# Matrix without Seachem



## Lonestarbandit

*Please jump to post 85 for commencement of testing*

After about two days of intermittent research I found a place that is shipping 15 pound sacks of what Seachem calls Matrix in the same piece size for about 30 bucks. I won't mention what this material is as we all know already lol.
Equivalent amount of Matrix would run over 200.00
I like and use many Seachem products but in this case someone over there must have been reading P.T. Barnum.
"There's a sucker born every minute".


Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## gregorylampron

Doing scratch bids for ponds online I also found a site that was shutting down selling eheim classic cans new for $45. Back then I didn't have any tanks, so I watched it go by.

About the matrix
The similar product they sell on ebay is about the same price and comes in the bags so it is easy to change out. I personally do not like the drawstring media bags.

Please keep hands off glass.


----------



## thedood

Lonestarbandit said:


> After about two days of intermittent research I found a place that is shipping 15 pound sacks of what Seachem calls Matrix in the same piece size for about 30 bucks. I won't mention what this material is as we all know already lol.
> Equivalent amount of Matrix would run over 200.00
> I like and use many Seachem products but in this case someone over there must have been reading P.T. Barnum.
> "There's a sucker born every minute".
> 
> 
> Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


I just bought a liter of matrix and need more so please do share the link lol.


----------



## Freemananana

I was going to buy a pale of matrix for $60 to filter a 400G+ tank. You'd almost never need $200 worth of Matrix. That would have the bio capacity for well over 1000G US, possibly closer to 1500-2000G. 

Anyway, cool! I'd like to check it out.

EDIT:

$30 is rated at 400 US gallons. 

Amazon.com : Matrix, 4 L / 1 gal. : Aquarium Water Changers : Pet Supplies

I think this is what I had my eye on for my tank. I may have been buying 2 at the time.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

For those who don't know Matrix is nothing more than white pumice stone that has been "acid washed" which is rather a dubious thing given it has never been proven scientifically that that process is of any real benefit other than the benefit of color uniformity and the profit swelling it provides Seachem's bottom line.
Also given this is simply stone any of their precious dosing specs are rather immaterial.
More is better because why not.
Also again why pay what 3x more for the same thing?
Yes another forum actually paid a lab to determine what Matrix was and tada! Pumice.
So save your damn money. Or pay for their pretty bucket and label. And the fact that they washed and effectively bleached it. Yeah I'll take the 15 pound sack please lol
http://www.generalpumiceproducts.com/order-here/










Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Lonestarbandit

You're welcome!

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Lonestarbandit

For all I know given this is from the two major mines for this stuff it could even be Seachem's wholesaler for all I know.


----------



## Freemananana

Oh, interesting. I'll look into this.

EDIT: Looked into it.

Pumice is roughly a pound and a half per liter. So 15lbs would be 10 liters of pumice. Seachem matrix is 4L for $30 and this stuff is 10L for $25. You can guestimate it at 2.5x the value. Not quite 8x the price. I'd even give you 3x the value. 

A good resource for bulk though. I'll buy a 15lb bag for my next tank for sure. It will WAY over filter my tank though, in terms of potential bio capacity.


----------



## CowBoYReX

Nice find, thanks for the info


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Yes I was doing math while half asleep you are correct. I calculated wrong.
But the value is clear lol. I will edit that to reflect the correct value.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Veritas

awesome. I never knew this.

I wonder if you could use large pieces of it for a hardscape


----------



## Freemananana

Veritas said:


> awesome. I never knew this.
> 
> I wonder if you could use large pieces of it for a hardscape


The largest available on this site is 3/8" from what I saw, which is matrix sized.


You can find it at local home improvement stores though (IE Lowes/Home Depot). It comes in the same size as lava rock and is essentially a more porous rock of the same nature. At least, that's what my 5 minutes on Google told me, so it has to be true. :grin2:




Also, no worries on the math. I was just curious about the numbers. I really worry about posting any sort of exaggeration on the internet because it becomes 'the truth' very quickly.


----------



## thedood

This is cool stuff. Thanks for sharing!!


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Freemananana said:


> The largest available on this site is 3/8" from what I saw, which is matrix sized.
> 
> 
> You can find it at local home improvement stores though (IE Lowes/Home Depot). It comes in the same size as lava rock and is essentially a more porous rock of the same nature. At least, that's what my 5 minutes on Google told me, so it has to be true. :grin2:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, no worries on the math. I was just curious about the numbers. I really worry about posting any sort of exaggeration on the internet because it becomes 'the truth' very quickly.



You cannot find it at Home Depot or Lowes or even landscaping places at least not in Texas. It is a regional product apparently. This is why I ordered online. At least not in the larger Seachem equivalent size.

Actually they are different geologically and by effect on pH among other things.
Scoria is an extremely vesicular *basalt*ic lava and pumice is a essentially a froth of *felsic* volcanic glass.

Source: College geology class and http://www.pitt.edu/~cejones/GeoImages/2IgneousRocks/IgneousTextures/8PumiceScoria.html

Remember how exaggeration becomes truth!!! 


Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Veritas said:


> awesome. I never knew this.
> 
> I wonder if you could use large pieces of it for a hardscape



Get in touch with them. They are the miners/wholesalers/retailers all in house so stands to reason whatever size your would like in a 15 pound minimum could be accommodated.
But single large pieces might be more easily sourced locally at landscaping yards.
Just not the Matrix size. THAT I was unable to source at a decent rate anywhere locally or regionally.

Bump: Also quality of other places is suspect see here a comparison example to explain what I am saying. This is why the research took a while. Many things were considered lol.
Especially quality.


----------



## Freemananana

Lonestarbandit said:


> You cannot find it at home depot or lowes or even landscaping places at least not in Texas. It is a regional product apparently. This is why I ordered online. At least not in the larger Seachem equivalent size.
> 
> Actually they are different geologically and by effect on pH among other things.
> Scoria is an extremely vesicular basaltic lava and pumice is a essentially a froth of felsic volcanic glass.
> 
> Source: College geology class and Pumice and Scoria
> 
> Remember how exaggeration becomes truth!!!
> 
> 
> Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk




Pumice and lava rock are both volcanic rock and share some qualities, that's all I meant. The effects on the tank are different. I'm in Florida and I don't think my local hardware stores have it either. I really haven't looked into it at all though.


----------



## thedood

This is a goldmine @Lonestarbandit. I will be ordering mine this week. What does shipping look like on it?


----------



## Lonestarbandit

thedood said:


> This is a goldmine @*Lonestarbandit*. I will be ordering mine this week. What does shipping look like on it?


You must order a 15 pound sack shipping is included @ I believe 28 bucks give or take some pennies.
It would really be an ever better deal if people local to each other split the sack and cost 
I'm sure a 15 pound sack is more than enough for all 6 of my canister filters.


----------



## thedood

Lonestarbandit said:


> You must order a 15 pound sack shipping is included @ I believe 28 bucks give or take some pennies.
> It would really be an ever better deal if people local to each other split the sack and cost


Thats enough to biofilter 30 aquariums lol.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

thedood said:


> Thats enough to biofilter 30 aquariums lol.


For sure but that is their minimum purchase.


----------



## thedood

I'm not complaining. I will use it!!


----------



## Lonestarbandit

thedood said:


> I'm not complaining. I will use it!!


Yes I will too. My sack is on its way


----------



## Freemananana

You can use it in the substrate too. I used some salt and pepper rock in my aquarium before and I really liked how it looked. Add some of this in there and it wouldn't be too bad. It is just a rock after all! 

Definitely a good deal. I wouldn't mind using this on my pond build either. It might give the sand and gravel filter a run for it's money. I'd have to sit down with the old pen and paper to crunch those numbers though.

Anyone want to do a side by side comparison of it as filter media? I'd like to see how it compares to Matrix. I'll pay for a small portion of it to be shipped and do side by side ammonia testing to see if it holds the same amount of bacteria as matrix. I could cycle them both in my tank and see how much ammonia can be neutralized in 24 hours with the same quantity of each.


----------



## WaterLife

Yes, I would very much be interested in seeing controlled tests conducted to see if plain ole' Pumice stone really does perform as well as Matrix.
For years I've heard they are the same, but never see anyone do any tests to prove so (pretty simple test really, though I'm too lazy to do it myself ).


----------



## ichy

In general SO MANY things in the aquarium trade have a generic alternative. But as soon as an aquarium company slaps a label on it the price more than doubles!
I just bought 25lbs of Diatomaceous Earth for about $25. If I had bought Vortex brand it would have been $135.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

ichy said:


> In general SO MANY things in the aquarium trade have a generic alternative. But as soon as an aquarium company slaps a label on it the price more than doubles!
> I just bought 25lbs of Diatomaceous Earth for about $25. If I had bought Vortex brand it would have been $135.


And ichy is the winner.
People need to stop buying into the marketing drama.
As Public Enemy famously once said:
"Don't believe the Hype!"


Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Lonestarbandit

People just want to believe I guess. 
The material safety data sheet otherwise known as the MSDS.
This is for Pond Matrix which is just plus sized Matrix.








You can extrapolate from this information to find it is indeed plain old pumice.
There is no magical additives no miracle treatments that make it different.
It is stone. Period. No added chemicals.
Nothing. 
Key statement. 100% natural stone.


Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Freemananana

I suppose you can extrapolate and start assuming anything. YMMV is a staple.

If it works, it works. But there have been many cases of people using less than ideal bio medias without issue. I.E lava rock, scrubbies, shavings, etc. I find it tough to draw absolutes based on spec sheets that are 95% blank.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

I have made no assumptions. I have backed every statement with fact and source/cite or photographic evidence.
The reason the MSDS is 95% blank is because it is:
Composed of 100% ROCK no additives no magical elixirs nothing but natural rock.
There ARE no other components to report.
But hey, whatever makes everyone happy.


----------



## thedood

The proof is in the pudding err in this case the proof is in the filtering. Bring on the tests!!


----------



## Lonestarbandit

So I am willing to step up to prove my point and put my money where my mouth is.
Someone else needs to do it for us though.
So no Matrix fanboys (Freemananana) and no DIY Generic fanboys (Lonestarbandit) needs to be a impartial disinterested 3rd party lol.
I nominate *Immortal1* not only does he take great photos but he's very analytical and methodical and does great write-ups. 
So who will donate some Matrix and ship it to him. 
I will donate him some of my DIY Pumice and ship it to him so we can put paid to the many forum arguments about the same thing? 
Planted Tank will have the definitive answer.
I already view it as the definitive forum 
Lets get er' done as they say!

This is assuming he would do the testing willingly lol.


----------



## swoof

Veritas said:


> awesome. I never knew this.
> 
> I wonder if you could use large pieces of it for a hardscape


The problem with pumice for hard scape is that some of it is very light and will float. I've put matrix in HOB's and sometimes pieces float and will bang around from the water turbulence inside the hob.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

swoof said:


> The problem with pumice for hard scape is that some of it is very light and will float. I've put matrix in HOB's and sometimes pieces float and will bang around from the water turbulence inside the hob.


Does it not eventually waterlog in your experience?
I saw pictures of someone online who used large pieces to recreate the Avatar world?
(Never seen it) and they drilled a hole and attached it the bottom with a strand of monofilament line.
The effect was very striking if it remained floating lol.
I have seen other reports that say once it waterlogs it will sink.
Still it could be very interesting as a functional design element


----------



## Immortal1

LOL, thanks for the recommendation LoneStarBandit. Sure, I would be interested in having some fun. Pretty sure I still have plenty of cheap ammonia left over. What I will have to do is find another 10g tank to go with the spare tank I currently have. I have my spare Marineland C360 and soon should have my AquaTop CF500 back (on loan to a friend). In all fairness to the test, I should see if I can get both filters to move approximately the same amount of water per hour. Given that I would be starting with clean water, I really should not "need" any mechanical filtration in either filter - just the biological material.
For what it's worth, I know plenty of people that use generic pot scrubbies for bio media in there filters. Was joking on the local forum you could probably get by with a bunch of plastic hot wheels cars for bio media - as long as you have enough surface area for the bacteria to grow on.

Being a 1st time Eheim owner, I do see an advantage to their Substrat Pro bio media (small sintered glass balls). Lot of surface area packed into the smallest space possible without restricting water flow.
Previously / currently I am using Fluval Biomax and have had good results with it.


----------



## theatermusic87

Lonestarbandit said:


> Does it not eventually waterlog in your experience?
> I saw pictures of someone online who used large pieces to recreate the Avatar world?
> (Never seen it) and they drilled a hole and attached it the bottom with a strand of monofilament line.
> The effect was very striking if it remained floating lol.
> I have seen other reports that say once it waterlogs it will sink.
> Still it could be very interesting as a functional design element


They actually sell these at my lfs... don't remember who makes them, but they are literally pieces of pumice and a heavier rock with fishing line tied between the 2... they paint the top of the pumice green so it looks like it's planted and viola!


