# Is expensive bio media worth it?



## noobscaper

Obviously we all want the best conditions for our fish/inverts, and expensive bio media may have more surface area - but at what point does it stop being worth it (i.e. cheaper media would convert everything to nitrates anyway)? Do you guys think the expensive stuff like Seachem Matrix and Eheim Substrat Pro is worth it, or are things like lava rock and ceramic rings good enough? 
Most of us don't really need the extra surface area in my own humble opinion.


----------



## Zeus.

Bio Media worth a read and you humble opinion is correct


----------



## Jetpack_Badger

From what I understand, the more surface area, the more bacteria, and with a large enough filter, and enough media, there is a possibility you can get a full cycle.

I don't know whether I am achieving a "full cycle" in my Fluval 307. It's loaded with Matrix Bio Media and currently 'on-loan' to my Father-in-law's (we've recently moved house). He's not kept to such a strenuous maintenance routine (bi-weekly water changes have become bi-monthly), not that you would know. When I check-in, the parameters are where I would expect them to be after a week, not two, and I've suffered no fish loss in the six months he's had them. It's a heavily stocked tank, too.

For this reason, my next build will also see the filter (Fluval 207) loaded with Matrix Bio Media. I don't plan to give this one to the Father-in-law though!


----------



## noobscaper

Zeus. said:


> Bio Media worth a read and you humble opinion is correct


That's pretty eye opening actually - figured there would be more filter media elitists here (given it's sort of a boutique aquascaping forum) but the opposite seems to be true! Tempted to change my ceramic rings out for those pot scrubbers now haha. Now where do I get them in Poland...


----------



## Angus

i'd love more expensive media, but if i'm honest there are just better more bang for your buck things to spend my money on.

I just use what i have lying around.... got bags of media in dark nether regions all over the place... 

You can also get unbranded alfagrog for very cheap which is a very high surface area media that is FAR cheaper than branded stuff.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


noobscaper said:


> Do you guys think the expensive stuff


Floating cell media (like <"Kaldnes K1 media">) might offer advantages, purely in that it <"sheds excess biofilm"> when it gets too deep. If some-one else is buying? I'll have <"Eheim Substrat Pro (coco-pops)">, because they are a good shape (spherical) and they don't break up, but not for any of their <"alleged magical properties">.


GreasedBadger said:


> From what I understand, the more surface area, the more bacteria, and with a large enough filter, and enough media, there is a possibility you can get a full cycle.


It is all <"smoke and mirrors">. Actually if you did get <"the full nitrification ~ denitrification arc"> it would just show that you are teetering on the edge of your <"filter media becoming anaerobic"> and that <"disaster was imminent">.


GreasedBadger said:


> It's a heavily stocked tank, too.


Have a look at <"Bio Media for planted tanks">.


> They are, but there are also a couple of provisos. <"The Science of Aquariums"> is a very reputable (and scientifically referenced) web site, but the owner/scientist mainly keeps <"Rift Lake Cichlids in non-planted tanks"> at (what we would call) very high stocking densities.
> 
> This fish keeping methodology means that his filters will rapidly grow a <"thick, sticky biofilm"> in a way that doesn't occur in our filters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Caption: "_A Well Functioning Aquarium Filter_" from <"6. Filtration">
> 
> Because of this non-clogging media, (like washing-up scrubbies and floating cell media are always <"going to perform well">), because they won't clog.



cheers Darrel


----------



## CJM70

Fascinating read, this post. It kind of explodes the theory that I have always subscribed to that the better filter media can host the more beneficial bacteria.  Green Aqua in Hungary, at one point, even went so far as to replace the buyer media in Oase filters purchased from them, with seachem matrix. Richard Thew, the Pondguru, known for helping create the filter media called biohome, is also a massive proponent of the theory that certain bio media can achieve a full cycle, that is to say reduction in nitrates as well as nitrates and ammonia.

It’s interesting, because in the past I dabbled in keeping marine fish. It was common belief among marine aquarists that live rock provided aquarium filtration that did exactly what we are saying something similar does not do in freshwater aquariums.   That is to say, that as water passed through the micro channels in the live rock, nitrates were reduced as the final stage of the filtration cycle.  Is this not essentially the same thing? And by definition does that mean that marine aquarists are wrong in their belief about live rock?


----------



## KirstyF

My first thought would be, why would a ‘full cycle’ even if possible, be a goal for a planted tank. In a planted tank, we add nitrate on purpose so it is not a bad thing!


----------



## Angus

CJM70 said:


> Fascinating read, this post. It kind of explodes the theory that I have always subscribed to that the better filter media can host the more beneficial bacteria.  Green Aqua in Hungary, at one point, even went so far as to replace the buyer media in Oase filters purchased from them, with seachem matrix. Richard Thew, the Pondguru, known for helping create the filter media called biohome, is also a massive proponent of the theory that certain bio media can achieve a full cycle, that is to say reduction in nitrates as well as nitrates and ammonia.
> 
> It’s interesting, because in the past I dabbled in keeping marine fish. It was common belief among marine aquarists that live rock provided aquarium filtration that did exactly what we are saying something similar does not do in freshwater aquariums.   That is to say, that as water passed through the micro channels in the live rock, nitrates were reduced as the final stage of the filtration cycle.  Is this not essentially the same thing? And by definition does that mean that marine aquarists are wrong in their belief about live rock?


My thinking is more when you are talking about microporous materials the margins between the material types are quite small, while porous rock and volcanic pumices perform better than say bio balls or ceramic rings, the brand really does not matter in my opinion, and who's to say the effect is even that great in a planted tank, the plants themselves are a great nitrate user and will soon exhaust their supply, in a marine setup that's the whole point of triton method and refugiums with live rock and macros, but the macros will definitely be doing more than the life rock in regards to nitrates and phosphates.

Also more often than not the proponents of these medias generally have a vested interested in promoting theirs as the most effective biological filtration ever seen to man.

That's what i think anyway.


----------



## erwin123

For smaller tanks, buying fancy media is not going to break the bank and most canisters come with free media- Seachem says 250ml for a 200 litre tank. So you can safely assume that in a planted tank where plants are the filter, you probably need a whole lot less than that. The main issue to me is the flow reduction caused by unnecessarily loading your filter with fancy media.

I confess that before I discovered UKAPS, I had also loaded my canister filters with Matrix/3DM. But after reading these threads that flow is king, I have been gradually reducing the amount of fancy media in my canister filters and don't detect any negative effects on my aquarium.  

I have also never seen a 'full cycle' -  I had previously experimented with a small Eheim filter running at an actual output of 150 litres/hour loaded with Seachem Matrix and Denitrate which is allegedly slow enough for 'denitrification' to take place (according to Seachem's product info for their DeNitrate product) but I saw no change to the nitrate level.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


CJM70 said:


> Richard Thew, the Pondguru, known for helping create the filter media called biohome, is also a massive proponent of the theory that certain bio media can achieve a full cycle, that is to say reduction in nitrates as well as nitrates and ammonia.


It is like @Angus says, he has a <"product to sell">, but what he doesn't have is any scientific research to back up his claims. I've not used "Biohome", but I would be happy to, I'm pretty sure there is nothing wrong (or special) about it. If he (or <"Dr Kevin Novak"> etc) want to <"_show me the money_"?> I'll take their claims a lot more seriously.


KirstyF said:


> My first thought would be, why would a ‘full cycle’ even if possible, be a goal for a planted tank. In a planted tank, we add nitrate on purpose so it is not a bad thing!


Exactly that, using plants to both <"remove, and monitor, your fixed nitrogen levels"> is a no-brainer in a freshwater aquarium.


CJM70 said:


> That is to say, that as water passed through the micro channels in the live rock, nitrates were reduced as the final stage of the filtration cycle. Is this not essentially the same thing? And by definition does that mean that marine aquarists are wrong in their belief about live rock?


You can definitely get denitrification in sediments etc. so it may well happen in "live rock". If it happens in "live rock", a "deep sand bed", <"Jaubert plenum", "denitrifying coil", "biocenosis bucket"> or a freshwater substrate that is absolutely fine. I've had an interest in waste water treatment via my "day job" and there is plenty of scientific research on constructed wetlands etc. which looks at the incorporation<" of nitrogen isotopes"> etc. during nitrification.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Wookii

dw1305 said:


> Floating cell media (like <"Kaldnes K1 media">) might offer advantages, purely in that it <"sheds excess biofilm"> when it gets too deep. If some-one else is buying? I'll have <"Eheim Substrat Pro (coco-pops)">, because they are a good shape (spherical) and they don't break up, but not for any of their <"alleged magical properties">.



+1 to this - in fact I'd always go for the floating plastic media over any other type now in fact having lived with it now for some time, I'd pick it over Eheim's Coco pops or Seachem Matrix. I use the Oase Hel-X plastic media that comes with the Oase filters, which is similar to the K1 product.

As Darrel says, it's self cleaning - I never have to clean mine (though I do pre-filter), so is largely maintenance free. It floats so you presumably get some media movement in the filter. It results in minimal flow restriction and and it literally lasts for ever - there is no need to ever replace it, it'll never clog or break down. If you want to completely clean it (i.e. get rid of the bacterial population for good) a quick dip in bleach solution brings it back to its brand new white colouration. Other than good old sponge, I wouldn't use anything else now.


----------



## Nick potts

CJM70 said:


> It was common belief among marine aquarists that live rock provided aquarium filtration that did exactly what we are saying



LR is good at biofiltration (ammonia>nitrite>nitrate), but if it is able to perform denitrification it does so in a very limited way. Marine aquarists spend fortunes on nitrate removal and reduction methods which to me shows LR is not a good denitrification method


----------



## KirstyF

Nick potts said:


> LR is good at biofiltration (ammonia>nitrite>nitrate), but if it is able to perform denitrification it does so in a very limited way. Marine aquarists spend fortunes on nitrate removal and reduction methods which to me shows LR is not a good denitrification method



This link appears to support that hypothesis! 👍









						New Study: Live Rock Doesn’t Really Denitrify
					

The bane of most aquarists is the slow buildup of organic wastes in the form of nitrate. This is Aquarium Keeping 101—cellular respira




					reefs.com
				




Although in fairness, will there be others to refute it?….sure there will be, it’s the internet! 😂


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


Wookii said:


> I'd always go for the floating plastic media over any other type now in fact having lived with it now for some time, I'd pick it over Eheim's Coco pops or Seachem Matrix.


If you look at aquaculture systems, where they are looking for both maximum bang for their buck and efficient nitrification, they overwhelmingly <"use floating cell media"> in <"moving bed bioreactors (MBBRs)">. <"Aquarium Science"> is also a fan.

Kaldnes media was developed in Norway for <"wastewater treatment">  and subsequently used in <"Salmon smolt production">, Salmonid fish have <"very high water quality requirements">.

This reference is from Hüpeden, J. _et al_. (2020) <"Taxonomic and functional profiling of nitrifying biofilms in freshwater, brackish and marine RAS biofilters"> _Aquacultural Engineering_, *90.*


> In recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS), the crucial step of eliminating toxic N compounds like ammonia and nitrite is mediated via nitrifying microorganisms and takes place in biofilters. In this study, analyses of microorganisms colonizing biocarriers of nine *moving-bed biofilters of three different RAS* operated with freshwater, brackish or marine process water uncovered site specific communities...............


Another interesting part of the  Hüpeden, _et al._ paper was that they didn't find any ammonia oxidising archaea (AOA) in the biofilters, possibly due to the very large ammonia loading.

This is from <"Shitu, A., _et al._ (2021) "Recent advances in application of moving bed bioreactors for wastewater treatment from recirculating aquaculture systems: A review" _Aquaculture and Fisheries_">


> ....... RAS wastewater treatment using a moving bed bioreactors (MBBRs) process has been considered well suited for maintaining good water quality, thereby making fish farming more sustainable......This review highlights an updated overview of *recent development made using MBBR to treat the residual water from RAS*. Precisely, nitrification and simultaneous nitrification-denitrification (SND), and other hybrid processes for nitrogen removal were elucidated.


This is from <"Luo, G.,  Xu J., & Meng, H. (2020) "Nitrate accumulation in biofloc aquaculture systems" _Aquaculture_ *520*">


> ...... The reduction of NO3−-N is often found in biofloc aquaculture systems..............However, denitrification ... can happen in anoxic conditions. *DO in aquaculture systems needs to be maintained at 5 mg/L or above to support aquatic animal. Therefore, DNRA and denitrification will not be the dominant pathways of nitrate. *That is why nitrates accumulate easily in these systems. Aerobic denitrification process reduces NO3−-N or NO2−-N to N2 under aerobic environment (Robertson _et al_., 1988), which may play an important contribution in the biofloc aquaculture systems (Kong _et al_., 2018; Deng _et al_., 2019). However, the high level of NO3−-N suggested that aerobic denitrification was not ongoing efficiently in the biofloc aquaculture systems.......



cheer Darrel


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


KirstyF said:


> <"This link"> appears to support that hypothesis! 👍 Although in fairness, will there be others to refute it?…


I don't have any experience of keeping marine aquariums, but the paper quoted looks entirely plausible.

Nitrate (NO3-) accumulation is always going to be more <"of an issue for marine aquarists">, because they have less access to water changes and <"higher plants">.

One of the papers citing:

Li, Y., Zheng, X., Yang, X., Ou, D., Lin, R. and Liu, X., (2017). "Effects of live rock on removal of dissolved inorganic nitrogen in coral aquaria". _Acta Oceanologica Sinica_, *36*(12), pp.87-94.

Looks very interesting*, but is only tangentially related to the OP's question, so I'll post it as a new thread on the <"Marine forum">.

*<"Relieving pressure from coral reefs: Artificial oyster rocks can replace reef rocks used for biological filtration in marine aquariums">

cheers Darrel


----------



## KirstyF

dw1305 said:


> Looks very interesting*, but is only tangentially related to the OP's question, so I'll post it as a new thread on the <"Marine forum">.



Yep, we kinda went off into left field again. Happens a lot on this forum huh! 😂

Please do re-post as appropriate 👍 and thanks to the OP for their patience. 😊


----------



## CJM70

Oh my word! What an amazing response, thanks everyone. I guess I was kind of expecting the answers that you have all given, although in no way could I have hoped for the detail into which you have gone. At some point if I had half the technical understanding displayed in your replies, I would be a happy man.

One of my problems is I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt too much. I guess that means I am somewhat naive at times. Yes I suppose the proponents of this product or that product generally have a vested interest as was suggested above. Sometimes I like to think that besides the vested interest, there is also a degree of honesty and integrity.
so one good thing that has come out of this post for me is that I won’t be spending vast amounts of money on expensive media.

In fact I will probably plant for the plastic K1 type media some of which seems to come with the filter in the first place.

I do have a question about plastic media though. If it floats and is moved around in the media tray by the flow of water, does it make a noise? I have seen some standard K1 filters where are you see lots of the little plastic nodules swirling around like crazy and it can be quite noisy.

Also since we are talking about various filter media, is Purigen as good as it is made out to be? And how about carbon filtration? One of the things I am very keen on achieving his crystal Clearwater.

I realise that flow is of vital importance, so I would be interested to know what set up many of you are using, and in which order. My understanding is that mechanical filtration comes first, and there is the benefit of the pre-filter section. Next is biological filtration, and last but not least is chemical filtration.

Do the Oase uses among us just stick with the density of foam provided, or do you put some medium or fine grade in as well? And how about filter floss? Obviously that would have a big effect on flow I would imagine.

I was thinking about replying to everyone’s comments individually on one large multiquote reply, But instead I would just like to thank all of you for the detail you have gone into.

Looking forward to knowing about how everyone has gone about setting up their filters.


----------



## Wookii

CJM70 said:


> My understanding is that mechanical filtration comes first, and there is the benefit of the pre-filter section. Next is biological filtration, and last but not least is chemical filtration.
> 
> Do the Oase uses among us just stick with the density of foam provided, or do you put some medium or fine grade in as well? And how about filter floss? Obviously that would have a big effect on flow I would imagine.



I have two of the Oase filters, the 600 Thermo and the 850 Thermo. I set both up the same way.

Firstly drill a load of extra holes in the pre-filter tube. It helps by significantly reducing the flow reduction as the pre-filter sponges clog and can cut your time between pre-filter cleans (I go about 2-3 weeks now on my high tech, even longer on the low tech).

Many people opt for the coarse orange pre-filter sponges. I've used all three types and prefer the medium blue ones on my high-tech and the fine black ones on my low tech. I find no difference in flow between any of them (once the holes are added to the pre-filter tube), they only differ in the size of the particles they capture and the rate they clog and need washing. In a tank with lots of stem plants (that naturally tend to shed more leaves and generate more detritus etc) I would stick with blue, but on tanks with slow growing plants like epiphytes, echinodorus etc, the black is great as it stops pretty much any detritus getting through to the main filter.

I cleaned my high tech filter out this weekend just gone, for the first time since rescaping in June. It was as clean as a whistle - literally there was barely any mulm in the bottom, I really didn't need to clean it - I'm leaving it a year until the next clean!

