Liverock rubble or Matrix

[enderg60]

jmaneyapanda;541586 wrote: Thats not quite my point. My point is, detritus is gonna be there anyway. The "nitrate factory" part of bioballs doesnt have to do with cleanliness, it has to do with the fact that there is no denitrifyer. Whereas with live rock/rubble/matrix, there should be.

Simply being underwater does not keep oxygen away from something, and the "very porous" nature of matrix pretty much means it will not be harboring anaerobic bacteria. Simply that it has more surface area for aerobic bacteria to grow, allowing for higher populations.

you need live rock(or something like live rock) that is over 2" thick to grow anaerobic bacteria. This is why people who break up larger pieces of live rock have seen ammonia/nitrate spikes after doing so.

Also there are aerobic bacteria that do denitrification. They simply are not as efficient as the anaerobic ones. And the nitrate factory part of bio balls is absolutely due to the cleanliness. I have see on MANY systems that use them(bio balls or bio floss), that after cleaning them off and doing nothing else the average nitrate level drop significantly.

If bioballs had no denitrification capability, there would be a few thousand tanks going in the 80's and early 90's that would have to be filtering by some other magical means.

Not to be mean, but where are you getting that information?

 

[grouper therapy]

jmaneyapanda;541603 wrote: Ammonia turned to nitraite turned to nitrate. Everybody's tank has it. Its just how its removed.

And the ammonia? Dang Jeremy you getting bad as me about ignoring the spell check!:yes:

 

[jmaneyapanda]

EnderG60;541604 wrote: Simply being underwater does not keep oxygen away from something, and the "very porous" nature of matrix pretty much means it will not be harboring anaerobic bacteria. Simply that it has more surface area for aerobic bacteria to grow, allowing for higher populations.

you need live rock(or something like live rock) that is over 2" thick to grow anaerobic bacteria. This is why people who break up larger pieces of live rock have seen ammonia/nitrate spikes after doing so.

Also there are aerobic bacteria that do denitrification. They simply are not as efficient as the anaerobic ones. And the nitrate factory part of bio balls is absolutely due to the cleanliness. I have see on MANY systems that use them(bio balls or bio floss), that after cleaning them off and doing nothing else the average nitrate level drop significantly.

If bioballs had no denitrification capability, there would be a few thousand tanks going in the 80's and early 90's that would have to be filtering by some other magical means.

Not to be mean, but where are you getting that information?

Yeah, thats why I said "SHOULD be".

Um, how does the porous nature NOT lead to anaerobic conditions? And your 2" rule- where did this come from? How does breaking up live rock cause an ammonia spike? And how does that show that anearobes are there?

So, If I use a giant biowheel, I wont have a nitrate problem? WRONG!!!!!! I am not saying that debris doesnt cause nitrates. It does. It is decaying organics. Im saying that bioballs causing HIGH nitrates doesnt ahve to do with debris.

I dont understand a lot of the assertions your making. Please explain.

As for the tanks in the 80s and 90s, the didnt have a denitrifier. The tanks were LOADED with nitrates. UInless they ran a Jaubert system (which allowed denitrfying), or ran a big skimmer for a berlin system.

 

[jmaneyapanda]

grouper therapy;541606 wrote: And the ammonia? Dang Jeremy you getting bad as me about ignoring the spell check!:yes:

Ammonia is a normal metabolic end product. Live fish give it off. It is also porduced by every tank. Like I said in the post before, Im not saying detritus doesnt surge nitrates. It does. Im saying that bioballs dont denitrify, and thats why there is a huge buildup of nitrates.

 

[grouper therapy]

Ok now that we understand bio balls let me rephrase my original question.
I was wandering if any of you were using either rubble or matrix in your sumps and if so how do you prevent it from becoming the same detritus traps that bio balls can become? I noticed that a company had put some ( pond?) matrix in a compartment of a sump and was trying to understand how you would remove the detritus from that area without removing the media or in many cases the rubble some of use in our sumps.

