# Yo-hans list of biomedias



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Allright, I can do this too but I think Yo-Han will do it better.

The different biomedias available on the market do vastly different things for the biofiltration. Some are finer, some slow down the water flow to what is good for this or that kind of microorganism, some are self cleaning, some remove more or less Nitrites or Ammonia... etc. For now our best biomedia choice is what we found to be the cheapest locally. Nice, wonderful even...

I'd love to see a list of biomedias that explains the specifics of each one. There is at least one such list, not in English of course. It would be great if we, here, have an even better one.

Yo-han do you think you can do that?


----------



## Tugg (Jul 28, 2013)

*Seachem's Matrix line, to include de*nitrate.*
The Matrix line has three different sizes of similar media. This media is HIGHLY porous and is an excellent host for beneficial bacteria. It's key feature is the ability to create an anaerobic area in the core of the media for nitrate removal. The three sizes are in order of smallest to largest. de*nitrate, Matrix, and then Pond Matrix. Best used in a canister where the water can be forced to pass through the media, you can use an appropriate size version to work with the flow rate of your canister.

From the experience in my tank, I had a 55g tank with a 55g sump. The sump had the water pass through a half-gallon of pond matrix after mechanical filtration. The water was then either fed back to the display via a pump, or routed back through the sump via an Eheim 2217 that had another half-gallon of Pond Matrix in it.

The nitrate removal proved to be TOO effective for my planted tank. I was loosing 10ppm of nitrate overnight when lights were out. I moved 1/4 gallon of the Pond Matrix from the sump, and put it into a box filter for a 10g shrimp tank. A week later, that tank started showing nitrogen deficiencies.

It works as good, if not better than advertised. I wouldn't recommend it for planted tanks that need nitrate. Use the larger version in high flow area, and the smaller stuff in slow flowing filters.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Half a gallon of any biomedia seems way to little. I am surprised it worked so well. Here are a few questions that may shed light on that:

- What was the flow in gph through the media?

- What was the fish load in the tank?


----------



## Tugg (Jul 28, 2013)

It wasn't the only media. Just the one I felt like listing here since it worked so good at its purpose (Nitrate removal). I bought it before I discovered the fun and benefits of live plants. The sump was prefiltered with a large section of filter floss as mechanical media. I had hoped to get a 2" HMF wall of 30ppi Poret foam, but haven't gotten around to ordering it. The sump uses a Eheim Compact 3000 as the return and display's circulation. It's rated around 800gph, but it also goes through a Rexx Grigg CO2 reactor and has about 4 feet of head.

The 2217 has a few inches of bio-bale, a blue foam partition, the half gallon of Pond Matrix, another blue foam disk, and then a layer of filter floss.

I just recently purchased an Eheim 2262. I'm thinking it will just get filled with about 20-30 packs of dollar store pot scrubbers, maybe some floss to polish at the end.

BTW: The Pond Matrix looks remarkably similar to Growstone, a hydroponic grow medium. Growstone is recycled glass that is melted down, foamed up, and refroze to have the same structure as pumice.
http://www.growstone.com/hydroponic-substrate/


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

Brightwell Aquatics Xport-BIO, http://www.brightwellaquatics.com/products/xport_biot.php

It's insanely porous, with the highest surface area to volume ratio of any media available so far. A little bit goes a loooong way 150g per 300 gallons. I'm using this in test tanks at work and was astounded at how effective it was a dropping ammonia. It doesn't require reduces flow or any special treatment. Just don't fluidize it as it's somewhat delicate.


----------



## Tugg (Jul 28, 2013)

Found this pic online of the Xport-BIO. Being mostly an online buyer, I like pics of a product over fancy bags. From the site, this part caught my attention: "The highest colonizable surface area to volume ratio of *synthetic* biological filtration media available." Does this mean it's a type of foamed up plastic instead of sintered or foamed glass? How does the surface area compare to something like 45ppi Poret foam?


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Phil,

Since you work for Brightwell Aquatics I see your post as an invitation to talk about their products and get people interested. The internet trend in the last few years has been to sell products/services by first giving quite a bit of actual useful information and leave out a few important finishing touches. So here are some questions about Brightwell's filtration medias to get these products in the spotlight:

1. Why choose Bio over NO3?
http://www.brightwellaquatics.com/products/xport_biot.php
http://www.brightwellaquatics.com/products/xport_no3.php

2. Why not mix PO4 and NO3 intead of buying Bio?
http://www.brightwellaquatics.com/products/xport_po4.php
http://www.brightwellaquatics.com/products/xport_no3.php

3. Why these medias are concerned with NO3 and PO4 only when biofiltration is much more than removing Ammonia and Phosphate? (Yo-han, please fix the links to the gif images. This is the only thread talking about theset things that the US planted tank hobby has ever had.):
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...1-biological-filtration-translated-dutch.html

4. How fast do these medias plug up?
Rinsing 33% of Bio at every water change means cleaning 1/3 of the media once a week. Is that more or less than other fine textured medias?
http://www.brightwellaquatics.com/products/xport_biot.php

5. If NO3 and PO4 are ion exchange resins can you regenerate them?

6. How do PO4 and NO3 compare to other biomedias?

7. What about these in a planted tank?
http://www.brightwellaquatics.com/products/katalyst.php
http://www.brightwellaquatics.com/products/redoxiclean.php
http://www.brightwellaquatics.com/products/nitratr.php
http://www.brightwellaquatics.com/products/organitr.php
http://www.brightwellaquatics.com/products/ionitr.php
http://www.brightwellaquatics.com/products/purit.php


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

Niko,

I can't specifically address what the media are made out of, I'm sorry. I can say that the amount of surface area per unit/cube is very very very high. 

