Bioballs outcompeteing LR?

[prow]

That is nonsense;
O2 has no effect on pH and pH has no effect on O2. And O2 has no effect CO2 and CO2 has no effect on O2. They are independent. CO2 will effect pH and vise-versa. Where did you get that from ??

i believe your lost?? if you think CO2 does not affect ph. and even more lost if you think O2 dosent affect CO2 these are basic gas exchanges.
basically a wet/dry doesnt impede it. in fact it produces the compounds that feed anerobic bac.
anerobic bac. use the acidic enviorment to break the bonds of nitrates and steal its O2. it disolves it because of the CO2 concentrations= lower ph. it is not the function of O2 but the function of CO2 that provide this enviornment.

 

[MikeS]

I think what I was getting at originally was that wet/dry filters impede denitrification when compared to live rock only. After all these long messages in both threads I'm not even sure if MikeS agrees with that or not I guess the discussion was how it happens in the first place.

Ok, back to the orgional question and or difference of opinion on it...why does the wet/dry filter tend to produce higher levels of nitrate when added to an existing tank full of live rock? Your contention (please correct me if I misinturpeted what you were saying) was that the bacteria present on the bioballs outcompete the bacteria present on the live rock to the extreme where basically the bacterial activity in and on the rock is halted, and no more nitrate reduction is taking place, thus increasing the levels seen in the tank, correct?

My contention was that the addition of the wet/dry creates a situation where it is rapidly processing available nutrients into nitrate before they have a chance to be removed by other means, like skimming or water changes.

basically, I disagreed with three main points of yours as reasoning behind how this occurs. After a discussion with mojo this morning, (btw thanks for the contact Mike, it was a much welcomed addition to an otherwise crappy day at work )I still disagree with two of your points Clay, and the third I think we both were perhaps correct, but still missed the mark...

On your first two points, you contended that the bioballs outcompete the LR to the point where there was basically no significant bacterial activity taking place, and one of the main reasons they were able to do this was that water flow across the LR limited the amount of surface area available to the bacteria to grow. I still disagree with both of these assumptions. Flow is not going to negatively impact bacterial populations. These bacteria are not simply sitting on the rock waiting to float away or get blown off the rock, they are in a biofilm that coats the rock. This biofilm is not easily removed, either. So flow isn't going to limit available surface area for bacteria on the rock. The bacteria are staying on the rock, and these bacteria even with a wet/dry working away are still being exposed to nutrients and oxygenated water. Granted, the wet/dry is definately a better environment for bacterial growth, I think we have all been in agreement on this point from the beginning, but this is primarily due to the constant flow of highly oxygenated water through it, not the fact that the LR is a less suitable surface to grow on because of flow. Plenty of bacteria will remain on the rock, the competition from the bioballs simply isn't going to reduce them to the point where activity halts altogether.

Ok...the third point was the one about LR alone not producing nitrates. This one I think we were both off a bit. I asked Mike about it this morning, (please correct anything I don't paraphrase correctly Mike ) He feels it is possible for LR alone to reach a balance between nitrate production and reduction, but that there are a good number of factors that can skew this balance one direction or another, like nutrients, water flow and oxygen levels, interference from ammonia, ect. Sometimes you hit the balance, sometimes you don't. I'll meet you half way on this one Clay...

Ok...so I think it's safe for me to procede under my origional assumption that LR will still have viable bacterial populations and will still reduce nitrate...I will now however concede that the wet/dry can have a negative impact on LR bacterial populations to a degree. On this impact and its effect on the rocks ability to reduce nitrate, I think the proximity idea does in fact make a lot of sense, I'm willing to go along with that one...

Ok..., I guess for me the question now becomes to what degree does the bacterial skew towards the wet/dry impact the nitrate reducing capacity of the LR, and in turn to what degree is this reducion responsible for the rise in nitrates that is typically observed when a wet/dry is added to a system? I still think that the rapid rate of nutrient process in the wet/dry has a lot to do with the raise in nitrates, but I can see that the reduction in denitrification will contribute as well...