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Ah true but supposedly Matrix claims it can grow anaerobic bacteria internally as well hot wheel wheels..... not so much lol.
No rush we have to find someone willing to pony up the shipping and a sample of Matrix to go up against my Generic Pumice!
Once we do I will mail a sample of my Pumice once I get it here.

Bump:


theatermusic87 said:


> They actually sell these at my lfs... don't remember who makes them, but they are literally pieces of pumice and a heavier rock with fishing line tied between the 2... they paint the top of the pumice green so it looks like it's planted and viola!


Awwww. And I thought someone was DIY inventive.
Well someone was I guess before whatever brand commercialized it lol.


----------



## thedood

Really I dont even know if Matrix is needed for this test. Here is my thinking. Seachem advertises how much matrix is needed for 100g. Divide that by ten and you have that amount for a 10g. If the pumice works the same amount should remove 5ppm ammonia in no time. Once the nitrification process is complete with no plants to consume nitrates the nitrates should rise. If the pumice is working as seachem advertises Matrix there should be 0 ammonia, 0 nitrites, and nitrates should show a decrease over time.

Addendum: I would add for those on a budget if this works 90% as well as Matrix it is a very viable option.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Oh no. Because I want the naysayers to have no room for argument lol. Need to test both. Depending what my finances look like when the 15 pound sack arrives I may just PayPal him enough to buy a comparative small amount of Matrix just to put this magical Matrix nonsense to bed. It is possible the acid wash etches the surface a bit more under say a microscope but I would doubt it changes the bacteria colonization on a level that would prove superior to this grade of pumice. It is probably just a marketing gimmick so they can say it IS different somehow.
Product differentiation. (Marketing 101 lol)
(I myself agree with you)

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Lonestarbandit

**UPDATE**

Decided to bankroll this test myself for the benefit of the forum so as of today ordered 500ml of Matrix.
Once it and my Pumice arrive I will be mailing some of both to *Immortal1* for him to independently test and use his lovely high res camera on and experiment with and place his findings here. Then we as a forum shall have a definitive answer on the matter and I shall (very likely) be vindicated and my Hypothesis proved correct


----------



## Lonestarbandit

They have shipped the pumice and also the matrix has shipped guess I will see them in a week or so.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Immortal1

Sounds good! will hit up the local forum for another 10g tank (have a feeling this will take less than 24 hours). My other cansiter filter should be back in a few weeks as well. Will clear a spot for the setup to run in. Thinking I should be able to get good results within 30 days. Too bad I did not have access to another setup - have about 2 gallons of old bioballs from other filters available. Would be interesting to see if XX grams or liters of bioballs can match the performance of pumice/matrix.

I realize bioballs are a great medai in the right situation, but in my personal opinion, they don't belong in a canister filter - much denser material available.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Think their only claim to fame is surface area over say a marble lol
Though others have said they use them in a wet dry sump situation for other types of bacteria so they may have a use outside of canisters....
Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Immortal1

About as I suspected, I now have a 2nd 10 gallon tank available - gotta love having a local fish forum.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Great. The Matrix and General Pumice Products 3/8 pumice just arrived.
So I will send 250ml of the matrix and about the same of the pumice I am only guesstimating. Think that will be enough to test with? 
Could send 500 ml but had thought to use half in case it is magical. You will receive the half of Matrix still in the bottle with dosage instructions etc.
Small sandwich bags Matrix is the larger chunks. (Just for viewers info watching thread)
Says on Matrix bottle 500ml treats 50G so 250ml should be way overkill for two 10 gallon test tanks.
You of course will form your own opinion but with what I see here they are one and the same thing lol.
Matrix is a better size but for the price... But I am just postulating. I just added the GPP product to my filter.
Ill send it off tomorrow.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Worth noting I think they sent me the wrong size. This looks more like the next size down. I don't care other than for handling purposes. Surface area is surface area.


----------



## Immortal1

Sounds good Lonestarbandit! Will be picking up a functional Magnum 350 canister filter this weekend to go with the Marineland C360 that I currently have. Will do some flow testing and adjust one of the ball valves so that they each have nearly identical flow at the tank(s) prior to adding bio-media.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Immortal1 said:


> Sounds good Lonestarbandit! Will be picking up a functional Magnum 350 canister filter this weekend to go with the Marineland C360 that I currently have. Will do some flow testing and adjust one of the ball valves so that they each have nearly identical flow at the tank(s) prior to adding bio-media.


Got it packaged up and ready to ship. Will drop it off tomorrow.
Should be a good little experiment.


----------



## latchdan

This will be fun. Think i bought matrix couple years ago. Think i bought 2l for a sunsun filter. It broke so it's just sitting in a gallon bag. Sorry could of donated it.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

latchdan said:


> This will be fun. Think i bought matrix couple years ago. Think i bought 2l for a sunsun filter. It broke so it's just sitting in a gallon bag. Sorry could of donated it.


That's alright Dan. I bought some for the test.:grin2:


----------



## jovonhaln

I have been using pumice in my tanks (filters) since I met a hydroponics farmer here in Dallas about 7-8 months ago (when I moved if any one remembers). I have a liter of matrix in one 55gal., a liter of de*nitrate in another 55gal. and a liter of pumice (closer in size to de*nitrate than matrix) and purely unscientifically of course, have found NO difference between them in tests. 
The bio loads are similar but not exact. Marine pure díd an awesome study (the one where bioballs and an empty filter test the same!!! The test could be duplicated with seachem vs not seachem but I already believe so....
My tests include ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, ph, gh, kh & tds. The tanks were established with media and involved adding the matrix, de*nitrate and pumice then removing the other various bio medias about two weeks later. I have since purchased another .5 cúbic foot box of the stone (14+L) for $30 shipped. Not knockin seachem (I am a HUGE fan) but budget friendly alternatives are always welcome. Two of those are wet/dry so the chances of creating a nitrate reducing situation is slim :smile2: The only difference I have found is...with the seachem products you have a lot less sifting and rinsing (a more uniform product in size etc.). Now I have considered using the tiny stuff in a fluidized bed filter but don't have room for another tank big enough to make it worth while.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Oh I will knock them for Matrix. It is a shameless hustle.
But I will swear by their Safe product I use it exclusively and it's wonderful. I also use their Purigen and love it as well.
Just the Matrix thing.....


----------



## jovonhaln

I like safe and prime too. Not sure where you are but Dallas bonsai lets you pick up at the warehouse if you call first. Its a little more like matrix too. Can't remember how much it was (far less than matrix maybe $3-4 /L) but the bigger bags/boxes are much less.








Gonna subscribe to this hope to see the results!


----------



## Lonestarbandit

I do like the bigger pieces you have there. I think they goofed on my order and I got a smaller size by mistake but no biggie. Still usable.
I loaded one of my 55g with the pumice product as I am sure it will work lol. Ill load the other canisters this weekend.
I look forward to the test sequence too lol.
I am down in Central Texas bout 30 mi from Waco.


----------



## jovonhaln

Ohh nice area. I have been thru there. Being a da** yankee (never went home) I still have a lot of Texas to discover. Never cycled with matrix or generic but I am sure you'll be fine, to my understanding pumice and expanded shale have been used as bio media for years. Smaller gives more surface area anyways. Díd you ever read the study I mentioned? Interesting stuff. Have you noticed how inexpensive matrix etc. is getting? My last batch was about $6 a liter ($25 for the little bucket). Got some matrix carbon for $6/L too! Maybe I just spend to much time price shopping.....gota get up at 4:30 so I will see you all later.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

So did I. Have to get up at that time that is lol
And I'm not cycling.
These are 3x55g and a 20T 5-7 year old established tanks.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## thedood

Great thread and cant wait to see the results even though I think I know what the answer will be. I love seachem as well, I use their meds, purigen, I have matrix, and I use prime but if I can save a buck I will.


----------



## Freemananana

Lonestarbandit said:


> So I am willing to step up to prove my point and put my money where my mouth is.
> Someone else needs to do it for us though.
> So no Matrix fanboys (Freemananana) ....


:frown2:


I'm actually not a Matrix fanboy. I was actually willing to do the testing too! I think I suggested it first. I just didn't want to buy 15 lbs of pumice right now. Furthermore, I said I was going to buy pumice for my next tank build regardless! haha. 


I'm in for results though. I may have missed the testing procedure, but I'll be sure to sub to this thread or the testing thread.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Testing hasn't begun. Still shipping both products to immortal1. 


Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## WaterLife

Should post all the controlled variables planned for testing to double check that these would be fair test.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

WaterLife said:


> Should post all the controlled variables planned for testing to double check that these would be fair test.


I am sure immortal1 has a handle on it.
He's already stated he is going to list all variables etc.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Package has been shipped!


----------



## Lonestarbandit

thedood said:


> Great thread and cant wait to see the results even though I think I know what the answer will be. I love seachem as well, I use their meds, purigen, I have matrix, and I use prime but if I can save a buck I will.


You want to save a ton and sacrifice nothing you need to switch to Safe vs Prime.
It's astronomical savings. I stopped buying Prime long ago.
Super concentrated. Tiny dab will do ya, the bottle will last forever.
Why pay for water?
Seachem - Safe


----------



## Immortal1

Test mule #1 has been setup and is now running quietly. Was a bit surprised how much the pump complained when connected to 1/2" CPVC tubing. Even a 6" long section on the intake and exhaust caused the canister to suck air past the canister body seal and spit bubbles continuously. Oh well. Happy now running thru all 3/4" tubing. Should be picking up 2nd tank and 2nd filter this weekend.


----------



## jovonhaln

Immortal1I have had that with rigid pipe also never occured to me it was air getting in around the filter head! I thought it was the pipe or fitting... went away with tubing too. To much suction? Inside diameters shouldnt reduce on the inlets I guess. That could ruin it (the pump impeller) ? Thumbs up smiley here
Looking forward to your test.


----------



## aja31

This should be interesting. I suspect they are the same product, but we many see some differences due to the difference in the sizes, which is more interesting to me.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Well we know my prediction but I also look forward to the test!


Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## thedood

aja31 said:


> This should be interesting. I suspect they are the same product, but we many see some differences due to the difference in the sizes, which is more interesting to me.


I think the smaller size of the pumice may be an advantage. Will be interesting to see the results.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

As a side note. I started using cheap black zipper media bags off fleabay after the first canister and have found I prefer the size General Pumice Products provided in that application.
Works beautifully. I will finish loading the remainder of the canisters today with bagged pumice. (Yes I have a lot of filters - 7)
I didn't even use the Matrix I kept lol. That's how much I am certain they are the same thing.
I will save it for an RAOK once my plants take off and will include it there. 
Somehow I am sure that would excite uninformed people more than pumice lol
The magical Matrix lol.
I am waiting on more fleabay bags but I still have half a bag of pumice lol. Hell of a deal from General Pumice Products.
Anyway hope everyone tunes in for the test results! Gonna be fun. Our own Forum "Mythbusters" lol.


----------



## Immortal1

So, which one are you - Adam or Jamie?


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Given my propensity for going over the top with things...... Probably Adam. And that leaves the more analytical, less excitable Jamie ..........


----------



## Immortal1

LOL! Looks like I will have to break out the beret.


----------



## Immortal1

Well, I now have a 2nd 10 gallon tank (free, Thank-you Jennie Brandt) and a 2nd filter (Magnum 350 - $40, Thank-you Stan Zeto). Unfortunately the Magnum is in need of an impeller & magnet (it works, just vibrates badly). LFS has the needed parts, but won't be open again until Tuesday. These Magnum filters are definitely different from what I am used to. Pretty sure it won't matter much having the biomedia piled up in the carbon chamber (no carbon) vs laying in one of the trays of the Marineland C360. Even with a worn out impeller, the Magnum seems to move a decent amount of water - certainly more than my new Eheim 2273 (Pro 4+ 350).

Thoughts from the group - what are your thoughts on using 2 potentially different flow rates thru identical quantities of biomedia? 

Given that I am using 10 gallon tanks, I don't think it will matter if the tank volume is circulated 36 times per hour vs 35 times per hour past the media other than I might need to add more ammonia to each tank once the cycle starts. 
Also, given that these filters are made for much larger tanks, I don't think the rate of water flow past the biomedia will make much difference seeing as that is how the manufacture designed each filter.

Does anybody have any other concerns with the initial setup?


----------



## thedood

I dont. I actually have both of those fillters. I run Matrix in the carbon container on my magnum and a matrix/ceramic media mix in my C-220. If I may make a suggestion since there will be no particulate matter in this experiment I would run equal amounts of media and no mechanical filtration. Leave out the bonded blue pad from the magnum and the floss and sponges from the C model. That way all filtration of ammonia is done by the media being tested.

Actually I have the C-220 not the 360 but same principle.


----------



## Immortal1

Good point @thedood! If I left some of the mechanical filtration in the filters, it would be possible the larger course filter in the C-360 to bias the test vs the bonded blue pad in the Magnum. (honestly did not think of that variable).


