Why does everyone overdo the bio?

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
I answered the question, and gave my reasons why. I don't expect people to crucify me at the stake for it. :chillpill: and if you guys actually read what I wrote. I didn't distinguish the bio-filter from the mechanical/chemical.. I simply said Filter. I back my statements up by 20 yrs of hands-on experience. nothing more or less. :screwy: I would have actually been surprized if any or all of you agreed with me. But I am not "wrong" 'nore is anything I've said "mythical" It works for me, and my understanding of bio-filtration. So if it is wrong.. or mythical.. I reckon my flourishing tanks are mythical too?:naughty:
 
If you wait a year to perform a WC, as long as the bio load has not increased significantly, your BB colony will not increase.
Click to expand...

true. but this of course brings up a whole new ball game with 'old tank syndrome' setting in - a gradual drop in pH due to accumulation of wastes..

so, water changes are always important as we all know.
 
water changes can affect the ammonia load on bb specificly waste removal if fish waste uneaten food etc sits and rots then the ammonia level goes up if there is not enough area for the bb to catch up then it will have a hard time taking care of the fish load plus all the left over organic material so while missing one water change hopefully does not effect it the water it is untrue to say that skipping water changes wont effect bio load
 
dwilder;3551642; said:
water changes can affect the ammonia load on bb specificly waste removal if fish waste uneaten food etc sits and rots then the ammonia level goes up if there is not enough area for the bb to catch up then it will have a hard time taking care of the fish load plus all the left over organic material so while missing one water change hopefully does not effect it the water it is untrue to say that skipping water changes wont effect bio load
Click to expand...

I think the real point is being missed or evaded by a few people. Yes there are other problems with not doing water changes. Nobody is contesting that water changes are important. The point was, a large bio filter should not make any difference to the necessary level of water maintenance - I.E. It will not affect nitrates.

Absolutely missing water changes can have all kinds of negative effects, I think we all agree.

Monsterminis - let's try not to be too dramatic about this shall we? Nobody is crucifying you, (much less at the stake?) I simply told you what you said was wrong, and that kind of misinformation is bad news. I open the floor for you to demonstrate otherwise.
 
just responding to a quote that said that water changes only effect nitrates which is untrue and having plenty of space for bb will let it catch up if missing water changes let waste and other organics add to the ammonia load
 
I believe there are a lot of people who are making true statements about ammonia/nitrite oxidization... that may not be true abotu filtration as a whole... and it is allowing some confusion...

Just like the example of not doing a water change for a year. It is true that water changes are not meant to reduce ammonia nor nitrite and therefore, to a degree, water changes whould not really be considered as a helpful part of ammonia/nitrite oxidization... Yet when we look at the full range of aquarium maintenance, we understand water changes and/or filter cleanings remove waste that breaks down to contribute to ammonia, excessive waste can clog bio media, excessive waste by-products can kill fish increasing ammonia producetion, etc, etc...

So we have to decide are we talking about ammonia/nitrite oxidization... or abotu filtration as a whole...

I'm under the impression we are talking about ammonia/nitrite oxidization specifically, therefore it seems reasonable to not side track ourselves with other details of filtration. This is not to pretend they do not exist, it is simply to allow a focused conversation move forward...
 
i will say that imo most people overdo bio media i do think though that alot of people tend to over stock there tanks from reading forums etc and that alot of people need extra bio media other than the area available in there tanks and that extra area will give room for bb to grow and catch up now how much i dont know not saying that they need tons or that what is thought of as mech filtration is not enough i have seen cases on the forums though where people were under filtered with tanks full of gravel etc and had ammonia problems then they add more filtration, bio media and everything was able to catch up where as before it would not
 
Jgray152;3551403; said:
If you wait to perform water changes for a whole year, you still will not see any spikes in ammonia or nitrite. Regardless of how much media you have. WCs reduce nitrates and replenish minerals used by the inhabitants. They are not done to control ammonia or nitrite spikes.

Your bio media will not help with the nitrite. Denitrification occurs on a whole different level and even though its possible in the darkest most dead spot of your tank, its not enough to make a difference. So having more bio media will not help with nitrates problems either since nitrification produces nitrate.

BTW I do think it is only fair to realize that 99% of the times when water changes are performed that a lot of organic material is taken out so there would've been a shift in amonia. I understand the point you guys are making speaking purely about the biological aspect, but we are, or I am trying to figure out what is actually happening in your "normal" well taken care of tank.

If you wait a year to perform a WC, as long as the bio load has not increased significantly, your BB colony will not increase.
Click to expand...

Cool, thanks for the good response.

I think I will do a little more research on the BB in general. I still don't think a tank's substrate can come anywhere near the BB building capability of W/D.... I just don't think there is enough gas exchange. Which is another reason why I think size for size there will be a bigger colony of BB in a w/d compare to a tank with substrate. To me it just doesn't make any sense no matter how many powerheads you have..
 
K now Iam really thinking. Everyone seems so opinionated and stubborn in thi thread. Well, not everyone, but I am sure the mass can take a step back and see quite a few people are standing pretty high on that stool.
So i went and inspected a few of my tanks. My 33 long has a small aquaclear on it with a powerhead. I also had a 20 gallon set up wih same filter and no powerhead. The 20 Gallon has one very small catfish.... I am talking like 4"... The 33L had a 2 inch cat and a 3" synodontis cat in it. Both of these tanks look like hell compared to my 450+ gallon and the 220 which are running w/d and fx5s....Both are way understocked compared to my big tanks. The 220 is way ovestocked imo. The 450+ is newly setup and it did run through a mini cycle (even though I snagged the FX-5 and 1/2 Bio Balls from the 220)... No I don't think it is because there was or is no BB on the glass. I think it was the die off from the BB on the old sand that use to be in my old acrylic 8footer... It could just be a water movement issue, but a 33L with a aquaclear and a powerhead (no matter what size) should be more than adequate. Hmmm, this might not be the best comparison though. I really think I might set up 2 20 gallons.... One with bio media filled hobs and the other with soley a powerhead. I will just try and match water movement on the 2. I know many are talking about the 10 Gallon tank challenge. I think we need a side by side comparison of the 2 with same stock and same feeding. Sorry if I am blabbing and jumping around a lot. I had a very very long day :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom