Does Prime Go Bad?

[dogofwar]

Great discussion link, Ethan.

My favorite quote:

We need to differentiate between the work done by nitrifying bacteria which break down ammonia products (metabolic waste), and heterotrophoic bacteria which break down solids (digestive waste) and create ammonia. Both are aerobic bacteria and compete for any available oxygen in a filter. The debris in the filter is not inert, if it is fecal matter.

Matt

From this thread, which (and its split counterpart) started off fairly contentious but I found it evolved into one of the better threads on bio-filtration I have seen.

http://www.cichlid-forum.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=246211

The other really key point from Dr Tim in this thread is this:

 

[mchambers]

The thing that keeps bugging me throughout these discussions is that they assume that bacteria is responsible for breaking down the wastes, but there was that study a year or two ago that strongly suggested that archaea were primarily responsible.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3156731/

Maybe it doesn't matter for purposes of this seemingly endless debate, but it bugs me.

 

[Becca]

How do fish survive 8-9 ppm? I lost a fish in that tank, which never got above 1 ppm.

On an unrelated note, I did some maintenance on the affected tank yesterday (for the first time since the debacle got solved) and the water was cold. Checked the temp -- about 70. Checked the heater -- cracked! I have no idea when it stopped working, but I didn't unplug it during the massive water changes, so there you go. I put in another heater and then it was a bit too good and pushed the temp over night to 82. Jeez, poor dears. Turned it down and hope for the best. They were active and happy this morning, despite the sauna . . .

Holly I don't think that's unrelated - nitrate/trite/whatever might not have been your problem AT ALL. When heaters crack they can release an electrical current into the water that can stress and kill fish at levels that you might not notice sticking your hand in the tank. If the heater had some sort of open current flowing through the water it might have been enough to do this.

 

[dogofwar]

Dr. Tim's published quite a bit of peer-reviewed research as well to identify the micro-organisms:

http://www.drtimsaquatics.com/resources/library-presentations/scientific-papers

For the purposes of this discussion, let's just call them "bugs"

Matt

The thing that keeps bugging me throughout these discussions is that they assume that bacteria is responsible for breaking down the wastes, but there was that study a year or two ago that strongly suggested that archaea were primarily responsible.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3156731/

Maybe it doesn't matter for purposes of this seemingly endless debate, but it bugs me.

 

[mchambers]

Yes, he has, but all of it pre-dates the archaea study. Seems to me it calls in to question some of his conclusions.

Don't get me wrong: he's contributed a lot in this area. Besides the bacteria in a bottle stuff, I think he also was key to the use of biowheels in home aquaria. (Personally, I don't like biowheels, for several reasons not relevant here.)

For me, the thread that Ethan linked was enough.

 

[neut]

Running box filters with lots of air and frequently changing the fluff maximizes their effectiveness as mechanical filters (i.e. capturing physical waste in the tank) and minimizes their effectiveness as bio filtration.Matt

Not missing the point. Most efficient mechanical filtration ime is when you don't change fluff or pad, but instead rinse them out. Whether or why this might differ from what you observe, I don't know. But this is definitely true in my experience. In my experience and the way I approach filtration, there's no reason to change fluff or pad or anything else on a regular basis, other than chemical media. You might have a different approach that works for you, and I won't argue with it, but I do know what works for me.

Will a sponge filter (especially one with a bunch of air running through it) act as a mechanical filter? Absolutely. I cleaned a sponge filter (in a tank without a box filter) last weekend and it was absolutely filthy after just a couple of weeks. The ones with less air and coupled with a box are much cleaner.

This is basically the same thing I said before. Add a fast power filter (with some sort of 'mechanical' media) to a tank with a slower canister and the canister will stay cleaner. More of the detritus will be captured by the power filter, which is easier to clean, thereby removing it from your closed system. Same principle.

There are different ways to accomplish the same thing just as successfully, which is why filtration is largely something that can be approached a variety of ways that have as much to do with personal preference as anything else. I suspect that whatever the preferred approach of any particular aquarist, they're likely to learn how to make the best of that particular method over time. So I'm not one to say one way is better than another in any absolute sense. Again, filtration is largely a matter of personal preference. I've done it several different ways, myself, and gotten equally good results.

What I would consider suspect is an article saying bio-wheels are superior to other bio-filtration. Not saying they're a gimmick like some say, because I've used them. But superior? Not by any evidence I've ever seen.

We need to differentiate between the work done by nitrifying bacteria which break down ammonia products (metabolic waste), and heterotrophoic bacteria which break down solids (digestive waste) and create ammonia.

