Usefulness and possible problems of a biological filter (siporax) in a marine aquarium

[brandon429]

Where extra surface area is needed in marine aquarium

The reverse of reefing:
-Fish only setups
-Aquaculture facilities.
-Not reef tanks because of what live rock can do


*you do not need to add corresponding surface area for each fish added.

Half the live rock you currently run, would handle all the fish that tank will ever see. You're already double beyond what the tank needs to run, as a live rock + coral biomass structure. The whole thing is a dead center ammonia scrub, all surfaces.

Disconnect the reactor, watch how nothing changes. Toss the media, or add more, it doesn't matter.

 

[brandon429]

It's without utility in a reef tank

Because our surface area isn't limiting


** if you run a reactor to the correct flow and oxygen levels, which I'm sure Lasse can tune in his sleep then that media may be used to reduce nitrates from the water column. As mentioned earlier, that's not how I'd control nitrate for an expensive reef I'd like to see attain at least eight years running, if not double.

It's OK to run the media in any configuration you like, it won't harm either way. This is merely hashing details because this is what we do with our free time lol

 

[Lasse]

At every given moment - your bacteria population is depended of the organic load in the aquarium in that given moment - you will not have more or less bacteria activity with adding more area but if you use a flow through reactor/filter you can optimize the environment for maximal growth in the filter. It demand a rather high flow of oxygenated water through the filter. You move most of the bacterial activity into the filter. The resulting bacteria biomass you get in the filter/reactor can be exported out through periodical rinsing of the filter. You get a better control with the filter IMO. Its not fish pop that end up in the filter - its bacterial biomass. Its the same with the "dirt" in the upper part of a skimmer - its nothing else than bacteria biomass.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Anxur]

At every given moment - your bacteria population is depended of the organic load in the aquarium in that given moment - you will not have more or less bacteria activity with adding more area but if you use a flow through reactor/filter you can optimize the environment for maximal growth in the filter. It demand a rather high flow of oxygenated water through the filter. You move most of the bacterial activity into the filter. The resulting bacteria biomass you get in the filter/reactor can be exported out through periodical rinsing of the filter. You get a better control with the filter IMO. Its not fish pop that end up in the filter - its bacterial biomass. Its the same with the "dirt" in the upper part of a skimmer - its nothing else than bacteria biomass.

Sincerely Lasse

I prefer a small collection container in the sump.. I hope they work the same..

 

[Lasse]

The difference between an active filter system and a passive filter system is the amount of usable oxygen. In an active system - oxygen will be present all over the filter media. In a passive - only in the surface - deeper in will lack oxygen with time. This difference means that these two filter types will work in different ways.

The active system will be a fast "breakdown" system (read fast mineralization) with a large production of bacterial biomass. If cleaned now and than - it will be a part of the nutrient exporting pathway. Denitrification in this system will probably be absent.

The passive system will have a fast breakdown in the interface between water and filter media. It will consume oxygen making the water that seeps down into the inner part of the filter media will lack oxygen. The deeper part of the filter media will have a much slower buildup of bacterial biomass. If labile DOC is present, either internally produced or externally added, it can cause denitrification. (Denitrification NO3 -> N2+H2O).

You should decide which type of filter system you choose depending on what you want to achieve with your filter medium.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Anxur]

The difference between an active filter system and a passive filter system is the amount of usable oxygen. In an active system - oxygen will be present all over the filter media. In a passive - only in the surface - deeper in will lack oxygen with time. This difference means that these two filter types will work in different ways.

The active system will be a fast "breakdown" system (read fast mineralization) with a large production of bacterial biomass. If cleaned now and than - it will be a part of the nutrient exporting pathway. Denitrification in this system will probably be absent.

The passive system will have a fast breakdown in the interface between water and filter media. It will consume oxygen making the water that seeps down into the inner part of the filter media will lack oxygen. The deeper part of the filter media will have a much slower buildup of bacterial biomass. If labile DOC is present, either internally produced or externally added, it can cause denitrification. (Denitrification NO3 -> N2+H2O).

You should decide which type of filter system you choose depending on what you want to achieve with your filter medium.

Sincerely Lasse

How do you consider a filter system "active"? Why is it powered by a pump and the siporax are in the cylinder? For this reason? How can you tell there is more oxygen if the pump takes water from the same sump?

You advise to clean frequently the active filter reactor, correct? Why?

 

[Lasse]

An example. A pump deliver 2000 L/hour. Every L content 6 mg/L O2. In 1 hour the filter will receive 1200 mg O2 into the system and bacteria population. No lack of O2 here even if bacteria consume a lot
A pump deliver 10 l/hour -> 60 mg O2 during a hour - a bacteria population will fast grow an consume all of this. In a passive system - flow into the media is probably lower than 10L/hour -> fast depletion of O2

The bacteria consume oxygen in the breakdown process - more bacteria - more O2 consumption.

You advise to clean frequently the active filter reactor, correct? Why?

I do not know if this is a language problem or something else. What in this you do not understand?

The active system will be a fast "breakdown" system (read fast mineralization) with a large production of bacterial biomass. If cleaned now and than - it will be a part of the nutrient exporting pathway.

