Does LR reduce nitrates??

[Mortie31]

hello all
Sorry if this article has been discussed before, it is being discussed in another forum and the first time I have seen it, I’m not scientifically qualified enough to critique it, your thoughts chaps?
http://www.hyxb.org.cn/aosen/ch/rea...no=20171211&year_id=2017&quarter_id=12&falg=1

 

[GoVols]

hello all
Sorry if this article has been discussed before, it is being discussed in another forum and the first time I have seen it, I’m not scientifically qualified enough to critique it, your thoughts chaps?
http://www.hyxb.org.cn/aosen/ch/rea...no=20171211&year_id=2017&quarter_id=12&falg=1

Did not read the article but the deep pores of live rock grow the bacteria that consume nitrates and gas them off.

To myself nothing beats Live Rock but that's JMO

 

[ChrisOFL]

hello all
Sorry if this article has been discussed before, it is being discussed in another forum and the first time I have seen it, I’m not scientifically qualified enough to critique it, your thoughts chaps?
http://www.hyxb.org.cn/aosen/ch/rea...no=20171211&year_id=2017&quarter_id=12&falg=1

It's all about surface area for the bacteria to live. There are ways to increase the biomass by providing carbon/sulfur source for the bacteria to feed on but it still comes down to having enough surface area for enough bacteria. Proper anaerobic zones must also exist for natural denitrification to occur. Live rock has clearly proven to be beneficial in the hobby and I don't think tanks would be as successful without it.

 

[GoVols]

It's all about surface area for the bacteria to live. There are ways to increase the biomass by providing carbon/sulfur source for the bacteria to feed on but it still comes down to having enough surface area for enough bacteria. Proper anaerobic zones must also exist for natural denitrification to occur. Live rock has clearly proven to be beneficial in the hobby and I don't think tanks would be as successful without it.

I tried man made bio-media in an reactor (at a 20-gph flow rate) and the end result was that it just spewed nitrates out into the open water column, like bio-balls

 

[Mortie31]

Did not read the article but the deep pores of live rock grow the bacteria that consume nitrates and gas them off.

To myself nothing beats Live Rock but that's JMO

The article is saying that LR actually doesn’t work!!!

 

[Mortie31]

It's all about surface area for the bacteria to live. There are ways to increase the biomass by providing carbon/sulfur source for the bacteria to feed on but it still comes down to having enough surface area for enough bacteria. Proper anaerobic zones must also exist for natural denitrification to occur. Live rock has clearly proven to be beneficial in the hobby and I don't think tanks would be as successful without it.

That’s what I thought but the article is suggesting LR isn’t any good at reducing Nitrates, only good at ammonia and nitrite...

 

[GoVols]

The article is saying that LR actually doesn’t work!!!

Glad I didn't read it

 

[ChrisOFL]

I tried man made bio-media in an reactor (at a 20-gph flow rate) and the end result was that it just spewed nitrates out into the open water column, like bio-balls

You did not establish a proper anearobic zone or did not have a proper food source to establish a large enough biomass to facilitate full denitrficiation. I ran sulfur denitrator for a while and it worked amazing because it is large anaerobic zone with sulfur aa an electron donor to facilitate full denitrification. You don't create extra nitrates because of using bio-balls, they do what they are supposed to do, turn ammonia into nitrate.

 

[GoVols]

Scroll down to point #5 and read it real slow.

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2003/8/chemistry

 

[GoVols]

You did not establish a proper anearobic zone or did not have a proper food source to establish a large enough biomass to facilitate full denitrficiation. I ran sulfur denitrator for a while and it worked amazing because it is large anaerobic zone with sulfur aa an electron donor to facilitate full denitrification. You don't create extra nitrates because of using bio-balls, they do what they are supposed to do, turn ammonia into nitrate.

Bio-Balls spew nitrates back out into the open water column.
And a sulfer denitartor is a whole different thing.

BRS tried man made bio-media like I did and they came to the same results that I came to and they stopped testing.

I soaked the media in Bactor 7 for 24 hours before putting it in the reactor.

Gave it a shot and my nitrates went up.

No worries over here

Just wanted to give it a shot and I have no need to carbon or bacteria dose.

 

[ChrisOFL]

Bio-Balls spew nitrates back out into the open water column.
And a sulfer denitartor is a whole different thing.

BRS tried man made bio-media like I did and they came to the same results that I came to and stopped testing.

I soaked the media in Bactor 7 for 24 hours before putting it in the reactor.

Gave it a shot and my nitrates went up.

No worries over here

Just wanted to give it a shot and I have no need to carbon or bacteria dose.

I''ll rephrase what I mean because your article explains it also. They are not producing more nitrates than what is produced without them, merely because your oxygen reducing bacteria is all concentrated in your bio-balls there is not high enough concentrations in the live rock/sand to produce an anaerobic zone sufficient enough for denitrification. There is nothing wrong with bi0-media but certain products can achieve denitrification while others can not and you just have to be aware of the difference.

 

[GoVols]

I''ll rephrase what I mean because your article explains it also. They are not producing more nitrates than what is produced without them, merely because your oxygen reducing bacteria is all concentrated in your bio-balls there is not high enough concentrations in the live rock/sand to produce an anaerobic zone sufficient enough for denitrification. There is nothing wrong with bi0-media but certain products can achieve denitrification while others can not and you just have to be aware of the difference.

