Whats better in sump?
- Thread starter CJD18
- Start date
The biomedia has much more surface area than and rock and, as such, provides better substrate for bacteria. The rock rubble generally will help buffer the water better. It really depends on what you need in your sump, buffering capacity or bacteria.
IMO, I'd go with the bacteria. I have a marinepure block in my sump and I plan on adding more biomedia. Id rather have as much usable area for bacteria and set up dosing to ensure stability than to be worried about my biofilter.
Rock won't provide as much surface area. If you are thinking Marine Pure, I have heard the spheres are less likely to crumble than their blocks.
I use Seachem Matrix in a mesh bag, which I can easily take out occasionally to clean the sump.
I use Seachem Matrix in a mesh bag, which I can easily take out occasionally to clean the sump.
Marine pure gems plus a lil rubble
Brightwell has Xport blocks and plates too. I haven't heard of possible aluminum leaching from them either.
They had the product on display in their booth at the Expo.
https://www.marinedepot.com/search?Query=xport
They had the product on display in their booth at the Expo.
https://www.marinedepot.com/search?Query=xport
A standard claim made by synthetic media manufacturers is that their products provide superior or increased surface area, supposedly for colonization by bacteria.
Yet, they seldom provide formal study results which would withstand statistical and/or peer review scrutiny. Yes, I've been looking for it...
Instead, I'll propose a parallel, economical and likely superior product (at least in terms of the surface area argument)...use activated carbon instead.
It has so much surface area, it acts like a passive molecular sieve and actually traps gasses, organic compounds and such effectively, so must be superior, right?
Not so fast. The average pore sizes in the carbon are orders of magnitude smaller than most bacteria, though there is still plenty of room for them in the larger voids.
So, it turns out that a relatively small percentage of the surface area is available for bacteria to colonize, because they are just too big!
I'll wager (yet have no proof) that some, if not most, of the synthetic media are similarly constructed in reality.
So, for my money, I'll stick with aragonitic (coral based) rubble & gravel, which is a natural product and has worked for bacteria for eons.
As long as there is enough surface area for enough bacteria to colonize and handle doing their thing with the various nutrient cycles, then why spend the extra $$?
Especially when no one provides anything other than anecdotal 'evidence' and/or marketing spin.
-My $0.02
Yet, they seldom provide formal study results which would withstand statistical and/or peer review scrutiny. Yes, I've been looking for it...
Instead, I'll propose a parallel, economical and likely superior product (at least in terms of the surface area argument)...use activated carbon instead.
It has so much surface area, it acts like a passive molecular sieve and actually traps gasses, organic compounds and such effectively, so must be superior, right?
Not so fast. The average pore sizes in the carbon are orders of magnitude smaller than most bacteria, though there is still plenty of room for them in the larger voids.
So, it turns out that a relatively small percentage of the surface area is available for bacteria to colonize, because they are just too big!
I'll wager (yet have no proof) that some, if not most, of the synthetic media are similarly constructed in reality.
So, for my money, I'll stick with aragonitic (coral based) rubble & gravel, which is a natural product and has worked for bacteria for eons.
As long as there is enough surface area for enough bacteria to colonize and handle doing their thing with the various nutrient cycles, then why spend the extra $$?
Especially when no one provides anything other than anecdotal 'evidence' and/or marketing spin.
-My $0.02
Natural rock doesn't do this. While I can't scientifically prove it, I 100% guarentee this has more surface area than a piece of aragonite of the same size. The reason I prefer biomedia is that I can use less. That gives me more room for equipment in my sump and fish in my display. The cost is certainly a factor but one block at $50 and $20 worth of seachem matrix and I think I have more than enough surface area for bacteria in my tank (120 with maybe 80 pounds of rock). In the grand scheme, that isn't bad. At $2-6/pound depending whe you shop, rock would cost as much.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
What does your overall setup consist of? How much rock in the tank? Sand? How deep is the sand bed? Bioload? Filtration setup?
I believe those are all variables that can impact the answer you're looking for.
Bare bottom with 50lbs of rock in heavily stocked 180 gallon tank? You need as much of everything you can fit in your sump as possible.
120 gallon with 150 pounds of rock, a 3" sand bed, 5 medium fish in a reef with a good skimmer etc? I'd leave the sump completely empty to make it easy to keep nice and clean.
When I had my denitritor up and running - I had about 60 pounds of rock, 2" sand bed and kinda lightly stocked in my 120g - my NO3 / PO4 was zero. I don't mean low - I mean zero - no test kit I tried would show any color what-so-ever.
That's the real question. There isn't a "best". There is what works best for your setup but that isn't the same for everyone.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Impressive. A cement cinder block will behave in a similar fashion. Try it.
I’m going to put around a pound of aragonite rock per gallon in any tank I set up, because to me it looks weird otherwise. I also use ~2 inches of special reef grade gravel.
I’ve never had a problem due to insufficient bacteria. To the contrary, I use Fritz bacteria when starting and cycle in 5 days or less. The tanks have all been stable from then on.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’m going to put around a pound of aragonite rock per gallon in any tank I set up, because to me it looks weird otherwise. I also use ~2 inches of special reef grade gravel.
I’ve never had a problem due to insufficient bacteria. To the contrary, I use Fritz bacteria when starting and cycle in 5 days or less. The tanks have all been stable from then on.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As for the activated carbon, in case you were wondering what kind of surface area we are talking about, it's 2 to 6 tennis courts per gram of carbon!
As previously mentioned, much of that area is not available, because the bacteria are too large to fit within most of the tiny crevices within the carbon.
"On account of its high degree of microporosity, a single gram (g) of activated carbon can have a surface area in excess of 500 square meters (m²), with 1500 m² being readily achievable. The surface area is typically determined by nitrogen gas adsorption. By way of comparison, a tennis court surface is about 260 m²."
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Activated_carbon
As previously mentioned, much of that area is not available, because the bacteria are too large to fit within most of the tiny crevices within the carbon.
"On account of its high degree of microporosity, a single gram (g) of activated carbon can have a surface area in excess of 500 square meters (m²), with 1500 m² being readily achievable. The surface area is typically determined by nitrogen gas adsorption. By way of comparison, a tennis court surface is about 260 m²."
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Activated_carbon
Current set up
45g AIO
40#s cured live rock
10-14oz of carbon
10-14oz bio rings
1-1.5 inch arg bed
Ai Prime HD light
Stock return pump @ 525gph( I might up grade t0 700gph) I have a lot of water movement
Lots of cheato in sump and a small ball in tank for pods and my scooter
No skimmer,,,yet
Heavy bioload
Occasionally get a lil trace of ammonia
45g AIO
40#s cured live rock
10-14oz of carbon
10-14oz bio rings
1-1.5 inch arg bed
Ai Prime HD light
Stock return pump @ 525gph( I might up grade t0 700gph) I have a lot of water movement
Lots of cheato in sump and a small ball in tank for pods and my scooter
No skimmer,,,yet
Heavy bioload
Occasionally get a lil trace of ammonia
6 months
I'll let others smarter than I respond - I think something is really off if you are seeing ammonia.
Either you have a bad test kit, are so heavily stocked your fish can't turn around, have an endless supply of something that keeps die-ing off or something weird.
Either you have a bad test kit, are so heavily stocked your fish can't turn around, have an endless supply of something that keeps die-ing off or something weird.