1. Xport-NO3 and Xport-PO4 are essentially Xport-Bio treated with NO3 and PO4 removing materials. If you're looking to enhance biofiltration only then Bio is the way to go. Xport-NO3 and -PO4 are not regenerable, but they are very effective due to the high porosity and surface area of the media, allowing a great deal of media contact with water. Higher contact time and greater surface contact with water = more effective NO3 and PO4 removal. 

2. I would not use Xport-NO3 and -PO4 in a planted system as they will strip the water of the NO3 and PO4 you're adding for your plants. 

3. Xport-NO3 and -PO4 are designed to specifically address excessive NO3 and PO4 levels in aquaria; especially salt water systems or fish-only systems with a high bioload. 

4. In my experience the Xport media do not clog quickly in FW systems; especially if there is a pre filter such as a sponge. The suggestion to rinse 1/3 weekly is intended to maintain maximum throughflow while maintaining a stable microbial population in the filter. That being said, because the pores are so small it's likely that biofilm slough-off will clog some of the interior portions of the media, necessitating rinsing. 

I don't have much experience with other fine textured media that are even close to being similar to Xport. The ceramic media I've used in the past have been rings or open centered cylinders so the media didn't get clogged to the point where flow was impeded. The pumice/lava rock I've used was either much larger in size than Xport or the pores were larger; or both. 

I've taken a 1.25" thick block of Xport material and been able to blow through it without noticeable resistance. The air just passed right through it. Water does the same thing. 

5. Xport-NO3 and -PO4 are non-regenerable. That being said, due to the capacity of the media a little bit will go a long way. I've spoken with professional maintenance businesses who reliably report a 300 gram bag of Xport-PO4 treating a 600 gallon reef tank for a year. Of course, initial concentration and amount of input of nutrients will affect the longevity and efficacy of the media. We make other media that are regenerable. 

6. Strictly as a biomedia, Xport-NO3 and -PO4 would function the same as Xport-Bio. 

7. All of the resin or carbon/resin combination products, as well as Redoxiclean, are suitable for use in planted tanks. I would recommend OrganitR, in particular, as a means of removing dissolved organic compounds from the water column. 

Katalyst is a source of bio-available carbon designed to give bacteria a substrate to grow on as well as a source of carbon to enhance metabolism. It's primarily intended for salt water systems that are carbon limited as a means of boosting biological uptake of N and P. I would not recommend using it as a biofilter media as that's not it's intended use and it does get consumed.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Ah! A wealth of information! Thank you.

And for those that still believe that N and P must be present in the water at all times and in excess (N>0.5 and P>0.01) here's some food for thought. Click on any picture that you see in the link below. You will find that the guy says he uses N and P removing resins and changes them often. How this works combined with adding N and P as he says is a mystery to most US planted tank enthusiasts. You decide:
http://bubblesaquarium.com/Aquascape/Aquascape_Gallery2010.htm


----------



## Yo-han (Oct 15, 2010)

I think it is very hard to answer this question because there are so many brands. And the brands I have info about /experience with, may not be available in the US. I could talk about types of filtration material, for example ceramic rings. But I've found that brands do differ quite a lot. For example, over here you've Sera siporax (I don't think it is commonly available in the US, but it is a ceramic ring like anyone knows). It is quite porous and although the walls are not very thick lots of anaerobic bacteria do there job in the core. This is a fact by simple observation of hundreds of people were NO3 dropped significant after adding this medium to their filters. The ceramic rings from Eheim for example, feel much smoother (smaller pores, not visible to the naked eye) and do not have this property.

Some other filtermedia are more easy to globalize. All those plastic balls, tubes, chips etc do provide very little surface area and thus can provide very little surface for bacteria to grow on. IMO, a waste of money! Any sponge (soap-less household cleaning pads included) does a better job!

So I mentioned surface area. I do think this is a very important factor. The more surface area, the more bacteria, the better the media works. So manufacteres are pursuing the largest surface area per liter/gallon. But unfortunate this doesn't tell us what it does. If the pores are too small, even bacteria can't live in it. If they are a little bigger, they can, but oxygen is depleted very fast. The consequence of this is that the media becomes more anaerobic, which may be nice in a pond or a reef tank, but isn't perfect in a planted tank, because it will strip all NO3 from the water. (All though the opinions differ on this one off course!)

I can mention a few more brands/kind of media, but I think it mainly depends on your tank, the amount of food that goes in, the amount of nitrogen that needs to be processed, etc.


----------



## Tugg (Jul 28, 2013)

Those rings you have sound like they work similar to Seachem Matrix. I can attest that anaerobic media can eat (breath) the crud out of the NO3.

