Phosphate build up

[DonW]

Actually that isn't that bad of an idea, I was thinking of the steps design, this would allow for awesome flow potential behind the steps, keeping your display spotless. On top of the stairs key pieces of LR would cover the surface area of the steps, sorta like the pipe rack I made for my tank.

Why not some sort of a rock rubble reactor. We use rock for filtering now so why not a reactor filled with baseball sized rocks. They could easily be cleaned. Wouldnt this denitrify the system and give the P a low flow area to stick then be boiled out later.
Would it cause the tank to cycle each time the rock is boiled?

Don

 

[mojoreef]

Yes, I would think that P buildup in a BB tank would be more easily dealt with by detrius removal. Rocks might eventually become saturated with P binding bacteria and start to grow hair algea but I don't know really

Thats where bacterial tugor comes into play. Through it the rocks will shed detritus. Unlike sand beds where thier is a bottom and sides a rocks has the ability to shed. The problem being is that the biological filtration process is not able to keep up with the bioload demad that people put on it. So it is a slow losing battle, unless good husbandry is practiced.

I love models and thought experiments so I'll pose another one. What do you suppose would happen if we had a clean aquarium that we put several inches of substrate in, a couple grams of Pi, a pinch of food, a microscopic amount of real live sand, and then sealed, except for a pure air supply. What would happen to bacteria and algea populations in this case over time? Lets focus on P and for the time being forget implications of nitrogen cycles and assume we can just breeze right through that.

Bacterial population would bloom to meet the food amount, it would then die off and begin to cycle. The cycle would eventually get smaller and smaller as the food was used as energy. Algae would not exist.

Second question? Does the amount of room present in a rock or substrate serve to limit the populations of bacteria in any way?

To a point, bacteria do not only live on the surfaces they create thier own biofilm in which they inhabit also.

Or alternatively, what happens to bacteria colonies if they outgrow the substrate, or can this even happen?

They also creat thier own through the creation of film and the decaying bodies of themselves. Also bacteria constantly shed their shells, which also make for substraights.

Boy Collin nice lead on the topic, hehehe


Mike

 

[mojoreef]

This is why I'm thinking of a continued process of cooking rocks.

See Nick this is where husbandry and the whole concept comes into play. Keeping detritus in the water column for export does not allow for the detritus and food to land on the rocks and sit thier as a food source (or at least as little as possible). This severly reduces the food source for the bacteria in and on the rocks. In doing this the bacterial populations can concentrate on other forms of inorganic P. (dissolved released by fish and other inverts). This allows the rocks to become the secondary filter source and only have a small portion of bioload demand. Couple that with thier ability to shed, and you can have a very sustainable filter.

Ok so why use rock in the display at all.

Well its not a absolute DOn but it is a great plus for the system. it takes up the amount that husbandry cant get. For me anyway its a big plus.

Mike

 

[cwcross]

Ha, I like the idea about acrylic rocks and rock reactors. A novel idea really. I'll bet it would work very well. Like the ultimate BB tank. You could even rig up two rock reactors, where you would take a rock out of one, boil it and put it into the other so the cycles would be really small...LOL Glad I'm sparking some thought here. I'm certainly learning a lot.

Thats where bacterial tugor comes into play. Through it the rocks will shed detritus. Unlike sand beds where thier is a bottom and sides a rocks has the ability to shed. The problem being is that the biological filtration process is not able to keep up with the bioload demad that people put on it. So it is a slow losing battle, unless good husbandry is practiced.

OK, keep this thought. I have a hypothesis that may be in left field but will share it soon.

Also, I have no doubt that BB tanks are the easiest to keep up. I also agree that it would be a slow losing battle. I would think that eventually the rocks would become saturated, although the P export mechanism here would be so much more effective in comparison to the P input rate that it would take much longer if in fact it did happen. However, I am guessing that one would lose out on many of the advantages of a DSB unless one keeps it in a remote tank. I only have very little sand in my main tank, so I can easily vacume it and don't have to worry about disruption. It is for aesthetics only. A BB is better I'm sure but the sand does look pretty and also helps accomodate more biodiversity which is nice and healthy.

Bacterial population would bloom to meet the food amount, it would then die off and begin to cycle. The cycle would eventually get smaller and smaller as the food was used as energy. Algae would not exist.