----------



## thedood

@Immortal1 If you feel the need to prevent any particulates from entering the system I would simply zip tie something like batting around the intakes.


----------



## aja31

I don't think 35x vs 36x is enough to make any difference. As long as the two different bio media's are the only thing in the tank other than water and ammonia then you should be good to go. I think there are a few results that matter for this test:

1. How much bio media can the Matrix/Pumice support

2. At what rate does the bio media remove ammonia

3. Does either bio media remove nitrates. 

The first and second questions can both be answered by adding more and more ammonia after a colony is established and seeing how much it can remove in 24 hours. Since there is nothing in the tank except identical glass walls and the biomedia, if you use equal amounts of each biomedia (by weight? volume? not sure which is better for testing) we should be able to tell if one has more surface area than another by the amount of ammonia it can remove in 24 hours. At some point one will max out and not be able to remove all the ammonia in the same time as the other, theoretically. Since I suspect they can both support large quantities, this may take a few weeks of upping the dosage higher and higher to max out. Another possibility is to do hourly tests and see which drops more ppm per hour, though this will require a much more accurate testing procedure than your standard API kit. If all you have is the standard kit then we will have to stick to measuring the first way.

Eventually we can see if nitrates are also ever reduced, but only after a full and stable amount of ammonia reducing bacteria are present. I suspect it will take 2-3 months to get to that point without stalling the cycle, so we can worry about that later.


----------



## Immortal1

Great notes @aja31. All I have available is the API test kits and with a typical 10 hour work day, hourly measurements simply will not happen.
From what I am reading on the Matrix container, it states 500 mL treats 50 gallons. So, if thats the case I am wondering if I should only use 100 ml of each product for the 10 gallon tanks. This might yield quicker results when it comes time to max these medias out.

Now for an update. The Magnum 350 parts were going to cost me $40. By helping a local fish fan thru a difficult time I ended up getting her old Eheim Pro II filter for free. It needed some TLC to be atleast functional for this test, but, that ended up costing me $0.00 so we will be matching up the Eheim Pro II against the Marineland C360 with matching 10 gallon tanks. LOL, they are both TopFin brand tanks. Seeing as the Eheim is new to me I am atleast going to run it for 24 hours before I start the actual test.










Also, for what its worth, the supplied General Pumice Products material is approximately the same size as the Eheim Substrat Pro material.


----------



## thedood

You can really see the pores in the pumice. This is an interesting experiment. Thanks to @Lonestarbandit and @Immortal1 for the effort.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Well mostly Immortal1. I just supplied the goods and shipment and dumped the tests on him lol.
Also I might add rinse the GPP pumice well its dusty. Just finished loading the new filter with it dust everywhere. lol.
Matrix directions probably mention that as well but I didn't look.
Interesting the Eheim Pro appears to be a ceramic or resin product vs stone?
Now you are making me wish you had 3 tanks lol though that is outside the scope of Matrix vs Pumice but......
Also that old Eheim looks like my Aquatop "Fauxheim".
Check it out lol


----------



## Freemananana

You are going to be cycling these tanks, correct? And there is the same volume of bio media, correct? After the tanks are cycled and can reduce 4ppm ammonia to 0ppm ammonia and 0ppm nitrite in 24 hours, I would be interested in seeing you double the dosage of ammonia or something like that to see how much ammonia they can really handle. 

What is your metric for final testing actually? I think 1 ml of 10% ammonia will yield roughly 4ppm ammonia by the way (in a 10g tank). I did some math about a year ago and I'm pulling that number from memory.

I am quite interested in this! In a world of infinite resources, I would love to see some more comparisons. Particularly $1 pot scrubbies and lava rock thrown in to compare their potential as bio media. There are plenty of budget oriented users that swear by budget brand products.

One last bit. I think 100ml of media may not fill a whole tray. I wouldn't want there to be a ton of bypass when you're testing the media. I'm sure that's probably obvious to you, but just a thought.


----------



## jovonhaln

Ha haa ha I have that in jabao version..... or is it jebo?

Immortal1 where do you get those side front lids? Made for space saving on racks? I like those.


----------



## Immortal1

jovonhaln said:


> Ha haa ha I have that in jabao version..... or is it jebo?
> 
> Immortal1 where do you get those side front lids? Made for space saving on racks? I like those.


The lids were custom made, I guess. The black hinge portion was a much larger piece I had left over - just cut it to fit. I recently changed some windows in the house and there were these storm windows left over so I hung on to them for "something". Turns out they make great fish tank tops with a little creative glass cutting.

Bump:


Freemananana said:


> You are going to be cycling these tanks, correct? And there is the same volume of bio media, correct? After the tanks are cycled and can reduce 4ppm ammonia to 0ppm ammonia and 0ppm nitrite in 24 hours, I would be interested in seeing you double the dosage of ammonia or something like that to see how much ammonia they can really handle.
> 
> What is your metric for final testing actually? I think 1 ml of 10% ammonia will yield roughly 4ppm ammonia by the way (in a 10g tank). I did some math about a year ago and I'm pulling that number from memory.
> 
> I am quite interested in this! In a world of infinite resources, I would love to see some more comparisons. Particularly $1 pot scrubbies and lava rock thrown in to compare their potential as bio media. There are plenty of budget oriented users that swear by budget brand products.
> 
> One last bit. I think 100ml of media may not fill a whole tray. I wouldn't want there to be a ton of bypass when you're testing the media. I'm sure that's probably obvious to you, but just a thought.


I will have to find out what the % is on my ammonia so I can make that same calculation. And yes, I intend to see what it takes for this stuff to fail. Later last nite I measured out 100ml of one of the products and thought the same thing - this won't cover the entire tray. So, tonite I will try to figure out how much I will need to have a nice layer in the bigger of the 2 trays.

Another local friend of mine swears by the WalMart pot scrubbies. I'm thinking that if I can properly record enough details about this test, the next test would be pot scrubbies vs lava rock or maybe HotWheels LOL. In all honesty, I think the 2 products I am testing now would product the best results for a given volume of material. Lets face it, if I measured out pot scrubbies I likely would get maybe 1 of them in a 100ml container. No way that could be as much surface area as either of these products.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

jovonhaln said:


> Ha haa ha I have that in jabao version..... or is it jebo?
> 
> Immortal1 where do you get those side front lids? Made for space saving on racks? I like those.


Jebo yes. Shameless aping of the old Eheim.
Joke that goes around is they are "Fauxheims" due to the shameless, obvious design copy.


----------



## CowBoYReX

It's awesome what y'all have going here. I think that smaller pore size and larger "rock" size would be better for reducing nitrates. It causes the aerobic bacteria to use up the o2 before it gets to the inner parts where the anaerobic bacteria(nitrate reducers) hide out.


----------



## Immortal1

As information develops, I will continue to edit this post number.










Approximately 275ml Seachem Matrix was measured out and added to the Marineland C360 filter. The material was added to the 2nd tray from the top. No other filter media is in the filter.

















Approximately 275ml General Pumice Products was measured out and added to the Eheim Professional II filter. The material was added to the 2nd tray from the top. No other filter media is in the filter.

















The test solution will be Blue Ribbon Clear Ammonia which contains 3.5% ammonia.








Blue Ribbon Clear Ammonia MSDS | MsdsDigital.com | Search our SDS online database free | Material Safety Data Sheet

Initial target will be 4ppm ammonia. I am using fishforums.net/aquarium-calculator Calculator to calculate how much ammonia to add. I also will be using a spreadsheet to log how much ammonia is in the water prior to adding additional ammonia. Barring a few occasions, I will be trying to do daily measurements thru the entire cycling period.

Additional Data:
* Each tank holds 10 gallons of water. I am estimating each filter holds about 2 gallons of water. For the purpose of this test, I will be inputting 12 gallons of water into the above calculator.
* KH = 7 german degrees. GH = 12 german degrees. Ph = 7.6. Temperature will very as the tanks are sitting on the back porch in summer time. 
* Turnover rate in each tank will be very high considering the filters that are being used. 
* The filter output is aimed towards the water surface to give a good ripple effect to help keep oxygen levels high.
* 50% water change on each tank on 6/8/2016 due to higher than expected Nitrite levels


----------



## thedood

@Immortal1 Looking at the layers you have of each, besides color differences do you notice anything? I notice the pumice is a little less uniform in color but more uniform in size. I'm curious about a quick observation in pore quantity.

Bump:


Lonestarbandit said:


> Well mostly Immortal1. I just supplied the goods and shipment and dumped the tests on him lol.


This was your idea and quite interesting so....


----------



## Immortal1

Well, I am back from my trip to WI. Checked on the tanks and was a little surprised to see the results thus far. So, on Thursday I brought the ammonia level up to 4ppm to begin the test. I checked the tanks Saturday morning before I left and they were both still around 4ppm (best guess using API test). Now Monday nite I have something. The Pumice tank is reading 1ppm and the Matrix tank is reading 2ppm. Going to bring both tanks back up to 4ppm (ish) and see where things are tomorrow. I am VERY much guessing neither tank will be at 0 ppm.


----------



## WaterLife

Did you use any bottled Nitrifying bacteria products to seed the biomedia?
Any of the filters or tanks potentially still have alive nitrifying bacteria from prior use?

Will you be testing Nitrites and Nitrates to see how well those are oxidized as well?


----------



## Immortal1

@WaterLife, I have not used any yet. Was thinking about using it to speed things up a bit but just have not had any time yet.
The tanks definitely had nothing in them. Both had been dry for some time. 
As for the filters and tanks as an assembly, I ran untreated water running thru them for a few days before treating each tank with Prime (Wednesday). On Thursday I started the tests.
Yes, I will eventually be testing for both Nitrites and eventually Nitrates.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Interesting the pumice was performing at double the rate of the Matrix thus far? I would have bet on dead even. I wonder if the smaller size pieces are helping initially....

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Immortal1

Hard to say @Lonestarbandit. I wouldn't call a victory yet  Will be very interesting though to see which one can bring Nitrites back to zero. And then, of course, to see which product can handle the most ammonia!


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Oh I'm not so far. I am confused by the difference. As I said I expect them to be the same.
But you must admit it's encouraging!

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## WaterLife

How long have these filters/this test (since the biomedia were placed in running filters) been running?

Bandit, are you documenting your own experiment/tests too to see if both experiences/test results are identical?


----------



## thedood

Interesting results. It remains to be seen what will happen here. My guess though, if there is a difference, is the smaller pieces have more surface area. Just a guess at this point but we will see.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

WaterLife said:


> How long have these filters/this test (since the biomedia were placed in running filters) been running?
> 
> Bandit, are you documenting your own experiment/tests too to see if both experiences/test results are identical?


No, I supplied the media and the postulate. I'm running purely the General Pumice Product on established tanks not using Matrix as I am certain matrix is just pumice. Hence this whole thread and test by unbiased 3rd party Immortal1. 

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## jovonhaln

To soon to say but maybe media size is showing. Were going to learn several things I bet.
And awaaayyyy we go!


----------



## Freemananana

Very cool. I am most interested in seeing which media can reduce more ammonia to nitrate in a 24 hour cycle. But that is still 2-3 weeks out most likely.


I would bet the more uniform pumice has more surface area per volume and is allowing beneficial bacteria to colonize quicker. That is fairly important because I do believe this will lead to a larger colony in the end.


But that is just an assumption based on minimal data.


----------



## Immortal1

WaterLife said:


> How long have these filters/this test (since the biomedia were placed in running filters) been running?


 @WaterLife, this test started June 2, 2016. That is when the two different medias were added to the two canister filters. So, today would be the 5th day.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Freemananana said:


> Very cool. I am most interested in seeing which media can reduce more ammonia to nitrate in a 24 hour cycle. But that is still 2-3 weeks out most likely.
> 
> 
> I would bet the more uniform pumice has more surface area per volume and is allowing beneficial bacteria to colonize quicker. That is fairly important because I do believe this will lead to a larger colony in the end.
> 
> 
> But that is just an assumption based on minimal data.


I agree.


----------



## Immortal1

Ya know, this whole guessing at the right color crap sucks, LOL. In person the second image looks very close to 1.0ppm The first image looks more like 4.0ppm. What do you guys think? 
I think I am going to have to go with those numbers and see what tomorrow brings. Why can't this be simpler like testing pH with a pH probe - you get a number, period.


----------



## Freemananana

I am the worst at color distinguishing. I cannot tell the difference between shades of colors. I know yellow is good, green is bad.


----------



## Immortal1

Freemananana said:


> I am the worst at color distinguishing. I cannot tell the difference between shades of colors. I know yellow is good, green is bad.


LOL, exactly!
Why can't I just dose it to 10ppm each day and do a 50% water change before each dose? Just kidding. I am still a bit surprised that one of the products is taking off faster than the other. I know the Marineland filter ran for a week atleast with chlorinated water in it. The Eheim did not run that long with chlorinated water, but it was bone dry when I got it. Just can't believe there was anything living in that filter - especially when I pulled all filter media and rinsed the trays in tap water before starting.