This is basic imo. Heterotrophic bacteria are what you see in a "bacteria bloom" and are the "sludge eaters". Heterotrophs can live in the water column and can multiply within minutes. Nitrifiers live on solid surfaces and take many hours to multiply. Not all heterotrophs produce ammonia, some produce nitrite or nitrate. How heterotrophs function depends on conditions. In some conditions they consume rather than produce ammonia. They can switch between aerobic and anaerobic.

It's only in certain conditions that heterotrophs are robbing either fish or nitrifiers of oxygen, as in a severe enough bacteria bloom. In a mature and balanced tank this is not an issue.

What no one seems to be talking about is redox, which will have an effect on how efficiently your tank breaks down waste and on the overall health of your tank and fish.

 

[mchambers]

Redox

What no one seems to be talking about is redox, which will have an effect on how efficiently your tank breaks down waste and on the overall health of your tank and fish.

You know, redox is an interesting point. What I know about it mainly comes from this article:

http://americanaquariumproducts.com/Redox_Potential.html

Unfortunately, the article is interesting, but meanders to the point where I find it not all that practical.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on redox and how we address it in our fishkeeping.

 

[dogofwar]

The reason that I usually discard the fluff in box filters (and sumps) vs. rinsing it is that rinsing it is time consuming and messy... especially when you're dealing with ~50 box filters. I keep a handful of gravel in each box filter (to weight them down), which, of course, maintains some nitrifying bacteria through frequent mechanical media changes.

The amount of nitrifying bacteria (or archaea ) in frequently-changed fluff is negligible compared to a big sponge filter or other surfaces of the tank.

Anyone have a simple approach to rinsing large amounts of fluff, preferably in ways that preserve whatever beneficial bacteria's living on it? (I know some use a laundry bag and a washing machine with no soap...but I'm not going there)...

Matt

Not missing the point. Most efficient mechanical filtration ime is when you don't change fluff or pad, but instead rinse them out. Whether or why this might differ from what you observe, I don't know. But this is definitely true in my experience. In my experience and the way I approach filtration, there's no reason to change fluff or pad or anything else on a regular basis, other than chemical media. You might have a different approach that works for you, and I won't argue with it, but I do know what works for me.

 

[dogofwar]

I agree - coupling an HOB (high flow, low bio capacity, easily changeable/rinse-able mech media) and a (pre-filtered) canister (lower flow, larger bio capacity) is similar to coupling a box and a sponge. Just much lower energy usage

I haven't always done this...and over many years of designing my own filters...experimenting with various filtration approaches and products...and seeing what works and what doesn't...the approach I take is a winner for both me and the fish.

I'm not convinced that "dirty" mechanical media and/or solid waste in tanks (whether in a box, sump or the gravel) is either inert or helpful to fish health. I'm also not convinced that lots of plants and water changes can't compensate for its presence!

Matt

This is basically the same thing I said before. Add a fast power filter (with some sort of 'mechanical' media) to a tank with a slower canister and the canister will stay cleaner. More of the detritus will be captured by the power filter, which is easier to clean, thereby removing it from your closed system. Same principle.

There are different ways to accomplish the same thing just as successfully, which is why filtration is largely something that can be approached a variety of ways that have as much to do with personal preference as anything else. I suspect that whatever the preferred approach of any particular aquarist, they're likely to learn how to make the best of that particular method over time. So I'm not one to say one way is better than another in any absolute sense. Again, filtration is largely a matter of personal preference. I've done it several different ways, myself, and gotten equally good results.

What I would consider suspect is an article saying bio-wheels are superior to other bio-filtration. Not saying they're a gimmick like some say, because I've used them. But superior? Not by any evidence I've ever seen.

This is basic imo. Heterotrophic bacteria are what you see in a "bacteria bloom" and are the "sludge eaters". Heterotrophs can live in the water column and can multiply within minutes. Nitrifiers live on solid surfaces and take many hours to multiply. Not all heterotrophs produce ammonia, some produce nitrite or nitrate. How heterotrophs function depends on conditions. In some conditions they consume rather than produce ammonia. They can switch between aerobic and anaerobic.

It's only in certain conditions that heterotrophs are robbing either fish or nitrifiers of oxygen, as in a severe enough bacteria bloom. In a mature and balanced tank this is not an issue.

What no one seems to be talking about is redox, which will have an effect on how efficiently your tank breaks down waste and on the overall health of your tank and fish.