I suspect the answer will have a great deal to do with the individual system in question to start with...ie a tank with lots of LR and a reletively small wet/dry will have a less pronounced bacterial skew, where a tank with less rock and a larger wet/dry will have a greater skew. I think the overall ratios of LR surface vs. bioball surface will have a lot of impact on the size of the skew...

MikeS

 

[clayswim]

From the beginning I think we agreed more than we disagreed; we just differed on a few fine points. Who knows, perhaps we still do, lol

was that the bacteria present on the bioballs outcompete the bacteria present on the live rock to the extreme where basically the bacterial activity in and on the rock is halted, and no more nitrate reduction is taking place, thus increasing the levels seen in the tank, correct?

No, it's not halted completely; it just won't find a balance that keeps nitrates in check. That's why in most wet/dry systems you'll have a steady increase in nitrates.

Flow is not going to negatively impact bacterial populations.

It can have an affect in turbulent areas, although not to a great degree; you're right about that. The biggest reason wet/dry filters grow such a massive amount of bacteria is because of oxygen. My point about turbulence and bacteria was to point out that bacterial growth can be hindered by sharp flow. Not eliminated of course, but it's certainly not a preferred environment. Most of the biological process happens inside the rock, which is why extremely dense rock can't support near the bio-load of very porous rock. I should clarify though that when I say "inside" I mean other than the very outer parts of the rock, such as the areas the light will hit. These areas receive most of the harder streams. This was made during a discussion of whether or not wet/dry filters came into contact with more ammonia and nitrites than rock does, in which I argued that most of the bacteria in the rock didn't have near the flow that the main water column had; therefore wet/dry bacteria had better access. I still believe that to be true.

the third point was the one about LR alone not producing nitrates.

I never said a live-rock-only system didn't produce nitrates; it's just better at reducing what it creates. The production of nitrates is just part of the overall process.

but that there are a good number of factors that can skew this balance one direction or another, like nutrients, water flow and oxygen levels, interference from ammonia, ect.

I completely agree with Mike, you can't always find that balance. Any number of things can affect the nitrate-reducing ability of an aquarium. One of the most common things is having objects that act as biological filters. A filter sleeve for example can grow nitrifying bacteria that can outwork the live rock to a degree due to a higher level of oxygen in the sump. This works in much the same way a wet/dry does. While it won't raise nitrates at the rate a wet/dry will (because of a limited amount of bacterial dominance), it can cause a slow increase in the level of nitrate.

Ok...so I think it's safe for me to procede under my origional assumption that LR will still have viable bacterial populations and will still reduce nitrate...

It won't, however, reduce nitrate as much as live rock only. You'll end up with a steady climb of nitrate.

I think the proximity idea does in fact make a lot of sense, I'm willing to go along with that one...

This is an important reason why wet/dry systems create nitrates that cannot be removed later by bacterial consumption; or at least not efficiently enough to notice.

Clayton

 

[Boomer]

Prow

The only person that is lost here is you. You can't even read right :lol:

if you think CO2 does not affect ph

Your reading lesson today ?
***CO2 will effect pH and vise-versa.***

and even more lost if you think O2 dosent affect CO2 these are basic gas exchanges

You are even more clueless about gas exchange and gas exchange laws and how they work. If I have a sample of water and the O2 is 7 mg / l and the CO2 is 1 mg / l and I inject CO2 to raise the CO2 to 2 mg / l there will be no change in the O2........period. Same if I inject O2, no change in CO2 You are trying to compare aeration and how aeration can increase the O2 and drive off the CO2. Prow that is a different world. This revolves around atm partial pressure.

Hey Prow, see that link be below my name. Why don't you come over to our chem forum and run those nonsense ideas of your past Dr. Randy Holmes Farley, who has a Ph.D in chemistry. While you are there do a search on me on CO2 and O2 chemistry.

it is not the function of O2 but the function of CO2 that provide this enviornment.

I guess all my microbial biochemistry books are wrong then. Please contact the following authors to infrom them of their errors

David l. Kirchman, Ph.D, Microbial Ecology of the Oceans

T. Fenchel, Ph.D., Bacterial Biogeochemistry: The Ecophysiology of the Mineral Cycle

G. Rheinheimer, Ph.D, Aquatic Microbiology


You also have no concept of pH, Alk and CO2 realtionships.

