Why does everyone overdo the bio?

[OnceLoyal]

I am a little confused with were this thread is going also. Gotta love the heated arguments though. Keeps ya alive!!!!
It is, or should be obvious that you could have 5000 liters of BM and without enough waste generated there will never be enough BB to cover the BM. The good point of having additional BM is that if Bioload increases the BB has a good environment to grow fast. A lot faster than it could ever grow on an aquarium wall or substrate. If this is a quick spike in bio load it will not make any damn difference how much BM you have because it will not be able to adjust quickly enough to handle the new load before damage occurs. Do I think the newer BM is over rated and over priced? Yes. Do I think it is better than relying on gravel? Yes!!! Do I think a well monitored and properly set up tank could handle a fish without store bought or man made BM yes. Like a fish bowl I do think that the vast majority of these "monster Bio Filtration systems" end up acting as a fine mechanical filtration. Running through hundered and hundered of scrubbys I think will act as a water polisher Do I think you can over filter a tank?? Reef.... yes, palnted tank.....yes, common Monster set up... no. I am to lazy to go back and try to follow the thread from the begining again. Although I did enjoy the heat!!!!
So where is this thread going now?? I am confused lol..

 

[Bderick67]

since bacteria can convert waste or organic matter into ammonia, they don't need "media" do be able to do this. They break down the matter at its source. This really is not something to worry about. In fact, it would be great if ammonification did not occur and if the waste and organic matter just got filtered out by the filter and later cleaned out without breaking down.

[/COLOR]
What other filters? Your other filters? I have ONE filter. You are trying to say you will have a more stable tank all around but thats not true. In a situation like a malfunction or user error then you may have a slightly more stable tank but you will still have a mini cycle.

Its one thing to spread the media out through 2 or more filters. I have respect for that for providing a backup in case the inevitable happends.

Providing excessive media in one filter just because you think it will create a more stable environment is the wrong thinking.

I bet having an output shoot across the bottom gravel of the tank will be more than enough to keep a tank stable without external bio filtration.

I always clean my glass so I wouldn't rely on that area but case in point the glass could support enough BB for any sized tank.

Now for those that gravel vac their substrate and clean the glass, this would not work for them either.

Can I ask.....what is the direction this thread is taking now? I am a little lost when I try to keep up with the original topic and then realize I am down a different path...

Ncnut, I agree a tank can be stable with the BB that is allowed to be in the tank but do you also agree that for those who clean the tank and disturb a lot of the possible BB colonies that external filtration is good? Not saying you need to use specifically "bio media" because even gravel will do or a sponge.

This is where we differ. I run redundant filtration on all my larger tanks, the stock in them is too valuable for me to rely on a single filter. On my larger tanks (120g and up) I can loose a single filter and only take a 25-33% hit to bio media. And yes this is much more stable then running a single FX5 which even has more media capacity then all the filters I have on any one tank, with the exception of my 450g.

On tanks in the 55-85g range I run a pair of filters so a hit to a single filter still leaves me with 50% or more of my bio. For the 20s and 29s well they only get a single filter

 

[Jgray152]

I agree with your setups. Redundant filtration is a whole different ball game when comparing this thread argument to your situation.

 

[Bderick67]

I agree with your setups. Redundant filtration is a whole different ball game when comparing this thread argument to your situation.

The original argument of this thread was answered in the first 30 or so posts. At around post 40 comments such as these below made this an extension of the "Is bio media really necessary thread" and the basis of my argument.

The point of this thread is not to suggest sumps are not a good idea…
　
The point of this thread is to discuss the quantity of bio media used and the reasoning behind it…

This simplies supports what I've been saying for years... that bio media is not needed...

The second is just

 

[Noto]

Perhaps this should go in another thread, but several posts here have touched upon it, so I'll bring it up:

Where are the heterotrophic (ammonifying) bacteria?

As was mentioned earlier, heterotrophic bacteria are much less efficient than denitrifiers, which means that a given amount of waste will support a much larger population of them. Why is this important?

1. Bacteria form contiguous colonies (biofilms) along areas where the things they need (in this case, food and oxygenated water) are concentrated.

2. Biofilms take up space. A microporous ceramic bimedia element covered with a biofilm is effectively no longer microporous; the vast internal surface area is biologically unavailable and it has no more effective surface area than a similarly-sized piece of gravel.