Exactly

And it's Randy's article. I'm just one reefer reporting to results that I came to. When I dumped the reactor media and went back to my old method and live rock. Did some water changes and my nitrates went back down to about 5ppm and held.

But (lol)... to say that live rock does not complete the process is just crazy ;Wacky in my book ;Bookworm

Ya'll carry on and I'm not saying that man made media is a bad thing but most folks that I know have to keep feeding it bacteria.

 

[Lasse]

Scroll down to point #5 and read it real slow.

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2003/8/chemistry

I do not think point 5 is valid in our modern aquaria with a high turnover of streamers and pumps. IMO it does not matter where the nitrate is produced - it will be mixed directly to the water column in every case. the nitrifying biofilm is most active in the oxygen rich surface and by definition – that is there the waterflow is strongest. However, a lack of a special biofilter will have the NH4 to stay longer in the water and hence be aerated out as NH3 in the modern skimmer systems we have today. Therefor contribute to a lower NO3 production. IMO you have to choose – do you want have some NH4 content or some NO3 in the water column. I prefer fast nitrification in a biofilter and to handle the NO3 in another way.

The article is in line with both what I have learned about denitrification and my own experiences in the field – I´m not surprised

It also show how slow the nitrification process is in a only LS based system

Sincerely Lasse

 

[GoVols]

I do not think point 5 is valid in our modern aquaria with a high turnover of streamers and pumps. IMO it does not matter where the nitrate is produced - it will be mixed directly to the water column in every case. the nitrifying biofilm is most active in the oxygen rich surface and by definition – that is there the waterflow is strongest. However, a lack of a special biofilter will have the NH4 to stay longer in the water and hence be aerated out as NH3 in the modern skimmer systems we have today. Therefor contribute to a lower NO3 production. IMO you have to choose – do you want have some NH4 content or some NO3 in the water column. I prefer fast nitrification in a biofilter and to handle the NO3 in another way.

The article is in line with both what I have learned about denitrification and my own experiences in the field – I´m not surprised

It also show how slow the nitrification process is in a only LS based system

Sincerely Lasse

Lasse,

We'll just have to respectfully agree to dis-agree on point #5 in Randy's article but it backs up to what BRS and I came to.

Freddie

 

[brandon429]

I love purple coralline live rock for what it does always, which is munch ammonia

What it may or may not do lead to bio pellets, carbon dosing, vsv, dsb, ats and all kinds of fillers. The answer is, four percent of the time in anyone's setup it's reducing and not actually producing nitrates.

The ocean keeps its pores open better than our aging stagnation

 

[Mortie31]

Interesting discussion, any comments on the actual paper attached though!!

 

[brandon429]

I couldn't preview the link, too risky to download onto phone wo knowing origins.


Based on what Lasse and others wrote, how do you square that article away with all the extra new things invented for nitrate control

In the 90s live rock and sand was claimed all that was needed

 

[GoVols]

I love purple coralline live rock for what it does always, which is munch ammonia

What it may or may not do lead to bio pellets, carbon dosing, vsv, dsb, ats and all kinds of fillers. The answer is, four percent of the time in anyone's setup it's reducing and not actually producing nitrates.

The ocean keeps its pores open better than our aging stagnation

I keep the pores open on my live rock by firing all my pumps and gyre to full flow once a week, but I also run a bare bottom reef to be able to run that much flow (all at once) and lift out the detritus from the live rock and bare bottom floor to my filter socks.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I do not think point 5 is valid in our modern aquaria with a high turnover of streamers and pumps. IMO it does not matter where the nitrate is produced - it will be mixed directly to the water column in every case. the nitrifying biofilm is most active in the oxygen rich surface and by definition – that is there the waterflow is strongest. However, a lack of a special biofilter will have the NH4 to stay longer in the water and hence be aerated out as NH3 in the modern skimmer systems we have today. Therefor contribute to a lower NO3 production. IMO you have to choose – do you want have some NH4 content or some NO3 in the water column. I prefer fast nitrification in a biofilter and to handle the NO3 in another way.

Why not? If nitrate is generated 1 or 2 mm down into a sand bed, it has a somewhat equal chance of drifting deeper for denitrification, or drifting out for entry to the water column. That doesn't happen on a bioball.

FWIW, many tanks do not have high flow everywhere.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

hello all
Sorry if this article has been discussed before, it is being discussed in another forum and the first time I have seen it, I’m not scientifically qualified enough to critique it, your thoughts chaps?
http://www.hyxb.org.cn/aosen/ch/rea...no=20171211&year_id=2017&quarter_id=12&falg=1

I think they see the problem with their experiment:

"The denitrifying bacteria that play key roles in water treatment are mostly heterotrophic (Cai, 2008). In this experiment, the reason why LR lacks the ability to degrade nitrate may be due to the lack of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) as a reaction substrate and energy source."

Their experiment did not involve an operating reef tank (whether with extra dosed organic carbon, or that naturally there from organism and bacteria degradation of foods, etc.).

Really, I can't see how one would expect this to work without organic matter. The chemical equation for denitrification demands it:

organic + 124 NO3- + 124 H+ → 122 CO2 + 70 N2 + 208 H2O

It's like putting a mouse on Mars and saying, wow, it died, Mars doesn't support life. Maybe from lack of O2?