For the media my preferred order is as follows; blue sponge (acts as a secondary pre-filter for any mulm that collects in the base of the filter, but also biological filtration) -> plastic media in all middle trays -> thin orange sponge filter (post filter to trap any mulm released from the other media) -> filter floss (cut to size from a flat sheet).

In theory you could do away with the thin orange sponge and the filter floss (which I know Darrel won't like), but I find the floss works well to capture the finest particles that make their way through the filter, and is possibly the only thing I'd replace more regularly than a year (maybe every 6 months).

As for Purigen, I think its useful during tank start-up when the system might produce a lot of organics that it can't necessarily digest and cope with, but I think the benefits are limited on a mature tank. Purigen is also a no go if you want to supplement the tank with botanicals, or botanical extract liquids and the like (as I do) as the Purigen strips them straight back out. If you do use it, you can place it after the thin orange foam.


----------



## CJM70

Wookii said:


> I have two of the Oase filters, the 600 Thermo and the 850 Thermo. I set both up the same way.


which would you recommend for an Oase styleline 85 tank? For the small difference in price between the 250 and 350, I’m thinking going for the 350 (thermo of course). 


Wookii said:


> Firstly drill a load of extra holes in the pre-filter tube. It helps by significantly reducing the flow reduction as the pre-filter sponges clog and can cut your time between pre-filter cleans (I go about 2-3 weeks now on my high tech, even longer on the low tech).


did you drill the extra holes at the same diameter as the originals and how many more did you go for? Twice as many, three times as many?


Wookii said:


> Many people opt for the coarse orange pre-filter sponges. I've used all three types and prefer the medium blue ones on my high-tech and the fine black ones on my low tech. I find no difference in flow between any of them (once the holes are added to the pre-filter tube), they only differ in the size of the particles they capture and the rate they clog and need washing. In a tank with lots of stem plants (that naturally tend to shed more leaves and generate more detritus etc) I would stick with blue, but on tanks with slow growing plants like epiphytes, echinodorus etc, the black is great as it stops pretty much any detritus getting through to the main filter.


Coarse it is then.  How about black in the first tray?


Wookii said:


> I cleaned my high tech filter out this weekend just gone, for the first time since rescaping in June. It was as clean as a whistle - literally there was barely any mulm in the bottom, I really didn't need to clean it - I'm leaving it a year until the next clean!


now that I like the sound of.


Wookii said:


> For the media my preferred order is as follows; blue sponge (acts as a secondary pre-filter for any mulm that collects in the base of the filter, but also biological filtration) -> plastic media in all middle trays -> thin orange sponge filter (post filter to trap any mulm released from the other media) -> filter floss (cut to size from a flat sheet).


I do like the idea of using filter floss just as a final polish but does it not affect the flow rate?


Wookii said:


> In theory you could do away with the thin orange sponge and the filter floss (which I know Darrel won't like), but I find the floss works well to capture the finest particles that make their way through the filter, and is possibly the only thing I'd replace more regularly than a year (maybe every 6 months).
> 
> As for Purigen, I think its useful during tank start-up when the system might produce a lot of organics that it can't necessarily digest and cope with, but I think the benefits are limited on a mature tank. Purigen is also a no go if you want to supplement the tank with botanicals, or botanical extract liquids and the like (as I do) as the Purigen strips them straight back out. If you do use it, you can place it after the thin orange foam.


Good to know that you don’t really need to use Purigen permanently. It looks like it is expensive.  And a bit of a PITA to do constant regeneration.  

thanks again.


----------



## noobscaper

Wow! So many responses! Thanks for the in-depth explanations @dw1305 , though I can't really say I understand much from them...
Since the need for nitrification is so exaggerated and pretty much anything goes as bio media, what would you say is the best flow-wise? Sponge? K1? Also is there much point using K1 in a canister (since it can't move around unless you use less)?


----------



## KirstyF

I’ve got 850 thermo’s and I’ve pulled one of the standard sponges out, put a single pack of the plastic media in each of two trays (the bags are pretty small, so plenty of space to move around) and I’ve added a bag of purigen in the last tray as it’s a new tank. Also kept the orange sponge. Can’t say I’ve noticed any noise at all from movement of the media.😊



noobscaper said:


> what would you say is the best flow-wise? Sponge? K1?



 The answer to this could be…..scrubbies! 😂 but in fairness I can’t see any issue with just using the media included. As you paid for it already, it’s even better value than scrubbies on this occasion. 👍


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


noobscaper said:


> Also is there much point using K1 in a canister (since it can't move around unless you use less)?





CJM70 said:


> If it floats and is moved around in the media tray by the flow of water, does it make a noise? I have seen some standard K1 filters where are you see lots of the little plastic nodules swirling around like crazy and it can be quite noisy.


Not a lot, but you can pack it a bit tighter, it is still pretty good as a <"static medium">


Wookii said:


> In theory you could do away with the thin orange sponge and the filter floss (which I know Darrel won't like),


Yes, no fine sponge or floss in the filter for me, <"but I'm pretty lazy"> and like to open the filter as infrequently as possible. I'm also a <"botanicals"> fan so "Purigen" really would be counter productive for me.

cheers Darrel
.


----------



## Wookii

CJM70 said:


> which would you recommend for an Oase styleline 85 tank? For the small difference in price between the 250 and 350, I’m thinking going for the 350 (thermo of course).



Are you going high tech or low tech? I have the 600 on a 60 litre low tech, and it’s plenty of flow. I have to 850 on a 100 litre high tech, but flowing through a CO2 reactor, and it’s not enough flow.



CJM70 said:


> did you drill the extra holes at the same diameter as the originals and how many more did you go for? Twice as many, three times as many?



Yes same diameter, pretty much tripled the number of holes.



CJM70 said:


> Coarse it is then. How about black in the first tray?



As I say, I prefer the blue (medium) prefilter sponges, the coarse let too much through for me, but it got to be your call. I don’t think you can get anything other than blue for the main tray sponges, unless you made your own. The blue work perfectly well anyway, as they are quite thick.



CJM70 said:


> I do like the idea of using filter floss just as a final polish but does it not affect the flow rate?



Possibly - I’ve not really tested it without.



CJM70 said:


> Good to know that you don’t really need to use Purigen permanently. It looks like it is expensive. And a bit of a PITA to do constant regeneration.



It’s not that expensive given you can reuse it many times, but yes, it is a PITA and does not fit well with a maintenance-phobe like myself.


----------



## CJM70

Brilliant. That has given me plenty to think about. Thanks everyone.


----------



## Mr.Shenanagins

The only media I’ve “spent” on is Poret foam, and I think it’s worthwhile investment for mechanical and biological filtration.


----------



## jaypeecee

KirstyF said:


> Although in fairness, will there be others to refute it?….sure there will be, it’s the internet! 😂


Hi @KirstyF 

Whichever side of the discussion/argument you're on, just ask those on the other side to provide scientific proof of their case! Chances are that all will go quiet.

JPC


----------



## erwin123

I'm all for sponges including fine sponges (if you have enough layers of coarse/regular sponges before the fine sponge, the fine sponge does not clog up that quickly) because they do both mechanical and biological filtration.

I'm prepared to sacrifice some flow to get clearer water - but thats because my filters' published flowrate is 24x the tank volume, so I have some 'spare' capacity.


----------



## Matti

I use the blue 30ppi sponge on my dennerle hbo. Does the job, both mechanical and bio filtration. Easy to clean, cheap and lasts long. If I would have more space for filter media I would ad some floss, but before the sponges so it would keep them clean from all the dirt.
Really hurts to see some youtube-gurus throw away the humble sponges and replace them with something that is only more expensive and comes with a fancy label on the package. Because according to them sponge is not for bio-filtration. Of course it is, any surface is for bio-filtration.


----------



## Angus

CJM70 said:


> In fact I will probably plant for the plastic K1 type media some of which seems to come with the filter in the first place.
> 
> I do have a question about plastic media though. If it floats and is moved around in the media tray by the flow of water, does it make a noise? I have seen some standard K1 filters where are you see lots of the little plastic nodules swirling around like crazy and it can be quite noisy.



So i have been around a few large sumps with fluidized compartments of k1, and they make very little noise, the water going into the filter socks probably makes more noise, not sure about in a canister though as there is probably more possibility of rattling against the plastic.

On the subject of using finer sponges, i just use the coarse sponges and put a thin layer of floss at the top of the filter if im polishing water, i got tired of squeezing fine PPI sponges.


----------



## Aqua sobriquet

One of my filters came with Siporax and it does look to have a large surface area. I guess this is good if you have a modest size filter? The other filter I’m using came supplied with Substrat Pro and once again it seems quite rough. I used plastic media many years ago and it appeared to work ok but being quite smooth I don’t suppose it can accommodate as much bacteria. How much is enough though. I’ve not seen any data on the subject. 
This guy seems to rate BioHome but I’ve not used it.


----------



## Conort2

Aqua sobriquet said:


> This guy seems to rate BioHome but I’ve not used it.


He’s the fella who sells it so I’m sure he would 😂


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


Aqua sobriquet said:


> This guy seems to rate BioHome but I’ve not used it.





Conort2 said:


> He’s the fella who sells it so I’m sure he would


He needs to add <"some science">. I believe our very own @MirandaB is a "fan".

His web-page <"still says">:


> _...... Please note: Tanks with heavy stock and feeding (e.g. cichlid, goldfish, predator or fry tanks) and marine tanks may require 1.5kg - 2kg per 100 litres to achieve the full cycle filtration which will result in the reduction of nitrates. Do not worry about plant growth being affected in a tank which reads zero nitrates - the nitrate is processed into soluble nitrogen which is easily used by plants, boosting their growth..........._


I believe the <"owner of Aquarium Science"> asked him some specific questions, with predictable results.


> .......... This paper was sent to the “Pondguru”, a British distributor of Biohome who has a YouTube channel which seems to be the “bible” for some folks. Note this YouTube channel got a 1% accuracy rating from the author and that was generous. The “Pondguru” YouTube videos on Biohome are two ten minute rambles about how Biohome “duplicates Nature” in the aquarium. No testing. No real science. Nothing! Pure snake oil salesmanship!
> 
> The best the replies from the Pondguru and the “manufacturer” could do defending their product was to say they has many anecdotal stories from users of their products where the product worked as advertised. They did not provide ANY studies from anyone which showed their product worked.......... The Pondguru than makes the incredulous statement that anecdotal evidence is more reliable than scientific experimentation........



cheers Darrel


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


Aqua sobriquet said:


> One of my filters came with Siporax and it does look to have a large surface area. I guess this is good if you have a modest size filter? The other filter I’m using came supplied with Substrat Pro and once again it seems quite rough. I used plastic media many years ago and it appeared to work ok but being quite smooth I don’t suppose it can accommodate as much bacteria.


I like both <"Siporax and Eheim "Coco-pops">, if I have them I'll use them, but I'm not going out of my way <"to buy them">. The bacteria bit is just all <"smoke and mirrors">.


Aqua sobriquet said:


> I don’t suppose it can accommodate as much bacteria. How much is enough though. I’ve not seen any data on the subject.


There is quite a lot of data for <"Kaldnes type floating cell media">, mainly in moving bed biofilm reactors.

This is from "Elliott, Olivia, _et al. (_2017) "Design and Manufacturing of High Surface Area 3D‐Printed Media for Moving Bed Bioreactors for Wastewater Treatment." _Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education_ *160 *(2017): pp. 144-156."


> ........ The specific surface area and topology of a biofilter media carrier is one of the most important parameters that determines the performance and efficiency of the system. In this work, mathematical models and 3D printing technologies were used to design and fabricate complex media designs that provide high specific surface area and refugia to protect biofilm from premature sloughing. Several gyroid based designs were proposed with specific surface area well beyond 2300 m2/m3.
> However, wall thicknesses and pore sizes that are prone to clogging determined a design that yields 1168 m2/m3 (133% larger than the baseline commercial K1 Kaldnes). Several moving bed bioreactors were constructed for laboratory testing with inoculation provided by wastewater from a fisheries operation. Preliminary results indicate that the 3D printed media can withstand the prevalent conditions in moving bed bioreactors, and that the NH3 removal rate of gyroid media is comparable to that of K1 Kaldnes........



cheers Darrel


----------



## Aqua sobriquet

Yes I’ve seen the floating media setups - far too big for my front room!


----------



## MichaelJ

noobscaper said:


> Do you guys think the expensive stuff like Seachem Matrix


It depends.... generally no, but since the question was narrowed down to bio media products such as Seachem Matrix, I (reluctantly) voted Yes 😱  And here is the reason; there are literally not much in this hobby when it comes to upkeep where you can say something lasts forever.  A 250 ml container of Matrix cost $9 a 1 Liter container about $18 (here in the US).  You can rinse and reuse as many times as you want. Call me extravagant and a splurge, but that seems like a reasonable value proposition to me - alternatively I would have to figure out and vet alternative solutions, DIY etc., which would take me time and some money as well... so whatever the cost delta is, I think that is worth it for a one-time expense at this level. The same goes for coarse sponges - which is pretty much the only other media I use with Matrix (except for the addition of Purigen in one of my tanks where I don't do botanicals).

Of course, I cant speak to media I haven't tried - but I do believe these companies, including Seachem, are blowing a lot of fanciful hot air about their media. The bacteria just need something to grow on with a reasonable surface area that won't otherwise restrict flow too much through the filter. If you have some very coarse inert aquarium gravel that will do just as well I suppose, if you can find that with the right pebble size etc. 

I do like @ceg4048 's idea of using toy soldiers - I wonder if a Battalion of Imperial Stormtrooper mini's will work just as well? 



Cheers,
Michael


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 


Aqua sobriquet said:


> I’ve seen the floating media setups - far too big for my front room!


Point taken, when I first had the tanks at home I took <"the trickle filters with me">, I liked the soothing sound of running water, but it wasn't universally appreciated. 

You can use <"floating cell media"> as a <"static medium in a canister filter">. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


MichaelJ said:


> there are literally not much in this hobby when it comes to upkeep where you can say something lasts forever.


That is <"one advantage"> of <"pumice"> and Eheim Substrat Pro etc. <"they last eternally">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## arcturus

CJM70 said:


> which would you recommend for an Oase styleline 85 tank? For the small difference in price between the 250 and 350, I’m thinking going for the 350 (thermo of course).


The 350.


CJM70 said:


> did you drill the extra holes at the same diameter as the originals and how many more did you go for? Twice as many, three times as many?


I would suggest that you buy a PVC water pipe with an internal diameter of 20-21mm to replace the original ~16mm pre-filter pipe. This diameter fits the outside pipe of pre-filter intake and will almost double the section area of the pipe. I have drilled 4 holes (6-7mm diameter) every ~15mm at a 90 degree angle in this wider pipe. With this approach, you will maximize the flow through the pre-filter and will be able to keep the original Oase pipe intact.



CJM70 said:


> Coarse it is then.  How about black in the first tray?


Oase <has cylindrical foams for the pre-filter in three densities>: fine/black (60ppi), medium/blue (45ppi), and coarse/orange (30ppi). Afaik, Oase only produces medium/blue and coarse/orange foams with the tray format. So, if you want to use a fine/black foam in the trays then you will have to DIY.

In any case, I would suggest you to use a foam on the bottom tray not finer than what you use in the pre-filter. If you use a finer density you will need to clean up the bottom tray more frequently. Note that there is no advantage of using a fine foam on the bottom tray since the plastic media will not get clogged anyway. So, you can use a coarser foam and  filter floss on the top tray to polish the water. the floss can be easily replaced without removing all the trays.



CJM70 said:


> I do like the idea of using filter floss just as a final polish but does it not affect the flow rate?


Yes. Each additional media component you add to the filter will negatively affect the flow rate. If you use a not too fine floss (e.g. JBL Symec) the impact on the flow will be rather limited. If you use a very fine floss (e.g. JBL Symec micro) then the impact can be quite significant. You can consider adding a small circulation pump/wave maker if the flow is insufficient, especially if you are using CO2.


----------



## CJM70

Some cracking info here.  Another question… does Siporax or Matrix or any other media discussed in this thread, affect the hardness of the water or the pH?


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


CJM70 said:


> does Siporax or Matrix or any other media discussed in this thread, affect the hardness of the water or the pH?


No, it shouldn't. They need to be physically stable like sintered glass, plastic or ceramic. 

You could potentially have pumice <"which would be alkaline (basic)">, but you never will find it in commercial workable deposits. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## arcturus

CJM70 said:


> Some cracking info here.  Another question… does Siporax or Matrix or any other media discussed in this thread, affect the hardness of the water or the pH?


Nope. Mechanical and biological filter media should be inert. The ones discussed here are made of inert plastic, sintered glass, or ceramics. Only chemical media might affect the water values.


----------



## jaypeecee

arcturus said:


> Mechanical and biological filter media should be inert. The ones discussed here are made of inert plastic, sintered glass, or ceramics. Only chemical media might affect the water values.


Hi @arcturus 

I fully agree that all these media _should_ be inert. But, I don't like leaving anything to chance. I would ask the manufacturers to confirm. Personally, I'd feel reasonably safe with sintered glass or ceramics - less so with 'inert' plastic.

JPC


----------



## CJM70

Thanks all.  Later on or tomorrow I will post an image of the media that came with a couple of filters I got with my tank.  I may well give them a clean (they are dry) and use them or I may sell them with one of the filters and buy new stuff for my 350 Thermo.