----------



## Freemananana

Immortal1 said:


> LOL, exactly!
> Why can't I just dose it to 10ppm each day and do a 50% water change before each dose? Just kidding. I am still a bit surprised that one of the products is taking off faster than the other. I know the Marineland filter ran for a week atleast with chlorinated water in it. The Eheim did not run that long with chlorinated water, but it was bone dry when I got it. Just can't believe there was anything living in that filter - especially when I pulled all filter media and rinsed the trays in tap water before starting.


You can chalk that up to a dozen different things. This is only one test. You could microwave the media, swap filters, etc and do it again and may see the same thing, may see the opposite. It's not definite, but it is interesting! I certainly would love to see the seachem get beat out by pumice haha. It would save me on my next build for sure!


----------



## jovonhaln

Immortal1 your eye seems good to me. It is surprising the dramatic difference maybe each little piece is starting its own little blanket colony and more pieces......more little colonies....
Thanks for spending your time with us


----------



## Immortal1

Well, this is an interesting development. I decided to test for Nitrites this morning before work and to my surprise both tanks were at 5ppm Nitrite!!! I really was not expecting this to happen this quickly seeing as the first ammonia was added to the tanks only 5.5 days ago! Guess I will be doing a partial water change tonite to see if I can keep the nitrite level in more of a 3 or 4ppm range.

From the many times I have read Dianna's article on fishless cycle and from doing my own fishless cycles on other tanks I was expecting the nitrite level to maybe be up to 1 ish by this time. 
Question for you guys - do you think the chosen bio-media is cycling faster than normal? Or could it be the fact that I am only using 12 gallons of water on a filter made for 100 gallons of water?

My theory is with no other media in the filter and nothing in the tank besides water, the only place bio organisms can find to grow on is the bio media. All my other tanks had filter floss, substraight, hardscape, and a lot more total water.

@Diana - fishless cycle excerpt;
3) Test daily. For the first few days not much will happen, but the bacteria that remove ammonia are getting started. Finally after a week or 2, the ammonia starts to drop. Add a little more, once a day, to test 5 ppm. 

4) Test for nitrite. A day or so after the ammonia starts to drop the nitrite will show up. When it does allow the ammonia to drop to 3 ppm. 

5) Test daily. Add ammonia to 3 ppm once a day. If the nitrite or ammonia go to 5 ppm do a water change to get these lower. The ammonia removing species and the nitrite removing species (Nitrospira) do not do well when the ammonia or nitrite are over 5 ppm.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Seems pumice in general is quite an effective host! That is quite speedy!

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Freemananana

....Well. I just cycled my tank and completely ignored some of her points. I measured and dosed my ammonia to 4ppm. When I saw it drop, I dosed back up to 4ppm. I noticed it was rapidly decaying so I standardized my dose and dosed daily at about 7-10 days. I tested for nitrites the weekend after and the drops immediately turned purple upon hitting the water. I continue to dose ammonia daily. Nitrates showed up but meant very little to me. I continued to dose ammonia daily. The next weekend I checked nitrites and they were 0. I tested ammonia and it was 0 also. I dosed up to 4ppm ammonia again and checked everything the next day, nitrite and ammonia both 0ppm. My concentration of ammonia was most likely never over 5ppm, but my nitrite was well over 5ppm. My nitrate was off the charts, 160+ ppm. I did a 90% water change and then a 50% water change. Nitrate was around 10-20ppm at that point (yellow/orange on the test kit). I added fish the next day, a dozen tiger barbs. 

It may not be optimal, but I don't believe any water changes are necessary for this test. Just my opinion. Not doing water changes would eliminate a variable also.


----------



## Immortal1

My test this morning did not turn purple immediately. Given that, I will see where ammonia is tonite. If it is back to 1ppm then I will just bring it back up to 3ppm. Likely a little less ammonia in would result in a little less nitrite out.


----------



## aja31

That was incredibly fast. I did not expect any results for at least 2 weeks. This part of the test is tricky because if you have too much nitrites you could kill off your bacteria. Just keep dosing ammonia and doing daily water changes to keep the nitrites down until they get their own colony.


----------



## Freemananana

Nitrites can kill bacteria? This is new to me. I've never done a water change while cycling and I know my nitrites had to be off the charts all three times. It's not like I'm a veteran fish keeper I could also just be _that lucky_~


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Freemananana said:


> Nitrites can kill bacteria? This is new to me. I've never done a water change while cycling and I know my nitrites had to be off the charts all three times. It's not like I'm a veteran fish keeper I could also just be _that lucky_~


In sufficiently over the top amounts yes.
At the very least inhibit growth of said bacteria.


----------



## Immortal1

A little over eating never hurt anybody - I'm sure the nitrite bacteria will be fine....









Monty Python, Mr. Creosote


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Its only Waaaaaafer thin Sir.......


----------



## Immortal1

Well, 1 week of testing is now complete. the pumice seems to be about 2 days ahead of the Matrix as far as the ammonia cycle is concerned. Both products are now putting out Nitrite with abandon. Will be interesting to see how long the Nitrite cycle takes to complete. Picture below has Pumice on the right and Matrix on the left.


----------



## IUnknown

Immortal1, This was already covered before but both systems were totally sanitized to elinate existing bacteria?


----------



## Immortal1

IUnknown said:


> Immortal1, This was already covered before but both systems were totally sanitized to elinate existing bacteria?


See post 102 of this thread.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

So far Pumice in the lead!!


----------



## thedood

I have no doubt those filters were BB free when @Immortal1 started the test. I think there is a good explanation for what is going on. There is really nothing else for the bb to colonize. No gravel and no mechanical media. Therefore they colonize the one real space available and since that space happens to be premo for housing bacteria that is whats happening and since that also happens to be the best environment for filtration of ammonia there is an uptick in initial performance. I may be off but it seems logical.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Immortal1 said:


> Well, 1 week of testing is now complete. the pumice seems to be about 2 days ahead of the Matrix as far as the ammonia cycle is concerned. Both products are now putting out Nitrite with abandon. Will be interesting to see how long the Nitrite cycle takes to complete. Picture below has Pumice on the right and Matrix on the left.


These glistening high res images somehow make me thirsty in a Star Trek Next Generation bar way lol


----------



## jovonhaln

Ha haa haaa thaught I was the only old nerd still kickin. You made my thurs morning. Gotta start workin now. Keep up the awesome commentary folks.


----------



## Immortal1

Another update (sorry, no pictures) - Today the pumice brought the ammonia from 3ppm to 0ppm in less than 24 hours! I would say we have completed that part of the cycle. The Matrix brought 3ppm ammonia to 0.5ppm in less than 24 hours so I at this point the data shows Matrix is behind in the ammonia cycle by a whopping 24 hours LOL. 
With the 3ppm ammonia dosing level, the nitrites in both tanks are at 2 ish ppm today. Could be higher but it does not look dark enough to be a 5ppm reading.

Any bets on how how many days it will take to get the nitrites to 0 using 3ppm ammonia dosing? Winner gets an "attaboy" for their winning efforts


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Yes, I like what I am hearing! lol So far so good! 
I don't want to guess. My luck is bad today. I just superglued 2 fingers together lol.
One of them being my trigger finger. this is a bit of a problem ROFL


----------



## thedood

I'm going to take a guess @ 4 days.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

I will go with 3.5 now that I am unglued.


----------



## Immortal1

Well, some interesting results. The left side is the Pumice and the right side is the Matrix. 
From what I am seeing in person, the Pumice is back to 0ppm for ammonia and is definitely lighter than 5ppm for nitrite. I am guessing it is closer to 2ppm for nitrite.
The Matrix might be a 0.25 for ammonia. In the sun against the color chart it looks like 0ppm but in the picture it is darker than the other ammonia test tube. Again, going to call Matrix 24-36 hours behind the pumice on cycling for ammonia. This could very well be due to variances in how much ammonia I put in the tank (damn hard to tell the difference between X.8ml and x.9ml using a 5ml child cough medicine syringe). 
As for the nitrite readings, there is a noticeable difference. Does that mean pumice is better? Hard to say at this point.

Guess the real test will be in a week or so when I pump the ammonia levels up and see who fails which test first 

Also, for what it's worth, I would bet none of us would put this small of an amount of bio media in their filter and expect it to handle 4-5ppm of ammonia. But, I have a good feeling it will handle much more than expected.










Also, trying my best to keep these outdoor tanks cool - outdoor temp today was 94 degrees. Tank temps at 5pm were at 92 degrees when I added the fans :-(


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Sweet cooling mod! LMAO. "Yous sooooo Crrraazzzyyyyyyy"
With the test results not complete yet obviously a victor can not yet be declared.
I will say though I think my postulate of what Matrix is has been pretty effectively proven at this point.
I wonder now if Eheim original substrat (Not the pro) is about the same as this General Pumice Product.


----------



## thedood

@Immortal1 What size fans are those and how much temp drop did you see in the tanks? I'm putting the finishing touches on my canopy with 4 pc fans and curious what you are seeing with one fan.


----------



## Immortal1

They are about 3-1/4" square. Came out of old computer power supplies. I originally used them on my 75g tank when the old heater malfunctioned and the tank temp was mid to upper 80's when I got home. With the air temp in the 70's it cooled off the tank fairly well. If I remember right, maybe 1-2 hours the tank was back to 77 degrees. From what I understood, using the power heads to get good surface ripple and having the fans blowing down on the water seemed to work the best.

For out experiment, my biggest problem is blowing 94 degree air on 92 degree tank water does not seem to help much. Today might get to 100 so I may have to get a little more creative - maybe set the canister filters in an ice chest and put a few inches of cold water in / around the filters.


----------



## thedood

Take a quart jug and fill it with water then freeze it and drop it in a tank. Or a couple of bottled water bottles filled with tap water and frozen. Ice cubes for your fish tank.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Immortal1 said:


> They are about 3-1/4" square. Came out of old computer power supplies. I originally used them on my 75g tank when the old heater malfunctioned and the tank temp was mid to upper 80's when I got home. With the air temp in the 70's it cooled off the tank fairly well. If I remember right, maybe 1-2 hours the tank was back to 77 degrees. From what I understood, using the power heads to get good surface ripple and having the fans blowing down on the water seemed to work the best.
> 
> For out experiment, my biggest problem is blowing 94 degree air on 92 degree tank water does not seem to help much. Today might get to 100 so I may have to get a little more creative - maybe set the canister filters in an ice chest and put a few inches of cold water in / around the filters.


I knew exactly what they were I've done the same thing but not for a fish tank I used them on an RF amplifier for a ham radio lol 

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Immortal1

Wow, today kinda sucks! Heat index is around 100 and we had to go to an outdoor graduation party!!

Oh well, fan trick is working good on the tanks - both are sitting at a comfortable 85 degrees 
Both tanks are now easily handling 3ppm ammonia. Nitrite on the other hand will take a bit longer. I also spent the time to find a marker and expertly label the white envelope so we could tell which is which LOL


















Guessing this is basically 5.0ppm on the Nitrite scale


----------



## Lonestarbandit

I can't see the pics on this tapatalk grr

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## thedood

Tests are going well. Nice to hear the fans are cooling nicely. I hope my diy cooling system works as well. How much additional evaporation are you experiencing?


----------



## Immortal1

Oh, I DID experience some evaporation yesterday! Lost about 1/2" of water from each tank. Guess I will have to add some later this morning.


----------



## thedood

Immortal1 said:


> Oh, I DID experience some evaporation yesterday! Lost about 1/2" of water from each tank. Guess I will have to add some later this morning.


I guess 1/2" of loss for almost 15 degrees below ambient is not as bad as I would have thought.


----------



## Kubla

I've been researching this pumice a little as I also want to get some for garden/potting use. One site I found the author said he likes to use the stuff from the California mine as it has some trace minerals that are actually released in use and provide plants with some nutrients. Also, it contains some zeolite. Both of these seem like real pluses when used in a planted tank environment. This may mean that the lower priced product is better than the Seachem product in other ways.
I'm going to order some of the 3/8" for my aquarium and some of the finer stuff for succulents and gardening.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Immortal1 said:


> Wow, today kinda sucks! Heat index is around 100 and we had to go to an outdoor graduation party!!
> 
> Oh well, fan trick is working good on the tanks - both are sitting at a comfortable 85 degrees
> Both tanks are now easily handling 3ppm ammonia. Nitrite on the other hand will take a bit longer. I also spent the time to find a marker and expertly label the white envelope so we could tell which is which LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guessing this is basically 5.0ppm on the Nitrite scale


Look at the sheer artistry on that lettering LOL


----------



## Immortal1

Well, we might be getting some progress on the nitrite cycle. Wife says 0.5ppm for pumice. Daughter says 1.0ppm. Either way it is notably lighter than the 2.0ppm Matrix reading. 
Back up to 3ppm on ammonia- see what tomorrow brings.