 

[neut]

LOL, I've read that article. Well, not being a chemist, to me it's a subject I keep pretty simple, more of a principle to be aware of than something I track and quantify in my tanks or can explain in technical terms-- and from what I understand redox varies at different times of day, so tracking it is more technical and time consuming than what I'm interested in doing. I mostly understand the articles on it when I read them, but it's not something I attempt to explain in technical terms.

To me the basics are that good or balanced redox equates to a chemically/biologically balanced tank. Some factors that affect redox are oxygenation, minerals in your water, sunlight, photosynthesis, UV exposure, filtration and water flow vs. bio-load. Basically, I'm content to believe that when wastes are breaking down quickly, as they normally do in my tanks, and fish are healthy that my overall redox must be good.

What I've found that equates to or confirms the above article is that UV running on a tank results in a cleaner tank with less filtration/turnover required in my experience. In other words, ime running UV means a tank will stay just as clean with fewer or smaller filters running and that's convinced me of the validity or value of the concept. IMO the overfiltering some people are so adamant about gets the results it does largely because of effect on redox, since your beneficial bacteria colony can only grow to the size supported by the available nutrients, not matter how many filters or how much media.

So imo overfiltering is basically another approach to good redox. But so is overall tank balance, good water chemistry, oxygenation, not overfeeding, allowing plants, algae/bio-film, substrate, etc. to contribute to overall tank ecology. IMO this is why bare tank, high protein discus keepers believe you have to change water all the time. I know from my own experience with discus that you don't, not if you feed more moderately and have an ecologically more balanced tank, including contributions from substrate, plants, bio-film on driftwood, etc., all with which discus can grow very well without as much work ime.

But, what I had in mind regarding redox is that method or volume of filtration is not the end all/be all of fishkeeping. The overall ecology and balance of your tank is what's important imo and there are a lot of different ways to accomplish that, which is why imo there's no single formula for water changes or filtration (like those who insist you must have 10x per hour water turnover) that should be extrapolated from personal experience as being a rule everyone should follow.

 

[neut]

The amount of nitrifying bacteria (or archaea ) in frequently-changed fluff is negligible compared to a big sponge filter or other surfaces of the tank.

Matt

Good point. Though, for me, it does double duty as mechanical/bio and I've run tanks with pad/fluff only with good success.

 

[neut]

I'm not convinced that "dirty" mechanical media and/or solid waste in tanks (whether in a box, sump or the gravel) is either inert or helpful to fish health. I'm also not convinced that lots of plants and water changes can't compensate for its presence!

Matt

Either way, I prefer to keep media pretty clean of trapped debris. I can visually see the difference in my water, though it's subtle, and my fish respond to it as well. Back when I was a kid, days of metal tanks, etc., I had in-tank box filters and sponges. Can't say I perfected using them, just what was around at the time. Personal preference for me is to rinse out poly, pad, etc. as opposed to cleaning out sponges, but that's just me.

But you bring up another factor in filtration. How many tanks you're running, how much electricity you want to pay for, water usage, etc. All additional reasons why I won't say one approach is the approach for everyone.

 

[dogofwar]

Man this brings me back to college and my Environmental Chemistry classes...

In a nutshell, oxidizers (e.g. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Avant Garde]organic mulm leading to nitric acid production and dissolved organic compounds) and reducers (e.g. calcium, magnesium and other "electrolytes" in tap water) need to be in balance. When one or the other is outside of the zone preferred by fish, the fish become stressed and are susceptible to disease.[/FONT]

From the article:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Avant Garde][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Avant Garde]For Redox problems, possible problems


An abundance of organic mulm in filters or substrate. This can be wet/dry filters, canister filters, and very often in a poorly managed "live rock reef" and sand in a reef aquarium.

I will also note as per my many tests with goldfish aquariums, I found Under Gravel Filters the worst offenders here with high production of DOC (Dissolved organic compounds), and even with UV Sterilizers these tanks were more difficult to maintain a balanced Redox environment in.
Check your cleaning procedures as well.

This mulm or DOC has a direct impact on your aquarium bio load, resulting in a fragile Redox Balance where by any change to this balance, often a sudden increase in Redox Reduction by the addition of a properly installed UV Sterilizer results in noticeable change to water quality.[/FONT][/FONT]

You know, redox is an interesting point. What I know about it mainly comes from this article:

http://americanaquariumproducts.com/Redox_Potential.html

Unfortunately, the article is interesting, but meanders to the point where I find it not all that practical.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on redox and how we address it in our fishkeeping.