Cheap pot scrubbers get mentioned a lot. Have any of our more trust worth members used them, and what's their thoughts on them?

Also, we always focus on autotophic bacteria for the N cycle. What media supports heterotophics to help break down the DOC? This aspect is NEVER talked about.


----------



## Yo-han (Oct 15, 2010)

Tugg said:


> Those rings you have sound like they work similar to Seachem Matrix. I can attest that anaerobic media can eat (breath) the crud out of the NO3.
> 
> Cheap pot scrubbers get mentioned a lot. Have any of our more trust worth members used them, and what's their thoughts on them?
> 
> Also, we always focus on autotophic bacteria for the N cycle. What media supports heterotophics to help break down the DOC? This aspect is NEVER talked about.


Read my write up about biofiltration. The first post in the filtration subforum. If you want lots of heterotrophic bacteria, clean your media as much as possible. They are one of the fastest growing bacteria so will take over the media first and use a lot of organics in the process. Another one would be charcoal (better known as active carbon), but by using this, they use the charcoal as a carbon source instead of the organics in our tanks. Still the porous structure of charcoal is one of the best for providing surface area for bacteria Yes Niko, Amano uses coal as a medium for the first month. Not just for removing organics, but also because it provides the bacteria with a very good surface to house.


----------



## Tugg (Jul 28, 2013)

Yo-han said:


> If you want lots of heterotrophic bacteria, clean your media as much as possible. They are one of the fastest growing bacteria so will take over the media first and use a lot of organics in the process.


Hmm, I may just toss a HOB on my sump as an easy place to pull media each water change without having to dig in the sump or open my canister. Thanks for the idea.


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

My medium of choice is lava rock of about 3/4" diameter. How does this compare with the other media discussed in porosity and other desirable characteristics?


----------



## Tugg (Jul 28, 2013)

Everything I read on lava rock gave it a very poor surface area... of course, no-one ever says where the numbers come from. Its probably just a bunch of people regurgitating each others made up estimates until it becomes "fact".

How can you figure out the average surface area of porous objects like this anyway?


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

I've used lava rock quite successfully for many years and like it as a cheap biomedia. I'd use it again in a heartbeat if I didn't have access to Xport-Bio already.


----------



## Yo-han (Oct 15, 2010)

Hmm... I always thought the Dutch were known for being cheap. But here the word cheap is mentioned more than the word good So cheap biomedia it is! Lava rock off course. This has lots of open space in it, thus not so much surface area compared to most commercial biomedia. Still it's not bad, it has a mechanical function as well, so I think it's a very all round cheap media. If you have a large filter volume (>10% of the tank volume) this is a good and cheap choice.

Another cheap media, even better, is pumice. This has a larger surface area compared to lava rock, but less mechanical function. With regular cleaning, I think this is the best cheap media there is. Also commercially available by ADA as Bio Rio. If you want a better option than lava rock, or only have a smaller filter volume, I would pick this one.


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

Thanks for the comments! It helps the discussion to use an inexpensive and readily available medium as a baseline for comparison.

Yohan, there is confusion about the differences between lava rock and pumice. Could you describe how you distinguish between the two?


----------



## Yo-han (Oct 15, 2010)

Lava rock is red to brown/black in color. Some is quite solid, others have larger holes. So it might differ from brand to brand, but the lava rock intended for filters usually has quite large pores.









Pumice is highly vesicular rough textured volcanic glass. Easily distinguished by the fact that it is very light in color.


----------



## Tugg (Jul 28, 2013)

FYI, I'm pretty sure that Seachem Matrix (also de*nitrate and Pond Matrix) is simply pumice that has been sorted by size.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

ADA Bio-Rio is nothing else but Pumice. You can buy a boatload of pumice on ebay because it is used as a substrate for bonsai trees. I've ordered from the seller in the link below and I chose the 3/8" size of the grain because that's the size that ADA's Bio-Rio seemed to be. The seller below has 3 different sizes but that's not the only guy that sells bonsai quality pumice. As you all know I hate the word "cheap" to be associated with this hobby but this Pumice is cheep indeed - 3 gallons for $23 including the shipping. Also note that the cleaning/preparation of this pumice is top notch.

All is fine and dandy but lazy me still has the box sitting in the garage. Never used it.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pumice-for-...523?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3a5c2f6a9b


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

And here's a list of a few biomedias. You will have to translate it from Russian. Very reliable information. Keep in mind that the translation into English maybe misleading here and there.

http://amania.110mb.com/Chapters/Tech/filter-mass.html


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

I got some 2 cm (about 3/4") size lava rock some months ago. Stuffed two big Eheim filters with it. No mechanical filtration of any kind. Tank is full of a huge school of big tetras and always has trash floating around and algae.

After several months I opened one of the canister filters. There was zero dirt inside the filter. No dirt coating plugging the lava rocks either. Rinsing the 4 gallon bag of lava rock in tank water produced very, very little murky water.

I cannot tell if the lava rock is a good biomedia because of my ungodly fish load. But it definitely does NOT plug up at all.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

And here's an insanity of a tank full of the dirtiest freshwater aquarium fish you can find - angels and discus.