3. Bacteria are not good neighbors. Many bacteria secrete allelotoxins to prevent colonization of their neighborhood by heterospecifics, such as, say, nitrifying bacteria.

So, any part of your biomedia that is interacting with solid waste- feces, uneaten food, plant debris, dead livestock, shed scales and exoskeletons, etc.- is primarily acting as a host for heterotrophic (ammonifying) bacteria and is not an effective home for autotrophic (denitrifying) bacteria.

This has two major consequences for aquarists:

1. Mechanical filtration has a massive impact on the effectiveness of biofiltration.

2. In the absence of effective mechanical filtration, a larger volume of low-surface-area media (e.g., gravel) is likely to be more effective than a small volume of high-surface-area media; even though the total surface area may be similar, less of the gravel's available surface area will be fouled by heterotrophic bacteria when a piece of solid waste comes into contact with it, because the surface area is more spread out.

This difference may have some consequences for TCarswell's barb experiment vs. NC_Nutcase's ammonia experiment, though I suspect the differences will be slight due to the spread-out nature of the biological surface area in this case.

 

[sostoudt]

since bacteria can convert waste or organic matter into ammonia, they don't need "media" do be able to do this. They break down the matter at its source. This really is not something to worry about. In fact, it would be great if ammonification did not occur and if the waste and organic matter just got filtered out by the filter and later cleaned out without breaking down.

while i agree alot will be on the food source, i dont think its thats simple, i think the bacteria would be more spread out in general, do to feces tendency to break apart. so basically feces is all around the tank, and unless you use a micron filter its covering your biomedia too. you could see how that could be a problem from the post above mine.

 

[cvermeulen]

Perhaps this should go in another thread, but several posts here have touched upon it, so I'll bring it up:

Where are the heterotrophic (ammonifying) bacteria?

As was mentioned earlier, heterotrophic bacteria are much less efficient than denitrifiers, which means that a given amount of waste will support a much larger population of them. Why is this important?

1. Bacteria form contiguous colonies (biofilms) along areas where the things they need (in this case, food and oxygenated water) are concentrated.

2. Biofilms take up space. A microporous ceramic bimedia element covered with a biofilm is effectively no longer microporous; the vast internal surface area is biologically unavailable and it has no more effective surface area than a similarly-sized piece of gravel.

3. Bacteria are not good neighbors. Many bacteria secrete allelotoxins to prevent colonization of their neighborhood by heterospecifics, such as, say, nitrifying bacteria.

So, any part of your biomedia that is interacting with solid waste- feces, uneaten food, plant debris, dead livestock, shed scales and exoskeletons, etc.- is primarily acting as a host for heterotrophic (ammonifying) bacteria and is not an effective home for autotrophic (denitrifying) bacteria.

This has two major consequences for aquarists:

1. Mechanical filtration has a massive impact on the effectiveness of biofiltration.

2. In the absence of effective mechanical filtration, a larger volume of low-surface-area media (e.g., gravel) is likely to be more effective than a small volume of high-surface-area media; even though the total surface area may be similar, less of the gravel's available surface area will be fouled by heterotrophic bacteria when a piece of solid waste comes into contact with it, because the surface area is more spread out.

This difference may have some consequences for TCarswell's barb experiment vs. NC_Nutcase's ammonia experiment, though I suspect the differences will be slight due to the spread-out nature of the biological surface area in this case.

Interesting. I can buy this theory and it's very good information to know. It lends much more importance to prefiltering water when using a seperate bio filter. I always just use mechanical before biological because you don't want to have to clean your bio media and disturb the colony.

 

[cvermeulen]

I am a little confused with were this thread is going also.

I don't know that we need a destination, there's been a lot of good information passed back and forth, and new information continues to arise, so we are all learning - which is sort of the point.

The good point of having additional BM is that if Bioload increases the BB has a good environment to grow fast. A lot faster than it could ever grow on an aquarium wall or substrate.

I'm not sure I agree with you here. Do you have any evidence or theory to back this up? Unless the BB has to migrate a long way, like say from your filter to your gravel, in order to grow, why would it make any difference? As long as your capacity is not nearly maxed out already, why would the available room have any impact on growth rate?

If this is a quick spike in bio load it will not make any damn difference how much BM you have because it will not be able to adjust quickly enough to handle the new load before damage occurs.

So what are you saying? This sort of contradicts what you said before this, about having lots of BM allowing quick expansion of your BB colony.

Do I think you can over filter a tank?? Reef.... yes, palnted tank.....yes, common Monster set up... no.