 

[Boomer]

Clay

Nice post I agree.

Mike

I still think that the rapid rate of nutrient process in the wet/dry has a lot to do with the raise in nitrates

Yes, that is partially true. Also turbulent water flows can have and impact on pop densities, it depends on a number of variables.


He feels it is possible for LR alone to reach a balance between nitrate production and reduction, but that there are a good number of factors that can skew this balance one direction or another, like nutrients, water flow and oxygen levels, interference from ammonia, ect. Sometimes you hit the balance, sometimes you don't.

Mojo is correct. Also, I said in the other post it is mostly a bio- loading issue

I think the proximity idea does in fact make a lot of sense, I'm willing to go along with that one...

That is good or you will have to argue with me, Randy and some of my books

suspect the answer will have a great deal to do with the individual system in question

Yes, Mike in a nut-shell. Like I said in that old post, I have seen bioballs systems with 0 NO3. However, that is usually not the case

 

[mojoreef]

LOL are we having fun yet?? Folks lets keep this as a good conversation and loose a little bit of the side crap.

Prow you need to look a little deeper into the o2/co2 gas exchanges and the atm partial pressure that Boomer is refering to, your just crossing two very different concepts and it is mixing you up a bit.

Alhough the topic of this thread seems like a pretty simple thing, it does expose how very complex mother nature can be. I think this thread can shed a little light on the complexcity of biological filtration methods across the board in our tanks. Personally I can tell you that over the decades of studing and working with biological system the more I want nothing to do with them, and thus have moved more and more away from them and to mechanical systems that I have more control over.

Alot of folks tend to look at bacterial systems/cycles in to much of a linear way, as in one bactrial strain on top of another and in line form, each feeding the one below them. In reality this is totally wrong, as with all thing in the world their are a million variables, in the case of mother nature shes got most all of them covered with either nitch organisms or organisms that have multiple stratagies. One of the greatest problems of system is that they dont have scale, not just a bunch of water and so on, but a large enough scale to incorporate all the differing enviroments needed to pick up the variables that can occur, now mix in a bunch of bonehead reefers like us who think they can manipulate and/or regulate them complex systems and you can start to see how the term "Good Luck" has a safe place in our hobby.
Of all the critters on the planet bacteria are the most and have the most different kinds of strains. Bacteria themselves cannot just go after a nitrogen based product and reduce or eat it, they mostly need to liquify it, to do this they produce enzymes, acids and so on depending on the particular bacteria. With the production of these enzymes, acids, biproducts, end products and so on we end up wih biofilms, these films are a world/enviroment unto themselves and allow the bacteria to grow and thrive in areas that would surely kill them if the were exposed to it. If you say have a particle of fish waste hit the bottom of the tank, it will be covered in bacteria trying to reduce it, this will create a biofilm around it, once this happens the enviroment in and around that peice of food now has the ability to house both aerobic and anaerobic bacteria and you can have both nitrification and denitrification occur on and with in it, now imagine how this effect say a deepsand bed, or plenum or LR or any area in your tank really. So we should be looking at our tanks as a place where things are always in a constant state of flux, enviroments/products being created and being reduced constantly.
All this brings proximity into play, in a lower flow area of the tank bacterial of all enviromental needs can create thier own and be effective to a point, being in close proximity to a food source they desire will make the system more effective. In the case of LR/LS not only do the bacteria have the ability to create thier own enviroment, but the existing enviroment is already close to what they need. this would make for a much more effective transistion of biproducts and thus food sources. When we look a bioballs an enviroment is created that is well suited for nitrifing bacterial strains (lots of oxygen for respiration and lots of raw water for food input) because of the normally high flow of these areas its ging to be harder for other bacteria to maintain and create biofilms that could help them jump on the gravy train, thus bb are very effective at nitrifing bacteria system but not much else. Now the biproduct of this system is going to be nitrates being injected into the tank. Now what we are hopeing to do is to have all the other nitrifing biofilms and systems all over the tank to take into themselves their own biproducts and pass them on to the nitrate reducers to process. Well kinda like us thier is not big desire by these critters to eat thier own Poop, now this might happen in some nitch areas but not very much


Ok more coffie needed.