----------



## Immortal1

Here we go again... Pumice (0.5ppm) running ahead of Matrix (2ppm). I think this pic does a little better job of showing the ppm difference between the two. 
So, given some of the trends so far, I am guessing the Matrix might be a little slower reacting to high doses of ammonia once we get to that point.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Kubla said:


> I've been researching this pumice a little as I also want to get some for garden/potting use. One site I found the author said he likes to use the stuff from the California mine as it has some trace minerals that are actually released in use and provide plants with some nutrients. Also, it contains some zeolite. Both of these seem like real pluses when used in a planted tank environment. This may mean that the lower priced product is better than the Seachem product in other ways.
> I'm going to order some of the 3/8" for my aquarium and some of the finer stuff for succulents and gardening.



Awesome.
Nice people there @ GPP.
Quick ship as well came faster than I expected.


----------



## aja31

Well it is pretty clear at this point that the smaller pumice is certainly better than the matrix. If that is due to the size difference or the actual material I have no idea. It will be interesting to see if there are any differences in the total ammonia they can handle in the end. I personally suspect the trend will continue as is.

The only difference may be if you start measuring nitrate. Matrix claims the small pores can support anaerobic bacteria to reduce nitrates. If that is actually true, then I suspect the Matrix will have an advantage with the larger size, thus increasing the size of oxygen deprived zones. Have you done any nitrate measurements?


----------



## thedood

@aja31 I agree with you with one caveat. I am wondering if the pumice may perform as well as the matrix, if not better in nitrate removal. It will all come down to the quantity of pores available. It will be interesting to see those tests as well.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

I predict the General Pumice Product will outperform the Matrix in the nitrate test.


----------



## thedood

Lonestarbandit said:


> I predict the General Pumice Product will outperform the Matrix in the nitrate test.


I'm not going to bet against you.


----------



## Kubla

Lonestarbandit said:


> I predict the General Pumice Product will outperform the Matrix in the nitrate test.


I'll go with the General Pumice too! I think they'll be less issue with the water "channeling" through the media with more uniform size pieces and the smaller pieces are going to give you more material in the same space. Since we know that the GP contains some zeolite that will also help in nitrate removal. The Matrix may contain zeolite also, but if it did, you would think they would mention it in marketing.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Kubla said:


> I'll go with the General Pumice too! I think they'll be less issue with the water "channeling" through the media with more uniform size pieces and the smaller pieces are going to give you more material in the same space. Since we know that the GP contains some zeolite that will also help in nitrate removal. The Matrix may contain zeolite also, but if it did, you would think they would mention it in marketing.


I would think perhaps it would NOT be mentioned as Seachem is desperate to NOT admit Matrix is Pumice.
They go through the effort of acid washing it which near as I can tell has no benefit whatsoever other than by virtue of them doing it they can claim their product is "different".
To prove their product is "like" pumice defeats their marketing angle.
To be clear I love other Seachem products and use them.
Just with Matrix I feel its a con game. 
I also believe that the larger less effective size was done on purpose sacrificing performance to camouflage the products origin.
If it looked like something you could get at the local greenhouse shop who would pay their asking price?
Pumice is pumice and in fact the pumice people have done it better lol.
That's right Matrix. I got your number baby!


----------



## Immortal1

Well, I am back for an update. As expected the Pumice and Matrix are reducing approximately 3ppm ammonia to 0ppm within 24 hours. The Nitrite levels are pretty much unchanged from post 139.
Included today is an ammonia sample taken from the Pumice tank about 30 minutes after adding about 4ml of 3.5% ammonia. Not sure what the exact API reading is, but it is definitely green.
Going to run a Nitrate test in a few and will add that to this post.

Ammonia 30min after dosing.









Currant Nitrate levels appear to be 5ppm. Whats funny to me is a few months ago the best I could get out of the tap was 10-20ppm Nitrate. Obviously there are no plants in this system to help out and I can assure you there is no Purigen in either filter.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Isn't a currant a grape? 
I'm confused are we making wine over there Immortal1???

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Immortal1

Lonestarbandit said:


> Isn't a currant a grape?
> I'm confused are we making wine over there Immortal1???
> 
> Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


LOL! Maybe. Will leave the initial taste testing to you :wink2:

Guess I do much better at engineering and science than I dew with spilling.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Immortal1 said:


> LOL! Maybe. Will leave the initial taste testing to you :wink2:
> 
> Guess I do much better at engineering and science than I dew with spilling.


Luckily I don't drink wine nor ammonia laced test results.>

i yam cErtanly glaad i kan Speel az whel.


----------



## Immortal1

Well TPT Family - we have an initial winner  
At this point I would consider the General Pumice Products "cycled". Seachem Matrix is still running about 2ppm on the Nitrite.
Not sure if the wonderful weather has anything to do with this test, but it is hot out there! Air temp reached 97 and as you can see below, the old back porch got just a little warmer...
As for the tanks, with the fans running since 11:30am and a cooler full of cold tap water, I was able to keep the tank temp under 90 degrees (might be 87-88 degrees, just can't read that small of print). Also, if you look close, you can see the water level in each tank. Last nite when I added ammonia I had the water level up to the very bottom of the black trim. Guess the fans do help some with evaporative cooling.

At this point, I am going to keep the ammonia level at 3ppm until the Matrix catches up. Then we will start having a little fun (well, some of us call it fun).


















Sorry for the sideways pics. Can't seem to find a way to edit the pics once they are uploaded to TPT. Anyways, the dial thermometer in the background is reading about 100. Just below and a little right of it is the remote sensor for the digital thermometer.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

General Pumice Products wins and Matrix is less effective pumice.
If I had a horn I would toot it but 99% of the credit goes to Immortal1 for an awesome accurate test sequence and great pics and reports and of course GPP for a perfect product for our fishy usage.
Hope people now understand a established brand is just a brand and sometimes DIY is just as good or as in this case even better with a little research!
I await whatever fun immortal1 is dreaming up now lol



Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## thedood

Last night I ordered a 10 cup bag of pumice. Its not the GPP pumice but it comes from the same area, looks similar, it is a little less uniform in size. I will see how it does. I have a Penn-Plaxx Cascade 1000 that has ceramic rings and I run though a bio-wheel. I am going to replace the ceramic rings with pumice. Low bio-load on this tank so the bio-wheel should pick up the slack.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

I left my established rings in the filter but just jammed them into a corner to make room for my pumice loaded media bags.
I will probably remove them and toss them in storage next filter cleaning.


----------



## Immortal1

Well, nothing new this evening. The Star Trek bar drinks look pretty much the same as they did yesterday. Was really hoping Matrix nitrite levels would be getting a little lighter by now. 
A few additional observations - the opacity of the purple in the Matrix sample is getting lighter. The color still leans toward the red side of purple though. Once it switches towards the blue side of purple I will then know we are getting close.


----------



## Immortal1

No picture today as it would look exactly like the one above. Between my daughter and I we are guessing the Nitrite level in the Matrix tank is more than 1 but less than 2 so I put 1 in the spreadsheet. BTW, I did update the spreadsheet back on post 85. In looking at the numbers, I can see a bit of a pattern. It is very possible the Pumice has a better pore structure or better size for growing Nitrite bacteria. It is also possible because of the small size material and more actual pumice stones the Nitrite bacteria had a better environment for growing. 

The curious thing for me would be if I went with 1 Liter of bio media in each media tray - would the results have been exactly the same? Or by having only 275ml of bio media and 12 gallons of water did that make the pumice cycle much faster as there was more ammonia available for a given amount of bio media?

Once this test is done, I would like to do the same test with 275ml of Fluval BioMax. The chucks of bio material are much larger than the Pumice - does that mean it would take longer to cycle?
The Eheim Substrat Pro is similar in size to the Pumice - does that mean it would cycle just as fast as the Pumice?

I wish I had 4 tanks and filters available so I could have tested all 4 products at exactly the same time but oh well. Still have a lot of summer time left


----------



## thedood

I would also like to see this compared to some other popular, low cost media such as pot scrubbies and lava rock.


----------



## Immortal1

Agreed! Would be interesting to see how they compare.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Seems like a good idea but of course none of those are apples to apples as I believe the substrat is pumice and substrat pro is ceramic or something else I forget lol 
But I would enjoy seeing a standard media of whatever type vs the poor man's hot wheels wheels or pot scrubbers or foam pieces for example lol

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Immortal1

Figured I would take a little break from the mad scientist portion of this thread and give you a little idea where this particular experiment has been sitting for the last few weeks 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qocE6yrfOAw

My relaxing evening...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt2Tl9EVfCI


----------



## Immortal1

Well, we are close! The Nitrite level in the Matrix tank is around 0.5ppm. Tested the Matrix tank a second time just to verify the 0.5ppm reading.
Kinda curious why it is taking so much longer that the pumice to complete the Cycle.


----------



## thedood

Today I received 10 cups of pumice I ordered from evil bay. I saved 15 bucks but if I had to do over again I would go ahead and get the stuff from gpp as it is a little more uniform in size. That said I will start with some in my cascade 1000 that is filtering a 44g pentagon. I really dont expect any kind of cycle with it as I have a sponge prefilter and a bio-wheel pro 30 connected. Some of the pieces are kind of small and I am hoping they will stay in the tray or I will have to bag them which I dont really want to do. So word of advice to those wanting to use pumice, stick with the gpp stuff for size uniformity. I will post pics later.


----------



## pauliewoz

Immortal1 said:


> Figured I would take a little break from the mad scientist portion of this thread and give you a little idea where this particular experiment has been sitting for the last few weeks
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qocE6yrfOAw
> 
> My relaxing evening...
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt2Tl9EVfCI


I'm jealous, I have a fire pit which I can't use because our by-law prohibits it. 

That's what I get for buy a house with a tiny backyard. 

When I retire I'm buying a house in the country!



Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Immortal1

Having some odd issues with API water test kit. This is a link to the questions http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/11-fertilizers-water-parameters/1055705-api-testing-questions-help.html


----------



## Lonestarbandit

thedood said:


> Today I received 10 cups of pumice I ordered from evil bay. I saved 15 bucks but if I had to do over again I would go ahead and get the stuff from gpp as it is a little more uniform in size. That said I will start with some in my cascade 1000 that is filtering a 44g pentagon. I really dont expect any kind of cycle with it as I have a sponge prefilter and a bio-wheel pro 30 connected. Some of the pieces are kind of small and I am hoping they will stay in the tray or I will have to bag them which I dont really want to do. So word of advice to those wanting to use pumice, stick with the gpp stuff for size uniformity. I will post pics later.


I bagged mine however I clean my filters about 1-2 month and bagged just makes it easier to toss to one side. GPP mostly sinks with a few floaters.


----------



## Immortal1

Starting to get a little concerned with the Matrix. Still getting a definite 2ppm on the nitrite test. The Pumice nitrite now looks more cyan than cyan green so I feel better saying it is finally done. Guess I will keep things going at 3ppm ammonia and see how long it takes for the Matrix to catch up.


----------



## thedood

That right there is a head scratcher. I wonder why it is lagging behind so much? I am kind of surprised as I actually expected near equal performance.


----------



## Immortal1

Agreed! Was expecting similar results, maybe 1 day apart at best.


----------



## thedood

Are tank temps pretty close? I'm sure they are but just thinking out loud so to speak.


----------



## Immortal1

Have a digital tank thermometer now, would say tanks are within 1 degree of each other.


----------



## Freemananana

Despite most of the variables be quite close, it is important to realize this is a single test. This is one plot on the chart. A retarded or even stalled cycle really shouldn't be that surprising. I don't recall exactly when you started, but the average cycle takes about 30 days. I've seen faster and slower. 

I still think the total volume of ammonia being filtered through the same volume of media is the important part. The time to cycle is like that extra cup holder in the suburban, just a small perk.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

And honestly the Matrix is substandard to the GPP.
Less surface area and less porous stands to reason if either were to stall it would first.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Kubla

Got 2 bags of GPP on the way. One for the aquariums and pond and the other for my succulents!


----------



## Freemananana

Does anyone have the rough physical dimensions of their 25lb bag? I have a sump planned and I'm not good at ballparking cubic footages.


----------



## Immortal1

Only ran Nitrite tests tonite. Still looks the same as yesterday - 0ppm on the Pumice and 2ish ppm on the Matrix. Starting to wonder if the Matrix will ever finish, LOL.


----------



## thedood

Hmmm.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Seems truly "stalled".....

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## aja31

Might want to do a 50% water change and add more ammonia to the Matrix tank if you haven't already been doing that. The ammonia eating bacteria will die off and you'll be back to square one otherwise.


----------



## Immortal1

aja31 said:


> Might want to do a 50% water change and add more ammonia to the Matrix tank if you haven't already been doing that. The ammonia eating bacteria will die off and you'll be back to square one otherwise.