----------



## jaypeecee

dw1305 said:


> You could potentially have pumice <"which would be alkaline (basic)">


Hi @dw1305 

Some while ago here on UKAPS, we discussed Seachem _Renew_, which is made from pumice. 

JPC


----------



## arcturus

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @arcturus
> 
> I fully agree that all these media _should_ be inert. But, I don't like leaving anything to chance. I would ask the manufacturers to confirm. Personally, I'd feel reasonably safe with sintered glass or ceramics - less so with 'inert' plastic.
> 
> JPC


The plastic media discussed above were the Kaldness K1 and the Hel-X 13 KLL. Both are <made of High-density polyethylene (HDPE)>, which is widely used in the food industry and for drinking water pipes. I think you will find plastics with more dubious credentials in the rest of your aquarium equipment


----------



## jaypeecee

arcturus said:


> I think you will find plastics with more dubious credentials in the rest of your aquarium equipment


Hi @arcturus 

You may well be right. What did you have in mind? I'm intrigued.

JPC


----------



## arcturus

CJM70 said:


> Thanks all.  Later on or tomorrow I will post an image of the media that came with a couple of filters I got with my tank.  I may well give them a clean (they are dry) and use them or I may sell them with one of the filters and buy new stuff for my 350 Thermo.


The Oase BioMaster filters use the same type of media in different quantities. The 350 comes with 5x pre-filter sponges and has 5 trays: 1x Hel-X 13 biocarrier media, 3x blue sponges, and 1x orange sponge. A possible configuration you can try is 1x blue sponge in the bottom tray, Hel-X or other bio media in the three middle trays, 1x orange sponge in the top tray, plus a layer of filter floss over the orange sponge.

Another option is to let the pre-filter take care of the mechanical filtering and use the trays mostly for biological filtering. In this case, you would fill all trays with bio media and just leave the orange sponge and floss in the the top tray. But if you have an heavily planted tank the plants will be doing most of the biological filtering anyway, so it might be more sensible to add a bit more of mechanical filtration. You can also replace the pre-filter blue sponges (medium) with black sponges (fine) to increase the mechanical filtration capability, but the black sponges will clog faster...


----------



## CJM70

arcturus said:


> The Oase BioMaster filters use the same type of media in different quantities. The 350 comes with 5x pre-filter sponges and has 5 trays: 1x Hel-X 13 biocarrier media, 3x blue sponges, and 1x orange sponge. A possible configuration you can try is 1x blue sponge in the bottom tray, Hel-X or other bio media in the three middle trays, 1x orange sponge in the top tray, plus a layer of filter floss over the orange sponge.
> 
> Another option is to let the pre-filter take care of the mechanical filtering and use the trays mostly for biological filtering. In this case, you would fill all trays with bio media and just leave the orange sponge and floss in the the top tray. But if you have an heavily planted tank the plants will be doing most of the biological filtering anyway, so it might be more sensible to add a bit more of mechanical filtration. You can also replace the pre-filter blue sponges (medium) with black sponges (fine) to increase the mechanical filtration capability, but the black sponges will clog faster...


Mine came with the orange sponges in pre filter and no plastic media but all other sponges as it was second hand (but immaculate and excellent deal). Will prob go with something like what you said in your first paragraph.


----------



## arcturus

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @arcturus
> 
> You may well be right. What did you have in mind? I'm intrigued.
> 
> JPC


Most of the equipment used in a aquarium is (unfortunately) made of plastics, including sponges, filters, reactors, pipes, pipe fittings, valves and so on. The "external" equipment is also mostly plastics, including the bottles used to store ferts and other liquids, buckets and materials for water changes, submersible water pumps. Are all these bits and pieces actually made of food grade plastics? For example, you should find the "3" <resin identification code> in any piece of PVC. But you might have no further information about the material. However, the PVC identification code includes not only the food grade PVC-U without any plasticizers, but also PVC loaded with plasticizers and additives such as phthalates, BPA. So, if you raise questions about the HDPE used in media such as Hel-X you are opening a Pandora box...


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 


jaypeecee said:


> Some while ago here on UKAPS, we discussed Seachem _Renew_, which is made from pumice.


There is a <"linked thread"> that explains why you only get commercially exploitable deposits of pumice in very specific circumstances. 


dw1305 said:


> There are <"pumices with lots of different chemical composition">, it depends upon the geology of the volcano they were ejected from.
> 
> However I would be surprised if any commercially exploited sources of pumice aren't derived from rhyolite (you only get huge volcanic explosions from silica rich magma), and you only get commercially exploitable deposits of pumice from huge explosions where the pumice has ended up in a lake or sea (on land large deposits will form welded Tuffs under their own weight).





jaypeecee said:


> Personally, I'd feel reasonably safe with sintered glass or ceramics - less so with 'inert' plastic.





arcturus said:


> The plastic media discussed above were the Kaldness K1 and the Hel-X 13 KLL. Both are <made of High-density polyethylene (HDPE)>, which is widely used in the food industry and for drinking water pipes.


They are pretty physically stable as well. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## Nont

No, I don’t think so it’s worth it, I use a picture of Seachem matrix in Rock scanner app and found out this thing is actually pumice, the same thing I was using all of my filter. You can buy 10kg of pumice for about about $7 here.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


EchinodorusScape said:


> I use a picture of Seachem matrix in Rock scanner app and found out this thing is actually pumice, the same thing I was using all of my filter.


Yes, <"definitely pumice">. We have some <"threads about this">.

Seachem actually sell another pumice product as <"Seachem Renew">. I'd be willing to bet that both products are actually from the same source and if I was to have a punt on that source?  I'd look at the west of the USA (Nevada to Oregon) and <"particularly Idaho">.


dw1305 said:


> There are <"pumices with lots of different chemical composition">, it depends upon the geology of the volcano they were ejected from.
> 
> However I would be surprised if any commercially exploited sources of pumice aren't derived from rhyolite (you only get huge volcanic explosions from silica rich magma), and you only get commercially exploitable deposits of pumice from huge explosions where the pumice has ended up in a lake or sea (on land large deposits will form "Welded Tuffs" under their own weight).
> 
> You can re-use pumice, in fact you can treat pumice exactly like a sintered glass media, because they are basically the same thing. Are ADA's or Seachem's pumices better than horticultural pumice in use? I don't know, but I would be very surprised if they are.



cheers Darrel


----------



## CJM70

So here are the media types I “inherited”. 

The tubes are definitely Sera Siporax (I’ve had it many times before).

The multisized granules are meant to be Seachem matrix. Funny how in Seachem’s adverts it is always shown as a reasonably uniform size and not with lots of tiny granules. Also I have been through this and picked out a lot of stones which appeared to be basically pebbles.

The bioballs have a rough surface, not smooth. I think I have had it before but I don’t know what it is called.

Am I better off including these, Or some of these at least, in one of the filters I am going to sell, in order to add value? Or do you think that people tend to want to do their own thing with media?

Part of me wants to start afresh, but the other part of me does not want to waste money 😂😂😎.


----------



## CJM70

Can anyone identify the balls in this pic, or confirm if the multi sized stuff is matrix.?


----------



## jaypeecee

dw1305 said:


> You could potentially have pumice <"which would be alkaline (basic)">, but you never will find it in commercial workable deposits.


Hi @dw1305 

Does this mean that Seachem _Renew_ is unlikely to raise the pH of aquarium water?

JPC


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


jaypeecee said:


> Does this mean that Seachem _Renew_ is unlikely to raise the pH of aquarium water?


I'm pretty sure it won't. 

It is only huge explosive volcanic eruptions that produce <"commercially exploitable deposits of Pumice"> and you can only get <"huge volcanic eruptions"> where you have silica rich, acidic lava. The pumice also needs to fall into a lake, other wise it welds itself, under its own weight, into "Welded Tuff".






> ....In the southeast corner of the State of Idaho, 23 miles northwest of Malad City, lies a vast reserve of white, pure pumice that is in demand all over the world. That demand is the result of two factors: the quality and brightness of the pumice, and the company that mines and refines it: Hess Pumice........The pumice deposit is located on the shoreline of an ancient lake known as Lake Bonneville...a vast, freshwater lake that once covered much of North America’s Great Basin region (most of Utah and parts of Idaho and Nevada). The Great Salt Lake is all that remains of Lake Bonneville.



cheers Darrel


----------



## jaypeecee

dw1305 said:


> "Welded Tuff"


Hi @dw1305 

Thanks for your feedback. Appropriate name above, eh?

JPC


----------



## arcturus

CJM70 said:


> Can anyone identify the balls in this pic, or confirm if the multi sized stuff is matrix.?


The balls look like <Eheim Substrat Pro>, which is sintered glass.




If the "pebbles" are lightweight then they might be Matrix or any other type of pumice.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 


CJM70 said:


> Can anyone identify the balls in this pic, or confirm if the multi sized stuff is matrix.?


I'm guessing <"Hydroleca for the balls">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## arcturus

EchinodorusScape said:


> No, I don’t think so it’s worth it, I use a picture of Seachem matrix in Rock scanner app and found out this thing is actually pumice, the same thing I was using all of my filter. You can buy 10kg of pumice for about about $7 here.



But are there any doubts about the composition of Matrix? Seachem needs to produce the Hazardous Materials form below to export the product, which clearly states that the composition of Matrix is 100% pumice.







As @EchinodorusScape said, pumice can be bought in bulk for a low price. I can order 25Kg (ca. 65 liters) for 28 EUR (43 cents per liter)... and the cost per Kg would be even lower if I buy 1m3. Alternatively, I can buy 4 liters of Matrix, which is exactly the same thing, for 70 EUR (17.5 EUR per liter). So, Matrix costs ~40x more than equivalent pumice  I doubt any other product in Seachem's range is able to beat the gross margin of Matrix...


----------



## CJM70

arcturus said:


> The balls look like <Eheim Substrat Pro>, which is sintered glass.
> View attachment 178445


No it’s definitely not behind substract pro I have used that before and this is larger and a much more even size. I will try to do a better picture tomorrow.


arcturus said:


> If the "pebbles" are lightweight then they might be Matrix or any other type of pumice.
> View attachment 178446


If that is what he can matrix looks like then I would say that’s what I have although it differs significantly from the large more even white coloured granules that they seem to include in their adverts and in the videos that shops make you want to sell it.


----------



## Maf 2500

CJM70 said:


> If that is what he can matrix looks like then I would say that’s what I have although it differs significantly from the large more even white coloured granules that they seem to include in their adverts and in the videos that shops make you want to sell it.


It looks like Matrix to me - if you spent a few hours scrubbing the individual pieces I am sure you could get it back to the off white/light grey colour of brand new Matrix. The size of individual pieces can vary quite a lot and at various times seachem have marketed different sized granules for different purposes (eg: Pond Matrix).

(Luckily I only bought a litre of Matrix so didn't get stung too badly by the Seachem pumice tax that @arcturus points out above. Seachem try and justify the price by saying it is more highly graded than regular pumice but occasionally you find a piece that looks like a random stone rather than pumice so I think their quality control is not all that.)


----------



## Driftless

Well, I use expensive bio-media so naturally, I think that it is worth it.   I use this:http://aquario.co.kr/neoMedia/neoMediaPremium.php?ckattempt=1 and I purchased too much so I will not be replacing it soon.  I selected this media because of the effect that it claims on ph, although I have not seen a difference.  There are a lot of good media out there, the ones that I won't use are the plastic ones.


----------



## mort

I thought eheim substrat pro initially because I have that (free with the filter) but it does look like the balls are all to uniform from the picture. I wouldn't be surprised if they are though because it looks like the filter was "pimped" (plus my filter only gets opened a couple of times a year so i cant remember if they are randomly sized like on the eheim website, my initial thought was they were uniform) but from afar they do look like hydroleca as well.


----------



## arcturus

Driftless said:


> Well, I use expensive bio-media so naturally, I think that it is worth it.   I use this:http://aquario.co.kr/neoMedia/neoMediaPremium.php?ckattempt=1 and I purchased too much so I will not be replacing it soon.  I selected this media because of the effect that it claims on ph, although I have not seen a difference.  There are a lot of good media out there, the ones that I won't use are the plastic ones.


Why are you concerned with pH regulation in first place? If your pH is not under control then you should identify the root cause. Moreover, unless you own very specific fish or plants, the inhabitants of the tank will simply not care about the pH level...

And why are you relying on filter media to lower or raise pH? IMO, using media enriched with minerals that change water parameters is just introducing hidden variables in the equation.

The link above also contains a video showing sintered glass media somehow raising 2-3 points of pH! Is this even possible with such media?


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


Driftless said:


> I use expensive bio-media so naturally, I think that it is worth it.  I use this:http://aquario.co.kr/neoMedia/neoMediaPremium.php?ckattempt=1 and I purchased too much so I will not be replacing it soon.


Now you've got it, I definitely wouldn't replace it. It looks a pretty reasonable media and should <"last for all of eternity">


Driftless said:


> There are a lot of good media out there, the ones that I won't use are the plastic ones.


I'm happy that <"plastic floating cell media work">, my issue would be the "unnecessary plastics" argument.

Personally I'm not going to buy any more plastic media, although I'd guess the stuff I have will last me until I give up fish-keeping or die.

cheers Darrel


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


arcturus said:


> The link above also contains a video showing sintered glass media somehow raising 2-3 points of pH! Is this even possible with such media?


It could well be true and, at the same time, totally, totally irrelevant.

It is back to the nature of the pH scale, it is <"both log10 and a ratio">. This means that, in water with <"little buffering">, you can <"get huge pH swings"> from minuscule changes in water chemistry.

If you want to demonstrate this you can start with a litre of RO water, and then add a neutral salt (usually NaCl), the conductivity will rise, but the pH will remain constant. The reason for the NaCl addition is just because pH meters struggle in <"low-ionic strength solutions">.

At this point <"any addition of a base">, even a very small <"amount of a weak base">, will cause the pH to rise.


dw1305 said:


> I had an interesting one today. I won't tell you the location, or context, but it was a pond and the water sample had a dissolved oxygen level of 180% (~20oC, 18mg/L DO) and a pH value of pH 10.5.


If you take the video at face value, the sintered glass material may have added a very small amount of bases (to an un-buffered solution), causing a rise in pH. True but totally meaningless, in terms of the tank chemistry, when it is in use as a filter medium.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Driftless

arcturus said:


> Why are you concerned with pH regulation in first place? If your pH is not under control then you should identify the root cause. Moreover, unless you own very specific fish or plants, the inhabitants of the tank will simply not care about the pH level...
> 
> And why are you relying on filter media to lower or raise pH? IMO, using media enriched with minerals that change water parameters is just introducing hidden variables in the equation.
> 
> The link above also contains a video showing sintered glass media somehow raising 2-3 points of pH! Is this even possible with such media?
> 
> View attachment 178460


My interest in pH is for my discus tanks our water is hard and comes out with a high pH.  When I was in the market for media this one appealed to me and it was available from one of the online stores that I shop from, nothing more than that.


----------



## arcturus

Driftless said:


> My interest in pH is for my discus tanks our water is hard and comes out with a high pH.


Afaik, discus require slightly acidic soft water, which is the opposite of what you have. So, I assume you are already somehow controlling the GH/KH and pH in the tank. That is why I asked why do you use filter media that changes the water parameters... doesn't this complicate the matter even further?


----------



## Driftless

arcturus said:


> Afaik, discus require slightly acidic soft water, which is the opposite of what you have. So, I assume you are already somehow controlling the GH/KH and pH in the tank. That is why I asked why do you use filter media that changes the water parameters... doesn't this complicate the matter even further?


No, not really.  I simply needed media and I was in the process of overthinking the purchase.  The discus are in heavily planted tanks and I don't modify the water.  The tanks are in my office and they are time-consuming enough and adding an RO system, etc., adds a level of complexity that I can't justify.  Luckily the Discus do fine, like angelfish the ones that come from breeders are less water parameter sensitive.  Here are some pictures that I took recently, these are Discus that are new to the tank.  You will see a sponge filter but I run two filters on this tank a canister and a sponge filter.  I used to run two canister filters on this tank but I like the flow better with this arrangement.  There is some algae on the Val that needs to be cut off, I don't get wound up about algae in my Discus and Angelfish tanks like I do in my "Aquascaped" tank.  That tank had a trim yesterday.


----------



## Aqua sobriquet

I have Siporax in one filter and Substrat Pro in another and they don’t seem to effect the hardness. As far as I’m aware they’re both just made from sintered glass?


----------



## Aqua sobriquet

The Neo media looks interesting but I’m not sure what you’d receive. One picture shows shaped pellets with an increased surface area, the other just plan pill shaped pellets?


----------



## Nont

I’m a bit confused on this subject; what’s the point of adding bio media if all the surface and plant are often enough to 
turn Ammonia and Nitrite to 0?

The only reason I’m using bio media in a filter is that I don’t like cleaning sponges.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


EchinodorusScape said:


> I’m a bit confused on this subject; what’s the point of adding bio media if all the surface and plant are often enough to
> turn Ammonia and Nitrite to 0?


It is really just to give you spare capacity (<"belt and braces">), and to remove a <"single point of failure">. 