Mike

 

[prow]

That has very little effect in the micro world. About 1500 pages of advanced microbial biogeochemistry books and pH is nowhere in the discussion. It is not even in the indexes. But yes there is a pH limit for bacts. Like most living things in an aquatic environment there is a preferred pH, if and only if other parameters are met.
Environmental factors which influence biological reactions, such as pH, temperature, nutrients and inhibitors concentrations, are amenable to external control in the anaerobic digestion process.
pH: Acetate and fatty acids produced during digestion tend to lower the pH of digester liquor. However, the ion bicarbonate equilibrium of the carbon dioxide in the digester exerts substantial resistance to pH change. This resistance, known as buffer capacity, is quantified by the amount of strong acid (or alkali) added to the solution in order to bring about a change in pH. Thus the presence of bicarbonate helps prevent adverse effects on microorganisms (methanogens) which would result from low pH caused by excessive production of fatty acids during digestion. Proteins and other organic compounds, as well as bicarbonate, take a part in the buffering capacity and the resistance to changes in pH.
Most microorganisms grow best under neutral pH conditions, since other pH values may adversely affect metabolism by altering the chemical equilibrium of enzymatic reactions, or by actually destroying the enzymes. The methanogenic group of organisms is the most pH sensitive. Low pH can cause the chain of biological reactions in digestion to cease.

not sure what books you read but might want to up dated them. most all chemisry book talk about temp and ph effect on anaerobic bacteria and there digestion. aswell as the CO2. its the CO2 and the ph that create this envirornment like i said. hard to believe none of your books talk about this.

 

[prow]

CO2 will effect pH and vise-versa. Where did you get that from ??

this is what i read perhaps i misread this.

 

[prow]

Prow you need to look a little deeper into the o2/co2 gas exchanges and the atm partial pressure that Boomer is refering to, your just crossing two very different concepts and it is mixing you up a bit.

no i was refereing to the concentrations not actual gas exchange, read the post before that. i just mentioned the gas exchange. but the concentrations are what i was talking about and that effects the pressure.

 

[Boomer]

Environmental factors which influence biological reactions, such as pH, temperature, nutrients and inhibitors concentrations, are amenable to external control in the anaerobic digestion process.
pH: Acetate and fatty acids produced during digestion tend to lower the pH of digester liquor. However, the ion bicarbonate equilibrium of the carbon dioxide in the digester exerts substantial resistance to pH change. This resistance, known as buffer capacity, is quantified by the amount of strong acid (or alkali) added to the solution in order to bring about a change in pH. Thus the presence of bicarbonate helps prevent adverse effects on microorganisms (methanogens) which would result from low pH caused by excessive production of fatty acids during digestion. Proteins and other organic compounds, as well as bicarbonate, take a part in the buffering capacity and the resistance to changes in pH.
Most microorganisms grow best under neutral pH conditions, since other pH values may adversely affect metabolism by altering the chemical equilibrium of enzymatic reactions, or by actually destroying the enzymes. The methanogenic group of organisms is the most pH sensitive. Low pH can cause the chain of biological reactions in digestion to cease.

By the way where did you copy paste this from it is not you typing.

This is all pretty much correct and has nothing to do with your other posts. This has to due with how they grow and not how and environment is created for them to grow in and what regulates or parameters which help or inhibit that growth. As I said earlier some bacteria can make or produce their own environment to live in.

no i was refereing to the concentrations not actual gas exchange

Then you do not understand O2/CO2 concentrations at all.

not sure what books you read but might want to up dated them. most all chemistry book talk about temp and ph effect on anaerobic bacteria and there digestion. aswell as the CO2. its the CO2 and the ph that create this envirornment like i said. hard to believe none of your books talk about this

Update my books, two of them are fairly new 2000 and 1998. The environment for bacteria is pretty much controlled by O2. Why do you think there are names like most of our nitros are not OAB(Obligated Aerobic Bacteria) but FAB (Facultative Aerobic Bacteria). And most of our denitro's are not ONB(Obligated Anerobic Bacteria) but FNB ( Facultative Anerobic Bacteria). You are the one that needs an update. Do you know what the name Anerobic, Aerobic, Falculative and Obligated even mean ..OXYGEN

Give me one text that states your view or one link to a website, where O2 is not the most major controlling issue ? And we are dealing with aquatic bacteria. O2 is the leading parameter in nitrif/dentrif. Yes, CO2 temp and pH play a roll. You said it is the main driving force which is very incorrect.

its the CO2 and the ph that create this environment like i said. hard to believe none of your books talk about this.