 

[jmaneyapanda]

grouper therapy;541612 wrote: Ok now that we understand bio balls let me rephrase my original question.
I was wandering if any of you were using either rubble or matrix in your sumps and if so how do you prevent it from becoming the same detritus traps that bio balls can become? I noticed that a company had put some ( pond?) matrix in a compartment of a sump and was trying to understand how you would remove the detritus from that area without removing the media or in many cases the rubble some of use in our sumps.

Fair enough. To answer your question, I dont think you can, aside from having it in a basket that can be removed in an easy "lift out" manner and rinsed.

 

[grouper therapy]

I kinda liked the idea of the matrix in the sump that they did but was thinking as you were i would put a lift out in it so that I could rinse the media. Maybe some spray bars incorporated some how.

 

[enderg60]

jmaneyapanda;541607 wrote: Yeah, thats why I said "SHOULD be".

Um, how does the porous nature NOT lead to anaerobic conditions? And your 2" rule- where did this come from? How does breaking up live rock cause an ammonia spike? And how does that show that anearobes are there?

So, If I use a giant biowheel, I wont have a nitrate problem? WRONG!!!!!! I am not saying that debris doesnt cause nitrates. It does. It is decaying organics. Im saying that bioballs causing HIGH nitrates doesnt ahve to do with debris.

I dont understand a lot of the assertions your making. Please explain.

As for the tanks in the 80s and 90s, the didnt have a denitrifier. The tanks were LOADED with nitrates. UInless they ran a Jaubert system (which allowed denitrfying), or ran a big skimmer for a berlin system.

really dont want to start an internet argument here. but most of my "assertions" are based on experiance.

the"2" rule" so to speak, is not a rule its just experiance. go split open a large established live rock and look at the color gradient. Also take into account how deep sand beds work. Do you see anaerobic bacteria growing in sand beds less then 2"...or even 3"? Matrix has similar porousity as very fine sand...why would it be any different?

anyway, I dont want to take this thread further off track. If you would like to discuss it further feel free to PM me.

 

[enderg60]

grouper therapy;541617 wrote: I kinda liked the idea of the matrix in the sump that they did but was thinking as you were i would put a lift out in it so that I could rinse the media. Maybe some spray bars incorporated some how.

It will still act as a sponge and collect crap. Easiest thing to do is find a basket that fits in a 5g bucket. Remove, dunk a few times and put it back. Or shake it off in the sump then drain it for a water change.

I still think a denitrator is a much simpler solution in terms of overall work

 

[misu]

so where do we get a basket or the coarse mesh bag?

 

[enderg60]

misu;541625 wrote: so where do we get a basket or the coarse mesh bag?

home depot pond section

 

[acroholic]

I could see you maybe wanting some extra aerobic filtration in your system, Dave, with your high fish population, but I fail to see really why anyone really needs live rock inside their sump, unless they are running a very minimal aquascape. I have never had LR or rubble in my system sump. I have enough LR in my two tanks to take care of any aerobic filtration needed. I also have a cheato fuge for nutrient export, mechanical prefiltration, and use a denitrator.

I'm sure any denitrification (anaerobic) comes from deep in the LR in the display tank and the dentirifier.

 

[misu]

That's exactly the reason, I plan on using around 60lbs of liverock in my 135 in a floating aquascape style.... we'll see

 

[cr500_af]

Interesting... and good timing since I'd never considered going with something other than rubble, and I'm setting my sump up today (as well as probably every night this week).
So far the reading is looking like Matrix is superior. Are there any negatives with it? The Seachem site only refers to it being used in filter (Matrix) or a drip tray (Pond Matrix).

 

[cr500_af]

I can't answer for Dave, but to me, the idea of a "clean" sump that can be literally drained and cleaned on occasion is VERY attractive.

 

[acroholic]

bratliff;541639 wrote: My question Dave would be why wouldn't you run additional live rock if you have the space? If you are cramped for space (such as everything in your cabinet) then there may be more efficient means of nitrification/denitrification but live rock is fairly fool proof and maintenance free.