We are going to have <"some flow">, so you might as well pass that oxygen rich water through a sponge or other bio-media.

cheers Darrel


----------



## jaypeecee

EchinodorusScape said:


> I’m a bit confused on this subject; what’s the point of adding bio media if all the surface and plant are often enough to
> turn Ammonia and Nitrite to 0?


Hi @EchinodorusScape

In my opinion, you have raised an important question. It is also very relevant to consider the potential nitrate accumulation in the tank. The normal way of dealing with this is reliance on water changes. Within the next couple of weeks or so, I plan to start a new thread on an alternative approach.

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee

Driftless said:


> I selected this media because of the effect that it claims on ph, although I have not seen a difference.


Hi @Driftless 

Is it possible that the manufacturers of your media were referring to the pH _reduction_ that is a natural outcome of the nitrification process? And, you should be able to measure this pH change with a pH meter, for example.

JPC


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


jaypeecee said:


> It is also very relevant to consider the potential nitrate accumulation in the tank.


This where you could get issues, if you had a <"very high livestock to plant ratio">. Assuming you have a reasonable stocking density? The plants are going to <"incorporate all types of fixed nitrogen"> and nitrate accumulation doesn't occur.


jaypeecee said:


> Is it possible that the manufacturers of your media were referring to the pH _reduction_ that is a natural outcome of the nitrification process?





Driftless said:


> I selected this media because of the effect that it claims on ph, although I have not seen a difference.





arcturus said:


> The link above also contains a video showing sintered glass media somehow raising 2-3 points of pH! Is this even possible with such media?


My guess is that it is the Siporax "problem" in reverse, and that the <""Neo" media"> has a marginal proton (H+) ion donor surplus. Is it relevant? and does it mean the filter media will buffer hard water to soft? Not in a million years. 





The <"technical data sheet"> actually contains a break-down of its composition.



Basically,  it is <"baked clay">, with the clay an <"Illite"> type clay mineral. I'd guess it is acidic because it doesn't contain any calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg) or sodium (Na) or much potassium (K).

cheers Darrel


----------



## Driftless

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @Driftless
> 
> Is it possible that the manufacturers of your media were referring to the pH _reduction_ that is a natural outcome of the nitrification process? And, you should be able to measure this pH change with a pH meter, for example.
> 
> JPC


The media has been in my filters for a while now and I don't have a baseline before I added it, again I was overthinking the purchase.


----------



## jaypeecee

dw1305 said:


> Assuming you have a reasonable stocking density? The plants are going to <"incorporate all types of fixed nitrogen"> and nitrate accumulation doesn't occur.


Hi @dw1305

Perhaps you could shed some light (!) on the following statement made by Diana Walstad in her book, _Ecology of the Planted Aquarium_:

"the majority of aquatic plants - given a choice - greatly prefer ammonium. This fact is critical to fish health and aquarium functioning".

If you'd prefer not to comment on the above, that's fair enough. I could always put the question directly to Ms Walstad on the forum where she is one of the Moderators.

I'm just keen to get a better understanding of this.

JPC


----------



## MichaelJ

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @dw1305
> 
> Perhaps you could shed some light (!) on the following statement made by Diana Walstad in her book, _Ecology of the Planted Aquarium_:
> 
> "the majority of aquatic plants - given a choice - greatly prefer ammonium. This fact is critical to fish health and aquarium functioning".


Hi @jaypeecee What page is that on ? ... I want to read the context where this statement was made - not that I doubt its true...  my guess would be that it's just easier for the plants to get the Nitrogen through NH4 rather than NO3, but I surely do not know for sure.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


jaypeecee said:


> the majority of aquatic plants - given a choice - greatly prefer ammonium. This fact is critical to fish health and aquarium functioning





MichaelJ said:


> my guess would be that it's just easier for the plants to get the Nitrogen through NH4 rather than NO3,


They do, due to the kinetic advantages of ammonium (NH4+) uptake over nitrate (NO3-) uptake. I honestly don't think what form of fixed nitrogen plants preferentially take up is <"that relevant">.

I think Diana Walstad put it in her book because, at the time, the prevailing view amongst fish-keepers (but not scientists) was that _<"__plants didn't take up ammonia, only nitrate__"> _and therefore plants weren't of any practical importance in biological filtration, because they didn't take up ammonia, just nitrate.

The argument was then that the damage had already been done before the plants removed the "relatively benign" nitrate and it was only the Ammonia Oxidising Bacteria (AOB) <"_Nitrosomonas_ that counted in ammonia oxidation">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Vsevolod Stakhov

jaypeecee said:


> "the majority of aquatic plants - given a choice - greatly prefer ammonium. This fact is critical to fish health and aquarium functioning".


As far as I remember, Tom Barr mentioned (p. 11) that plants prefers ammonium and do not consume nitrates when there is enough ammonium in the water. 

On the other hand, higher plants store nitrogen in the form of NO3- in the intra-cells vacuoles, so it arises the question if a plant can oxidise ammonia to NO3 (I mean if it has the appropriate enzymes for that). I know that nitrogen is a mobile element and it can be transferred in several organic and ionorganic forms within a plant, I'm mostly curious about if an NH4+ to NO3- conversion is ever possible within plants.


----------



## jaypeecee

MichaelJ said:


> What page is that on ? ... I want to read the context where this statement was made - not that I doubt its true... my guess would be that it's just easier for the plants to get the Nitrogen through NH4 rather than NO3, but I surely do not know for sure.


Hi @MichaelJ 

No problem. The quoted statement is on p108 of the Third Edition.

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @dw1305 

Many thanks for your reply.

The reason for my labouring the point is this - I wondered if aquatic plants were being sustained on ammonium only and that they may not uptake significant nitrate. The combination of this and the end-product of nitrification (i.e. nitrate) may result in (rapid?) build-up of nitrate in the water column. Only by running tests on aquariums would we be able to quantify this. Unless someone's already been there, done that and got the T-Shirt! Now, some people will accuse me of overthinking this. But, sorry folks, that's what I used to get paid for!

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee

Vsevolod Stakhov said:


> Tom Barr mentioned (p. 11) that plants prefers ammonium and do not consume nitrates when there is enough ammonium in the water.


Hi @Vsevolod Stakhov 

The graph presented on page 11, fig 3 appears to be identical to the graph on page 107 of Diana Walstad's book. Just thought this was worth mentioning.

JPC

P.S. it seems ages ago that you and I got those water tests done in Moscow.


----------



## Jaseon

The question doesnt make sense to me as what's expensive may be relatively cheap to someone else.


----------



## Maf 2500

jaypeecee said:


> The reason for my labouring the point is this - I wondered if aquatic plants were being sustained on ammonium only and that they may not uptake significant nitrate. The combination of this and the end-product of nitrification (i.e. nitrate) may result in (rapid?) build-up of nitrate in the water column. Only by running tests on aquariums would we be able to quantify this. Unless someone's already been there, done that and got the T-Shirt! Now, some people will accuse me of overthinking this. But, sorry folks, that's what I used to get paid for!
> 
> JPC


I don't understand this comment, I hope I am not being thick and missing something obvious. Surely the established practice of dosing nitrates into the water column via EI, or other nutrient regimes, and said practice not causing excess nitrate problems proves that aquatic plants uptake nitrates? I don't think there is any scientific doubt that aquatic plants can uptake nitrates; as @dw1305 points out above aquatic plants have the capacity to uptake either ammonium or nitrate depending on what is available.


----------



## MichaelJ

Maf 2500 said:


> I don't understand this comment, I hope I am not being thick and missing something obvious. Surely the established practice of dosing nitrates into the water column via EI, or other nutrient regimes, and said practice not causing excess nitrate problems proves that aquatic plants uptake nitrates? I don't think there is any scientific doubt that aquatic plants can uptake nitrates; as @dw1305 points out above aquatic plants have the capacity to uptake either ammonium or nitrate depending on what is available.


I will let @jaypeecee answer this.  But I guess the idea is that if there would be unlimited supply of ammonia available for the plants they will never tap into the nitrate dosed or released from nitrification and thus the nitrate would build up in the tank... I suppose this could happen in a poorly maintained tank (insufficient WCs) containing a small plant mass relative to a high stocking level and insufficient nitrification through bio filtration etc.?

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Maf 2500

MichaelJ said:


> I will let @jaypeecee answer this.  But I guess the idea is that if there would be unlimited supply of ammonia available for the plants they will never tap into the nitrate dosed or released from nitrification and thus the nitrate would build up in the tank... I suppose this could happen in a poorly maintained tank (insufficient WCs) containing a very small plant mass relative to a high stocking level and low nitrification through bio filtration etc.?
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


Yes, but if significant amounts of ammonia were constantly available in sufficient quantities that the plants could afford to ignore nitrates then all the livestock would be dead or seriously ill?


----------



## MichaelJ

Maf 2500 said:


> all the livestock would be dead or seriously ill?


Yes, unless I am missing something, that would possibly be the worst case scenario... unless the plants would _just_ be doing a good enough job to perpetually keep the free ammonia (NH3)  below the toxic levels (an unlikely long term scenario)... which is also regulated by pH and water temperature btw.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


Vsevolod Stakhov said:


> that plants prefers ammonium and do not consume nitrates when there is enough ammonium in the water.





MichaelJ said:


> But I guess the idea is that if there would be unlimited supply of ammonia available for the plants they will never tap into the nitrate dosed or released from nitrification and thus the nitrate would build up in the tank... I suppose this could happen in a poorly maintained tank (insufficient WCs) containing a small plant mass relative to a high stocking level and insufficient nitrification through bio filtration etc.?





Maf 2500 said:


> Surely the established practice of dosing nitrates into the water column via EI, or other nutrient regimes, and said practice not causing excess nitrate problems proves that aquatic plants uptake nitrates?


Yes, I think that is it. It's the <"continually replenished ribs"> scenario at the all day buffet.  I would have just totally discounted it, but I'm guessing it's theoretically possible, but only with <"insane stocking densities">.

One thing I'd say straight away is that you are going to have a lot less ammonia entering microbial nitrification  in planted systems and that alone this will greatly reduce nitrate (NO3) production.

There is research from aquaculture which suggests that nitrate accumulation really isn't a problem:
<"Ng, Y & Chan, D, (2021). The role and effectiveness of monoculture and polyculture phytoremediation systems in fish farm wastewater. _RSC Advances_, _*11*_(23), pp.13853-13866. "> says


> ......... _This study intended to evaluate the roles and treatment profiles of Spirodela polyrhiza (L.) Schleid. and Lemna sp. systems in terms of ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, phosphate (NH3–N, NO3−–N, NO2−–N, PO43−), chemical oxygen demand (COD), turbidity, and total suspended solids (TSS) on fish farm wastewater and to elucidate the rationale behind the removal of the pollutants and the changes in a raceway pond rig. The nitrogen and phosphorus removal in the Spirodela polyrhiza monoculture system outperformed the other configured systems. An 81% reduction in ammonia (to 3.90 mg of NH3-N/L), and sharp declines of up to 75%, 88%, and 71% in TSS, turbidity, and COD levels were recorded within two days, while significant decreases in nitrate, nitrite, and phosphate levels were observed_. .......


and this is from <"Paolacci, S., Stejskal, V. & Jansen, M. (2021) "Estimation of the potential of _Lemna minor_ for effluent remediation in integrated multi-trophic aquaculture using newly developed synthetic aquaculture wastewater." _Aquacult Int_ *29*, 2101–2118">.


> ........._ The concentration of NO3ֿ-N in the medium decreased slowly over the 4 days of monitoring (Fig. 2b). The concentration of NO3ֿ-N in the SAW reached values as low as 13.5 ± 1.6 mg·l-1 at the highest plant density and after 4 days_...........



Because the Paolacci _et al. _paper used a floating plant (Lesser Duckweed (_Lemna minor))_ I think you can discount anaerobic denitrification as a source of NO3 removal. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## jaypeecee

Maf 2500 said:


> I don't understand this comment, I hope I am not being thick and missing something obvious. Surely the established practice of dosing nitrates into the water column via EI, or other nutrient regimes, and said practice not causing excess nitrate problems proves that aquatic plants uptake nitrates?


Hi @Maf 2500 

Please don't shoot the messenger! I'm simply communicating information that anyone can read in the documents that have been cited in the latter posts of this thread. The $64,000 question here primarily concerns preferential uptake of ammonium over nitrate. But, when you say "said practice not causing excess nitrate problems", some aquarists choose not to measure nitrate. That being the case, how would they know if nitrate was excessive, whatever we decide that means? We cannot equate excess nitrate with algae growth, for example - it's just not that simple.

JPC


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 


jaypeecee said:


> The $64,000 question here primarily concerns preferential uptake of ammonium over nitrate. But, when you say "said practice not causing excess nitrate problems", some aquarists choose not to measure nitrate.


I have measured nitrate levels in the tank, we have <"ion selective electrodes"> etc. If nitrate testing was quick and easy (like using a conductivity meter) I would recommend people tested for nitrate, if they felt they needed to.

Usually I just measure conductivity. If I only have 120 microS conductivity, even if every one of those conducting ions was a NO3- ion? There still wouldn't be very many of them 

I really just don't understand where this is going, other than around in circles. We <"know plants have">:

A <"large requirement for fixed nitrogen"> and 
can take it up in all three of its forms  (NH3/NH4+, NO2- & NO3-) and that
most aquascapers supply extra fixed nitrogen exclusively as nitrate (NO3-), the anion from the dissolution of potassium nitrate (KNO3) and that 
fixed nitrogen is a scarce resource in natural environments and that
plants have evolved "luxury uptake" as a means of coping with nitrogen "boom and bust".
Assuming we have the <"other nutrients required for plant growth"> why would NO3 accumulate in a planted tank? 

If plants are preferentially taking up <"Total Ammoniacal Nitrogen"> (TAN)? That just means less TAN enters microbial ammonia oxidation and less nitrate is ever produced.  It is negative feedback loop. The only way nitrate could accumulate would be if we continually added fixed nitrogen and never harvested any of the plant growth. If we let the plants senesce ("re-enter the nitrogen cycle") within the tank eventually NO3 would accumulate, but the vast majority of it will always  be in the plant tissue. 


jaypeecee said:


> .......... That being the case, how would they know if nitrate was excessive, whatever we decide that means? We cannot equate excess nitrate with algae growth .....


No, but we can directly <"relate fixed nitrogen availability with leaf colour and size in a non-CO2 limited plant">. It may be <"inferential"> but if it is a good enough technique to <"feed half the World's population?"> I'd regard as <"fairly robust">. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## John q

Just like to say excellent post above by darrel.


jaypeecee said:


> The $64,000 question here primarily concerns preferential uptake of ammonium over nitrate



I don't think there's much debate as to whether aquatic plants will uptake ammonium in preference to nitrate, the real $64,000 question is whether or not they grow any better when exclusively fed NH4, Diana walstad also concedes this.

There's lots of threads on ukaps, barr report and planted tank that have asked this question, and there are a number of people that have ran experiments, including yourself, to try and find the answer to this. I don't believe anybody to date has come up with any compelling evidence that suggests dosing with ammonium alone produces better results than dosing with nitrates.

Back to the original question on nitrate accumulation. I used to test my water quite frequently and was satisfied my results were consistent.
Before I started dosing nitrates the ppm levels would consistently hover around 5~10 ppm on a weekly basis. I started dosing 10 ppm of nitrate pw and the weekly readings increased to 15~20 ppm.
It quickly became apparent that whatever waste my fish were producing was sustaining the level of plants I had at that time and any excess nitrates would be removed at the weekly water change.

That's the main reason I stopped testing the water, it became obvious to me what my readings would be before I took them.

Why am I saying this... Well, if you could add a known amount of nh4 that would exactly satisfy the plants needs(including luxury uptake) then any fish waste, assuming we had a filter, would be turned into nitrates, if this excess wasn't removed, at some point "insert arbitrary figure here" the nitrate levels would become toxic.

I always like your questions @jaypeecee  they certainly arouse conversations, but I must agree with darrel when he asks where you plan to take this inquisitive thought you have.


----------



## jaypeecee

John q said:


> I always like your questions @jaypeecee they certainly arouse conversations, but I must agree with darrel when he asks where you plan to take this inquisitive thought you have.


Hi @John q 

Thanks for the feedback.



John q said:


> I don't think there's much debate as to whether aquatic plants will uptake ammonium in preference to nitrate...



And if aquatic plants consume all available ammonium, then the nitrifying bacteria (and/or Archaea) are deprived of an ammonium source. I'm unclear as to the full implications of this.



John q said:


> ...the real $64,000 question is whether or not they grow any better when exclusively fed NH4, Diana walstad also concedes this.


 
This is something that I had not considered. Does Diana Walstad cover this in her book, _Ecology of the Planted Aquarium_?



John q said:


> Back to the original question on nitrate accumulation. I used to test my water quite frequently and was satisfied my results were consistent.



That is also my preferred approach. But if the bio filter is not cleaned as part of regular water changes, then it can become a nitrate factory. And if regular nitrate tests are not conducted, then what? So, now, the bio filter is potentially no longer an asset but a liability. For this reason, I would prefer to let my plants be the sole aquarium water purifier. And this hopefully explains my curiosity and the reason for pursuing this topic.