No they are not, it is the amount of O2, the others are secondary parameters. It s O2 or lack of O2 that creates the environment and is why the have names like; ONB(Obligated Anerobic Bacteria) but FNB ( Facultative Anerobic Bacteria), OAB (Obligated Anerobic Bacteria) and FAB ( Faculaltive Aerobic Bacteria). Obligated Anerobic Bacteria can not live in a O2 environment at all.........PERIOD, even if the pH and CO2 are exactly at optimum level.

Due you even have a clue as to how to culture anaerobic bacteria.

For anaerobic incubation, agar plates are palced in a sealed jar which is made ANAEROBIC by either replacing the atm in the jar with an **O2 free gas** or by adding some compound to the enclosed vessel which **removes the atm O2**

From Biology of Microorganisms, T Bock, Ph.D, 1988

And other reviews of nitrif/dintrif in

Limnology; Lake and River Ecosystems R. Wetzel, 2001


no i was refereing to the concentrations not actual gas exchange

No you said gas exchange


and even more lost if you think O2 dosent affect CO2 these are basic gas exchanges

The only effect is the bacteria using O2 and giving off CO2, where the O2 is reduced and the CO2 is increased, thus lowering the pH. That IS NOT the same thing as saying and even more lost if you think O2 doesn't affect CO2 There is not a ref you will find where increasing the O2 effects the CO2 or vise/versa, other than from biochemical reactions, ie, plants during the day lowering the CO2 and increase the O2 and at night to do the opposite. If I increase the O2 of a system there is no change in the CO2 concentration or vise-versa

Oop's fogot does this look familar

http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/t0541e/T0541E06.htm

Do you know what methanogenic bacteria even are and what its name implies ?? In our little discussion here are we talking about methanogenic bacteria or is it you think all denitro's are methanogenic bacteria. What is there roll in seawater are they even there ?

 

[prow]

i thought we were talking about what impedes denitrification. you keep talking about how the anaerobic envirornment is created. i am refereing to the envirornment needed for the proccess of denitrification. which needs to be acidic. why i say ph and CO2 create this environment. but you say the ph has no effect. i say it is the main driving force for the reaction to take place. you say other wise.
to keep trying to attack me personally for not agreeing with you is juvenile. you brought up never seeing it in books anywhere so i showed one, just happened to be the first site i opened. dont try to belittle me because you think your superior. fact is you only see things from your view. the creation of anaerobic bacertia and a creation of a oxygen free envirornment is what you want to talk about, you fail to see i am talking about the needed environment for denitrification to take place. yes anaerobic bacteria do the work and they live in a low O2 area, but its a acidic envirornment that is needed to complete the denitrification. when you refer to the envirornment you are talking about the needs of the bacteria i am talking about the envirornment needed for denitrification not just the needs of the bacteria to live.

 

[clayswim]

I think this all needs to be put into perspective. First off, the initial intention of this thread was whether a wet/dry filter will cause an increase in nitrates compared to an aquarium that only contains live rock. The topic of how an anaerobic environment is created came up in the discussion. The topic of impeding denitrification came up as a secondary issue when discussing competition between the two filtration methods. In short, a lot of stuff has come up in this thread, lol

Boomer is absolutely right though that the driving force behind denitrification is the lack of O2. With O2 present you can't have an anaerobic environment, period.

Nobody is trying to personally attack you; how can we when we know nothing about you personally. When Boomer questions your basic knowledge of the science he has every right based on what you've said in your posts.

i am talking about the envirornment needed for denitrification not just the needs of the bacteria to live.

I think you might be misunderstanding the fact that these bacteria can live in the presence of oxygen; they just won't convert nitrates when it's around.

