[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Bactweria/filter removal

>"No matter how much volume (or area) your bio-filter has, you will NEVER
>have more bacteria in it than is necessary for the amount of ammonia and
>other waste products being pumped through it."
>I am familiar with the dynamics of biofilms. But reading the following I
>still have the impression that some believe it *is* possible to have too
>much biofiltration, and that with less there are benefits for the plants.

You don't want *all* that ammonia converted into NO3's by the bacteria
basically is the big issue. This falls into the balance issue again.
You can  have too much bacterial action.........but **how** this is done is
another issue.  Plants seem to like some NH4+ and some NO3(about a 25/75
ratio......I believe ... this does seem reasonable...comments?). Too much of
anything will be bad to a point and throw things off balance. Many studies
have been done on Hydroponics and growth rates etc using NH4+ and NO3.
I'd be willing to bet that aquatic plants would do best getting this same
ratio. So having bacteria that produce this balance is a good thing. "Too
much bacterial filtration" is another issue---- see below.

>"Avoiding bacterial filters gives a simpler, less expesive and usually
>PLANTS, less noise from the machinery and less work for the aquarist."
>[emphasis mine]>>

But suppose the bacteria are then concentrated further in the substrate? 

 How much is too much there? Till the substrate is clogged almost? Are they
not now competing there? The amount of bacteria will increase in the
substrate when the Bacterial filter(outside etc) is removed. This notion
that is avoiding competition by removing the filter in some way is
incorrect. It balances out somewhere else-provided there IS somewhere else-
and in the gravel there are plenty bacterial condo's. The load will equal
the input? There is plenty of surface area for the bacteria to live in
larger quantities in the substrate, agreed? It may work for awhile until the
bacteria builds back up in the substrate etc say.......in about a month or
less. Then you are right back where you started from but the bacteria are
now in the substrate. This may be/is the best place for the bacteria anyway.
The cheaper etc better part is correct but *why* it is correct.........well,
I am barking up another tree. 

Why have gravel at all if it is a source of bacteria competing? It will cost
less , be simpler,less work too? I just don't buy this reasoning.
Would the plants be able to get it(25/75 split) as easy as the bacteria or
what factors may cause the bacteria or the plants to gain the upper hand?
Substrate physical nature come to mind and cycling status of the tank, flow
rates through the substrate etc. ..........
What happens when you really disturb your substrate? Crash city  
............even if the plants and everything else is well maintained.

Notice how high surface area/deep depths substrates do the best? Less
outside filtration also? 
Ever wonder why? Think about it.

Amano, SeaCehm, Profile, RFUG's, and well most everyone cannot be wrong can
they? The bacteria are still there, they just moved from the filter to the

Tom Barr