JPC


----------



## Jaseon

You know i cant help but think we sometimes over think this stuff.


----------



## sparkyweasel

jaypeecee said:


> And if aquatic plants consume all available ammonium, then the nitrifying bacteria (and/or Archaea) are deprived of an ammonium source. I'm unclear as to the full implications of this.


I suspect that the bacteria (etc) would consume _some _of the ammonia before the plants could take _all _of it.


----------



## Jaseon

What about plant only tanks? Ive heard of people having heavily planted tanks with no filtration.


----------



## MichaelJ

Hi @jaypeecee ,



jaypeecee said:


> And if aquatic plants consume all available ammonium, then the nitrifying bacteria (and/or Archaea) are deprived of an ammonium source. I'm unclear as to the full implications of this.


I find it rather unlikely that the plants could mob up all the ammonia and leave nothing for bio filtration - it might be that the levels are low and the bacteria colony would just be smaller - the bio filtration would still work in your favor as a safety belt.



jaypeecee said:


> That is also my preferred approach. But if the bio filter is not cleaned as part of regular water changes, then it can become a nitrate factory. And if regular nitrate tests are not conducted, then what?


Agreed. Regular filter cleaning is key... How do you measure NO3 level consistently btw.? My NO3 readings using the API test kit could be anywhere from 40 to 160ppm.... realistically its probably around 30ppm.



jaypeecee said:


> So, now, the bio filter is potentially no longer an asset but a liability.


How so? if the bacteria colony is just reduced due to the competition with plants why would that make it a liability.



jaypeecee said:


> For this reason, I would prefer to let my plants be the sole aquarium water purifier.


I agree. That is what I prefer as well. A massive plant to livestock ratio. I am starting to think of my filtration as _mostly_ mechanical filtration and a source of flow and circulation and much less about the bio filtration given my plant mass, but I do not doubt for a second that some is happening and that it is beneficial. 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Maf 2500

sparkyweasel said:


> I suspect that the bacteria (etc) would consume _some _of the ammonia before the plants could take _all _of it.





MichaelJ said:


> I find it rather unlikely that the plants could mob up all the ammonia and leave nothing for bio filtration - it might be that the levels are low and the bacteria colony would just be smaller - the bio filtration would still work in your favor as a safety belt.



Exactly. The plants have no method of preventing filter bacteria (or substrate bacteria or whatever else) from sharing the ammonia until such time as all the ammonia is used up. At which point the plants would be able to consume the nitrates that were manufactured by the bacteria.


----------



## erwin123

MichaelJ said:


> Agreed. Regular filter cleaning is key... How do you measure NO3 level consistently btw.? My NO3 readings using the API test kit could be anywhere from 40 to 160ppm.... realistically its probably around 30ppm.
> 
> How so? if the bacteria colony is just reduced due to the competition with plants why would that make it a liability.
> 
> I agree. That is what I prefer as well. A massive plant to livestock ratio. I am starting to think of my filtration as _mostly_ mechanical filtration and a source of flow and circulation and much less about the bio filtration given my plant mass, but I do not doubt for a second that some is happening and that it is beneficial.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


While I agree that there are issues with Nitrate testing, my Sera NO3 test appears to give me consistent results in terms of the broad colours.

Greenish-yellow (0 Nitrate tap water reference),
Yellow
Orange
Red
When I increase my NO3 dosing, at the end of the week, the test shows a darker shade of colour. When I decrease my NO3 dosing, the test shows a lighter shade. Similarly, when my Nitrates are on the high side, eg: Orange, after I do a water change, the test colour shows yellow. This is what I understand as 'consistency'.

For example, recently I added root tabs and reduced water column dosing slightly - the test result colour is consistent with that - I am confident based on the way the test has performed that if too much nitrates leaked out into the water column, it would result in a darker colour shade for the NO3 test.

What is true is that I don't know how many ppm of nitrates corresponds to yellow, orange, red respectively. This may limit the test's usefulness if I was trying to achieve some sort of 'target' NO3 ppm  (I'm not, I agree that all I need to know is how much I add, and how much my tap water has - and this also sort of corroborates the test colours - if my tap water is 0 Nitrates and I add 10ppm a week, there is no reason why the test should suddenly show 100ppm Nitrates for example - so far the test colour of yellow is consistent with my dosing regime).

But I still feel the test is using for checking that NO3 levels are stable - if every week your test shows yellow but one week it suddenly turns orange/red - maybe you have a decomposing fish somewhere that needs to be removed, problematic root tabs or something like that- water parameter instability being one of the possible factors in algae outbreaks.


----------



## MichaelJ

erwin123 said:


> Sera NO3


Hi @erwin123 Interesting, I will try that out.  My go to for gauging the general health status of my tanks is my TDS meter. If something is amiss it will register much faster (i.e. a sudden and  unexpected increase in TDS) than the perceived health of the plants or fish will indicate - I think of it as taking the tanks _blood pressure._

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## jaypeecee

MichaelJ said:


> How do you measure NO3 level consistently btw.? My NO3 readings using the API test kit could be anywhere from 40 to 160ppm.... realistically its probably around 30ppm.


Hi @MichaelJ 

Good Morning!

The API NO3 Test Kit is notorious for being unreliable. I use the JBL NO3 Test Kit.



MichaelJ said:


> How so? if the bacteria colony is just reduced due to the competition with plants why would that make it a liability.



Because it will be dumping nitrate (and phosphate) back into the water. No?

JPC


----------



## MichaelJ

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @MichaelJ
> 
> Good Morning!



Good morning! @jaypeecee   - Yes, it's past my bedtime here in Minnesota, US, but I had to finish some work 



jaypeecee said:


> I use the JBL NO3 Test Kit.


I will try the JBL kit as well - if I can find it on amazon.com


jaypeecee said:


> Because it will be dumping nitrate (and phosphate) back into the water. No?


Wouldn't that be a marginal problem if there is very little biological activity going on in the filter in the first place?

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## jaypeecee

erwin123 said:


> While I agree that there are issues with Nitrate testing, my Sera NO3 test appears to give me consistent results in terms of the broad colours.


Hi @erwin123 

I've never used the Sera NO3 Test Kit. But, it's good to know that it is a potential alternative to the JBL NO3 Test Kit. There are some NO3 Test Kits that report the result as NO3-N. It is therefore necessary to multiply the measured value by 4.43 to convert to NO3. In the UK, one such example is the MA* _AquaCare_ kit, which is manufactured by NT Labs Ltd.

* MA = Maidenhead Aquatics

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee

MichaelJ said:


> Wouldn't that be a marginal problem if there is very little biological activity going on in the filter in the first place?


Hi @MichaelJ 

Perhaps. Only a controlled experiment would be able to determine exactly what is happening.

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee

MichaelJ said:


> My go to for gauging the general health status of my tanks is my TDS meter. If something is amiss it will register much faster (i.e. a sudden and unexpected increase in TDS) than the perceived health of the plants or fish will indicate - I think of it as taking the tanks _blood pressure._


Hi @MichaelJ 

I prefer to measure ORP*/Redox but whatever works for you.

The term 'TDS Meter' is a bit of a misnomer. The meter typically measures electrical conductivity in microSiemens/cm (or Imperial equivalent). It then makes some assumptions about the water composition and converts to a TDS ppm figure.

* ORP = Oxidation-Reduction Potential

JPC


----------



## John q

Hi jaypeecee.


jaypeecee said:


> This is something that I had not considered. Does Diana Walstad cover this in her book, _Ecology of the Planted Aquarium_?


I can only reference the 2nd edition, but yes it gets a brief mention on p107 chapter 7.

"Of 33 aquatic plant species investigated, most were found to prefer ammonium over nitrates. Because many terrestrial plants grow better with nitrates and some botanists successfully grow plants with nitrates should not weaken the fact that aquatic plants - given a choice - greatly prefer ammonium. Whether they grow better with ammonium is a separate issue - one that is not as critical to fish health or aquarium functioning. However, I would hypothesize that most aquatic plants probably grow better with ammonium".

In the next sub chapter she goes on to say..

"There are few studies comparing the effect of nitrates and ammonium on growth of aquatic plants than their "uptake preferences" discussed in the section above. The fact that plants take up ammonium preferentially from a mixture of ammonium and nitrates does not guarantee that they will grow better with ammonium".




jaypeecee said:


> I would prefer to let my plants be the sole aquarium water purifier. And this hopefully explains my curiosity and the reason for pursuing this topic.


 
I see no issue with this approach providing the planting and stocking levels are in balance.


----------



## jaypeecee

dw1305 said:


> Assuming we have the <"other nutrients required for plant growth"> why would NO3 accumulate in a planted tank?


Hi @dw1305 

Wouldn't this occur if NO3 is being produced (in the bio filter) at a rate greater than the rate at which it is being used by the plants?

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee

jaypeecee said:


> This is something that I had not considered. Does Diana Walstad cover this in her book, _Ecology of the Planted Aquarium_?


Hi @John q 

When I replied to you as above, I had previously overlooked the bit about "...whether or not they _grow any better_ when exclusively fed NH4..." (my italics). Of course, growth may not correlate with _nutrient uptake_.

JPC


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


Maf 2500 said:


> The plants have no method of preventing filter bacteria (or substrate bacteria or whatever else) from sharing the ammonia until such time as all the ammonia is used up. At which point the plants would be able to consume the nitrates that were manufactured by the bacteria.


Exactly, I've always said that while there is "_microbe only_" nitrification, that there isn't any "_plant only_", it is always <"synergistic "plant/microbe" biofiltration">.


John q said:


> "Of 33 aquatic plant species investigated, most were found to prefer ammonium over nitrates. Because many terrestrial plants grow better with nitrates and some botanists successfully grow plants with nitrates should not weaken the fact that aquatic plants - given a choice - greatly prefer ammonium. Whether they grow better with ammonium is a separate issue - one that is not as critical to fish health or aquarium functioning. However, I would hypothesize that most aquatic plants probably grow better with ammonium".
> 
> In the next sub chapter she goes on to say..
> 
> "There are few studies comparing the effect of nitrates and ammonium on growth of aquatic plants than their "uptake preferences" discussed in the section above. The fact that plants take up ammonium preferentially from a mixture of ammonium and nitrates does not guarantee that they will grow better with ammonium".


I think this is right, this time the <"one legged Irishman"> is in the <"all you can eat buffet">, he has run out of ribs, but he is still tucking into the vol-au-vents and he has just alerted his friends that there is free food available.


jaypeecee said:


> ............. Wouldn't this occur if NO3 is being produced (in the bio filter) at a rate greater than the rate at which it is being used by the plants?


Yes, it would, you are then in the same neighbourhood as when you don't have plants (Spotte, below).  In waste water treatment this is one of the reasons why you need a <"larger Constructed Wetland"> to deal with higher bioloads.







The major difference between planted and unplanted would be that the extra nitrogen will stimulate plant growth, which will then reduce nitrate levels in a negative feedback loop.  

There is a review paper:
Ansari, A. _et al._ (2020) <"Phytoremediation of contaminated waters: An eco-friendly technology based on aquatic macrophytes application"> _The Egyptian Journal of Aquatic Research_, *46:4*, pp 371-376

cheers Darrel


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi Darrel (@dw1305)



dw1305 said:


> The major difference between planted and unplanted would be that the extra nitrogen will stimulate plant growth, which will then reduce nitrate levels in a negative feedback loop.



Would you mind explaining the above in a bit more detail? In particular, 'the extra nitrogen'. Where does that come from? I have no problem with negative feedback loops - they are used extensively in electronic circuitry, believe it or not.

JPC


----------



## Aqua sobriquet

Although my filters (Eheim and Sera) both came with Bio media I’d probably have bought it anyway. Both filters are of modest size running modest size tanks. They both have inmates as well. One has Corydoras and maybe 100 cherries and the other one maybe 50-60 cherries. If they didn’t have livestock then I wouldn’t bother.


----------



## jaypeecee

MichaelJ said:


> Wouldn't that be a marginal problem if there is very little biological activity going on in the filter in the first place?


Hi @MichaelJ 

I'm not sure about that. There may be few, if any, active nitrifying bacteria. But, what about heterotrophic bacteria, which are plentiful in our tanks?

JPC


----------



## Jaseon

Could a heavily planted tank take the main role of biological filtration to the point any other filtration you have would end up becoming mechanical?


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


dw1305 said:


> The major difference between planted and unplanted would be that the extra nitrogen will stimulate plant growth, which will then reduce nitrate levels in a negative feedback loop.





jaypeecee said:


> Would you mind explaining the above in a bit more detail? In particular, 'the extra nitrogen'.


Apologies, probably not very well phrased, the "extra nitrogen" isn't a difference between the planted and unplanted scenario, it is just the accumulation of NO3 shown by the graph.

In the unplanted scenario it accumulates, and can only be depleted by <"water changes, anion exchange or anerobic denitrification">.  If you like there is no-one to eat the Vol au vents.

The situation is different in the planted tank, that "surplus" of nitrate never occurs because it is incorporated into plant tissue, either initially as ammonium (NH4+) or as nitrate (NO3-), the end product of microbial nitrification.

How do we know that plants will take up that "extra" nitrogen? Because we can equate leaf colour (chlorophyll density)  with nitrogen availability. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## arcturus

Jaceree said:


> What about plant only tanks? Ive heard of people having heavily planted tanks with no filtration.


This is a different topic. If the tank has only plants and no fauna, then the nitrogen-related toxicity plays virtually no role. You would need water circulation, especially if using CO2, but that can be achieved with pumps or power heads. A mechanical filter could be use the keep the water clear, but otherwise there is no need for a filter.


----------



## John q

arcturus said:


> If the tank has only plants and no fauna, then the nitrogen-related toxicity plays virtually no role.


Sorry to go off topic but... Nh4 toxicity to plants is something that plays a role. We should choose our words carefully when thinking ammonia/ammonium is some kind of plant god.


----------



## Jaseon

arcturus said:


> This is a different topic. If the tank has only plants and no fauna, then the nitrogen-related toxicity plays virtually no role. You would need water circulation, especially if using CO2, but that can be achieved with pumps or power heads. A mechanical filter could be use the keep the water clear, but otherwise there is no need for a filter.



Yeah i see it as different topic, just the conversation made me consider it.

It does make sense to me though that a biological filter could be rendered mechanical if the plants take up all the available food.


----------



## MichaelJ

Jaceree said:


> Could a heavily planted tank take the main role of biological filtration to the point any other filtration you have would end up becoming mechanical?


Yes, I think so. Plants and the substrate. I can see that happen if you have lots of plants relative to livestock and excellent flow throughout the tank and substrate (that is essential) that it will provide far, far more bio filtration relative to the small volume of a bio media in a HOB/Canister filter - essentially only relying on the external filters for mechanical filtration and distribution of nutrients through circulation. I have recently deployed a couple of Pat minis in both my tanks to increase the flow towards the bottom for the same reason as I was starting to get some _underserved_ areas where the plant mass is super dense.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## jaypeecee

Jaceree said:


> Could a heavily planted tank take the main role of biological filtration to the point any other filtration you have would end up becoming mechanical?


Hi @Jaceree 

Yes, I think you'll find that is the essence of the _Walstad Method_.

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee

John q said:


> Nh4 toxicity to plants is something that plays a role.


Hi @John q 

May I suggest that you start a new thread on the above topic? I'd certainly be interested in knowing more. And I suspect others may also find it interesting.

JPC


----------



## MichaelJ

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @John q
> 
> May I suggest that you start a new thread on the above topic? I'd certainly be interested in knowing more. And I suspect others may also find it interesting.
> 
> JPC


Hi @jaypeecee Here is something you may find interesting Effects of NH4+ and K+ enrichments on carbon and nitrogen metabolism, life history and asexual reproduction of Vallisneria natans L. in aquarium experiments NH4 toxicity (terrestrial plants)


----------



## jaypeecee

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @jaypeecee Here is something you may find interesting NH4 toxicity (terrestrial plants)


Hi @MichaelJ

Thanks for this. I wonder how the above would relate to aquatic plants? Ah, Vallis has now been included in post #124. 

JPC


----------



## arcturus

John q said:


> Sorry to go off topic but... Nh4 toxicity to plants is something that plays a role. We should choose our words carefully when thinking ammonia/ammonium is some kind of plant god.


I said this in the context of a planted tank with a normal fertilization regime. Most substances will become toxic to plants and/or animals at a given concentration level. This applies also to <NH3 and NH4> and <NH4 toxicity> is an issue in agriculture and to higher plants in general. But this should not be an issue in a planted tank unless there is an overdose of these elements. The same is claimed by Diana Walstadt ("<Aquatic Plants Prefer Ammonium Over Nitrates>").


----------



## John q

arcturus said:


> I said this in the context of a planted tank with a normal fertilization regime.


OK, fair enough. Mea culpa.


----------



## jaypeecee

arcturus said:


> The same is claimed by Diana Walstadt ("<Aquatic Plants Prefer Ammonium Over Nitrates>").


Hi @arcturus 

Many thanks for adding the above link. I'd forgotten about that specific document and I was very much aware that many people would not have a copy of Diana Walstad's book, _Ecology of the Planted Aquarium_. Now, everyone can see for themselves what I was reading in her book.