FYI aja31, I bring the ammonia level back up to 3ppm on a daily basis. 
Hopefully I will get the chart on post 85 updated later today.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Freemananana said:


> Does anyone have the rough physical dimensions of their 25lb bag? I have a sump planned and I'm not good at ballparking cubic footages.


Ill have to measure the bag this evening.
Its only an 1/8 full but I can guestimate from memory and mostly empty sack.


----------



## Freemananana

Lonestarbandit said:


> Ill have to measure the bag this evening.
> Its only an 1/8 full but I can guestimate from memory and mostly empty sack.




I did some rough guesstimating based on seachem matrix's volume and weight and then converted that to cubic feet. Roughly, the 25 lb bag of pumice should be a cubic foot. So a box 1'x1'x1'. If that holds true, I don't think I'll have to get a bigger sump for my next project. Furthermore, the 25lb bag of pumice should be good for something like 2,500g of filtration. This is all rough extrapolation of seachem's numbers. 


Feel free to correct my thinking. But 250ml of seachem treats 25g according to their site, so 1L per 100g. A liter of seachem is roughly 14 oz, or a pound-ish. So 25 lbs of pumice is about 25 liters which should be 2500 gallons of water. 


I usually advocate the largest sump possible, but I may be going with the cheapest/easiest sump possible in my next build (AKA my 55g I already have).


----------



## Lonestarbandit

It was a small box I was shocked 

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Lonestarbandit

But I'm sure it will way over filter for your sump needs which is always nice 

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Immortal1

Freemananana said:


> I did some rough guesstimating based on seachem matrix's volume and weight and then converted that to cubic feet. Roughly, the 25 lb bag of pumice should be a cubic foot. So a box 1'x1'x1'. If that holds true, I don't think I'll have to get a bigger sump for my next project. Furthermore, the 25lb bag of pumice should be good for something like 2,500g of filtration. This is all rough extrapolation of seachem's numbers.
> 
> 
> Feel free to correct my thinking. But 250ml of seachem treats 25g according to their site, so 1L per 100g. A liter of seachem is roughly 14 oz, or a pound-ish. So 25 lbs of pumice is about 25 liters which should be 2500 gallons of water.
> 
> 
> I usually advocate the largest sump possible, but I may be going with the cheapest/easiest sump possible in my next build (AKA my 55g I already have).


Tell you what, I will buy you the 25# bag if you set up a 2,500 gallon tank 

I guess what fascinates me the most is it would not be uncommon to see a sump with 1 cu.ft. of bio balls. And I am pretty sure it would not be connected to a 2,500 gallon tank LOL.

Seriously though, which ever works out best (if either), I would doubt you could find a significantly denser media as it pertains to BB.


----------



## thedood

Yall are going to get me killed by my wife, at least I am going to blame yall . Here is my project list: Modify my diy hood, new stand for my tanganyika tank, new hood for same, new tank for natives, and now I have add to it a friggin sump for pumice just because I want to try one. DOES IT EVER FRIGGIN END WITH THIS HOBBY AHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! LOL.

Bump: On a serious note I am going to exchange ceramic for the pumice I bought tonight on my hongi tank. Wish me luck and I hope it works as well as the gpp pumice.


----------



## Immortal1

Well, it certainly should work better than the ceramic it is replacing. I have a bag of ceramic tubes that came with one of my AquaTop filters. Assuming AquaTop is using the cheapest thing they can find to keep costs down and still have a workable product it should be interesting to see how it compares to Matrix/Pumice.


----------



## thedood

I think you are right. This tank has a bio-wheel pro 30 and a sponge prefilter and only one fish so I dont really expect this to be much of a test.

Bump: Oh and probably 150 mts lol. When i need mts this is my go to tank.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

thedood said:


> Yall are going to get me killed by my wife, at least I am going to blame yall . Here is my project list: Modify my diy hood, new stand for my tanganyika tank, new hood for same, new tank for natives, and now I have add to it a friggin sump for pumice just because I want to try one. DOES IT EVER FRIGGIN END WITH THIS HOBBY AHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! LOL.
> 
> Bump: On a serious note I am going to exchange ceramic for the pumice I bought tonight on my hongi tank. Wish me luck and I hope it works as well as the gpp pumice.


No matter I will beat you to deaths door.
I got the 1000 yard stare while trying to explain why buying pounds of dry ferts at once was a savings over Seachem liquids.....:iamwithst


----------



## Immortal1

Well, I did update post 85 on page 6 with a new chart. Now for something a little stranger...
It would seem the Matrix is almost there. But. Follow along with the pics below and let me know what your think. I am thinking about doing a 50% water change before I add the 3.9ml ammonia.

This is moments after 5 drops were added









This is after I shook them for 5 seconds









This is about 10 seconds later









This is about 1 minute after drops were added









This is about 4 minutes after drops were added









Can anybody explain how this can happen? If I walk over to my 75g tank, pull a sample, add the 5 drops, it turns cyan and stays cyan for more than 1 hour. WTF???


----------



## thedood

There is magic juju in that there pumice!

Bump: Ok at this point using your 75g as a control we know the test kit is good correct? I am going to throw this out there and its off the wall so I am thinking out loud not stating an I believe but what if there is something less than inert in the pumice? Is that even possible?

Bump:


Lonestarbandit said:


> No matter I will beat you to deaths door.
> I got the 1000 yard stare while trying to explain why buying pounds of dry ferts at once was a savings over Seachem liquids.....:iamwithst


I got that same look when the bag of pumice showed up along with an envelope with a seal for one of my canisters lol.


----------



## aja31

Either your kit is bad or you did not shake the test kit well enough. The test kits contain a mix of chemicals that separate when they aren't used. If you don't REALLY shake them then they won't mix correctly and test to test will give widely varying results. Or the test kit is expired and the chemicals are doing weird things.


----------



## Freemananana

Immortal1 said:


> Tell you what, I will buy you the 25# bag if you set up a 2,500 gallon tank
> 
> I guess what fascinates me the most is it would not be uncommon to see a sump with 1 cu.ft. of bio balls. And I am pretty sure it would not be connected to a 2,500 gallon tank LOL.
> 
> Seriously though, which ever works out best (if either), I would doubt you could find a significantly denser media as it pertains to BB.


Hahaha! I WISH I had that kind of space and money. Unfortunately, the tank build I have planned caps around 400g+sump. It also uses all of the space I'll have to spare. 


I'm sure the bag they GPP sells will be enough for the tank as far as bio capacity. I was just throwing numbers around while thinking about the physical dimensions of said 25 lb bag.


----------



## Kubla

You guys keep talking about 25 pound bags...I just ordered from GPP and all I see available are 15 pound except for the garden fines which are available in 30 pounds. They have $25 bags. Is there something else available that I'm missing? 15 pounds is not much for gardening.


----------



## Freemananana

Kubla said:


> You guys keep talking about 25 pound bags...I just ordered from GPP and all I see available are 15 pound except for the garden fines which are available in 30 pounds. They have $25 bags. Is there something else available that I'm missing? 15 pounds is not much for gardening.


Woops, you're probably right. I've been going off of memory from a few weeks back when this started. $25 and 25 lbs probably got mixed up. Even 15 lbs is a ton of media.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

It's 15 pounds I believe. I will check eventually had to take wife in for a bad tooth cavity. Will get dimension at some point.


Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Bags a little warped from me tearing it open but you get the idea

























Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Lonestarbandit

thedood said:


> There is magic juju in that there pumice!
> 
> Bump: Ok at this point using your 75g as a control we know the test kit is good correct? I am going to throw this out there and its off the wall so I am thinking out loud not stating an I believe but what if there is something less than inert in the pumice? Is that even possible?
> 
> Bump:
> 
> I got that same look when the bag of pumice showed up along with an envelope with a seal for one of my canisters lol.


But I havent even made the purchase yet. The mere suggestion got me the stare of death lol 

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Immortal1

Well everyone, this is not what I was expecting. Checked ammonia and nitrite when I got home and the color in the tubes after 5 minutes wait was just not right on the Pumice tank. Wrong color for ammonia and wrong color for nitrite. I did get a new API Nitrite test - it also has a 2019 expiration date, same as the one I currently have. 

Anyway, I went ahead and did a 75-80% water change on both tanks. Then I ran the tests again. Colors all look correct, but the Pumice is now pretty high with nitrite. Really odd based on the various pics I have posted in this thread. After the water chance and sampling, I again raised the ammonia level to 3ppm. Will see what tomorrow brings.


----------



## thedood

What are you using for dechlor?


----------



## Immortal1

thedood said:


> What are you using for dechlor?


Seachem Prime. Basic process is to fill the 20gallon tank sitting under my 75gallon tank. Turn on the 500gph transfer pump sitting in the 20g tank (it discharges back into the 20g tank, lots of circulation). Add 2ml of Prime. Let circulation pump run for a few minutes. Then, in the case of the (2) 10 gallon tanks, I connect a hose to the transfer pump and pump the treated water out to the 10gallon tanks.

Given my wonderful tap water, I am not surprised to see 0.25ppm ammonia in the treated water.


----------



## thedood

I'm going to make a suggestion. Forget the water changes for awhile. Whats your schedule for adding ammonia?


----------



## Immortal1

Add 3.8-4.0ml of 3.5% ammonia each nite between 5pm and 7pm


----------



## thedood

Immortal1 said:


> Add 3.8-4.0ml of 3.5% ammonia each nite between 5pm and 7pm


What about water changes?


----------



## Immortal1

This would be the first water change since the process was started. Other than adding water to replace what has evaporated.


----------



## thedood

Another question and I am sure you are getting where I am going. How are you prepping the new water? Are you treating whole tank with prime, just the bucket, and how much in advance time wise?


----------



## Immortal1

see post 200 above


----------



## thedood

Oops my bad @Immortal1, my apologies. If I may make a suggestion. Prep the water the night before so it sits for 24 hours. Prime interacts with ammonia and nitrites. I'm wondering if this isnt have effects on the tests. Do you think I may be off base?


----------



## Immortal1

The Prime very well could be having some interaction with the new water which is why it is showing up on the ammonia test and, to some degree, with the nitrite test on the Matrix tank. I fully expect that when Itest tomorrow, the Matrix tank will be perfect yellow and perfect cyan. 
I am just scratching my head as to why the Pumice tank went from, what I assumed to be cycled, to something else. Normally, once the cycle is done, the nitrates are sky high but in this case, they were pretty low. Either the pumice based products are helping keep then nitrates low or the nitrite bacteria is still very weak and just not out putting nitrate.

I am still thinking something went a bit wrong in the Pumice tank which is why the ammonia test started showing an odd colored result. If you go back 3 days the picture I posted of the 4 test tubes shows a very nice coloring on the Pumice side. Who knows, maybe a bird landed on the edge of the tank and decided to take a dump in the tank. I don't know, but something did change.


----------



## thedood

It was doing so well at first to then just bomb is strange. Do you think the heat may have had an effect? There has to be a reason.


----------



## Immortal1

It could have had something to do with the heat. The odd part is both tanks experience exactly the same temps, same amount of ammonia each nite. Both tanks have cardboard around them to limit sunlight to the tanks so algae does not effect the tests more in one tank vs the other tank. 
Don't know, I am at a bit of a loss. 
Very curious what tomorrow will bring. If both tanks end up with 0ppm nitrite readings tomorrow then I would think the water change helped. If the Pumice tank is still showing high nitrite then I would assume the cycle stalled out for some reason. Again, still have no good reason for the odd ammonia test result tonite.


----------



## thedood

It is truly mind boggling. I admire you for sticking with it. You have done a bang up job with this experiment. Kudos my friend.


----------



## Immortal1

Thank-you


----------



## thedood

I guess we see what tomorrow brings.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Weirdness

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Immortal1

Just for grins. And assuming the dosing calculator is correct and I got the ammonia up to 4ppm just after the 6pm water change. The pumice tank is now at 1ppm ammonia. Edit, Matrix tank is at 0.5ppm ammonia. Pretty impressive for only 3ish hours.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Boggled which is at what 

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Immortal1

6am today - Matrix tank is at 0ppm Ammonia & Nitrite. Pumice tank is 0ppm Ammonia and 4+ppm Nitrite WTH??
Somehow I think the Pumice tank crashed on Nitrite. Or, something in the Pumice was able to mask the Nitrite readings for a short time?


----------



## Freemananana

Oh! We are getting into the portion I anticipated the most, how quickly each media dissolves ammonia/nitrite into nitrate. This is most likely directly correlated to the total amount of bacteria present.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Hmmm but where have all the bacteria for the GPP gone that should be ahead based on past performance and surface area.


----------



## Immortal1

Freemananana said:


> Oh! We are getting into the portion I anticipated the most, how quickly each media dissolves ammonia/nitrite into nitrate. This is most likely directly correlated to the total amount of bacteria present.