This sounds very accurate. I can see that I didn't make my model complex enough for the detail at play here. Here is what I meant to set up. Imagine a system that has a fixed and constant amount of P (food and input water have no P). However, we are able to introduce exactly the right food at exactly the right rate such that any existing bacterial colonies are not nutrient limited except for P. An impossible situation but try to go with it. Then, expain the bacteria situation?

To a point, bacteria do not only live on the surfaces they create thier own biofilm in which they inhabit also.

They also creat thier own through the creation of film and the decaying bodies of themselves. Also bacteria constantly shed their shells, which also make for substraights.

Yes, but are there limits to bacterial populations imposed by living space? What will happen if bacteria have a fixed space to live on substrate and rocks and try to grow indefinitely? Will they reach a stable population or grow forever, if the only limit is living space in an aquarium?

Boy Collin nice lead on the topic, hehehe

...C

 

[Maxx]

Imagine a system that has a fixed and constant amount of P (food and input water have no P). However, we are able to introduce exactly the right food at exactly the right rate such that any existing bacterial colonies are not nutrient limited except for P. An impossible situation but try to go with it. Then, expain the bacteria situation?

What I think your getting at is having a system that has achieved an equilibrium of sorts. The bacteria population would reach a high point allowed by nutrient and real estate availability, plateau (no more real estate, not enough food to allow continued population growth), and then die off when no more nutrients were available to support population density. The dead and dying bacteria would release all of their contained nutrients, and surviving bacteria would be able to utilize the now free nutrients, (previously incorporated/ being used by now dead bacteria), to repopulate the biotope to the high levels enjoyed befoer the population crash. Then the cycle repeats. That about right?

Originally Posted by mojoreef
Thats where bacterial tugor comes into play. Through it the rocks will shed detritus. Unlike sand beds where thier is a bottom and sides a rocks has the ability to shed. The problem being is that the biological filtration process is not able to keep up with the bioload demad that people put on it. So it is a slow losing battle, unless good husbandry is practiced.

So wait a minute, now your agreeing w/ Dr Ron that rock needs to changed out every couple of years????
Sweet baby Jeebus! I've lost my mind! Mike is agreeing w/ Dr RON???????????
Nick

 

[Scooterman]

this is where husbandry and the whole concept comes into play. Keeping detritus in the water column for export does not allow for the detritus and food to land on the rocks and sit thier as a food source (or at least as little as possible). .

Ok, live with me here a sec. the statement above, "(or at least as possible)" is the part of my process I was thinking. Eventually you would just swap out a portion of your LR so they can cook in your cooking tub, which is just another piece of equipment. what is wrong with the thought of having a portion of LR cooking for a few months and say every two or three months swap some out, it would keep your LR rejunivated, also this isn't just another chour that is done frequently, fairly easy to set up. Or is it too much, some people have rock work stacked and tied down, so maybe this isn't a good solution, so thus keeping the detritus suspended in the water colum is key, but keeping as much as possible suspended, is this enough or the little left to be processed, will eventually clog things up, then you have to start cooking batches of LR? That little bit is the part that I wonder about, it is difficult for everyone to build a system perfectly designed to keep enough suspension to accomplish this, so trying to retro a plan into an existing system for the long term that can accomplish the same task?

 

[cwcross]

Eventually you would just swap out a portion of your LR so they can cook in your cooking tub, which is just another piece of equipment

I want to follow up on this later tonight. This is where I was hoping the conversation would go. I think we need to explore the ramifications of this concept.

Also Nick,

This is what I was hoping someone would say. I hope somebody can validate this concept. This is what I am thinking would happen. Without a constant supply of P, that colonies will stabilize into a cyclical state by being P limited. I doubt though that all the bacteria would die and grow simultaneously. I would imagine that small separate populations groups would be competing, coming and going in different phases and that on average the total population in the aquarium would stay relativley constant. Is this reasonable?

 

[DonW]

I would prefer the live rock reactor method just so your not damaging corals in the process of swaping rock. But on the other hand isnt this really the heart of the zeovit system. Your just cleaning the live gravel daily by pulling up and down on the reactor handle. You could easilly swap out or clean the media once it was completely saturated.
Would we be able to see a benefit in timed churning (like a giant acrylic boring drill)type of reactor filled with zeolite without all the added chemicals??

Don

 

[cwcross]

I would prefer the live rock reactor method just so your not damaging corals in the process of swaping rock. But on the other hand isnt this really the heart of the zeovit system. Your just cleaning the live gravel daily by pulling up and down on the reactor handle. You could easilly swap out or clean the media once it was completely saturated.
Would we be able to see a benefit in timed churning (like a giant acrylic boring drill)type of reactor filled with zeolite without all the added chemicals??

