Bio balls

[Kribensis4me]

You got it backwards.

Nitrification describes aerobic bacteria converting ammo into nitrItes and then nitrItes into nitrAtes. All bio media does this, but as a matter of surface area, bio balls are the least efficient bio media in the hobby when compared to scrubies, or ceramic media.

Ive read if you are counting the surface area for good bacteria. Fluidised bed filters have the most per eaxh grain of sand

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App

 

[hoodtatz]

In my opinion I currently have a 50gl sump on my 110 and 90% of my bio balls are under water and It seems to work good been that way for over a year and never had any water problems now I also have a 125 with a 135 turtle tank that I converted a corner of the tank into the sump and about 90% of those bio balls are out of water and so far so good only been running about three months but IMO I prefer most of them submerged.


Sent from my iPod touch using MonsterAquariaNetwork app

 

[hoodtatz]

I also forgot to mention though someday when you decide to take out the submerged bio balls for some reason say I use my sumps as tanks also and for instance I tried to get a Pleco out and he hid under the balls but talk about dirty they definitely collect a lot of waste being submerged not sure if that's bad or good but like I said I have had no water problems in over a year and before I moved my Africans to my 125 I had close to 40/50 cichlids in there.


Sent from my iPod touch using MonsterAquariaNetwork app

 

[sincebeen]

Not to confuse matters but....

Actually, any media has the ability to house denitrifying bacteria. It then becomes a matter of how they are used.

http://saltaquarium.about.com/od/diydenitratorplans/ss/sbscoildenitrat.htm

It can be used for freshwater or saltwater.

This filter design is the total opposite of the way a wet dry works. Its job is to rob oxygen and create anaerobic bacteria.


Sent from my SPH-L710 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App

SMH

I wonder how many bio balls are in that setup.

 

[lennym]

the suggestion with bioballs and kaldness is that when used in wet/dry or fluidized systems, tougher BB live on the media giving an advantage over ceramic as ceramic should be replaced every 6 months

 

[sincebeen]

the suggestion with bioballs and kaldness is that when used in wet/dry or fluidized systems, tougher BB live on the media giving an advantage over ceramic as ceramic should be replaced every 6 months

I'm not sure what you mean by "tougher BB”. One gallon of bio balls has the equivalent surface area of 21 ½ square feet. Ehiem claims Substrate Pro has almost 19,000 square feet per gallon. Seachem’s claim is that Matrix contains between 4 to 4.5 times the biologically active surface area of Substrat Pro. Even if these claims are in error by 50%, considering that the surface area in a gallon of bio balls would still be less than 2% of the surface area in a gallon of Matrix, which do you think will house "tougher" colonies of biological bacteria?

Bio balls do last forever, and Fluval does recommend replacing their ceramic every 6 months (all at once would be a bad idea, but you guys already know this). However, Matrix (which is not ceramic) is also supposed to last forever with partial cleaning, I guess time will tell. I have a 1 gallon mix of Matrix and Pond Matrix, and a few scrubbies in a wet/dry for a 125G. I only have 24 2-3” fish and 2 6-7” plecos and my ammo/nitrite/nitrate levels are at zero even before water changes (I also have an ATO, and about 15Gallons of river rock and sand stone as my substrate which contributes too). I think I would be in trouble, at least long term, if I tried to use 1 gallon of bio balls instead.

You could use bio balls in something like Aquaticfan's reference and possibly convert some nitrates, although I would still question the usefulness due to the lack of net surface area within the tubing and bio balls and the fact that the reference posted no data about the results. A better idea IMO, with proven results, would be to simply fill the capped PVC with a highly porous media and use a slow rate of flow.

 

[isde02]

I'm not sure what you mean by "tougher BB”. One gallon of bio balls has the equivalent surface area of 21 ½ square feet. Ehiem claims Substrate Pro has almost 19,000 square feet per gallon. Seachem’s claim is that Matrix contains between 4 to 4.5 times the biologically active surface area of Substrat Pro. Even if these claims are in error by 50%, considering that the surface area in a gallon of bio balls would still be less than 2% of the surface area in a gallon of Matrix, which do you think will house "tougher" colonies of biological bacteria?