Agreed. I think regardless of what the Pumice does in the next 2 days - I think this weekend I will see how much the Matrix can handle (seeing as I don't work this weekend). Currently I am adding about 4ml of ammonia and within 12 hours it is all gone. So 6-7ml of ammonia on Friday nite should be gone within 24 hours. If so, Saturday nite I will trey 8-9ml of ammonia and see what Sunday shows. I will also document nitrate levels as that will show best how much the nitrite bacteria is putting out.

Thoughts on adding some Tetra Safestart to the Pumice tank to give it a nitrite kick start? Maybe get it back to where it was?


----------



## hbosman

Lonestarbandit said:


> Bags a little warped from me tearing it open but you get the idea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


The pieces look kind of small. Might slow down filter flow.


----------



## thedood

I would say no to the Safe Start as the idea is an actual 0 bb to fully cycled test. IMO it would be like cheating.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

hbosman said:


> The pieces look kind of small. Might slow down filter flow.


No more than any other media.
I've loaded the heck out of mine in some cases 3 baskets worth.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## aja31

I wouldn't add anything. If the general pumice is more prone to crashes or can't support bacteria over the long term then that is something I think we would all like to know. While I think it is unlikely, it is possible that the acid bleaching SeaChem does could open up the pores preventing them from clogging and causing cycle crashes. It could be that is an important part of the process. 

Keep going and see how long it takes to recover and if it happens again.


----------



## Immortal1

Sounds like a plan. I will do water changes on the pumice tank if the nitrite level gets out of control (>5ppm)


----------



## Lonestarbandit

aja31 said:


> I wouldn't add anything. If the general pumice is more prone to crashes or can't support bacteria over the long term then that is something I think we would all like to know. While I think it is unlikely, it is possible that the acid bleaching SeaChem does could open up the pores preventing them from clogging and causing cycle crashes. It could be that is an important part of the process.
> 
> Keep going and see how long it takes to recover and if it happens again.


the GPP pumice is more porous than the Matrix pieces.


----------



## aja31

Lonestarbandit said:


> the GPP pumice is more porous than the Matrix pieces.


That was the initial impression I got from the tests, but I guess now we'll have to wait and see. The ultimate indicator will be in how much ammonia/nitrite each tank will be able to remove in a 24 hour period.


----------



## Immortal1

Good evening everyone - time for another update. 
The Matrix tank is once again showing a perfect yellow for ammonia and a perfect cyan for nitrite.
The Pumice tank is showing a perfect yellow for ammonia (which is a huge improvement over the color noted in Post 198). Unfortunately the nitrite level is looking at least 5ppm. I went ahead and changed out 7 gallons of water and re-tested the nitrite level. Now it is showing either a 1ppm or 2ppm (hard to tell). I am going to add the normal 3.9ml ammonia (3ppm) back into the Pumice tank and see what tomorrow brings.

Now for the fun stuff.
Seeing as the Matrix tank is pretty stable now with the 3ppm dose I figured it was time to ramp things up a bit while the Pumice tank catches up. In reviewing my notes for this project, there is 275ml of Matric in the canister filter. According to Seachem that should treat 27 gallons of water. According to my fishless cycle calculator, I should be able to add 12ml of 3.5% ammonia to that quantity of Matrix. This is 3 times what I have been dosing. I think I will save that level for Friday nite. Tonite at 6:30pm I am going to dose 8ml ammonia, wait 10 minutes for things to stabilize and then do an ammonia test to verify it has a really green reading (might even do a 50% tank water 50% distilled water to see what that reading is). At 9:30pm I will see what kind of reading we have. I will also check it at 6:30am tomorrow morning.
Should be interesting


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Sounds like fun to me. 
Hopefully GPP un-stalls and we have a real race lol


----------



## Immortal1

Well I'll be damned!!! My overly smart daughter just stumbled onto something very interesting!
This is what it looks like when you pour 3.5% ammonia right out of the jug into the test tube and do an Ammonia test.









I very much expected it to be this vived dark hunter green. But no, it is almost clear. Now look at the ammonia color from this pic I posted yesterday...









I think I finally have figured out what happened to the Pumice tank! The Pumice simply quit processing ammonia, then the ammonia level skyrocketed and I just assumed I had dirty tubes. The once I did a huge water change, the level returned back to a manageable level. This may also be why the Nitrite tubes were showing a funny green tint. It is very likely the nitrite level was way above 5ppm.

Now, go back to post 189 of this thread and look at the pictures. The Matrix sample started at 0ppm and increased to 1ppm. The Pumice sample started at 5ppm and INCREASED to something much higher!!! This resulted in a the green tinted sample after the 5 minute wait time. I assumed (silly me) the ppm was going down to 0ppm when infact it was going up to something much higher!!! 

So, I guess I will have to apologize to you guys when I mistakenly assumed the Pumice had finished cycling the Nitrite. It was getting worse, not better. This likely poisoned the Nitrite bacteria which is why we are where we are - waiting for the Pumice to catch up. When if fact, I tried to kill it and did not recognize my mistake.


----------



## thedood

I'll be. Who would think it would do that?

Bump: I wonder what happened the pumice and why it quite processing.


----------



## Immortal1

Now back to the Matrix tank. In the pic below, the samples were taken about 6:40pm (10 minutes after dosing a calculated 8ppm).
The sample on the left is 50% distilled, 50% tank water. The sample on the right is full strength tank water. I think I hit the 8ppm pretty well.









9:40pm update. Ok, its been 3 HOURs. Can you say 2ppm? Wow!









And let me remind everyone - this is all that is in the filter!









And just for reference, this is the Nitrite level 3 hours after 8ppm Ammonia dosing


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Ah well all is well that ends well.
Glad we have an explanation I was quite confused

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Immortal1

thedood said:


> I'll be. Who would think it would do that?
> 
> Bump: I wonder what happened the pumice and why it quite processing.


My daughter and I are seriously thinking the bigger chunk size of Matrix survived the heat wave (lack of oxygen) better than the Pumice. Only thing I can think of that would be different from what most tank keepers would experience.


----------



## Immortal1

Lonestarbandit said:


> Ah well all is well that ends well.
> Glad we have an explanation I was quite confused
> 
> Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


Very confusing. Talked to a good friend at a LFS regarding the funny readings I was getting - he was clueless. 
Sometime this weekend I am going to try and create a water source with 12ppm, 16ppm, 20ppm, 24ppm ammonia just to see what colors I get.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Something odd happened for sure it never should have crashed its just rock

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Immortal1

Agreed! considering both tanks have been exposed to the same weather, same ammonia, same pretty much everything the only thing I (we) can think of is the heat wave last week starved the bacteria of needed oxygen. Now that I know what caused the weird colors, I am going back thru the past pics and other info to see if I can see any correlation to support my theory.

Go back to post 139. This is just after one of the hottest days. The Pumice Nitrite looks like it is improving but it may be that instead of .5ppm it was at something much higher like 10ppm.


----------



## thedood

Great detective work and what you are saying seems logical enough to me.


----------



## Immortal1

6:30am update. Pumice is showing 4ppm ammonia and 2ppm nitrite. Guessing the pumice cycle crashed pretty hard and is starting over again.

The Matrix is showing 0.5ppm ammonia and 5+ on the nitrite. So, in 12 hours the Matrix reduced the ammonia level from 8ppm to 0.5ppm - pretty impressive. My guess is the nitrite level is very high because that bacteria is just not reacting as fast. Will be interesting to see what happens in the next 12 hours.


----------



## Freemananana

Just to share some recent experience. I cycled a tank a month or two ago. I dosed enough ammonia to bring the tank up to 4ppm ammonia every 3 days or so. After about a week, it was cycling that amount of ammonia in 24 hours. I then dosed 'X' amount of ammonia (4ppm worth) daily with no regards to the nitrite. I tested nitrite on the weekends and just kept up with daily dosing. After 2 or 3 weekends, there were no nitrites and no ammonia, thus a cycled tank. 

The point being, I know my nitrite was probably 20+ PPM or even more and nothing poor happened. Maybe it took a little longer, but nothing that worried me. Furthermore, I've done this several times in the past. 

Maybe I misunderstood your explanation, but the situation I described and your thought process are similar, right?


----------



## Immortal1

I believe they are similar, yes. 
With regards to the Matrix tank I don't plan on doing any water changes to lower a specific reading. I feel that the tank / media has been cycled using the 3-4ppm level of ammonia. Mostly I think the various tests are giving me good documentation of the process to this point and also a better understanding of what happens when the bio-media is pushed to it's maximum and beyond. My assumption would be if I keep increasing ammonia a some specific rate, the bio-media will simply not be able to return a 0ppm reading after 24 hours. If for example, the Matrix handles 8ppm of ammonia, but struggles with 12ppm ammonia, then I will leave it at 12ppm ammonia for a few days to see if it will catch up. If it does not, then I will know that the Matrix can only grow enough ammonia consuming bacteria to handle Xppm of ammonia (which likely is going to be high than any of us would push our bio-media). 

Seeing as the ammonia bacteria seem to grow faster than the nitrite bacteria, I am curious how quickly the nitrite bacteria will respond to the increased dose of ammonia. I am also going to do a Nitrate test tonite - this should give me a good idea of how much the nitrite bacteria is outputting. Assuming there isn't something magical within the Matrix that is consuming Nitrate as well.


----------



## Freemananana

"Magical" haha. Lets hope there is minimal magic. I do like your idea of testing. A window is good enough IMO because it sets a rubric to grade media on. For instance, 'X' mL of media consumes 8-12ppm but the same mass of another media only consumed 2-4ppm. Seems good enough to get a general efficiency for comparison.


----------



## thedood

I think one other thing to keep in mind is the minimal amount of bio-media being used. With this test there are no sponges, no floss, and the amount of bio-media is much less than we would use in real world scenarios. It seems logical to think these things together coupled with high heat may have created a perfect storm in the cycling progress.


----------



## Immortal1

thedood said:


> I think one other thing to keep in mind is the minimal amount of bio-media being used. With this test there are no sponges, no floss, and the amount of bio-media is much less than we would use in real world scenarios. *It seems logical to think these things together coupled with high heat may have created a perfect storm in the cycling progress*.


 Agreed! Makes me wish I could have found a spot in the basement to set things up - would at least have been temperature controlled. Oh well, the Pumice may very well bounce back sometime soon.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

thedood said:


> I think one other thing to keep in mind is the minimal amount of bio-media being used. With this test there are no sponges, no floss, and the amount of bio-media is much less than we would use in real world scenarios. It seems logical to think these things together coupled with high heat may have created a perfect storm in the cycling progress.



I agree. And no there is no magic in Matrix any more than there is in Excel 
Marketing, marketing, marketing.>


----------



## Immortal1

12:30pm update


----------



## Immortal1

omg IT'S ALIVE!!!!!!!
Really thought this morning the Pumice was down for the count. Turns out I was very wrong! Have a look at these 2 pictures. First one is a repost from this morning and the second one is from a few minutes ago. There is a difference of 12 hours between these 2 pics. @Lonestarbandit, there just "might" be a little magic in that Pumice stuff ;-)
(LOL, I got the bottles backwards from 1 pic to the other. Oh well)


















I am somewhat amazed that the Matrix handled the 8ppm dose this well. I thought maybe the Ammonia would be at 0ppm but I did not expect the nitrite to be 0ppm as well. Guess tonite I will push the Matrix a little harder (maybe 12ppm ammonia?). Might even see how the Pumice handles say 6ppm ammonia.

Going with 10ppm ammonia in the Matrix tank (14ml of ammonia based on 13 gallons of water using 3.5% ammonia) and 5ppm ammonia in the Pumice tank (want to make sure it is fully recovered before I give it a really good shove LOL) http://www.fishforums.net/aquarium-calculator.htm


----------



## Lonestarbandit

If by magic you mean the GPP then I will agree lol 

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Immortal1

And just for an added bonus - if the nitrite consuming bacteria were actually doing their job, there should be some nitrate present in the water.....










Yep, both products are doing what they are supposed to  
Pretty sure the Pumice is a little lighter only because I didn't just pee 8ppm of ammonia at it last nite, LOL
FYI, if the chart is reasonable close, the Matrix tube is well past the 160ppm level.

FYI, I added a small air stone in each tank around lunch time. Doubt that made a huge difference but it certainly cant hurt.


----------



## aja31

At what levels do nitrates become toxic to the bacteria? I'm thinking with the amount of ammonia you are adding that the nitrate levels will go to 500+ in short order which might be enough to kill the bacteria and crash the cycle again. Might have to do daily large water changes as we get to higher and higher daily ammonia doses. Or maybe high nitrate levels have no effect on the bacteria at all. Either way these numbers are already impressive and we haven't hit the limit.