What is interesting in this tank is 2 things:

1. The water flow is from one side to the other. Meaning that the water flows in one direction and the trash is never churned inside the tank without being removed.

2. The biofilter is expanded clay. Like the stuff any hydroponic store in the US sells. I cannot see anything else being used as biomedia. With NO3 and PO4=0 my guess is that the water changes are daily, possibly continuously.
http://www.mcad.com.pl/pliki/podmiana_color.pdf

"Keramzyt":


----------



## UDGags (Oct 4, 2011)

Tugg said:


> Everything I read on lava rock gave it a very poor surface area... of course, no-one ever says where the numbers come from. Its probably just a bunch of people regurgitating each others made up estimates until it becomes "fact".
> 
> How can you figure out the average surface area of porous objects like this anyway?


BET measurement equipment...have one in my labs at work.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk


----------



## Yo-han (Oct 15, 2010)

niko said:


> And here's an insanity of a tank full of the dirtiest freshwater aquarium fish you can find - angels and discus.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think angelfish and discus are the dirtiest fish you can find. Most active cichlids eat more because they burn more calories. These gracious fish only need large amounts of food growing up. Once mature, not so much. Besides that, this is not a real planted tank, with lots of light. So different rules apply to most of our tanks.

I do wonder why he keeps this beautiful altums with some color-bred discus instead of wild colored, but thats probably just me.

Back on topic, about the expanded clay. I have 10L of that stuff in my closet. I original planned to use it below my soil, as a bacteria substrate like powersand does. The problem was that it floated and I didn't liked that I always thought about using it in a filter, but I can't imagine it being better than my current media. I expect it to have more anaerobic activity because of the smaller pores. But didn't researched it yet. Based on that tank, it does remove nitrate very well and my concerns were grounded.


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

"After several months I opened one of the canister filters. There was zero dirt inside the filter. No dirt coating plugging the lava rocks either. Rinsing the 4 gallon bag of lava rock in tank water produced very, very little murky water."

Niko, I think I'm using lava rock from the batch you bought, and I consistently see the same thing in my canister and HOB filters: no clogging after months of use. I do have crude pre-filters on most of my equipment which need to be cleaned several times a month.

This raises an interesting question about effectiveness of filter media. Is this a unique quality of lava rock? Might this resistance to clogging make it more effective in the "real world" than media with higher porosity and smaller pore size, but greater tendency to clog? In other words, when we focus on surface area and pore size are we ignoring other factors which may be important?


----------



## Tugg (Jul 28, 2013)

I think we are also measuring our media inappapropriately. The 10% of tank volume says nothing of the surface area we should provide. There is a HUGE diffrence in total surface area between 5 gallons of pumice and 5 gallons of bio-balls. Using a volume of media is akin to using the old watts/gallon rule. Its not universal in any way.

Instead of saying we should have 10% of the tank volume in filter media, shouldn't we be expressing this as a surface area to tank volume ratio using something like SSA, or more appropriately to the fish we keep?

Cichlid A needs X cm2 of media
Tetra B needs Y cm2 of media

Total up your areas and divide by the SSA of your choosen media to see how much you need. It could be 1 gallon of pumice; 10 gallons of Lava Rock; or maybe a combo, 5 gallons of Lava Rock with 1/2 gallon of Pumice on top.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Michael,

Yes, it is the same batch we got some time ago. I posted about the Lava Rock not retaining dirt exactly because of what you said - it actually maybe more practical given the common habit to not clean the filter very often. From what I understand now cleaning the biomedia should be something done on a regular basis - like a water change done on a regular basis. But most of us are more concerned with other things - on what day they need to add even more fertilizers to their water. Choosing a biomedia starts to look like the right way to choose a dog - you must match the temperament to your own or you are setting yourself for constant effort to keep things right. Some people may love having a media like Pumice that needs frequent rinsing as ADA shows in countless sources. And despite what they think or say some folk (lazy like me) need a media that doesn't care if you rinsed it or not - like Lava Rock.

In reality what Yo-Han said about rinsing the biomedia to allow for more growth of aerobic bacteria makes so much sense. I mean - at least 2 things need to be factored in when deciding on the media: 1. What do you want it to do (have more aerobic or anaerobic bugs?) 2. What is your realistic maintenance schedule that you can actually support.

Tugg,

Thank you for posting about the 10% rule being obsolete. Actually I am not sure if there is a word for something that is obsolete before becoming popular - the average planted tank enthusiast probably doesn't even know about the 10% rule. Much less about surface area completely changing the rule. But this is exactly why I try to keep this (unique) Filtration sub-forum active - so people start to include filtration in their mind. I think that going into the details is a good thing - it should make a person see that filtration is not just removing Ammonia and it is VERY important.

I think that in addition to the surface are of each biomedia we need to take into an account the aquarium itself - does it have a lot of fish, light, feeding, flow... Meaning that if we have a few examples of tanks that run very well we have a starting point to give advice. At the moment we can just say "Ah, a filter that is 10% of the tank volume is the best!", "LED is the best!", "EI is the best!", "Eheim is the best!". That is where our hobby is today. But it is obvious that at least some people see a way out of that.