I like a clean sump, and have just never seen the need for it, although I'm sure it doesn't hurt.

But I question the maintenance free part of it, as a pile of LR in your sump is a crap trap for detritus. And all the pods, sponges, etc can grow on/in the LR in the DT as well as in the sump. The pods are quite plentiful in the Cheato fuge as well.

I don't think it is a matter of one way working vs another, just what do you like the best.

 

[acroholic]

cr500_af;541641 wrote: I can't answer for Dave, but to me, the idea of a "clean" sump that can be literally drained and cleaned on occasion is VERY attractive.

Main reason I do it. I use the sump as a settlement area for detritus, then when it gets the powdery fine build up in it, I use a water change as a time to get the wet-dry vac out and suck the sump clean.

 

[jmaneyapanda]

EnderG60;541622 wrote: really dont want to start an internet argument here. but most of my "assertions" are based on experiance.

the"2" rule" so to speak, is not a rule its just experiance. go split open a large established live rock and look at the color gradient. Also take into account how deep sand beds work. Do you see anaerobic bacteria growing in sand beds less then 2"...or even 3"? Matrix has similar porousity as very fine sand...why would it be any different?

anyway, I dont want to take this thread further off track. If you would like to discuss it further feel free to PM me.

I agree. Im not trying to be snide or patronizing. I merely hoped to discuss. However, I do feel it is positive and beneficial to the forum community as a whole to not just "take it to pm's". Right now, we have two totally difering opinions, so we'll either be informing, or misinforming. I'd, at the very least, like to hear all sides.

I will comment to this, as per you split rock example. I would GUARANTEE you that this same rock, when in different conditions, would be either aerobic or anaerobic. In our display, where most rock resides, we strive for choatic and hectic circulation and flow, eliminating dead spots. The "aerobicizes" much of the substrate and surface areas within the tank. However, in a sump, I have yet to see someone put circulation powerheads in there. The flow is MUCH slower, and more laminar. This will leave stagnant water flow areas, particularly in areas around media.

Have I seen anaerobic areas in 2" of sand? HECK YEAH!! It was in a MARS system with like 10 GPH of water going through it. You make the water column stangant enough local, and provide the source "food" for the anaerobes, and they will grow. Guaranteed.

Regardless, let me ask this- I have yet to see a modern sump design without a slew of baffles in place. How is this any different as a "trap" for debris? Sure it can be siphoned out, but media can be rinsed too.

 

[jmaneyapanda]

Acroholic;541646 wrote:
But I question the maintenance free part of it, as a pile of LR in your sump is a crap trap for detritus. And all the pods, sponges, etc can grow on/in the LR in the DT as well as in the sump. The pods are quite plentiful in the Cheato fuge as well.

Meh. I dont know if I agree. How is EVERYTHING in the sump not a "crap trap" for detritus, then? Should we removed everything from the sump? And I would strongly disagree that all the crypto and micro flora and fauna can grow on the LR in the display as well as the sump. The display is FULL of things that will do them harm, which typically, is not in the sump. This is the purpose and definition of a fuge, of which the sump is part. In fact, isnt LR and rubble, etc in the sump just a fuge, of sorts?

 

[acroholic]

jmaneyapanda;541705 wrote: Meh. I dont know if I agree. How is EVERYTHING in the sump not a "crap trap" for detritus, then? Should we removed everything from the sump? And I would strongly disagree that all the crypto and micro flora and fauna can grow on the LR in the display as well as the sump. The display is FULL of things that will do them harm, which typically, is not in the sump. This is the purpose and definition of a fuge, of which the sump is part. In fact, isnt LR and rubble, etc in the sump just a fuge, of sorts?

I don't know Jeremy, but I see lots of pods scurrying around and I have lots of sponge growth on my rock in the DTs. I also have a cheato refugium with lots of pods. As I said, either way works. My choice is to not have LR/rubble in the sump.