Don

I don't even think one would need anything so elaborate. However, I think we are getting close. Maybe I am wrong though.

 

[DonW]

I don't even think one would need anything so elaborate. However, I think we are getting close. Maybe I am wrong though.

What is your opinion using Zeolite as a media? Its much cheaper than LR and is easily had. What size media would work best?

Don

 

[mojoreef]

I am guessing that one would lose out on many of the advantages of a DSB unless one keeps it in a remote tank.

What advantages??

Then, expain the bacteria situation?

Sound likeyour trying to say that surface area is a limiting factor?? For me sand and rock are the large protion of surface grow area but thier is alot more in the tank and its always in a state of flux, so tough call in a tank scenerio.

Yes, but are there limits to bacterial populations imposed by living space? What will happen if bacteria have a fixed space to live on substrate and rocks and try to grow indefinitely? Will they reach a stable population or grow forever, if the only limit is living space in an aquarium?

opps I guess this answered the above thought. Collin alot more then I think you could imagine. The vast majority of bacteria dont live on the surface area as much as they live in the biofilm and biproduct of what they produce in order to reduce. You cant look at a sand bed as clean sand with bacteria living on the surfaces. You have to look at it like one complete mass of goo with sand in it. The goo being a mixture of everything from bioflim to byproducts to waste to chemicals of all natures. So growth will be limited by enviroment, and surface area will play a part but is not all emcompassing. A clump of waste on top of the sand can house the same ammount of bacteria that the equal clump of sand would.



mike

 

[mojoreef]

So wait a minute, now your agreeing w/ Dr Ron that rock needs to changed out every couple of years????

Easy Boy easy. Dr Ron thought is that the rocks build up with heavy metal comtaminates that come from ASW mixes. This comes from his inability to keep an aquarium alive for more then a couple of years and trying to find someone to blame for it.
What I am saying is that biological filtration has a treashold on what it can and cant do. In the tank we set up we are asking it to do more then it can, UNLESS we have good husbandry skills (BB and good flow, blowin off rocks, and not over feeding). The good thing is that rock sheds its detritus and thus can come back to normal fairly quickly. if needed.

Hi Scottie

Ok, live with me here a sec. the statement above, "(or at least as possible)" is the part of my process I was thinking

Ok Scott try to work with what you have and what it can do. We know that LR will perform N filtration. We know through bacterial tugor the detritus and end product will shed from the rocks, We know that LR can handle an ammount of bioload.
So in order to work with it we need to design and practice husbandry. With the low amount of bioload it can handle we know we have a few choices. One we can keep a low biol load or we can remove and ammount of the excess waste and food that is required to sustain the bioload. In my case I actively remove detritus, left overs via well designed flow and wet skimming. This reduces the overall ammount of load on the rocks and makes them more of left over filterer.
With the fact that they shed detritus I know that they will regenerate their filtration compacity. If the detritus is left to sit and clog the surfaces of the rock it will educe that regeneration, so with good flow and husbandry (blowing off the rocks) I maintain that interface and remove the excess throught the tanks filtrations sytem.
When It comes to the ammount of food that I use to feed and so on to sustain the bioload, I feed only the higher organisms and allow them to feed the lower chain. The flow again removes what the fish dont eat and thus further reduces the ammount of what the bioload filtration needs to do.
So if you play it well and consistant thier is no need, or at least for a very long time.


Just some thoughts

 

[cwcross]

What is your opinion using Zeolite as a media? Its much cheaper than LR and is easily had. What size media would work best?

Don

Don't know, never thought about it. Lots of aluminum. Would probably work though...I'll stick to mud though..C

 

[cwcross]

My net went out last night, just after I had composed a long reply. I lost it. Will get back to it today...C

 

[cwcross]

What advantages??

Well first, whether they are an advantage or not, many of us have them so it is important to deal with them.

Second, I would suggest that a DSB can help to provide biodiversity in the system that is advantageous for a number of reasons, one of which allowing a higher bio-load into the system and for use in a refugium as a place to provide a source of food for corals and such.

opps I guess this answered the above thought. Collin alot more then I think you could imagine.

Well, I'm sure you are right, however, I can imagine a lot.