Yo-han,

I exclude cichlids from a planted tank because they are rarely used in true planted tanks. In my mind angelfish and discus are the dirtiest fish because even if they don't eat a lot (fully grown) they are huge compared to the dwarf fish that are common for planted tanks. Because they are big in size when they eat "less" you are still adding tons of food to the tank compared to feeding tiny fish. And since the average planted tank head has a vague idea about filtration the problem with feeding big fish "small amounts" of food starts to become obvious.

Here's a real life example that is a standard case for filtration in the aquarium hobby in the USA: I have a 60 gallon tank that houses two 6-7" long discus. Stuffed with plants that grow ok but not the way I know they can grow. Biofilter is the largest and best brand hang-on-back filter you can buy in the US. Which means that I barely have 1/2 gallon worth of biomedia in it. This means that I have a tank with media that is about 0.5% of the tank volume. No matter how little I feed that big fish the filtration is not going to be adequate. Guess what? I utilize EI in this tank and have had on-going algae for 7 years now. I tried high ferts/CO2 and low ferts/CO2. I upgraded the lights to the best lights money can buy here. Algae is always there in some shape or form. Because the filtration is not right. What a surprise.

Not all people here have discus but the usual trend is to "have all the fun" by adding tons of small fish. The filtration is always inadequate and the plants are not as many as in my tank and often do not do very well. People focus on details that are utterly secondary - fertilizers and light. The way I see it in the last 14 years the planted tank hobby in the US has made zero progress on the understanding of the importance and fine details of filtration. This unhealthy pattern spreads to other areas of the hobby - around here it is pretty much impossible to find a healthy rare fish because people don't value them, don't pay good price for it, and don't even really want it. The Local Fish Store hillbilly owner will look at me as if I had 3 heads if I say the weird word "Poret" but he has a whole shelf of little bottles full of "planted tank fertilizers" and "the best canister filter" there is - Fluval FX5. What a joke. The few people that I see as visionaries of this hobby have left the internet scene. I hope the above explains a bit better my Bulgarian respect for "internet gurus" in our hobby.

That Altum/Discus tank is not a true planted tank. But from what I know if you let yourself go crazy on the number of fish in a given volume of water what happens is simple - you keep the tank clean with perfect filtration. That usually means continuous or daily water change. Somehow in a true planted tank we have forgotten that filtration is the ultimate approach to keep things clean. Somehow people do not understand how much trash a planted tank with just a little bit too many fish can make. Talking about filtration and understanding it better like we do here is going to change something in this hobby. Three stones arranged a-la Amano and dumping 5 tablespoons of chemicals a-la Tom Barr are going to keep the hobby where it has been the last 14 years.


----------



## BruceF (Aug 5, 2011)

Heterotrophic bacteria can divide every 20 minutes, compared to every 12-20 hours for autotrophic bacteria. This indicates that, provided a sufficient food source is available, Heterotrophic bacteria can out-populate autotrophic nitrifying bacteria in our tanks by an astromical factor of 4,722,366,482,869,645,213,696 to 11 over a 24 hour period

http://www.oscarfish.com/article-home/water/72-heterotrophic-bacteria.html


----------



## Tugg (Jul 28, 2013)

Niko,

The rinsing wasn't about aerobic/anaerobic, it was about autrophic vs hetrotrophic. Autos (in our filters) fix CO2/CO3 for carbon and oxidize ammonia and nitrite for energy. The heteros use DOC as their energy and carbon. By cleaning the media, we give the heteros a chance to move in and multiply before the autos evict them again. I have to wonder if just having a huge abundance of media can alleviate this though. At a certain point, the autorophic bacteria just run out of food. There isn't any more ammonia. Wouldn't the heteros then use this space to setup shop? It was mentioned that after the first few inches of the media ammonia processing is finished. Is this a lack of food, or O2? If O2 is still present, then the heteros could use this space to eat the DOC.

I completely agree with your statement that ammonia processing isn't the only critical function of the filter. I think breaking down organics is just as important, especially in a planted tank. I would suspect that many of the algae issues experienced stem from DOC more than fertilization in the column. Algae being the opportunist it is, it can likely gobble this stuff up. It would explain why the red algae like BBA do so well. They wouldn't need the blue light spectrum if they can eat DOC for energy instead. I know JeffyFunk is trying to check this out, but unfortunately it doesn't seem the most scientific method. The correlation of DOC and BBA may not present itself because if the infestation is bad enough, then perhaps the BBA has eaten all the DOC. Another problem could be filtration. A tank with a minorly insufficient filter may have BBA and a low DOC measure, while an epic fail of a filter would likely have high reading of both.


----------



## Tugg (Jul 28, 2013)

BruceF said:


> Heterotrophic bacteria can divide every 20 minutes, compared to every 12-20 hours for autotrophic bacteria. This indicates that, provided a sufficient food source is available, Heterotrophic bacteria can out-populate autotrophic nitrifying bacteria in our tanks by an astromical factor of 4,722,366,482,869,645,213,696 to 11 over a 24 hour period


This is why rinsing is likely a good practice. The autos eventually muscle their way in as the heteros overpopulate and crash. Cleaning some of them off will give the hetros a place to regrow and eat the DOC.