What is the distinction, and why? I mean, nobody is saying that overfiltration is harmful, just that it's wasteful.

So where is this thread going now?? I am confused lol..

Again... does it really matter? It's all interesting discussion.

 

[oswego]

I found something interesting while surfing about Aquaculture fish farming.
This is about filtration for recirculating aquaculture tanks which are similar to aquariums with filters. What caught my eye is that they are talking about how much media for 100 POUNDS of fish.

Quote
Biofiltration media is merely a mass of surfaces serving as the attachment basis for micro-organisms. The spacing between these surfaces is important, both for the passage of water and to provide sufficient room for bacterial growth. The biggest cause of biofilter fouling is solid waste, which grows heterotrophic bacteria. Always try to filter out all solids prior to your biofilter.
Bio Barrels, Bio Balls, Bio Strata, Bio-FillTM, scrub pads, and even sand can be used as biofilter media. It is recommended that you use approximately 300 sq. ft. of surface area per 100 lbs. of fish in a warm water recirculating system. To give a general idea, these manufactured media range from 26-370 square feet of surface area per every cubic foot of media. Another general rule of thumb is having the volume of the biofilter to be around 15% of the total volume of the system.
end quote

http://ag.arizona.edu/azaqua/extension/Classroom/Filtrationpage.htm

 

[Jgray152]

Perhaps this should go in another thread, but several posts here have touched upon it, so I'll bring it up:

Where are the heterotrophic (ammonifying) bacteria?

As was mentioned earlier, heterotrophic bacteria are much less efficient than denitrifiers, which means that a given amount of waste will support a much larger population of them. Why is this important?

1. Bacteria form contiguous colonies (biofilms) along areas where the things they need (in this case, food and oxygenated water) are concentrated.

2. Biofilms take up space. A microporous ceramic bimedia element covered with a biofilm is effectively no longer microporous; the vast internal surface area is biologically unavailable and it has no more effective surface area than a similarly-sized piece of gravel.

3. Bacteria are not good neighbors. Many bacteria secrete allelotoxins to prevent colonization of their neighborhood by heterospecifics, such as, say, nitrifying bacteria.

So, any part of your biomedia that is interacting with solid waste- feces, uneaten food, plant debris, dead livestock, shed scales and exoskeletons, etc.- is primarily acting as a host for heterotrophic (ammonifying) bacteria and is not an effective home for autotrophic (denitrifying) bacteria.

This has two major consequences for aquarists:

1. Mechanical filtration has a massive impact on the effectiveness of biofiltration.

2. In the absence of effective mechanical filtration, a larger volume of low-surface-area media (e.g., gravel) is likely to be more effective than a small volume of high-surface-area media; even though the total surface area may be similar, less of the gravel's available surface area will be fouled by heterotrophic bacteria when a piece of solid waste comes into contact with it, because the surface area is more spread out.

This difference may have some consequences for TCarswell's barb experiment vs. NC_Nutcase's ammonia experiment, though I suspect the differences will be slight due to the spread-out nature of the biological surface area in this case.

Very Interesting. Thanks for posting. Opened my eyes a bit more and only makes me push harder for people to run stepped fine particle mechanical filtration

Do you actually know this or is this a copy and paste? lol Just playin.

I found something interesting while surfing about Aquaculture fish farming.
This is about filtration for recirculating aquaculture tanks which are similar to aquariums with filters. What caught my eye is that they are talking about how much media for 100 POUNDS of fish.

Quote
Biofiltration media is merely a mass of surfaces serving as the attachment basis for micro-organisms. The spacing between these surfaces is important, both for the passage of water and to provide sufficient room for bacterial growth. The biggest cause of biofilter fouling is solid waste, which grows heterotrophic bacteria. Always try to filter out all solids prior to your biofilter.
Bio Barrels, Bio Balls, Bio Strata, Bio-FillTM, scrub pads, and even sand can be used as biofilter media. It is recommended that you use approximately 300 sq. ft. of surface area per 100 lbs. of fish in a warm water recirculating system. To give a general idea, these manufactured media range from 26-370 square feet of surface area per every cubic foot of media. Another general rule of thumb is having the volume of the biofilter to be around 15% of the total volume of the system.
end quote

http://ag.arizona.edu/azaqua/extensi...rationpage.htm

Another Good Read but I think this is someones "opinion" and no proven scientific facts behind the 100lbs of fish rule.