks, floss, carbon, etc......No! All that stuff needs to be cleansed/changed to get rid of particulates and otherwise nsty stuff. However, it is rapidly colnized by areobic bacteria. Since your system only supports "X" your LR will have bacteria taken away from it to colonize the bioballs (or anything else biological) because those external sources are often more oxygenated (i.e. more flow) than the LR itself. Your LR and LS, however are not going to be removed from the system. Therefore the bacterial population is alway "in the system", not some external source. What happens to the bacteria in your sponge or sock when the power goes out? If the bacteria are all in the tank, there is more water volume and you're less likely to have hypoxia.

 

So back to our example, your tank has "X" bacteria spread between your bioballs, LR, LS, filters, socks, etc. Granted this is not proportional and alot of that bacteria population lives in the LR and LS, but what happens when you remove of the bacteria from the system? You're no longer in equilibrum and "bad things" can happen when things are not in equilibrium.

 

This is obviously a "fire and brimstone" example....but again, why take biological filtration away from the one element that will not be removed from the system?

[Jaybugg13]

I think we also have to take into account that there really won't be suffecient ANY kind of bacteria in a nano to eliminate nitrate, this is simply a principal of working within a closed system. If you go out and take sample from a real reef sand bed I bet you'd find an almost total lack of nitrate eleminating bacteria because there is no need with such a high volume of water. Bottom line, it's a closed system which means nitrates build up as a result of the beneficial bacteria and we do a water change.....

[Biotoper]

A few points on conducting an experiment to examine the effect of bioballs:

 

The two tank w/ and w/o bioballs experiment proposed above would have no statistical power (I see onthefly's modifier above "not perfect, but better"). Minimum 3 tanks per combination of experimental variables. The experiments conducted by Toonen and Lee are great examples of using good experimental design to address popular/controversial hypotheses in aquarium keeping:

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2005/6/aafeature/view

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2005/7/aafeature

 

One major issue with addressing nutrient effects is that the measurable concentration for a particular nutrient, such as nitrate, is very different from the amount being processed. For example, tropical rainforests have huge levels of total nutrients, but the soil (correlated to the water in your aquarium) has very low detectable nutrients - it's all in the standing biomass. So to really address the hypotheses posed here, you would want to use a nitrogen isotope N15 pulse to try to track where and how quickly the various nitrogen components are being processed.

 

I am not that familiar with taking detailed measurements of nutrient cycling in aquatic systems, so not sure what it would entail (I'm trained as a terrestrial plant ecologist, but have only learned a little about marine systems from recently getting into the hobby). In the oceans, the trophic webs are normally very different from terrestrial webs in that the standing biomass of the primary producers is much lower in aquatic systems relative to the total biomass of higher trophic levels. Nutrients and carbon are being processed by a huge amount of plants but the herbivores keep the standing biomass very low - however, this may not be very relevant to mini-reefs where there is little to no plankton.

 

Ryan

[crrichey]

I love threads that don't involve flamming! I personally don't understand how bioballs are able to accumilate detritus. I understand that physically they trap detritus, but seeing as how they are such good nitrifyers, why does the detritus build up over time instead of staying at a managable level? Is it because the bacteria themselves cannot use detritus in its solid form? I was thinking about setting up my new sps system using a wet/dry system and a DSB bucket and seeing how they work together.

[onthefly]

I think it is similar to "feed only what the fish can eat in 3-5min". Detritus is such a broad word encompassing all sorts of organic materials in many states of decompostion and matter.

 

IMO, it isn' fish poop you need to worry about, but unused "whole foods" like flake and bit's of frozen. These get clogged into Bioballs and there no access for hermits, snails, stars, bristle, etc. to get at it and start the food chain....it goes straight to decomp!