----------



## Yo-han (Oct 15, 2010)

Next time you measure NO2, think about the state of the rest of you filter


----------



## Tugg (Jul 28, 2013)

Can you elaborate. Perhaps I haven't had enough caffine today, but I'm not following you here. I hardly ever measure NO2.


----------



## Yo-han (Oct 15, 2010)

I mean that when NO2 isn't zero in your aquarium, you know that all other processes we don't check (break down of organics) is 4 X 10^20 more affected


----------



## 2ManyHobbies (Sep 11, 2007)

I have had good luck with Poret foam. Jury is still out for the long term.


----------



## Tugg (Jul 28, 2013)

My problem with Poret is that you can pretty much only get it from one guy, and the price is a lot more than many other DIY media options. A pot scrubber layer as a mech filter followed by a ton of pumice (thanks for the link niko) and you're set for just about any bioload.

Granted, in a fish room with a shared air pump, yes it has a huge advantage.


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

I would argue that we want both autotrophic and heterotrophic bacteria in our filters. The chemoautotrophs take up dissolved chemicals in the water and live off them. Heterotrophs aren't able to meet their nutritional needs themselves, in part or in whole, and will eat the autotrophs and/or consume particulate organic matter in the filter. Either way, it's nutrient export from the water.

I completely agree that rinsing filter media is a good thing to both remove excessive particulate matter and make "clean" spaces for new bacteria to grow in the same way that a wildfire clears land for primary colonizers to grow.


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

Just saw this bit on the R+D page of an aquaculture filter manufacturer. Thought it would be applicable to the conversation.

"Recent research findings during Phase I of this project have led the research team to conclude that optimum nitrification performance in floating bead filters will only occur in filters subjected to *high frequency washing, in which the adverse impacts of solids accumulation are virtually eliminated. The solids not only break down to produce ammonia (Matsuda et al., 1990), but also encourage rapid heterotrophic bacteria growth that competes with the nitrifiers for space, potentially limiting nutrients, and oxygen* (Bovendeur et al, 1990)."

Now, they're talking about very high frequency washing, like daily or more, in HEAVILY overstocked aquaculture systems, but it does seem to indicate that more frequent filter cleaning is a good thing, even in a planted tank.


----------



## Tugg (Jul 28, 2013)

So the next question... how can we make this automated/continual. Media like K1 in a fluidized bed obviously self-cleans the external surfaces.

Perhaps a sump configuration where we prefilter with a K1 bed, then flow through high density bio media.

Can anyone think of a way to do this with a canister?


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Aha! Keep the filter clean so heterotrophs prosper.

That means one thing - Fluidized Bed Filter. I've been looking at them for a week now. Really started to wonder why we have chosen canisters as the usual filter. No, the plants will not be deprived of nutrients. No, the filter will not be useless because we use CO2. Then why not?

Now, how good is the sand as a hotel for heterotrophs? I bet there are other studies connecting media and auto or heterotrophs.


----------



## Darkcobra (Nov 23, 2009)

Is it possible that in some cases, there is never any significant growth of autotrophs in the filter media?

I had a 10G, heavily planted, heavily stocked. Two Aquaclear 20 HOBs, one used to diffuse CO2, the other intended for unfettered biofiltration and additional flow.

Two months ago I noticed the water looking a bit hazy. I checked the filters and found that there was no media in either. I'd taken it out temporarily and placed it in sealed bags three weeks earlier, but forgotten to replace it! Tested ammonia and nitrite, both zero. Fearing something nasty might have grown in the media in the meantime, it was pressure washed with unconditioned tapwater, soaked in H2O2, rinsed, and replaced. The haze disappeared within a day. Apparently this tank doesn't technically need nitrifying bacteria in the filter, but I at least assumed they were originally present, and would rapidly move back in.

Three weeks after that, I stole the biofiltration HOB to instant cycle a new tank on short notice (as I felt the 10G wouldn't miss it, and it hasn't). The filter showed no nitrite production at all - it was, as best as I could tell, still completely uncycled. After a few days of no progress, I replaced all but one sponge with as much ceramic media from another tank as would fit. This at least generated some detectable nitrite, but was still performing poorly. Finally I grew frustrated and hit the darn thing with some bacteria-in-a-bottle, solving the problem rapidly.

Interestingly, both tanks that media was taken from have an interesting property - they require no filter cleaning. They never get dirty enough to bother with. I often do it after a major rescape which stirs up more particulates than I'm comfortable loading the filters with, but I've also skipped it without noticeable effects. Any leaf debris that enters breaks down rapidly, so I assume something (heterotrophs?) is at work in there, but without accumulation.


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

*Darkcobra*,

It could be argued that chemoautotrophic bacteria aren't present in planted tanks in the typically large numbers found in fish only systems due to the plants' uptake of nitrogenous and phosphate bearing chemicals. That's also why planted tanks have a "silent cycle". In other words, a much slower rate of chemoautotrophic bacterial colonization, than non-planted systems. It doesn't surprise me that you had the results you did; especially with effectively virgin media. It's quite possible that the media was populated mostly with heterotrophic bacteria munching on any debris the filter trapped.