Clayton

 

[mojoreef]

Prow the bacteria create thier own enviroment, they dont need to happen upon it. Anaerobic bacteria can live free swimming in highly oxygenated water and thrive. As they thrive in this enviroment they create a new enviroment through the production of biofilm/biproduct and so on. As this new enviroment is being created it begins to loose oxygen content and the bacteria simply use nitrate in place of the oxygen.

Mike

 

[Boomer]

Prow

i am refereing to the envirornment needed for the proccess of denitrification. which needs to be acidic

It does not have to be acidic. dentrification is anaerobic which means no O2 or nil O2. Denitrification has a whole range of pH and some pH's are more preferred, just like temp. The fact is you do not understand the facts at all.

you say the ph has no effect. i say it is the main driving force for the reaction to take place. you say other wise.

I never said such a thing I said they are secondary factors and are not discussed in my books par 1. The real driving force is O2 and load rating

you fail to see i am talking about the needed environment for denitrification to take place

What did I post and you seem to have failed to read ?


Me
For anaerobic incubation, agar plates are palced in a sealed jar which is made ANAEROBIC by either replacing the atm in the jar with an **O2 free gas** or by adding some compound to the enclosed vessel which **removes the atm O2**



you brought up never seeing it in books anywhere so i showed one

You did not show us anything but tried to claim that statement as your own, why didn't post the link ? That website does not say anything that the environment has to be acidic now does it


Go back to your own website and what is the title of that page

The effects of environaental fact ors on ***anaerobic digestion**

The #1 needed environment is no or nil O2, if that does not take place, if there is no such environment, there is little denitrification. Sorry but you can't seem to read anything that points you in the right direction


You can not even understand what you read

Most microorganisms grow best under neutral pH conditions, since other pH values may adversely affect metabolism by altering the chemical equilibrium of enzymatic reactions, or by actually destroying the enzymes. The methanogenic group of organisms is the most pH sensitive.


What does that say ? Neutral pH that is not acidic now is it ?

Then there is this;

Low pH can cause the chain of biological reactions in digestion to cease.

Low pH, acidic conditions cause a cease in activity, meaning the do not like that,
thus do not grow.

You missed the whole issue of the article on your own website

There are two main operational methods for correcting an unbalanced, low pH condition in a digester. The first approach is to stop the feed and allow the methanogenic population time to reduce the fatty acid concentration and thus raise the pH to an acceptable level of at least 6.8. Stopping the feed also slows the activity of the fermentative bacteria and thus reduces acid production. Once the pH returns to normal, feeding can be recommenced at reduced levels, and then increased gradually, so as to avoid further drops in the pH. A second method involves the addition of chemicals to raise the pH and provide additional buffer capacity.

What does it say, it says you do not want acidic conditions. When the system becomes acidic it needs to be buffered to raise the pH up to al least 6.8. Please show me where it says anything about low pH and acidic conditions are the key

Biological Denitrification (Nitrate to Nitrogen, Nitrous Oxide or Nitric Oxide)

Biological denitrification reduces the nitrate ion to nitrogen, nitrous oxide or nitric oxide. Many bacterial species that naturally occur in the activated sludge process are capable of denitrification. (WPCF, 65) These denitrifying bacteria are heterotrophic, which means that they can metabolize organic compounds. Unlike nitrifying microorganisms, which can only use oxygen, (WPCF, 66) denitrifying bacteria can use either oxygen or nitrogen. If given a choice, they will prefer to use oxygen, but under anoxic conditions, they will reduce nitrate by a process called nitrate dissimilation, in which nitrate or nitrite replaces oxygen in cell respiration. The denitrifying process produces alkalinity and will take place at temperatures between 0°C and 50°C. The optimum pH range is 7 - 8. A source of organic carbon is also needed for denitrification. Methanol is sometimes used, however, the increase in price of petroleum products makes it prohibitively expensive. The use of raw wastewater or other organics present in industrial wastewater is an economically viable source of organic carbon. (WPCF, 78)

Matter of fact it is quite common for denitrification to produce alkalinity, which may increase the pH of acidic waters.

Here is a study showing the relationship between NO3 and pH in a denitrifying environment.