JPC


----------



## tiger15

MichaelJ said:


> Yes, I think so. Plants and the substrate. I can see that happen if you have lots of plants relative to livestock and excellent flow throughout the tank and substrate (that is essential) that it will provide far, far more bio filtration relative to the small volume of a bio media in a HOB/Canister filter - essentially only relying on the external filters for mechanical filtration and distribution of nutrients through circulation. I have recently deployed a couple of Pat minis in both my tanks to increase the flow towards the bottom for the same reason as I was starting to get some _underserved_ areas where the plant mass is super dense.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


DITTO

I never believe in the need for dedicated bio media in the filter as long as you provide oxygenated flow over substrate and surfaces where beneficial bacteria thrive.  Dedicated bio media may  even do harm if you allow it to clog up blocking oxygenated flow whereby anaerobic bacteria out number aerobic.  This can happen inside a dirty canister filter in power outage.  When power resumes, it can flush out toxic gases generated during power surge.   You can enhance bio filtration more effectively by adding circulation than adding bio media.

The only scenario where dedicated bio media in a high power filter is helpful is if you keep fish as dense as in a bare bottom aquaculture tank.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


Jaceree said:


> Could a heavily planted tank take the main role of biological filtration to the point any other filtration you have would end up becoming mechanical?


Yes, I think most of the nitrification will be carried out by the plant / microbe biofiltration. Because you are dealing with quite complicated processes you could only really quantify the fate of the ammonia by labelling it with nitrogen isotopes.

In: <"Hongfang , L. (2018) "Performance of integrated ecological treatment system for decentralized rural wastewater and significance of plant harvest management"_ Ecological Engineering_, *124*, pp 69-76">, it says:


> _............ A full-scale integrated ecological treatment system (IETS) comprising, in series from inlet to outlet: two biofilters, one surface flow wetland (SFW), and two stabilization ponds, was constructed to treat rural decentralized domestic sewage and swine wastewater. The results showed the IETS had high removal efficiencies for ammonia nitrogen (NH4+-N), total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), and chemical oxygen demand (COD) with average values of 95.7%, 93.0%, 94.6%, and 82.0%, respectively. *Incorporation in the IETS of the SFW, vegetated with Myriophyllum aquaticum, was found essential in enhancing the wastewater treatment.* The abundances of the amoA gene of ammonia-oxidizing archaea (AOA) and ammonia-oxidizing bacteria (AOB) within the SFW sediment ranged from 1.69 × 10^8 to 2.46 × 10^9 copies g−1 and from 2.63 × 10^7 to 6.90 × 10^7 copies g−1 dry sediment, respectively............_



The other thing is that I don't think that "mechanical" filtration is ever really just mechanical filtration, as soon as that <"filter material is wet"> and has nutrients, <"and oxygen">, flowing into it it starts to develop a microbial assemblage and become biological filtration.

Personally I don't really care where nitrification occurs, I just want to have <"plenty of capacity"> to allow me some spare for unexpected events.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Aqua sobriquet

Amongst other things I used Dupla Bio Balls in the 1980’s. They weren’t that cheap at the time either!


----------



## foxfish

I still use those bio balls and in fact I have lots of them in my shed!
I once built a  koi pond with a large trickle tower, the pond was decommissioned years later and I retained  the bio balls, probably got about 100 litres of them left.


----------



## mort

I don't know if the original question was specifically related to everyday aquarist or planted tanks bit if you ever go into a lfs or wholesaler, have a look in their sumps and it will likely be full of non branded cheap media.


----------



## Aqua sobriquet

I believe they were originally manufactured for commercial use but were repackaged by Dupla for fish keepers. I never got round to using them in a trickle filter but I understand they worked quite well? You could probably sell some of those on if you wanted.


----------



## mort

We had a little kid that used to stick his head in the sumps and build little "lego" like structures with those bio balls despite me asking him and his parents not to.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 


Aqua sobriquet said:


> I never got round to using them in a trickle filter but I understand they worked quite well?


I've still got some somewhere (left over from the waste water work). 

I can't remember if we ever used them but if we did, other than the cost, they would have been fine. It looks quite a good design and realistically probably <"similar in performance"> to <"washing up scrunchies">. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## Matti

MHO is that any media, what so ever works as well. As long as you enough flow.
What I don't like is to watch these youtube gurus throwing away sponges and replacing them with something "pro" with a fancy name on it.
Just pure alchemistry with no data. Sometimes this hobby feels like a religious sect
(The worst are these magical  and costly substances that you add to your substrate, like bamboo charcoal ..., please it's just burned wood!)


----------



## MichaelJ

Matti said:


> What I don't like is to watch these youtube gurus throwing away sponges and replacing them with something "pro" with a fancy name on it.


I agree and I am not a fan either... its how these Tubers make some money from their content creation - I am not against it, I just don't watch it.


----------



## Aqua sobriquet

I thought Bamboo was a grass?


----------



## jaypeecee

Aqua sobriquet said:


> I thought Bamboo was a grass?


Hi @Aqua sobriquet 

According to Wikipedia, it looks like you are correct:

*"Bamboos* are a diverse group of evergreen perennial flowering plants in the subfamily *Bambusoideae* of the grass family _Poaceae"_.

(Source: Bamboo - Wikipedia)

JPC


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


Aqua sobriquet said:


> I thought Bamboo was a grass?


They are.


Matti said:


> The worst are these magical and costly substances that you add to your substrate, like bamboo charcoal ..., please it's just burned wood!


I think it qualifies as wood, it is lignified (and silicified).

The wood from Monocotyledons (like Palms), and Magnoliids, is slightly different from the wood from Eudicotyledons

cheers Darrel


----------



## CJM70

Aqua sobriquet said:


> Amongst other things I used Dupla Bio Balls in the 1980’s. They weren’t that cheap at the time either!


I used to own a Rena filstar ext. filter and it used these for bio filtration. I could never understand why they were so expensive to buy for what was essentially a piece of plastic, albeit one with “an internal network of 50 to 70 µm pores”. Seemed to work though, so I guess it supports the theory that biological filtration will take place on any surface to which the bacteria can attach.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


CJM70 said:


> I could never understand why they were so expensive to buy for what was essentially a piece of plastic.........


I've got some of those as well.

That is it really the heart of it. A star shaped piece of plastic that will have <"cost pennies to manufacture">, but carefully dressed up with  clever marketing, <"shape and name"> to imply that you are getting something unique and special at a premium price.


CJM70 said:


> one with “an internal network of 50 to 70 µm pores”


It is <"classic diversionary tactics">, make all the conversation about something that is <"totally irrelevant">.


CJM70 said:


> Seemed to work though, so I guess it supports the theory that biological filtration will take place on any surface to which the bacteria can attach.


Pretty much, a biofilm will develop and that <"will contain the micro-organisms that perform nitrification">  As soon as you know that a lot of biological filtration systems, in <"waste water treatment"> and <"aquaculture">, don't have any static media, just "bioflocs", it tells you that static media isn't that important.

*Some non-essential conjecture*.
First the bit <"we know">, that the nature of that <"microbial assemblage"> is <"fine-tuned over time"> to reflect the levels of ammonia (NH3) and dissolved oxygen in the water.

This would be conjecture, but I visualise the microbial assemblage in a filter in the same way that I think about the <"benthic invertebrate assemblage in a stream">. In clean water (water with a lot of dissolved oxygen and a low Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)) you have a diverse assemblage of invertebrates, including <"Mayflies (Ephemeroptera), Stoneflies (Plecoptera), Caseless Caddis (Trichoptera) etc."> with Tubificid worms (Naididae) and  "Bloodworms" (Chronomidae) etc present, but as a minor component of the assemblage.

As pollution (BOD) increases dissolved oxygen levels fall and you lose the more sensitive species from the assemblage. At the same time the number of Blood worm and "Tubifex" increases. As pollution continues to increase eventually only the haemoglobin containing Blood worms and Tubifex are left, and these often <"build up to huge numbers">.

The "Tubifex and Blood-worm" scenario is the traditional view of "cycling", with _Nitrobacter winogradskyi etc_ representing Tubifex etc. If you only ever look at sewage treatment works? You never find the Mayflies. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## Phil Onion

As my introduction suggests, I'm new (very new) to all this and the whole bio media in filtration confuses me most. I get the concepts involved, but the passionate debates over media types and their pros and cons are challanging for a newbie to get their head around. My new (and first) tank is due in January and I've already bought (after hours of review reading) a Biomaster 350 (I'm prepared for the 'you idiot' comments). After reading the differing views about changing the filter media immediately, I think I may run it stock, get the hardscape and plants added and bedded in for a few months, check levels and only then consider if swapping media is needed before adding livestock gradually (although planned stocking levels will be low).

Phil the Onion


----------



## Muso1981

So is anyone here actually using plastic pot scrubbers in their filter? I'm contemplating getting some instead of biohome ultimate, it would be good to hear from other users out there.

Also how long does it take for beneficial bacteria to build up?


----------



## arcturus

Muso1981 said:


> So is anyone here actually using plastic pot scrubbers in their filter? I'm contemplating getting some instead of biohome ultimate, it would be good to hear from other users out there.


Why don't you just use the media that comes with the filter? Or why don't you use plastic media in low quantities to maximize the flow? You can get such media for pond filters at a relatively low price. The pot scrubbers are in theory fine but you need to make sure they have no detergents. And depending on the type of plastics, the scrubbers can start disintegrating and then you will end up with micro-plastics everywhere.



Muso1981 said:


> Also how long does it take for beneficial bacteria to build up?


They will start building up very fast. The question is when you will have sufficient bacteria to deal with the nutrient load in the tank. And this takes as long as it takes. If you are starting from scratch (without using media from other tank), then it can take a few months. You can try speeding up the process with bacteria preparations, but if these are successful or not will depend on many factors. The easiest way is to wait a few weeks for the substrate to start stabilizing and leach excess substances into the water, and then plant heavily including a lot of fast growing plant and floating plants along with the plants you are planning. And then wait until the plants are growing steadily. At this point you will have a system that is able to deal with the unwanted substances in the water column.


----------



## Aqua sobriquet

Lots of plastic bottles say BPA free. If not would this be an issue best avoided for aquariums with inmates or not. I suspect not but thought I’d ask anyway.


----------



## jaypeecee

arcturus said:


> They will start building up very fast. The question is when you will have sufficient bacteria to deal with the nutrient load in the tank. And this takes as long as it takes. If you are starting from scratch (without using media from other tank), then it can take a few months. You can try speeding up the process with bacteria preparations, but if these are successful or not will depend on many factors.



Hi @Muso1981 

Please take a look at:






						Dr Timothy Hovanec's comments about Bacterial supplements
					

Hi all, They are the better option but I am thinking of future tanks.I'm not going to advise anyone to have a tank without plants, and I'm not sure how you would actually test* for fish safeness without endangering some livestock, but I am interested in the results using one of Dr Hovanec's...



					www.ukaps.org
				




JPC


----------



## Muso1981

arcturus said:


> Why don't you just use the media that comes with the filter? Or why don't you use plastic media in low quantities to maximize the flow? You can get such media for pond filters at a relatively low price. The pot scrubbers are in theory fine but you need to make sure they have no detergents. And depending on the type of plastics, the scrubbers can start disintegrating and then you will end up with micro-plastics everywhere.
> 
> 
> They will start building up very fast. The question is when you will have sufficient bacteria to deal with the nutrient load in the tank. And this takes as long as it takes. If you are starting from scratch (without using media from other tank), then it can take a few months. You can try speeding up the process with bacteria preparations, but if these are successful or not will depend on many factors. The easiest way is to wait a few weeks for the substrate to start stabilizing and leach excess substances into the water, and then plant heavily including a lot of fast growing plant and floating plants along with the plants you are planning. And then wait until the plants are growing steadily. At this point you will have a system that is able to deal with the unwanted substances in the water column.


I have been using the media that came with the filter however there's stuff like active carbon and phosphate pads in there which I don't think I need and I would like to have the optimum setup. I've seen various people on here saying Pot scrubbers are the best. I was originally thinking of getting Biohome ultimate but that stuff has a bad reputation on here for being expensive, not doing a lot and reducing flow.


----------



## Aqua sobriquet

I’m really happy with the Siporax that came with my filter. It looks to have a large surface area and doesn’t affect the flow too much. I’d even go as far as saying I’d buy some more if I needed it, at the right price.


----------



## arcturus

Muso1981 said:


> I have been using the media that came with the filter however there's stuff like active carbon and phosphate pads in there which I don't think I need and I would like to have the optimum setup.


You should remove the pads. The active carbon pad is useful if you need chemical filtration in very specific situations.

A setup that you can try makes use of "bio media" (you only need a small amount; you can keep each tray less than half full), followed by mechanical filtration through sponges and possibly by a layer of fleece. Use sponges that are not too dense so that you can maximize flow and minimize clogging and therefore maintenance. The fleece will impact flow but you only need it you want to polish the water.



Muso1981 said:


> I've seen various people on here saying Pot scrubbers are the best. I was originally thinking of getting Biohome ultimate but that stuff has a bad reputation on here for being expensive, not doing a lot and reducing flow.


The advantage of plastic media such as Hel-X 13, Kaldnes K1, and similar products is that they are small (1-2cm) cylinders, lightweight (they float) and are hollow. See pics of K1 and Hel-X 13 below. They are actually designed for fluidized media setups and not to be used as static media in canister filters. In any case, such plastic media will not get clogged and its impact on the flow is as low as it gets, especially when compared to heavy and dense media.





Plastic media is indeed overpriced especially when bought in small quantities. A couple of small bags for "aquarium use" will cost you the same as 20 liter bag for a pond filter. But we are talking of ~40 EUR for a huge bag. And this would be a one time buy. In any case, filling a filter with "specialized bio media" can end up being more expensive. The worse part is that dense media will impact the flow, and potentially reduce the amount of oxygen in the filter. In short, it has no advantages. If you already have such media then use it, but in small amounts and never packed too densely (which is often the case).

The scrubbers are surely the best value for money, followed possible by sponges. The issue with scrubbers is that you have no idea of they are made of. They can use plasticizers and other chemicals such as BPA, and they can become brittle and start disintegrating over time. You will have no such issues with plastic media. So, my suggestion would be to skip the scrubbers and use plastic "bio" media instead. If you want to save a small amount of money then use filter sponges. Otherwise, get sintered glass or ceramic "bio" media, ideally hollow media (such as Siporax) or in pearl/sphere shape (such as Eheim substrat pro) to reduce the impact on the flow. Any media will work. Just make sure you have plenty of flow.


----------



## Muso1981

Thanks for your advice @arcturus what you say makes a lot of sense, I suspect like you say those pot scrubbers might have nasty chemicals in them and would likely dissintergrate over time. 
I have a small amount of fluval biomax in there at the moment, maybe I should buy a bit more of that and add to to the final 2 trays which i don't think have anything in them. Or I might get some of that plastic media.


----------



## arcturus

Muso1981 said:


> Thanks for your advice @arcturus what you say makes a lot of sense, I suspect like you say those pot scrubbers might have nasty chemicals in them and would likely dissintergrate over time.
> I have a small amount of fluval biomax in there at the moment, maybe I should buy a bit more of that and add to to the final 2 trays which i don't think have anything in them. Or I might get some of that plastic media.


Or just distribute the fluval biomax you currently have between the trays to maximize the flow. In a planted tank you really only need a small amount of bio media in the trays. You can read the conclusions of <this experiment> and there are informative <threads on this forum> discussing this topic. Instead of adding more bio media, I would add a low or medium density sponge either to the bottom or top tray to provide mechanical filtration. Your goal is to keep a high flow of water going through the filter while having some degree of mechanical filtration. The plants will deal with most of the biological filtration and the nitrifying bacteria will eventually find a home, with or without bio media in the filter.


----------



## Aqua sobriquet

When I had a community tank in the 1980’s I used ceramic rings without any problems. They aren’t normally very expensive and are also pretty good flow wise.






						Eheim Mech 1 Litre
					

<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>EHEIM MECH 1 litre</strong></span></p> <p><span>Prefilter material made from hollow ceramic rings for trapping large dirt particles</span><br /><br />Directly after entering the filtration cycle, water




					www.completeaquatics.co.uk


----------



## mort

I had eheim mech pro, simply because it came with the filter. It has now been thrown out because it significantly disintegrated over a number of years. It's described as being made from a "non recycled plastic" but always felt more rubbery than you'd expect. The old ceramic eheim mech is far better.


----------



## Nont

Hi everyone,

I think, I managed to get anaerobic bacteria in my plantless biotope tank by having 2 clogged canister filter filled with pumice. The water has low nitrate of about 5 ppm (it was 20+ before) even though there’s a lot of decomposed leaves in the tank. Is there anyway I can clean the canister filter and pumice without disturbing the anaerobic bacteria?

Cheers


----------



## hypnogogia

@Natthanon, probably not.  Bacteria that produce nitrate are anaerobic a do they’ll get destroyed when you clean the filter and it runs with fresh oxygenated water again.  Why would toy anyway, assuming your tank is planted and will take care of the nitrates for you?