*Niko*,

I think the point of that study I posted the clipping from was a bead filter performs best when cleaned regularly to create more habitat for chemoautotrophic bacteria to use up all the Ammonia and Nitrite in heavily stocked fish culture systems. Due to the nature of fluidized media filters, they're much more effective as biological (autotrophic) filters rather than mechanical (heterotrophic). For that reason I would argue that canisters or sumps with a high physical filtration capacity are preferable on planted tanks as a means of breaking down food, feces, and plant debris while the autotrophs take up dissolved carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorous species from the water column. The combination of these two types of bacteria are a whole microbial cleaning crew. This makes me think of your example of Luis' tanks. He's got nice big canisters on them to pull particulate matter from the water and provide a lot of space for bacteria to grow.

That being said, if someone was diligent in siphoning and netting out organic particulates from the water and substrate on a frequent basis, then perhaps a fluidized media filter would be all that's required.

*Tugg*,

The traditional wet/dry configuration is self-cleaning in this manner. Older bacteria slough off the bioballs constantly. I'm not sure it's possible, or practical, to make DIY modification to a canister that would make it self cleaning unless it was already set up to do that like some of the big Fluvals and Eheims. In that case, it would just be a matter of putting solenoids on the pipes and an auto top-off in the tank. Some of those insane sumps Niko posted vids of somewhere are pretty close to being self-cleaning, but the design doesn't really address direct rinsing of the media. One would have to design some sort of reverse flow purge option like in pool/pond sand filters.


----------



## Tugg (Jul 28, 2013)

BTW, since we're talking about moving bed filters. A guy in my local fish forum found a less expensive version of K1 media.

MB3: http://www.w-m-t.com/Products/WaterTek_MB3_Moving_Bed_Media.php

MB3 is a lot cheaper than K1. it's only $29 for a cubic foot, and since they recommend a 50% volume that means you can fill a 2 cuft volume in a sump (about 15 gallons). I'll probably buy some and just sell half to another club member.


----------



## Darkcobra (Nov 23, 2009)

Phil Edwards said:


> It could be argued that chemoautotrophic bacteria aren't present in planted tanks in the typically large numbers found in fish only systems due to the plants' uptake of nitrogenous and phosphate bearing chemicals. That's also why planted tanks have a "silent cycle". In other words, a much slower rate of chemoautotrophic bacterial colonization, than non-planted systems. It doesn't surprise me that you had the results you did; especially with effectively virgin media. It's quite possible that the media was populated mostly with heterotrophic bacteria munching on any debris the filter trapped.


Makes sense. I fully expected some reduction in the amount of chemoautotrophic bacteria in the media when plants are present, just didn't expect such a _dramatic_ reduction. I always assumed both the massive flow and surface area present in filter media, would give the bacteria somewhat of a competitive advantage over plants for limited nutrients.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Phil Edwards said:


> ... Due to the nature of fluidized media filters, they're much more effective as biological (autotrophic) filters rather than mechanical (heterotrophic). For that reason I would argue that canisters or sumps with a high physical filtration capacity are preferable on planted tanks as a means of breaking down food, feces, and plant debris while the autotrophs take up dissolved carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorous species from the water column. The combination of these two types of bacteria are a whole microbial cleaning crew...


Ok, this is important. Did I get it right? The mechanical filter is the place where heterotrophs like to breed?

Why not the biological filter? ADA uses only biomedia, right? Well, sort of - the magic Pumice apparently clogs well and servers as a mechanical filter too. 
Luis likes to use big or more than 1 filters I think but what I clearly remember him telling me is that he cleans the Eheim mechanical pads every water change. I think he actually said he puts new ones like once a month or every two weeks. Either way - tell me what is the connection between heterotrophs and mechanical filtration.

Darkcobra, 
I get lost in your example with the tanks that didn't need filter cleaning. Did too much today, tired. It seems that your two tanks don't have a lot of fish. From what I saw while importing fish the biofilter quickly "shrinks" if there is nothing to eat so that is what I see in your example - clean tanks that can't give you biomedia to cycle a new tank.

Tugg,
That MB3 media webpage mentions that the media takes care of COD and BOD along with Nitrification and Denitrification. Since I am not used to see such performance and pretty much never the words "COD" and "BOD" in a media advertisement this MB stuff seems too different. One thing that I'd say is that if the performance is indeed what they say it is do I have to have air bubbling through the media? As you understand - that would not be good for a planted tank. I wonder if one can do something else though - bubble the MB3 only during the night when the plants need the Oxygen. If you get that media let me know - I want some.


----------



## Darkcobra (Nov 23, 2009)

niko said:


> I get lost in your example with the tanks that didn't need filter cleaning. Did too much today, tired. It seems that your two tanks don't have a lot of fish. From what I saw while importing fish the biofilter quickly "shrinks" if there is nothing to eat so that is what I see in your example - clean tanks that can't give you biomedia to cycle a new tank.


Sorry for the confusion. The first tank that doesn't need filter cleaning is heavily stocked (most would say overstocked). The second has a medium stock.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Here, this was an interesting find - actual experiences, setup, media review:
http://www.oscarfish.com/article-home/water/72-heterotrophic-bacteria.html

From what I gather from Darkcobra's post above and from that link the factors affecting filtration are quite a few. And you can hit a sweet spot with the filtration too. Which is not to say that you can give useful advice.