The biomass of bacteria grow larger and larger. Bacteria need P and N among other things - it take this mostly from dissolved P and N (PO4 and NH4/NO3) in the water column. C also from labile DOC. You concentrate nutrients in the bacteria biomass. You clean the filter - export of nutrients. However - do not clean too often - the bacteria population should be able to grow for a while.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Big E]

In this way? It's OK to maintain siporax clean?

They work with that dirty?

And.. Po4 and No3 are influenced from that Mud and debris?

That's fine...........I would elevate the bags so detritus doesn't get trapped underneath.

You're waaay overthinking this whole thing. If you have enough live rock you probably don't need them at all. They are a space saver and a home for bacteria........nothing more.

Lasse is telling you exactly what I told you two days ago in you're private message to me.

Put them in a bucket of tank water and swish around(hand clean) maybe every other month to keep clean.

If you want to run them with higher flow I would use a canister filter as it has layers of sponges so the media stays clean. This is the main use in the freshwater world.

They aren't going to do much to affect N03 or P04.

 

[Anxur]

Lasse is telling you exactly what I told you two days ago in you're private message to me.

They aren't going to do much to affect N03 or P04.

So if they aren't going to do much to affect N03 or P04, What is the work of the bacteria on siporax in sump? I thought I understood that they use Po4 and No3 as Lasse says..

 

[Big E]

So if they aren't going to do much to affect N03 or P04, What is the work of the bacteria on siporax in sump? I thought I understood that they use Po4 and No3 as Lasse says..

It's going to mainly house bacteria that creates the Nitrogen Cycle.......Ammonia to nitrates.

There may be some nitrate reduction but It's not something that is going to make a big impact.........less so for P04. Again, not anymore than live rock.

Somehow I'm not getting this communicated to you...............If space is limited Siporax It's a viable option. It's also nice to have some if you want to set up a QT or emergency system.

 

[Anxur]

Ospiterà principalmente batteri che creano il ciclo dell'azoto...da ammoniaca a nitrati.

Potrebbe esserci una riduzione di nitrati, ma non è qualcosa che avrà un grande impatto...meno per P04. Di nuovo, non più della roccia viva.

In qualche modo non riesco a fartelo sapere...............Se lo spazio è limitato Siporax È un'opzione fattibile. È anche bello averne un po' se vuoi impostare un QT o un sistema di emergenza.

Un esempio. Una pompa eroga 2000 L/ora. Ogni L contiene 6 mg/L di O2. In 1 ora il filtro riceverà 1200 mg di O2 nel sistema e nella popolazione batterica. Nessuna mancanza di O2 qui, anche se i batteri ne consumano molto.
Una pompa eroga 10 l/ora -> 60 mg di O2 in un'ora - una popolazione di batteri crescerà rapidamente e consumerà tutto questo. In un sistema passivo - il flusso nel mezzo è probabilmente inferiore a 10 L/ora -> rapido esaurimento di O2

Durante il processo di decomposizione i batteri consumano ossigeno: più batteri, più consumo di O2.


Non so se questo è un problema di lingua o qualcos'altro. Cosa non capisci in questo?


La biomassa dei batteri cresce sempre di più. I batteri hanno bisogno di P e N tra le altre cose, li prendono principalmente da P e N disciolti (PO4 e NH4/NO3) nella colonna d'acqua. C anche da DOC labile. Concentrate i nutrienti nella biomassa dei batteri. Pulite il filtro, esportazione dei nutrienti. Tuttavia, non pulite troppo spesso, la popolazione dei batteri dovrebbe essere in grado di crescere per un po'.

Sinceramente Lasse

Aspetto un cestino da mettere nella vasca di raccolta.
Sulla sinistra ho l'acqua del serbatoio principale. Ho comprato un contenitore in cui metterò il perlon. Così l'acqua che arriva dall'alto passerà nel perlon.

L'acqua scende e risale dal basso grazie alla paratia divisoria. Qui metterò il cestello con la Matrix.. Penso che ci sarà abbastanza flusso. Ora ho un Jebao da 9000 litri al 70%..quindi un bel po' d'acqua scorre nella vasca di raccolta.

 

[Anxur]

Questo è per Matrix

 

[brandon429]

@Lasse, you are incorrect, you are teaching old cycling science and it's wrong.

Organic loading does not limit bacterial mass.

If I stick a piece of plastic in your tank for two weeks it becomes covered in new bacteria even though no new feed or biomass was added.

So you're teaching readers that the plastic would remain sterile since we didn't increase feed to the tank?

How could new bacteria completely cover the added mass if the tank has reached threshold? No threshold is reached, is why.

 

[brandon429]

It's easy to verify what Lasse said using real examples so we don't have to take anyone's word

Or chart, from a totally different subject, as proof.

Anyone can get a canister filter with all dry media, and install it into a tank.

Disconnect it on day 30, then in a separate container verify that filter setup can quickly remove ammonia from test water: it can.

You didn't have to add extra organics to gain an entire filters worth of brand new bacterial mass: new cycling science.

When you disconnected the test filter, packed with bacteria generated from the system, nothing was harmed just like removing any filter from any reef tank causes no loss of cycle control= new cycling science.

Any surface area added to any aquatic system takes on new bacterial mass because new vital space was added. No changes in tank nutrients are required. As much new space as you add gains new bacteria, at no point would submerged items remain sterile.

Lasse you have never handled or managed bacteria in a lab setting, I can tell by what you're teaching others.

 

[brandon429]

@Anxur I'm going to let Lasse fill up your post now with captions from all the books he owns as proof, like he does in my threads.

If you want filter help going forward, send me message and we can work without side inputs.

Why these small debates matter:

because materials handling science determines who's reef crashes or lives when interventions are required. Reefs don't just sit there looking picture perfect year after year, knowing what is inside or outside of handling boundaries is final say on a reef tanks lifespan.

Not that installing or removing one canister from a tank matters, but the rules governing the situation told to you completely impact how you approach tankwide bacteria as you make other really important decisions

(Such as sandbed handling, or tank transfer time, what to dose, what's to blame if your corals get rtn, filtration required vs optional, impacts of surface area addition and subtraction as needed etc)

You need to be basing those decision based on the latest tank preservation science and what's actually going on in tank handling threads that you can search and find quickly.



Vital space availability is what affects bacterial mass the most in aquatic systems. External factors such as water shear, intraspace competition, temps, and other factors prevent resident bacteria in our systems from filling up the tank with layers of gelatinous bacteria.

(What a stilled, crashed tank turns into)

Even a low nutrient home system is filthy in terms of bacteria support, we're no where near being able to regulate growths on new surfaces by reefing cleanly. All home reefs grow copious bacteria constantly.

Any surface added: quickly populates



If you provide more vital space, more bacteria inhabit it over timeframes already known (any cycling chart from a book)

You being taught to hyper concern over bacteria and not being given ANY downsides at all in your design approach is old cycling science: more bacteria is always better.

No mention of fish disease being the sole biggest risk that reef will face, and not what you do what that tiny amount of biomedia, is old cycling science.

New cycling science is what's transferring all the reef tanks without fail in the work threads for a reason.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Simple and great question.. To have additional bacterial support, a specific place where the bacteria (which ones and what type I don't know, positioning the Matrix in passive form in the sump) can carry out their beneficial functions with the aim of processing the organic, ammonia, nitrites etc...

I think the more bacterial support I have, the more I can easily manage organic fish waste and their nutrition

Is this correct?

I do not agree that more bacteria is always better. They steal ammonia from corals and leave less palatable nitrate. IMO, it would be very unusual for any normal reef tank to lack sufficient nitrifying bacteria.

Denitrifying bacteria may be useful, but I do not know that this material does much of that in an ordinary reef aquarium.

 

[Anxur]

I do not agree that more bacteria is always better. They steal ammonia from corals and leave less palatable nitrate. IMO, it would be very unusual for any normal reef tank to lack sufficient nitrifying bacteria.

Denitrifying bacteria may be useful, but I do not know that this material does much of that in an ordinary reef aquarium.

If we leave ammonia available, even in minimal quantities, among sps corals and cyanobacteria and other pests... Who will be the first to consume that ammonia?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

If we leave ammonia available, even in minimal quantities, among sps corals and cyanobacteria and other pests... Who will be the first to consume that ammonia?

I appears that corals can respond when dosing it, which is my evidence that one does not need to declare defeat to bacteria.

DIY Ammonia dosing for low nitrate systems

Some reef aquaria have chronic low nitrogen availability. One indicator is very low nitrate. Nitrate dosing is a fine remedy, but it is possible that ammonia dosing may be more beneficial for some organisms since ammonia can be energetically easier to assimilate than is nitrate. For this...

www.reef2reef.com

 

[GARRIGA]

Commenting on Matrix and leeching of aluminum. Tested my water with ICP using pumice for past 2-1/2 years without a WC and it was near levels found in nature and this includes six months adding tap as I was dealing with Dinos and needed silicates as well as curious what macroalgae might do to reduce certain metals. My understanding being that Matrix is basically pumice although supposedly mined from cleaner source yet mine came from that used for orchids. Guessing both of similar purity or impurity. Interestingly, tank levels 3x times that of source which would imply that being added seemed to be processed by the macroalgae unless something else consuming it or binding with perhaps the pumice itself.

As for ammonium being filtered out and that's a valid concern to avoid having to down convert nitrates but my thinking is that fish are constantly producing ammonium and I'd rather remove that which made it past the corals and exited the display vs reintroducing it back plus not all start with a full tank of coral therefore in the beginning still going to need something to process that produced by fish unless going minimal in that aspect and yet that would be rather boring.

 

[Lasse]

I do not agree that more bacteria is always better. They steal ammonia from corals and leave less palatable nitrate. IMO, it would be very unusual for any normal reef tank to lack sufficient nitrifying bacteria.

It depends - its right if you talk about nitrifying bacteria but not right if you talking about the normal "breakdown" or decomposing bacteria that lives on organic matter. They release both PO4 and NH3/NH4. They are the dominant bacteria types in filters like the one shown in this thread - IMO and IME.

Sincerely Lasse