How exactly is bio load determined?

[FINWIN]

It's commonly known some species are harder on filtration and water quality. But is there an actual way of measuring bioload say per species or is it simply trial/error of experience of fishkeepers? I've often wondered if studies were ever made on this...say if you had different species in controlled environment how long would it take to build up acids, nitrates, and other organic waste?

Is there much correlation with bioload between cold water vs warm water species? Just curious.

 

[tlindsey]

It's commonly known some species are harder on filtration and water quality. But is there an actual way of measuring bioload say per species or is it simply trial/error of experience of fishkeepers? I've often wondered if studies were ever made on this...say if you had different species in controlled environment how long would it take to build up acids, nitrates, and other organic waste?

Is there much correlation with bioload between cold water vs warm water species? Just curious.

You can generally find out here or Google what species will generate a large bioload. Your testing of water is one the best solution's for measuring the bioload.

 

[tlindsey]

You can generally find out here or Google what species will generate a large bioload. Your testing of water is one the best solution's for measuring the bioload.

It's both trial and error and experience. A new fishkeeper may not realize for example as fish grow the bioload increases but an experienced fishkeeping hobbyists will know this.

 

[Gourami Swami]

Well, you could go by the mass of the fish. I wouldn't go by the species as it's too general. Even within the same species, a fish with more mass will consume more food and create more waste. And of course, a bulky 10" oscar will make much more waste and have a higher bio-load than a skinny 10" bichir. There may be some fish that make more waste than others due to types of food and feeding behaviors as well; some (like oscars) will spit up lots of food from their gills while chewing, this messy eating creates more waste than if the food was all consumed and digested.
I agree with tlindsey you can see the effects a fish has on the biology of the tank with your test kit, measuring nitrate in an established tank.

 

[Backfromthedead]

I imagine the formula is something like fish mass x activity level=bioload. So large active predators like pbass or aros are probably on the higher end while a comparably sized sedentary fish like hoplias or irwini cat would be significantly lower. This is purely conjecture on my part though, nothing scientific to back it up.

 

[Raka]

I imagine the formula is something like fish mass x activity level=bioload. So large active predators like pbass or aros are probably on the higher end while a comparably sized sedentary fish like hoplias or irwini cat would be significantly lower. This is purely conjecture on my part though, nothing scientific to back it up.

And even more variables would be in play, metabolism (sailfins), efficiency of digestional tract (goldfish) as well..

 

[esoxlucius]

How can you measure the bio load any fish gives out when possibly the biggest factor involved in the end figure is how much said fish eats? Let's say you did a trial with ten hobbyists who each had a single 10" Oscar. Each hobbyists feeding regime will be different so in effect you'd have ten 10" oscars all putting out a different bio load.

If you take my example it's virtually impossible to label fish with a specific bio load "number", even specimens of same breed/same size.

The only way you could come close to achieving it is to say something along the lines of, if you have a 10" Oscar and you strictly and religiously only feed it 'x' on 'y' amount of days, then your bio load will be around about 'z'. But even then, as with humans for example, metabolic rates can be different between fish, which would muddy the waters even more.

And you can bet your bottom dollar that there are a 101 other complex variables coming into play too.

 

[duanes]

It's both trial and error and experience. A new fishkeeper may not realize for example as fish grow the bioload increases but an experienced fishkeeping hobbyists will know this.

Agree, and although not by species specifically, nitrate concentration is an indication of bioload.
You might have a 3" oscar in its tank that maintains a nitrate level of 5-10ppm with a once per week water change, considered acceptable by many as healthy.
But if you test when the oscar is 6",and if that nitrate concentration has doubled to 15 or 20 ppm, that's an indication of bioload increase due to its size, and waste output.
And that doubling of nitrate (the bioload) would suggest a doubling of frequency and volume of water changes to compensate for that double bioload, and be considered a healthy environment.

 

[ad88]

I was told many bioload numbers came from trial and error. Like the 50 gallon bioload for an Oscar was based on the rise of nitrates in a week up to a certain 20 ppm or something, but I don't know who started it or how much food was feed or how large the fish was I just followed it because it seemed reasonable. I assume all other bioload numbers were done the same but again who knows how accurate those numbers are?

 

[DRUKENMUNKY]

As mentioned i think there are too many factors to consider..such eating habits of the individual fish...foods eaten...etc. even with trying to track nitrate progression ...there are still environmental factors such as substrates and the presence of things like anaerobic bacterias....things like will vary results