It appears that with planted tanks we have a big ally - the plants. But depending on how they grow their effect on filtration could be huge - for example lowering the Oxygen pumped out of the roots will certainly rub the bacteria population in the substrate in a way we don't know if we want or don't want. Seems like consistency is a big thing in filtration too, not just planted tank as a whole.


----------



## Tugg (Jul 28, 2013)

I don't think air is required. Anything that moves the water up should work. When I rebuild my sump, I plan to use the display's drain to churn MB3 then overflow over a baffle. If it doesn't provide enough circulation I'll add a small power head. Since these filters are typically ran on ponds via 55g barrels the air is probably just convenient. I don't see how it would denitrate though.


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

Niko,

Mechanical filtration traps particulate debris that the heterotrophic bacteria then consume and break down. Chemoautotrophic bacteria then consume the dissolved chemical species released into the water and those present from exterior sources; like us supplementing NO3, PO4, and C. 

Basically, heterotrophs mineralize labile organic matter in the filter just the same way as they mineralize soil. 

Pumice is an excellent and inexpensive biological and, to a degree, mechanical filter media. All those little nooks and crannies are good habitat for bacteria. If the grains are small enough it works well to trap organic particles as well.

 Ever wonder WHY Powersand is supposed to do what it does? It's a custom made bacteria habitat (pumice/bio rio) that comes pre-loaded with consumable organic matter. Add water and a nitrogen source and BOOM, there you go, a custom built home for all the lovely little buggers that like to live down in the dark. I've got a bag of the stuff that I'm fighting the temptation to toss in my filter instead of use in a tank.


----------



## Tugg (Jul 28, 2013)

The problem with pumice in a planted tank is that it's too good at its biofilter job. The anaerobic region in the core of each piece sucks the nitrate out of the water at a surprising rate. This may also just be my setup. My pieces are large at about 3/4" to 1" each, so perhaps smaller 1/4" to 1/2" may work better by limiting the amount of anaerobic space there is.


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

I hear ya there Tugg. I do wonder if the smaller sized grains are small enough that oxygenated water penetrates enough of the material to keep nitrification to a minimum.


----------



## Tugg (Jul 28, 2013)

Soon I'll be going with a combination of fluidized MB3, lava rock, and pot scrubbers. I'm hoping this will make a nice setup for the rapid mineralization of organic matter (dissolved or otherwise).

I'm choosing lava rock over pumice to help prevent anaerobic conditions and keep the nitrate for the plants. Are there ANY other benefits to having anaerobic bacteria in the filter? I understand in the soil it can help free certain elements, but that's a different story. It's mostly contained and the roots and snails should keep it in check. What about the filter? Is anaerobic in the filter only good for plantless/low-plant tanks to deal with nitrate removal?


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

Anaerobic sections in a planted tank filter are bad. You want as close to 100% aerobic as possible.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

So, again, let me get this right:

Organics are trapped in the mech filter. Heterotrophs break them down. Autotrophs eat these products. Voila - you had organics now you don't!

Now for the part I think I didn't get - all of this better be happening in presence of Oxygen. Basically I need a well aerated mechanical filter. A fluidized bed filter won't work because organics won't be trapped in it. Is that correct?


----------



## Tugg (Jul 28, 2013)

Disolved organics aren't "trapped" anywhere since they're in solution. The undisolved stuff (chunks of food, dead plant matter, and poo) will take a good beating while going through the FBF. Small peices will likely escape to the next stage, however you could easily use a low density (10ppi) HMF sponge wall to keep you fluidized media in place, and to serve as an additional mech filter for the large stuff. Microbes in the sponge break these chunks down, passing only tiny undissolved and the dissolved parts to the real bio media. The humus/sludge that builds up in the sponge would be the dirtiest part that you perform maintenance on. How often, I suppose is a matter of flow. With the self-cleaning FBF providing a heterotrophic playground, you wouldn't really need to clean the rest of the media that often. O2 would be used by all microbs involved. This sound right?

Next question... how can we breakdown the humus that is bound to form in the sump? It's very nature is to be stable. Do we care about it's buildup if it doesn't imped flow?


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

Tugg,

Home Depot sells, or used to sell, a wet/dry vac head that fits over a 5 gallon bucket. I used one of those to clean the junk out of the sump. It was well worth the $25.00 or so I paid for both the vacuum and bucket. Before I got that I used a Python. That was the only time I ever used the vacuum feature, where you turn on the water and let it create a siphon. The benefit of that was if there was still crud left over but the water was gone all I had to do was twist something, refill the reservoir, twist again, and suck the remaining crap out. 

If you want to get fancy pants, it's not terribly hard to plumb a line from the return pump back to the filter section and use fine mesh filter socks. In that way you create a recirculating flow through the sump and can use the socks to clean all the fine particles out. It would be just a matter of flipping a couple ball valves. 


Niko,

You don't need a well aerated mechanical filter, just oxygenated water flowing through as much of it as possible.


----------

