Yes, I agree; it's a bit all over the place at the moment! I should include both somehow. I'll add to the list. Thank you.Do you think there’s any merit in converting to metric?
I actually messed up here; I short changed the FX6 and FX4 for some unknown reason. My original values used an incorrect sponge dimension.You can see the figures below of the FX6 beast! 737 Cubic Inches (assuming all 20PPI foam) gives you staggering filtering capability! 😵
View attachment 215177
OK, so the revised figure looks like the one below - it remains an absolute whopper. 527g / 1.16 lbs of fish with Crystal Clear water. (Bearing in mind this is JUST focused on media, nothing else).I actually messed up here; I short changed the FX6 and FX4 for some unknown reason. My original values used an incorrect sponge dimension.
This is an interesting paper. It looks at <"K1 type media"> nitrification rates and efficiency in <"moving bed bioreactor filters"> (MBBR) used in aquaculture.I do follow these guidances quite a lot. i.e., good aeration and checking my bio-load to filter capacity for clear water.
My aquarium is absolutely tiny compared to @Le duke aquarium (and very unsophisticated as I am very new to plants!), but it has helped produce clear water., even before the addition of the plants.
So a low carrier to water ratio, this allows the chips to move around and makes sure that they all remain fully oxygenated...... In the beginning of the experiment, each biofilter was filled with 13L of biocarriers, leading to the filling rate of 14%, which was low enough to allow the carriers to be fully mixed and to ensure sufficient substrate loading of the biofilters.....
Colour doesn't count (and I'm not sure why it would)." ..... In this study, we compared otherwise identical biocarriers made of polyethylene (PE) against ones made of polypropylene (PP) and PP biocarriers with three different levels of pigment (carbon black) addition (without added pigment, semi-pigmented, fully-pigmented). The four types of biocarriers were tested in 12 parallel moving bed bioreactors under identical conditions receiving water from a semi-commercial freshwater RAS with rainbow trout. Measurements of total ammonium nitrogen (TAN) and nitrite-nitrogen (NO2--N) removal rates and nitrification kinetics were carried out by spiking events with NH4Cl or NaNO2 two, four, and six weeks after start-up. The results showed all biofilters removed TAN only after two weeks of operation........"
So similar findings to <"Correspondence with Dr Ryan Newton - School of Freshwater Sciences, University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee">. This was what Dr Newton said:........ All biofilters exhibited nitrification activity already after two weeks of operation, the average TAN removal rate being 0.31gN/m2/d, while typically functional biofilters are achieved after 4–6 weeks of operation (e.g. Kuhn et al., 2010; Pulkkinen et al., 2018). This was probably due to the inoculation biofilter containing mature biocarriers, which may have facilitated a faster biofilter start-up by supplying microbes that colonized the virgin biocarriers in the twelve experimental biofilters. This result corroborates the previous findings on biofilter seeding to shorten startup period.......
....... In some lab tests we found that adding previous material from a running biofilter could reduce ammonia oxidation start-up time from 2-3 weeks to 2-3 days. We also tested a commercial product of nitrifiers & it did decrease the time to ammonia oxidation start-up. It was slower than our biofilter material transfer, but much quicker than doing nothing. However, the microbes present in the system from the commercial product disappeared over a few weeks and were replaced by those more common to our system. So, it seems some products could help “jump-start” the process, but it will be a lot less predictable and ultimately may not determine what microbe succeed in the long run....
Apologies, links updated:The excel link seems not work, can you kindly share this file again? Thanks!