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-05172000-16110019/unrestricted/Larametd.pdf

Take note where there is the lowest NO3's, highest denitrification and what the pH's are, see a trend to higher pH

 

[Boomer]

Mojo

Prow the bacteria create thier own enviroment, they dont need to happen upon it. Anaerobic bacteria can live free swimming in highly oxygenated water and thrive. As they thrive in this enviroment they create a new enviroment through the production of biofilm/biproduct and so on. As this new enviroment is being created it begins to loose oxygen content and the bacteria simply use nitrate in place of the oxygen.

I explained that once already and on the ZEO thread

Dentiro's can also grow almost anywhere to some extent. They have been found to create their own environment, even right on plant "stems and "leaves". Then there are those little turds of bacteria that do more or less the whole cycle, no multi-step nitrif or denitrif cycle.....pick up NH3/NH4+ and covert it right to N2 gas

 

[MikeS]

I think this all needs to be put into perspective. First off, the initial intention of this thread was whether a wet/dry filter will cause an increase in nitrates compared to an aquarium that only contains live rock. The topic of how an anaerobic environment is created came up in the discussion. The topic of impeding denitrification came up as a secondary issue when discussing competition between the two filtration methods. In short, a lot of stuff has come up in this thread, lol

Ok...my origional intention behind starting this thread as a continuence to a side discussion Clay and I were having in a seperate thread, as our viewponts differed. The point of this thread was not to explore if the W/D does in fact increase nitrate levels, I think we all recognize that more often than not it does, it was to explore WHY the W/D generally tends to cause an increase in nitrates when added to a reef tank. What orgionally caught my attention in the other thread was one particualr statement by Clay...

Just keep in mind that live rock doesn't do any good for biological filtration as long a wet/dry is installed. Any ammonia and nitrites in the water will be quickly removed by the bio-balls first, leaving nothing for the rock. This creates a situation where you have no nitrifying bacteria on or in the rock.

I definately wasn't buying that, so I jumped in with my viewpoint....

IMO the true disadvantage to excess aerobic activity is this...wastes are too rapidly converted to nitrate before they are able to be dealt with by other means, such as skimming, water changes, further reduction by the food chain in the tank, ect.

we debated the basic mechanics of all this back and forth a bit, and then moved the discussion here to get some viewpoints.

Clay, I think it's safe to say we are both closer to a common ground here now on our perspectives than before...I've given the dropoff of denitrifying activity in the LR some more weight in my perspective, and I think you have seen that the dropoff doesn't occur to the level you origionally stated. The rise in nitrates generally seen is a combination of both our viewpoints (in a very basic sense, as both mojo and Boomer have reminded us :lol: ) that has a great deal to do with many other factors occuring in the system....agreed?

i thought we were talking about what impedes denitrification. you keep talking about how the anaerobic envirornment is created. i am refereing to the envirornment needed for the proccess of denitrification.

Yes, we are discussing the factors that impede denitification, and Yes, the specifics and intricate natures of what creates, promotes, or inhibits this environment and process is IMO very important to getting to an overall understanding of what is occuring here. These are very complicated issues and it's real easy to misunderstand what the other person is saying, which I think a good deal of is occuring here...as for attacks, I'm sorry, but prow, it was you who first accused Boomer of being "lost" and then "even more lost"...please, this is hardly a way to get people to listen to what you are trying to say. When it comes to Boomer, he is most definately not "lost" when it comes to chemistry and its applications in the reef tank. Somewhere along the way, somebody misread or misunderstood something...rather than accusing somebody of being "lost"...lets try to clarify our own posts and also understand what the other is saying and go from there. If I had accused Clay of being "lost" or he accused me of the same, we might not have this thread that is providing everybody with a wonderful oppritunity to learn and broaden your view points...

Mojo....excellent post!

MikeS

 

[clayswim]

Just keep in mind that live rock doesn't do any good for biological filtration as long a wet/dry is installed. Any ammonia and nitrites in the water will be quickly removed by the bio-balls first, leaving nothing for the rock. This creates a situation where you have no nitrifying bacteria on or in the rock.