----------



## Nont

hypnogogia said:


> Why would toy anyway, assuming your tank is planted and will take care of the nitrates for you?


Nope, it is a Rio Negro blackwater tank for BADC contest.


----------



## aquanoobie

jaypeecee said:


> I prefer to measure ORP*/Redox


Hi @jaypeecee 
It would be helpful if you could share how useful ORP readings are for you.
Thank you


----------



## fredi

Muso1981 said:


> So is anyone here actually using plastic pot scrubbers in their filter? I'm contemplating getting some instead of biohome ultimate, it would be good to hear from other users out there.
> 
> Also how long does it take for beneficial bacteria to build up?


I am using a combination of plastic pot scrubbers and 30ppi foam in all my filters, don’t have any info on “build up”time  as transferred to these media gradually over several months (at cleaning time), my experience is that when using “old” filters to seed new filters. The filters are instantly efficient, however, I would always add prime to the tank for several days “just in case”
Imho the “massive” surface area media work well when new, but get clogged quickly, these media, of course, rely on flow through the media, as contact with bacteria is required
The advantage of pot scrubbers is little flow reduction, they wont stop particles though, that’s why i use 30ppi foam (with layer of filter wool on top), roughly once a month i change filter wool, and rinse foam (if required)
My tanks are stocked with plenty of fish, so i guess for a lightly stocked tank, less filter wool changes, and foam rinsing would be required


----------



## jaypeecee

aquanoobie said:


> Hi @jaypeecee
> It would be helpful if you could share how useful ORP readings are for you.
> Thank you


Hi @aquanoobie 

I have been closely monitoring ORP in one of my tanks for just over six months. My objective was to see if it would provide a reliable 24/7 indicator of dissolved organic compounds/matter (DOC/DOM). After stabilization, the figure that I am seeing most of the time is 400 - 425 mV at a pH of typically 6.7. I recently sent a sample of this tank water to a test laboratory. They measured Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and the result came back as 2.23 mg/l. Why am I interested in TOC, you might ask? And my answer is that dissolved organics can potentially lower dissolved oxygen, etc.

The nett effect of keeping ORP high is that I'm seeing no significant algae or Cyanobacteria growth in this tank.

JPC


----------



## aquanoobie

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @aquanoobie
> 
> I have been closely monitoring ORP in one of my tanks for just over six months. My objective was to see if it would provide a reliable 24/7 indicator of dissolved organic compounds/matter (DOC/DOM). After stabilization, the figure that I am seeing most of the time is 400 - 425 mV at a pH of typically 6.7. I recently sent a sample of this tank water to a test laboratory. They measured Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and the result came back as 2.23 mg/l. Why am I interested in TOC, you might ask? And my answer is that dissolved organics can potentially lower dissolved oxygen, etc.
> 
> The nett effect of keeping ORP high is that I'm seeing no significant algae or Cyanobacteria growth in this tank.
> 
> JPC


Hi @jaypeecee 
ORP is a fascinating tool, I have read a long thread about someone having access to a lab with Total Organic Carbon TOC test equipment. They organized a group of aquarium hobbyists with planted and fish only tanks. They were sending water samples for analysis in order to link the TOC levels to algae. Unfortunately no link was found. 

In your experience, what ORP mV range values you see? What does it say before and after water change. Or, did you test water where filter media was washed? Theoretically the wash should have lower numerical value than it's tank water, right? I find ORP and TOC values difficult to interpret.


----------



## aquanoobie

Muso1981 said:


> So is anyone here actually using plastic pot scrubbers in their filter? I'm contemplating getting some instead of biohome ultimate, it would be good to hear from other users out there.


Hi @Muso1981 
I have tried and found it to be a bust, it has deteriorated into gummy like consistency. So it looks like the brand name sponges are worth the price.


----------



## jaypeecee

aquanoobie said:


> They organized a group of aquarium hobbyists with planted and fish only tanks. They were sending water samples for analysis in order to link the TOC levels to algae. Unfortunately no link was found.


Hi @aquanoobie 

Yes, I am very familiar with that thread. But, I think you'll find that the results of that analysis were imported to an excellent web site run by a guy that used to be a member here on UKAPS. His name is Marcel Golias and the following is the relevant page from his website:






						Aquarium
					






					golias.net
				




The results of the TOC (and other water parameters) are shown in tabulated form and they are credited to Jeffrey K. Funk, PhD. The outcome of this and associated work is finally summarized as:

"The imperfect activity of mineralizing bacteria and the consequent accumulation of toxic organic substances in the water is therefore, in our opinion, the main reason for the appearance of algae in the aquarium!"

I interpret this as suggesting that the mineralizing (heterotrophic) bacteria are running low on nutrients of which oxygen and phosphorus come to mind.

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee

aquanoobie said:


> In your experience, what ORP mV range values you see? What does it say before and after water change.


Hi again, @aquanoobie

The tank to which I referred in post #161 is one for which I don't do water changes. What? I hear you say. It is a tank in which I let the plants purify the water. Apart from a surface skimmer to create water flow and keep the water surface clear, the plants remove ammonia, nitrite and nitrate. They also consume any surplus heavy metals, etc. I have an inert substrate in this tank and the only plants are epiphytes (Java Fern). I keep [CO2] at around 10 ppm. I monitor the tank using a conductivity meter, a _Seachem Ammonia Alert_, an ORP meter, a pH meter and a couple of _Hanna Checker_ photometers (phosphate and iron). No doubt I will have forgotten to mention something. Oh, yes - and the tank is home to Vietnamese Cardinal Minnows.

ORP briefly drops around 50 mV when I add a dose of _Seachem Flourish Iron_, which contains ferrous gluconate and this is an organic compound. Right now, ORP is 421 mV.

JPC

P.S. I feel that I must apologize to the OP (@noobscaper) for steering this thread from its original topic. Unfortunately, I've yet to find a way of preventing this from happening.

JPC


----------



## aquanoobie

Hi @jaypeecee 
Thank you for posting this link, 

Aquarium 

The table has lot of data in it but it doesn't support the conclusion much that elevated TOC directly or indirectly causes algae. There are too many variables. Then, this topic leads to this excellent summary post by @AndyMcD , 

What exactly causes BBA? Part 2 - Bacterial imbalance 

He talks about a symbiotic relationship between BBA and heterotrophic microbes. 

And then you present your eye-opening experiment:


jaypeecee said:


> The tank to which I referred in post #161 is one for which I don't do water changes. What? I hear you say. It is a tank in which I let the plants purify the water. Apart from a surface skimmer to create water flow and keep the water surface clear, the plants remove ammonia, nitrite and nitrate. They also consume any surplus heavy metals, etc. I have an inert substrate in this tank and the only plants are epiphytes (Java Fern). I keep [CO2] at around 10 ppm. I monitor the tank using a conductivity meter, a _Seachem Ammonia Alert_, an ORP meter, a pH meter and a couple of _Hanna Checker_ photometers (phosphate and iron). No doubt I will have forgotten to mention something. Oh, yes - and the tank is home to Vietnamese Cardinal Minnows.


Not doing water changes doesn't surprise me when you have so well balanced ecosystem. Though few things I want to ask, isn't there a problem with the substrate without plant roots not supplying oxygen? No black zones? Next is filtration, do you use lots of biomedia or none? This would have an impact on your water quality in terms of organics and ORP. 


jaypeecee said:


> ORP briefly drops around 50 mV when I add a dose of _Seachem Flourish Iron_, which contains ferrous gluconate and this is an organic compound. Right now, ORP is 421 mV.


In any case, having ORP +421 mV without water changes disproves both of the above articles. According to common knowledge, not necessarily correct one, you should have algae everywhere and ORP in minus territory. But you don't. You have extremely clean water despite organics accumulation of hormones, fish waste and other scary compounds "causing" algae. 

You are running an impressive experiment, where can I read more?


----------



## jaypeecee

aquanoobie said:


> You are running an impressive experiment, where can I read more?


Hi @aquanoobie 

Many thanks for your feedback.

There isn't a great deal more to tell you. It was the result of learning that aquatic plants preferentially uptake ammonia/ammonium instead of nitrate. So, fish excrete ammonia and we normally hand over the job of conversion to nitrate by using nitrifying bacteria and/or archaea. But this encourages accumulation of nitrate in the water column - unless we also incorporate denitrifying bacteria in the so-called biological filter. And build-up of nitrate in the water column (along with phosphate and iron) must surely encourage algae and/or cyanobacteria growth.



aquanoobie said:


> You have extremely clean water despite organics accumulation of hormones, fish waste and other scary compounds "causing" algae.



Yes, it's paradoxical, isn't it? It makes me wonder if aquatic plants can uptake organic compounds. Or, is it heterotrophic bacteria mineralizing DOC to inorganics, which can then be uptaken by the plants? I suspect the latter. Now, all this is requiring me to read a lot of scientific papers. My background is not in the Life Sciences.

I'll leave it at that for now. But, expect to hear from me again - probably tomorrow.

JPC


----------



## Simon Cole

jaypeecee said:


> It makes me wonder if aquatic plants can uptake organic compounds.


They certainly do. Auxin, gibberellin, cytokinin, ethylene, and abscisic acid are the five major classes of commonly-used plant growth hormones, and they have a variety of applications in commercial agriculture and horticulture.  I have to confess, I have used the synthetic phytohormone triacontanol (C₃₀H₆₂O) in terrestrial horticulture. Generally, the results of leaf spraying just once are outstanding levels of auxiliary shoot growth, which results in very bushy growth and less apical dominance. Given that stem plants are often cut, I would suggest that natural plant growth hormones in the five aforementioned classes are often released into aquarium water and could well trigger algal blooms. Notwithstanding, simple sugars are relatively easy for plants to absorb, and there is extensive evidence that plants uptake even larger organic molecules, as evidenced in studies tracking radiocarbon isotopes from application sites into plant tissues. The role of plants in bioremediation is often overlooked, but increasingly there is a favour towards macrophytes being used to mitigate and remediate environmental pollution caused by heavy or cyclic-aromatic hydrocarbons.


----------



## castle

Never mind


----------



## castle

Whoops, didn’t read the title correctly


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @Simon Cole

Good to hear from you and thanks for such a detailed reply.


Simon Cole said:


> The role of plants in bioremediation is often overlooked, but increasingly there is a favour towards macrophytes being used to mitigate and remediate environmental pollution caused by heavy or cyclic-aromatic hydrocarbons.


I have several papers that deal with the role of aquatic plants in bioremediation. I'll take a look at those. Let me ask a simple question - is it possible for epiphytes to uptake organic compounds without the intervention of bacteria or other microbes? I was under the impression that mineralization of organic waste in the water column was a prerequisite for aquatic plants being able to uptake nutrients. Is this not correct?

JPC


----------



## ElleDee

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @Simon Cole
> 
> Good to hear from you and thanks for such a detailed reply.
> 
> I have several papers that deal with the role of aquatic plants in bioremediation. I'll take a look at those. Let me ask a simple question - is it possible for epiphytes to uptake organic compounds without the intervention of bacteria or other microbes? I was under the impression that mineralization of organic waste in the water column was a prerequisite for aquatic plants being able to uptake nutrients. Is this not correct?
> 
> JPC


That is generally correct. Everything @Simon Cole said is true as well, but what he's talking about are more like special case scenarios and not how plants typically obtain their nutrition. It can't be overstated how much it varies by species and the plant world is filled with specialists that are capable of feats that are impossible for everybody else.


----------



## jaypeecee

ElleDee said:


> That is generally correct. Everything @Simon Cole said is true as well, but what he's talking about are more like special case scenarios and not how plants typically obtain their nutrition. It can't be overstated how much it varies by species and the plant world is filled with specialists that are capable of feats that are impossible for everybody else.


Hi @ElleDee 

Many thanks for the clarification - it is greatly appreciated.

JPC


----------



## aquanoobie

Hi @jaypeecee 
The epiphytes, as other plants and substrate, are covered by multilayer of microbial biofilm converting compounds back and forth which feeds the plants.


----------



## Simon Cole

jaypeecee said:


> is it possible for epiphytes to uptake organic compounds without the intervention of bacteria or other microbes?


Good and useful question, grateful you asked because it's an interesting subject.

The opinion of one researcher is rather interesting summary on stomates:

_"It is assumed that all liquid uptake of water and dissolved substances occurs exclusively through the leaf cuticle, and not through the stomates. There are two pathways by which exogenous chemicals may traverse the distance from the leaf surface into the symplast; a lipoidal route and an aqueous pathway. Compounds that penetrate the cuticle in the lipoidal-soluble form do so principally in the non-polar, undissociated form, whereas compounds that enter via the aqueous route move in slowly, and their penetration is greatly benefitted by a saturated atmosphere."_​
Obviously the stomata gets a lot of attention, but not a lot of people know that there are stomata on the leaf surface as well as the underside and that this can be an environmental adaptation too. The two pathways that exist in stomatal pores indicate that they can and do adsorb a range of polar an non-polar organic molecules very effectively and include many organic molecules with considerable molecular weights.

However, in addition to the stomates there are aqueous pores with average pore radii ranged from between 0.45 to 1.18 nm that allow organic ions with molecular weights of up to 800 g mol−1 to penetrate plant cuticles (Schönherr, 2006). In hot arid environments, plants use these pathways to emit hydrophilic carbohydrates, and the volatile compounds water and ethanol. This helps to protect their leaves from photoinhibition and to reduce water loss. When you smell lavender, you are experiencing that process.

Aside from the two major pore types, there is lipid-soluble adsorption of organic molecules across the unbridged leaf cuticle, the enormous efficiency of roots to both allow passive and pumped pathways into both cellular and vascular plant tissue, and a surprising range of newly-discovered pathways across the leaf cuticle that are far smaller than known types of pores and have been identified in varying plant species. The function of the latter is interesting because we do not know very much about the polarity or molecular weight of the organic molecules that can bridge, but there is a growing body of evidence from radiocarbon isotopic analysis and microscopy that shows they exist and can be quite abundant. My opinion is that it is rather hard to find an organic molecule that could not be absorbed rapidly by aquarium marcophytes.

The other side of the equation is a lot more interesting and could explain why algal blooms and various other biological community changes occur, and that is that aquarium plants could emit organic molecules passively (in addition to when they are cut or damaged). That fits well with the belief that macrophyte growth has some biochemical mechanism for inhibiting algal growth, and this would be especially relevant to both emergent and aquatic plants that may well have evolved such competitive adaptations. For a rheophyte, it is fairly useless because the biochemical inhibitor would get washed away in the water current, but for still water plants it could be more advantageous, especially as a community response happening across a wide population. This is one of the great unknowns about aquatic communities. Why should they not have evolved chemical defence mechanisms when we know that they do promote root horizons of microbial growth to benefit nutritional uptake.

On a side note, ever wondered why _Rotala Wallichii  _seems to stop growing sometimes, or why _Ludwigia Palustris var. Super Red Mini _seems to turn brown and die in hi-tech_. _Could there be phytohormones in the water causing their stomata to close and the plants to suffocate I wonder. Abscisic acid would be a likely candidate for this mechanism if the plants were generating it to cope with stress. This explains both why established tanks are more stable and conducive to aquatic growth and newly planted tanks can take off quickly. Advanced filter media like Purigen could have the ability to mitigate any undesirable organic molecules if they were present, but then what about the desirable ones. Many aquarists find themselves in a juxtaposition over which approach to take, and I guess that I would suggest that expensive filtration media could be ideal for new tanks and short-term applications, but in reality organic molecules add considerable unpredictability. Future research could look at how we measure them in aquarium water, but if we did discover a naturally-occurring algal growth inhibitor that is safer than glutaraldehyde then we would be laughing. That would be my second nomination for the UKAPS Nobel Prize award in addition to lean dosing.  

@jaypeecee - sorry that I have not answered you question relating to epiphytes. I guess that microbial symbionts (like but probably not including _Trichoderma T-22_ ) have an inherited role in feeding epiphytes like @aquanoobie suggests, and perhaps some are more parasitic (about 1% of angiosperms, found in almost every biome) but we don't generally keep them. I cannot think of any parasitic epiphytes in aquariums, and I am not sure they would need to behave in that way unless they were targeting certain organic nutrients like carbohydrates. Non-parasitic ones may well utilise microbial symbionts, but many also grow in-vitro in sterile conditions.


----------



## jaypeecee

aquanoobie said:


> Though few things I want to ask, isn't there a problem with the substrate without plant roots not supplying oxygen? No black zones? Next is filtration, do you use lots of biomedia or none?


Hi @aquanoobie

Me again!

A few additional notes:

[1] The substrate is a 1 - 2 cm layer of silica sand and the grain size is 1 - 2 mm. I use a Python gravel cleaner on it roughly every 4 to 6 weeks.

[2] I don't use any biomedia. I have a small coarse sponge inside the surface skimmer.

[3] I'd like to be in a position to specify the lighting parameters - particularly PAR. But, at present, I haven't got round to purchasing one of the Apogee products. The light itself is a Sera Nano LED Light with default LED clusters running at 50% brightness.

[4] No nitrifying bacteria and/or Archaea have been added during the tank's entire life, having been started on 13 October 2021.

[5] Tank water is remineralized RODI water.