I talked to one of our resident microbiologists yesterday in the biotech dept. About 7 years ago, he and I spent quite some time on a project in which we had isolated and identified a naturally occuring lactone based by-product of a commerical manufacturing process. We intended to synthesize this material and scale it up for manufacture in our plants. This material had the ability to interfere with the molecular machinery that many bacteria use to produce the polysaccharide bio-film you are refering to below. These biofilms are a particular nuisance to our company as they provide the cell cultures growing in our customers water chiller units a shield against our biocides. These bio-films make it difficult for our biocides to kill the bacteria as economically as we would like and can cause a number of other problems. The project ultimately failed for a number of economic reasons, none of which related to the efficacy of the drug. However, during the time I learned quite a lot about bacteria cultures and biocides.

The vast majority of bacteria dont live on the surface area as much as they live in the biofilm and biproduct of what they produce in order to reduce. You cant look at a sand bed as clean sand with bacteria living on the surfaces. You have to look at it like one complete mass of goo with sand in it. The goo being a mixture of everything from bioflim to byproducts to waste to chemicals of all natures. So growth will be limited by enviroment, and surface area will play a part but is not all emcompassing. A clump of waste on top of the sand can house the same ammount of bacteria that the equal clump of sand would.

mike

I'm sure this is quite accurate.

I asked my microbiologist friend yesterday about limits on bacterial populations imposed by space. He said that yes, there certainly were limits. He then showed me some cultures he had growing that exhibited this phenomenon. According to him, when the cultures reach a limit for space in thier substrate, they will be pushed upwards into more oxygen rich environments in which they will die. Of course this happens in a series of cycles as we know. However, in the end, they become limited. At that point, in order to avoid the oxygen rich environment, they will start to overcrowd. Their own waste materials will then begin to limit their populations. So basically the cells can build up on thier substrates and compete and act symbiotically with other less aerobic bacteria until there is no more room to grow. From here, the biofilm containing bacteria can either slough off the surface and try to find somewhere else to live, or that being unsuccessful, they will die off and/or be limited at that level when considering the entire population. From there the bacteria are no longer nutrient limited, but are instead space limited. After that, phosphate will move from a regime 3 type behavior to a regime 1 type behavior and P and other nutrients will begin to build in the water column and also by saturating the limestone itself according to their equilibria. Here is where the aquariast will begin to notice more chronic problems that may indicate in impending system crash unless something is done.

How can we stop this???

Sincerely...Collin

 

[Scooterman]

good information that I can understand! thanks!

 

[Maxx]

phosphate will move from a regime 3 type behavior to a regime 1 type behavior and P and other nutrients will begin to build in the water column and also by saturating the limestone itself according to their equilibria. Here is where the aquariast will begin to notice more chronic problems that may indicate in impending system crash unless something is done.
How can we stop this???

In order for bacteria populations to build up to levels that will crash and have negative effects on the tank they will need two things: food supply, and space. Well there really isnt much we can do about the space, so I say we limit the food supply since that is something we can adjust, and also by limiting the amount of food available, we keep the population w/in the space limitations we have. In order to reduce the available food for bacteria, why not just remove as much as possible through heavy skimming, water changes, and aggressive detritus removal?
Nick

 

[cwcross]

In order for bacteria populations to build up to levels that will crash and have negative effects on the tank they will need two things: food supply, and space. Well there really isnt much we can do about the space, so I say we limit the food supply since that is something we can adjust, and also by limiting the amount of food available, we keep the population w/in the space limitations we have. In order to reduce the available food for bacteria, why not just remove as much as possible through heavy skimming, water changes, and aggressive detritus removal?
Nick

Yes..low feeding...good husbandry. That is as Mike says. This will help to stave off and slow the advance of extra bacteria and algea. However, I have another theory. I'll pose another thought experiment later. Any other ideas in the mean time??

 

[Maxx]

Collin, yer killin me here w/ this :

I have another theory. I'll pose another thought experiment later. Any other ideas in the mean time??

Gimmme the answer NOW!!!!!!

I know, I know patience is a virtue.....blah, blah, blah......
And it wouldnt exactly be helpful to the discussion just to blurt out the freakin answer......
sigh.....
fine, I'll suck it up a lil while longer.....

Nick

 

[cwcross]

Collin, yer killin me here w/ this :

Gimmme the answer NOW!!!!!!

Nick

LOL...I don't have the answer. I have to stall you guys so I have time to figure out the next step...

Really though...I am stumbling through this and learning along the way. Not even sure my idea will work well. I think so though. Many here have more experience and knowledge than I. I just am trained in disciplined methodical thought processes and have a technical background.

Also, no decent time until evening anyway...C