Bio balls do last forever, and Fluval does recommend replacing their ceramic every 6 months (all at once would be a bad idea, but you guys already know this). However, Matrix (which is not ceramic) is also supposed to last forever with partial cleaning, I guess time will tell. I have a 1 gallon mix of Matrix and Pond Matrix, and a few scrubbies in a wet/dry for a 125G. I only have 24 2-3” fish and 2 6-7” plecos and my ammo/nitrite/nitrate levels are at zero even before water changes (I also have an ATO, and about 15Gallons of river rock and sand stone as my substrate which contributes too). I think I would be in trouble, at least long term, if I tried to use 1 gallon of bio balls instead.

You could use bio balls in something like Aquaticfan's reference and possibly convert some nitrates, although I would still question the usefulness due to the lack of net surface area within the tubing and bio balls and the fact that the reference posted no data about the results. A better idea IMO, with proven results, would be to simply fill the capped PVC with a highly porous media and use a slow rate of flow.

What he means is that with moving bed media it's always moving and crashing together, knocking off the weaker less efficient bacteria, and making room for more of the stronger more efficient bacteria.

 

[paulW]

It is? I've never seen "film" growing on any of my bio media, submerged or other, do you know what it is? Aren't you concerned that it could be covering the media and preventing the water from contacting it? The proof that there is action going on is that the Ammonia and Nitrite are both zero, so if that's the case in your set up then I guess it's alright.

It's biofilm.. At least in my tank, I need to rinse out all my bioballs and biomedia about every 3 months.. I don't do it all at once, but so much film from microorganisms grows on it, that it breaks off in small pieces and settles to the bottom of the sump.
I used to soak my ceramic media in bleach to kill all the old growth (which was clogging up the pores of that media). Then I would soak, and dechlorinate.. Now, I get lazy, and just give it a good rinse until it looks clean. I think it's easy for us to overstress out on how much surface area we need for "Good bacteria".. The important thing is that the fish are healthy.

 

[sincebeen]

What he means is that with moving bed media it's always moving and crashing together, knocking off the weaker less efficient bacteria, and making room for more of the stronger more efficient bacteria.

The purpose of media "crashing together" in a fluidized bed bio filter is to remove excess biofilm to prevent clogging. Bio balls would be a poor choice in these systems because they would eventually be assembled to each other.

I'd be interested to read more about weaker or stronger bacteria of the same species within the same environment (i.e. same PH, Temp, and nutrients) when the environment is constantly being mixed, or balanced. I'd also like to know how less efficient bacteria somehow gets knocked off while the more efficient bacteria gets to stay. Everything I've read says that's just not how it works (link). The only thing I can think of that could describe bacteria as "weak" would be starved bacteria. Having a good amount of established bio that is starved means it can "wake up" at anytime to consume additional ammo/nitrite.

Either way, there can be no pro-bio-ball argument in "monster" fish keeping, unless the alternative is using legos.

 

[isde02]

The purpose of media "crashing together" in a fluidized bed bio filter is to remove excess biofilm to prevent clogging. Bio balls would be a poor choice in these systems because they would eventually be assembled to each other.

I'd be interested to read more about weaker or stronger bacteria of the same species within the same environment (i.e. same PH, Temp, and nutrients) when the environment is constantly being mixed, or balanced. I'd also like to know how less efficient bacteria somehow gets knocked off while the more efficient bacteria gets to stay. Everything I've read says that's just not how it works (link). The only thing I can think of that could describe bacteria as "weak" would be starved bacteria. Having a good amount of established bio that is starved means it can "wake up" at anytime to consume additional ammo/nitrite.

Either way, there can be no pro-bio-ball argument in "monster" fish keeping, unless the alternative is using legos.

Honestly Im just quoting from the reactor thread on here. Here is what was stated:
The whole concept of a reactor is to remove the less efficient bio bacteria. Life expectancy of bio is short. Once past it's "prime" it's less efficient then younger bio. A reactor tumbles media knocking off the old less efficient bio making room for younger more efficient bio. So instead of keeping a sump full of old tired bio that you hope is even still alive, you keep a sump full of spartans. Strong, efficient, and in thier prime. Everything else lays on the bottom till you crack the valve, then it's gone.

and heres the link: http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?526704-REACTORS-Filtration-for-stingrays

Oh and I use bio balls and have nothing bad to say about them