[6] Tank water pH is maintained 24/7 at 6.5 +/- 0.2 by a continuous dribble of CO2.

That's all for now.

JPC

POST EDITED ON 16 MAY 2022 TO ADD IMAGE


----------



## jaypeecee

Simon Cole said:


> The other side of the equation is a lot more interesting and could explain why algal blooms and various other biological community changes occur, and that is that aquarium plants could emit organic molecules passively (in addition to when they are cut or damaged).


Hi @Simon Cole 

Ah, that's got to be allelopathy, I guess? This was referenced quite recently but I can't remember the actual thread.

Anyway, thanks for all your input - particularly the stuff about aquatic plants and bioremediation.

JPC


----------



## sparkyweasel

Simon Cole said:


> I cannot think of any parasitic epiphytes in aquariums,


This is complicated by so many aquarists insisting on calling their _Anubias_, _Microsorum _etc 'epiphytes' when they are lithophytes. 
I have given up being angry about it, or trying to put them right. Mostly.  
If they are growing on wood that is not part of a living tree xylophyte appears to be the most appropriate term, although it also has the meaning of 'woody plant' so it's not ideal.
Epiphytes, by most definitions, use another plant purely for support and are not parasitic.


----------



## Simon Cole

@sparkyweasel - Agreed and supported  The definitions of epiphyte we see in many dictionaries or encyclopaedias are incorrect. Epiphytes are plants living on other living plants. Algae can be epiphytic to aquatic plants. You are right, epiphytes do not need to be parasitic. A quick check online confirms that one of our sponsors Tropica are not using the term epiphyte to describe the rhizome plants that you mention, whereas Aquasabi and Buceplant are two online websites where the term is used incorrectly to describe them. When it is plant living in fast moving water then it is a rheophyte, and as you point out, if it is living on rocks then it is a lithophyte. A plant living on dead wood is certainly a* saprophyte*. I can see two papers defining woody terrestrial shrubs as xylophytes (Ying-bo, 2008; Do Kim et al, 2011) and I reckon this was due to mistranslation or misinformation. Saprophytes do not need to saprotrophs nor can they be other non-photosynthetic microbes like fungi, as I have noticed from another incorrect online definition; they are limited to plants. None of these terms are mutually exclusive when we describe a species as opposed to a community.


----------



## bazz

Simon Cole said:


> When it is plant living in fast moving water then it is a rheophyte, and as you point out, if it is living on rocks then it is a lithophyte. A plant living on dead wood is certainly a* saprophyte*.


Then, our Buce, Anubias and Ferns can be classed as all three?


----------



## Simon Cole

bazz said:


> Then, our Buce, Anubias and Ferns can be classed as all three?


The terms are mutually inclusive, so you might have an individual or a community that for example is both a rheophyte and a lithophyte, depending on where it is described growing. You can then alter the term to both rheophytic and lithophytic if it has a tendency to prefer growing in those locations. If you had a rheophytic community including equal numbers of lithophytes, saprophytes and hygrophytes (damp-soil plants) from the same species, then describing it would take longer. In those circumstances it is reasonable to choose whatever term you prefer because there is equal prevalence. Where a significantly higher populations of the same species are found in locations different to the term assigned, then this can be viewed to some extent as unambiguous and misleading, so it helps to have a balanced view based upon observations. These terms are more applicable to describing the natural environment. To qualify that the location was not representative of the community observed then you would have to alter the terms again using an adjective, but this is unusual and you would end up with terms like macrophytical (_particular to_ plants that like to grow large). You could also alter terms to qualify that the location where the plant grew had a distinct function using an adverb, and it is from this we get terms like saprophytically (_events particular to_ plants that like growing on dead wood), but in those cases you would still have to link the adverb to a verb, so you might end up with hyphenated terms like saprophytically-grown. The term describing the most prevalent location for all three plants that you listed would be something like rheophytes (plants that live in fast moving water) or hydrophytes (plants that adapt to living under water). A better way to classify them is to use the term to qualify how they adapt to the conditions. Obviously, if they have a rhizome and attach to a solid surface to anchor then they would be rhizomal rheophytes. How about hydrophytic rhizomal rheophytes. It would seem that the _rh_-sound is less favourable in modern English and it has been dying out for quite some time and it is things like this that mean people have a preference for easy pronunciations. Hopefully my thoughts here are not too incorrect or annoying.
- *moderators* please feel free to move this conversation to the relevant thread if we have one, or you can find it. Sorry everyone else


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 


Simon Cole said:


> a community that for example is both a rheophyte and a lithophyte


I think this is an example of that,  <"_Bolbitis heudelotii_  in the wild">. 






cheers Darrel


----------



## zozo

That is what I actually love about the German language and the way they try not to complicate things by giving it a neutral name that doesn't confuse things... And they come up with the most beautiful names and rarely use any loanwords... Why should you if you can create your own and keep it simple?. 

They simply name the entire group (epiphytes etc.) regardless of what it grows to "Aufsitzerplanzen" which is literally translated as "On sitting plants" this eliminates all confusion about what is what when it sits on this or that. Whatever it is, it's sitting on it...


----------



## jaypeecee

sparkyweasel said:


> This is complicated by so many aquarists insisting on calling their _Anubias_, _Microsorum _etc 'epiphytes' when they are lithophytes.


Hi @sparkyweasel 

It's good that you have mentioned this. During the time that I've been a UKAPS member, others with far more knowledge of aquatic plants than I have (not difficult!) have often referred to Anubias, Microsorum, etc. as epiphytes. I've never had any reason to question that terminology. So, a big 'thank you' from me! 

Of course, I then had to find out what lithophytes were and, according to Wikipedia, "Lithophytes are plants that grow in or on rocks. They can be classified as either epilithic or endolithic; epilithic lithophytes grow on the surfaces of rocks, while endolithic lithophytes grow in the crevices of rocks. Lithophytes can also be classified as being either obligate or facultative. Obligate lithophytes grow solely on rocks, while facultative lithophytes will grow partially on a rock and on another substrate simultaneously".

JPC


----------



## sparkyweasel

Simon Cole said:


> Saprophytes do not need to saprotrophs


Thanks, I wasn't aware of that.


----------



## MichaelJ

sparkyweasel said:


> This is complicated by so many aquarists insisting on calling their _Anubias_, _Microsorum _etc 'epiphytes' when they are lithophytes.



All right then @sparkyweasel,

Britiannica defines _epiphyte ... any  plant that grows upon another plant or object merely for physical support. _
Wikipedia: _Lithophytes_ are plants that grow in or on rocks.

_Litho_ - new latin for rock or stone... _phytes_ - Latin for plant.... or Rockplant... Which seems like quite a narrow definition to me.

Sounds to me that all (most?  )  _Lithophytes_ are _Epiphytes  _but not all _Epiphytes are Lithophytes... _(as they may grow upon other plants or wood and never rock)_ - _I would still call Anubias an _Epiphyte_ - as it can grow on wood, other plants etc.

What am I missing here?     Let me know if I have to go stand in a corner for 15 minutes.  

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## sparkyweasel

MichaelJ said:


> What am I missing here?


just the word most 


sparkyweasel said:


> by most definitions,


"A plant growing on another, but not parasitic" OED

"a plant that grows on another plant but does not feed from it, for example, some mosses" Cambridge Dictionary; Epiphyte

"a plant that grows on another plant but is not parasitic on it" Collins English Dictionary Epiphyte

"Obligate epiphyte
Plant that always grows on another plant for structural support, but derives no nutrients from the host."  Encyclopedia of Biodiversity Enc BioD

"A plant that grows on another plant but is not a parasite and produces its own food by photosynthesis, as certain orchids, mosses, and lichens" Webster's New World College Dictionary, - for the Americans   Although they also give; "A plant parasitic on the external surface of an animal body."

"A plant, such as a tropical orchid or a staghorn fern, that grows on another plant upon which it depends for mechanical support but not for nutrients." American Heritage Dictionary.

"Plant attached to another plant, not growing parasitically upon it but merely using it for support" Penguin Dictionary of Biology.

"among the algal communities,
one can readily differentiate the following (Fig. 8-3):
(a) epipelic algae as the flora growing on sediments
(fine, organic); (b) epilithic algae growing on rock or
stone surfaces; (c) epiphytic algae growing on macro
phytic surfaces; (d) epizooic algae growing on surfaces
of animals; and (e) epipsammic algae as the rather spe
cific organisms growing on or moving through sand"
Limnology, Wetzel, Robert G.


----------



## Simon Cole

@sparkyweasel - here is my best guess:

The Oxford Dictionary of Botany definition of epiphyte:
_‘A plant which uses another plant, typically a tree, for its physical support, but which does not draw nourishment from it’_

Arguably, the foremost peer-reviewed classification system of a plant community of epiphytes in the UK appears to be provided by the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburg, in their Scottish classification. This is possibly the most commonly accepted definition in the UK as a whole, due to the number of authors that did the peer review and to some extent the prestige of the institution, which was chartered by royal warrant in 1699 and retains this assent today; but also the fact that there are no alternatives. They chose to recognise the Oxford Dictionary of Botany definition that I have quoted above and reinforce this with a statement on page 1. But that document is not designated for geographic locations outside Scotland, where other definitions might still apply. Saying that, I think the audience needs to understand the meaning more than it needs to represent something convenient and arbitrary. 

Dictionaries are just records of what people dictate most commonly within a human population, as opposed to classification guidelines that are aimed at refining these terms. Scientific journals or authorship groups may indeed have academic prowess, but it is hard to argue where they have agreed a definition through a plant classification scheme unless there is a poll. There may well be other definitions of epiphyte that apply in different jurisdictions or to different communities of experts that are more binding. The closest I can see one could come to international agreement of what an epiphyte means would be through an intergovernmental organisation like UNESCO. However, the UNESCO Classification of Vegetation does not really apply to plant communities; it applies to plant formations, and in any event it does not define an epiphyte.  It would seem that an internationally-agreed classification scheme for plant communities has not been clearly defined by UNESCO, and that implies that national plant community classification schemes could take precedence until one is developed, agreed and implemented. Moreover, definitions of epiphytes and other 'phytes' are different depending upon whether you are a microbiologist or a ecologist. But if you are talking in the context of plants, the definitions like this one (borrowed from a book) probably do not apply easily; they are also very poor use of Greek/Latin; but then, how can you publish research if your academic community is using a different word. I guess you need to take a balanced approach as to what definition you prefer to use. However, for most ecologists there is only one meaning for an epiphyte and that is noted above.


----------



## MichaelJ

“_I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong."
- Richard P. Feynman_

Sorry for being very, very off topic.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## zozo

Simon Cole said:


> There may well be other definitions of epiphyte that apply in different jurisdictions or to different communities of experts that are more binding.



Taking some etymology into regard... From the Greek Epi = On (top/to etc.) and Phyton = Plant (algae, mosses and lichens included). The biological scientific definition is a non-parasitic plant that lives on another living plant. for short "On Plant"

Lithophyte is a group name for plants growing to stones (Lithos) which are divided into the Epilithophytes growing on the rock surface and Endolithophytes growing in the rocks as some lichens do.

So as a Lithobiotic subspecies the Anubias is most commonly found growing on rocks officially is Epilithopyte.

Confusing is that lots if not most of the Phytobiotic and Lithobiotic species don't discriminate you can find them on whatever as long as it provides support. Soil, sand, wood and can even grow to metal surfaces actually anything, hence we find them on the glass... Gyallíphyte? 🤢🥴

Metalophytes do actually exist, but they are not a group growing on metal surfaces but a plant that can tolerate ☠️ high levels of heavy metals such as lead.

I guess somewhere in history, especially in the trade they were done explaining and said lets cut the crap it's an "On Plant" and be done with it... And from then on a plant that grows on to something whatever it is known popularly as an Epiphyte or Air plant. And so another official synonym was born. That's another scientific definition, linguistics... 

epiphyte | Definition, Adaptations, Examples, & Facts


> any plant that grows upon another plant or object merely for physical support.


----------



## jaypeecee

jaypeecee said:


> And build-up of nitrate in the water column (along with phosphate and iron) must surely encourage algae and/or cyanobacteria growth.



I have now learned that the result of combining these three nutrients will be determined by their relative proportions.

JPC


----------



## _Maq_

KirstyF said:


> This link appears to support that hypothesis! 👍
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Study: Live Rock Doesn’t Really Denitrify
> 
> 
> The bane of most aquarists is the slow buildup of organic wastes in the form of nitrate. This is Aquarium Keeping 101—cellular respira
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reefs.com


"_Build-up of organic waste in the form of nitrate_". These mere words are enough to see clearly that this is just another worthless stuff.


----------



## _Maq_

Let me add some insights to the topic. Most of it derives from reading papers on industrial water-processing. And if I repeat anything that is considered obvious in this community, I apologize, I'm a novice here.

Water processing plants do not use high-area high-porosity media we do. They say they are densely colonized by _heterotrophic_ microbes, get clogged easily, and are difficult to wash. Organics are treated in activated sludge - a suspension of particulate organic matter and bacterial colonies. Aeration is important, and most expensive among all costs, because oxygen consumption is enormous, and anaerobic treatment is considered less perfect. (With some exceptions, the progress never halts.)
What is important to know is that nitrifying microbes are (generally, with exceptions) _autotrophs_. They not only don't care for organics, be it dissolved or solid, they outright dislike them, as well as the presence of heterotrophs. The reason is believed to be oxygen. Heterotrophs are running more energetically profitable business, so to speak, they grow faster, outgrow and outcompete (for oxygen) nitrifying microbes. Recently I've read a paper which explained something that kept me perplexed for long: When cycling a new tank (or any system), the very presence of organics and heterotrophs _slows down_ the onset of nitrification. That's good to know when using various products for bacterial inoculation. I've never tried Dr. Tim's potion, but as far as I know, all commercial products contain solely heterotrophs.
In water-processing business, nitrification follows after decomposition of organics is accomplished on activated sludge. Here, media like Kaldnes etc. are useful, they provide surface for nitrifiers' colonization. The point is that Kaldnes does not trap particulate organics, so heterotrophs are not attracted to settle there.
I'd like to stress that in _planted tanks_, decomposition of organics by heterotrophic microbes is far more important than nitrification. Dissolved and particulate organics in the water column are the real problem. Ammonia is not, as long as the tank is not overcrowded with fish.
If you believe in the importance of huge colonization area (I don't), then the best media is activated carbon. Now, I don't speak about chemical filtration. If AC is used for this purpose, it gets exhausted after some time, generally within several weeks. But in water-processing business the practice of _biological activated carbon_ evolved and is widely used. Because AC adsorbs dissolved organics it is attractive for heterotrophic bacteria. They assimilate adsorbed organics and partially prolong AC efficiency. But even after AC gets "exhausted", it still provides unparalleled surface area for bacterial colonization. So, if you believe big colonization area is beneficial, my advice is to go for granular activated carbon made of coal.
And if you need nitrification, then your choice is Kaldnes, or similar "broken toys".


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


_Maq_ said:


> And if I repeat anything that is considered obvious in this community, I apologize, I'm a novice here.


Talk away, we have a range of different opinions and adding another one is never going to hurt. From my point of view you are very much talking to the converted.


_Maq_ said:


> Organics are treated in activated sludge - a suspension of particulate organic matter and bacterial colonies. Aeration is important, and most expensive among all costs, because oxygen consumption is enormous, and anaerobic treatment is considered less perfect. (With some exceptions, the progress never halts.)


The <"Activated Sludge"> process is still used a lot in the UK, but newer wastewater plants are mainly using  the <"ANAMMOX process">, partially because they can harvest methane (CH4) from <"the anaerobic process"> and partially because they have a smaller footprint and land is expensive in the UK.


_Maq_ said:


> Here, media like Kaldnes etc. are useful, they provide surface for nitrifiers' colonization. The point is that Kaldnes does not trap particulate organics, so heterotrophs are not attracted to settle there.


I'm a <"floating cell media"> fan. We've talked about this in context of <"extended aeration">, personally I'm very keen on making sure that people <"don't use their filters as syphons">. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## jaypeecee

_Maq_ said:


> I've never tried Dr. Tim's potion, but as far as I know, all commercial products contain solely heterotrophs.


Hi @_Maq_ 

Dr Tim's _One And Only_  is _nitrifying_ bacteria and, unlike other products, uses Nitrospira moscoviensis bacteria to convert nitrite to nitrate. Competitors' products used Nitrobacter winogradskyi, which is ineffective. I can't see why any manufacturer would use heterotrophs as these are unable to use nitrogen compounds to derive energy. Heterotrophic bacteria is used in 'Waste Control' products.

JPC


----------



## _Maq_

jaypeecee said:


> I can't see why any manufacturer would use heterotrophs as these are unable to use nitrogen compounds to derive energy.


Because nitrogen is not the only element which may be unwelcome in our tanks. And, incidentally, heterotrophs are responsible for denitrification; in such a situation they do use nitrogen compounds as an energy source.
Heterotrophs decompose organic matter down to mineral nutrients which are readily uptaken by plants. I like heterotrophs and support them by oxygenation. I believe that easily degradable dissolved organic compounds in the water column are harmful for aquatic life. The faster they decompose the better.


----------