I admit I was speaking in extreme generalities for the newbies when I posted this; so I understand why MikeS jumped on it. My point was that wet/dry filters will usually cause an increase in nitrates, which I think we all agree on. If you get into the science of it (which we now have) a lot of beginners skip over it. That was my reason for the harsh wording. Too much posting on that other giant site I guess

Clay, I think it's safe to say we are both closer to a common ground here now on our perspectives than before...

Yep, agreed.

These are very complicated issues and it's real easy to misunderstand what the other person is saying, which I think a good deal of is occuring here...

On this thread? Not a chance...

If I had accused Clay of being "lost" or he accused me of the same, we might not have this thread that is providing everybody with a wonderful oppritunity to learn and broaden your view points...

Or at the very least have a good argument

Clayton

 

[mojoreef]

Well personally I think Boomer has be lost since the 30's but that is just IMPO, rofl.

I know we have drifted a bit from the original subject material, but that is the nature of the beast when we are trying to discuss biochemical cycling. Thier is no simple answer and it is to tough to list all the pathways so it is better to have a general understanding of how they adapt and fill the various nitches

Mike

 

[Boomer]

Well, at least I'm not still humping a flippin' sheep :lol:

No there is no simple answer. Anyone reading two of these nasty books I have will put just about anyone one in lah-lah land

 

[MikeS]

Well personally I think Boomer has be lost since the 30's but that is just IMPO, rofl.

well, I don't know him well enough to testify to that....since the 30's you say? Too much improperly distilled bathtub Gin maybe? perhaps this is where his passion for chemistry was born... :lol:

I know we have drifted a bit from the original subject material, but that is the nature of the beast when we are trying to discuss biochemical cycling. Thier is no simple answer and it is to tough to list all the pathways so it is better to have a general understanding of how they adapt and fill the various nitches

Mike

I totally agree Mike. But it's my desire to learn the details of the process here as they apply to my general understanding that motivates me to persue topics such as this...I want to be exposed to the details and try to understand them. The minute I decide that I no longer need to learn more is the minute I need to get out of the hobby...

I have found that an excellent way to learn more is to challange and debate those who's viewpoints differ from mine. (mojo, remember our introduction to one another a while back in a DSB debate on another forum? ) Well, I challanged and debated and I definately learned from the whole experience....

So by all means everybody, let's continue to explore the details here, some of us here are learning...

I admit I was speaking in extreme generalities for the newbies when I posted this; so I understand why MikeS jumped on it. My point was that wet/dry filters will usually cause an increase in nitrates, which I think we all agree on. If you get into the science of it (which we now have) a lot of beginners skip over it. That was my reason for the harsh wording. Too much posting on that other giant site I guess

I hear ya my friend, it's something most of us who have been in the hobby for awhile tend to do when trying to parapharase a very complicated, intricate topic to a newcomer. I do the same thing all the time...

I'm going to shoot off on a side discussion here a bit, but an important one I think, please bear with me. Aside from the biological, chemical, and mechanical debates and discussions we are having here, there is another important thing I think we can all take away from all this...when dealing with newcommers to the hobby, maybe we need to be more careful about how we word things. An oversimplification or exaggeration of an idea to make a point may be very counterproductive in the long run, as this is how myths and misinformation are fueled in the hobby. Newcommers may take the exaggertion as fact, pass it on, ect...next thing you know, you have guys like mojo sitting up late at night typing away trying to dispell these myths, suffering kidney damage from all the coffee he's drinking....it's a bad deal :lol: Clay, please don't think for a minute that I'm criticizing you at all...I have no room whatsoever to do so as I'm as equally guilty of oversimplifying this issue as you are. However, we both need to perhaps be more careful in how we present things to newcomers...I fell victim to the same thing about 5 years ago...right at the peak of the sandbed craze, I was fed enough exaggerations and oversimplifications on that topic that I bought into the idea wholesale...I have learned much since then and I'm seeing how I was led down a potentially bad path due to all of that...

again, Clay, please don't think I'm picking on you or your post, I'm as guilty of the same as you are for sure...

Ok...since the majority of us all seem to be on the same page on the orgional topic at hand, there are some more details of all this I'd like to further explore...like bacterial popuations...I'll do it tomorrow after I have some rest and time to think...

MikeS