----------



## thedood

aja31 said:


> At what levels do nitrates become toxic to the bacteria? I'm thinking with the amount of ammonia you are adding that the nitrate levels will go to 500+ in short order which might be enough to kill the bacteria and crash the cycle again. Might have to do daily large water changes as we get to higher and higher daily ammonia doses. Or maybe high nitrate levels have no effect on the bacteria at all. Either way these numbers are already impressive and we haven't hit the limit.


What I find impressive is how little media there is. Bare bottom tanks. Pretty cool stuff.


----------



## Immortal1

aja31 said:


> At what levels do nitrates become toxic to the bacteria? I'm thinking with the amount of ammonia you are adding that the nitrate levels will go to 500+ in short order which might be enough to kill the bacteria and crash the cycle again. Might have to do daily large water changes as we get to higher and higher daily ammonia doses. Or maybe high nitrate levels have no effect on the bacteria at all. Either way these numbers are already impressive and we haven't hit the limit.


Agreed on the "impressive" statement. I have an AquaClear 50 on my 20 gallon grow out tank. It has a foam filter and a bunch of bio media. Considering how little bio media I have in these filters, I am starting to believe that I have WAY more bio media than I really need for some zebra danios. Will excessive nitrates crash the cycle, I have no idea.


----------



## OVT

Cool experiment, thank you.

Just think what an $8 20# bag of lava rock can do ...
And so much for ADA's PowerSand.


----------



## Immortal1

Well @OVT, I very well may test lava rock next. 
Now just imagine, an Eheim 2217 on a 200 gallon tank full of goldfish and it is STILL capable of consuming all the ammonia. 
Hopefully the end result of all this will be some definitive information on how much ammonia X amount of X biomedia can accurately handle.


----------



## jw.cS

Immortal1 said:


> Well @OVT, I very well may test lava rock next.
> Now just imagine, an Eheim 2217 on a 200 gallon tank full of goldfish and it is STILL capable of consuming all the ammonia.
> Hopefully the end result of all this will be some definitive information on how much ammonia X amount of X biomedia can accurately handle.


I have run my tanks without biomedia for a very long time. I would be very interested in seeing how any of these biomedia stack up against a regular ol' sponge, maybe that Aquaclear sponge of yours perhaps? That way, we'll know if specialized biomedia is even needed at all.

I removed mine because I needed the extra space for additional mechanical filtration media. I am obsessed with removing as much dissolved organics (DOC), or at least the visible portion of it that exhibit itself as that yellowish tint in the water and/or the colloidal particles floating around when my nose is against the glass.


----------



## aja31

jw.cS said:


> I have run my tanks without biomedia for a very long time. I would be very interested in seeing how any of these biomedia stack up against a regular ol' sponge, maybe that Aquaclear sponge of yours perhaps? That way, we'll know if specialized biomedia is even needed at all.
> 
> I removed mine because I needed the extra space for additional mechanical filtration media. I am obsessed with removing as much dissolved organics (DOC), or at least the visible portion of it that exhibit itself as that yellowish tint in the water and/or the colloidal particles floating around when my nose is against the glass.


I would guess that a sponge is more than enough. I think the issue with the sponge is that many people wash them out in tap water, killing off some of the bacteria each week. You would need to more carefully wash it in old tank water to make sure you don't kill off the bacteria. But especially in tanks with lots of sponges/foam like in Sumps I bet you don't actually need any bio media, though it may help in more subtle ways. Certainly with how cheap the general pomace is, might as well have it lol.


----------



## MChambers

Mattenfilters are composed entirely of sponge material. So sponge material is a form of biomedia.


----------



## thedood

Lots of people only run sponges. Those fine pore sponges house tons of bb. The only issue with them is they eventually have to be replaced.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

jw.cS said:


> I have run my tanks without biomedia for a very long time. I would be very interested in seeing how any of these biomedia stack up against a regular ol' sponge, maybe that Aquaclear sponge of yours perhaps? That way, we'll know if specialized biomedia is even needed at all.
> 
> I removed mine because I needed the extra space for additional mechanical filtration media. I am obsessed with removing as much dissolved organics (DOC), or at least the visible portion of it that exhibit itself as that yellowish tint in the water and/or the colloidal particles floating around when my nose is against the glass.


Perhaps thats dandruff rofl

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Immortal1

Good morning. Not much new on the 2 tanks yet - will wait till tonite. But, I did finally give in to my curiosity 
How bad is really bad....
Below is API ammonia readings - 10ppm, 13ppm, 16ppm, 20ppm and 40ppm. My friends, if your tank ever shows 40ppm ammonia GIVE UP! LOL


----------



## Kubla

Freemananana said:


> Does anyone have the rough physical dimensions of their 25lb bag? I have a sump planned and I'm not good at ballparking cubic footages.


Just returned from out of state and my bags of GPP were here. The 15 pound bag (the standard size) just crams into a 12x12x5.5 flat rate box, so it's right at 1/2 cubic foot.


----------



## Immortal1

Good evening! Well still good news - they both survived (pretty much). Current tank temp 82 degrees.
Last nite the Pumice was given 6.8ml of ammonia (5ppm). 24 hours later the ammonia was 0.25ppm and the nitrite was 0ppm (pretty good)
Last nite the Matrix was given 14ml of ammonia (10ppm). 24 hours later the ammonia and nitrite were both 0ppm (very impressive).

Knowing that the Pumice is catching up a little after what I assume was a small setback due to extreme heat I will give it a bit of a break. So, tonite I will move it up to 8ppm (10.8ml). As for the Matrix, I think I am going to push it a little harder - say 16ppm (22.5ml).


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Good deal!

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## aja31

Well now i'm sitting here wondering how much ammonia a fish produces in a 24 hours period... How many fish would you need in that tank to produce 16ppm of ammonia every 24 hours?


----------



## Immortal1

aja31 said:


> Well now i'm sitting here wondering how much ammonia a fish produces in a 24 hours period... How many fish would you need in that tank to produce 16ppm of ammonia every 24 hours?


Kinda crazy, isn't it. I am using a 5ml cough medicine syringe to dose the ammonia. Kinda blows my mind when I put 4+ syringe fulls of ammonia in this 10 gallon tank. Then to think how little bio media is in the canister. 

As you stated, it would be interesting to find a listing somewhere that showed X fish, when fully grown, will produce Xppm of ammonia waste in a 24 hour period. A friend of mine keeps only monster fish which I assume produce a lot of waste. But, he only has 4-6 fish in the tank. I have 14 rainbows, 2 SAE's, 3 bushynose, 3 garra's, 5 albino cory cats, 5 black skirt Tetras and 5 or 6 serpe tetras in my 75g. Thats a lot of fish. But they are all pretty small compaired to Red Tail Catfish, Peacock Bass, Pirana, and what ever other crazy big fish he has. Per gallon of water, my fish might put out more ammonia. But then again, no way to tell.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Goldfish are the worst ammonia offenders I know of

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Immortal1

Interesting update. 15 hours after dosing 16ppm ammonia to matrix and 8ppm to Pumice I get this. Have a funny feeling the Nitrite tubes will be a nice shade of cyan in another 9 hours.


----------



## fernselvis

Quick question can I use seachem matrix and purigen in a small HOB and does the matrix have to me in a bag or loose. Thank you.


----------



## Immortal1

I think you would be ok without a filter bag using a HOB filter. You will want to rinse the Matrix well and remove any small pieces. Also, this stuff will float initially but once it gets good and wet it will sink to the bottom. Adding a bag of Purigen on top of the Matrix would be a good idea.


----------



## fernselvis

On it thank you.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

What???? People are STILL paying for Matrix??? I give up lol.


Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## fernselvis

I'm based in Dubai and have no idea where to buy pumice so yes matrix readily available


----------



## Lonestarbandit

fernselvis said:


> I'm based in Dubai and have no idea where to buy pumice so yes matrix readily available


Good reason.>


----------



## aja31

Lonestarbandit said:


> What???? People are STILL paying for Matrix??? I give up lol.
> 
> 
> Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


And currently the matrix is out performing the pumice by a factor of 2. Might be worth it to spend the extra money for the extra performance. 

Not sure how the test will end yet, but the matrix has proved to be more resilient to crashes at the very least.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

aja31 said:


> And currently the matrix is out performing the pumice by a factor of 2. Might be worth it to spend the extra money for the extra performance.
> 
> Not sure how the test will end yet, but the matrix has proved to be more resilient to crashes at the very least.


Not really but I will give you it didn't have a crash.
But each to his own. I am also looking forward to the end result.
I am sure it will catch up eventually. 

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Immortal1

Lonestarbandit said:


> Not really but I will give you it didn't have a crash.
> But each to his own. I am also looking forward to the end result.
> I am sure it will catch up eventually.
> 
> Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


I have a very good feeling that it will catch up. And in Pumice's defense, most people don't try to cycle there tanks at 95 degrees LOL.

What I really wish I could have done would be to run 6-8 tests side by side to further demonstrate how little surface area various other media has. Bioballs are pretty standard but I seriously doubt 2.75ml of bioballs could digest 16ppm of ammonia. I will be curious to find out if Eheim Substrat Pro can keep up with Matrix/Pumice. Might be the closest competitor at the moment.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

I know substrat is also pumice.
What is the pro is it ceramic or glass or?
I think the pro is supposed to be more porous than pumice/matrix?
Might outdo them!

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## pauliewoz

I would love to see this test done on biohome media. I almost splurged on it when I was setting up my canister, but couldn't justify the cost. So I went with 4 litres of matrix.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Immortal1

Latest update - Both products survived last nites ammonia onslaught. Time to step it up again. Lonestar, the Eheim Substrat Pro consists of spherical shaped sintered glass. The optimum surface area of the "pearls" ensures intensive colonisation of BB. Pauliewoz, I have heard biohome media is also a very good product worthy of testing. Personally I think it would be more interesting to test the standard crap (bio balls, cheap ceramic, etc.) that comes with most filters.

Ok, now its time to make my next adjustment to the ammonia quantity. Matrix, going to 21ppm (30ml) of ammonia!!! Pumice, last nite you had 8ppm - lets see how you do with 16ppm tonite


----------



## thedood

I'm running 2 c220 on my 55g Tanganyika tank. One of those filters was using ceramic rings and I just swapped it out for pumice. Next water change the next one is running ceramic and matrix mix, I am removing the ceramic and replacing with pumice.

Bump: I still think it would be interesting to test pot scrubbies lol. How much amonia can pot scrubbies handle? I may do that test.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

There's no kill like overkill eh Immortal1 lmao

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Lonestarbandit

pauliewoz said:


> I would love to see this test done on biohome media. I almost splurged on it when I was setting up my canister, but couldn't justify the cost. So I went with 4 litres of matrix.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


I was also very interested in the biohome but the cost was prohibitive.
Then when I researched Matrix found it to be nothing more than pumice so tada low cost pumice in bulk there I went.
Still curious about that biohome though.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Lonestarbandit

I also dumped all my ceramic rings except one filter I kept that for mechanical filtration for no reason other than why not.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Immortal1

Lonestarbandit said:


> I also dumped all my ceramic rings except one filter I kept that for mechanical filtration for no reason other than why not.
> 
> Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


When I really started getting into canister filters I was surprised how many different filters used smooth ceramic rings for course filtration. My Eheim Pro II came with very small ceramic rings - about the same size as the current Eheim Mech Pro which is plastic tubes/rings. Evidently there must be some reason for doing this over course sponges.


----------



## pauliewoz

Lonestarbandit said:


> I was also very interested in the biohome but the cost was prohibitive.
> Then when I researched Matrix found it to be nothing more than pumice so tada low cost pumice in bulk there I went.
> Still curious about that biohome though.
> 
> Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


I also heard the pumice comparison to matrix. But I just had no balls to try it out. And I'm not sure where I would go about finding it in Toronto. 

I still might buy a bit of the biohome and replace one of my matrix trays with it. But right now matrix is doing a good job, so I don't want to spend extra money if I don't have to. 

But if my nitrates start getting out of hand, I'll probably buy it and see if it can actually keep them down.


Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## thedood

I use pre-filters on everything. I still use the coarse sponges and because I use the pre-filters I have yet to replace one. On my Magnum 350 I have been using the same blue-bond wrap for over a year. That filter has matrix in the carbon container. I go floss heavy on all of my filters.


----------



## Immortal1

pauliewoz said:


> I also heard the pumice comparison to matrix. But I just had no balls to try it out. And I'm not sure where I would go about finding it in Toronto.
> 
> I still might buy a bit of the biohome and replace one of my matrix trays with it. But right now matrix is doing a good job, so I don't want to spend extra money if I don't have to.
> 
> But if my nitrates start getting out of hand, I'll probably buy it and see if it can actually keep them down.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


Not sure how well Matrix will hold nitrates down. I have periodically tested for them during this test. Given the massive amount of ammonia I am now dumping in the tanks I have a feeling not much would be able to keep the nitrates in check. Will run a test in a few and see what I get. My prediction is very dark red at this point.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

I cut to fit bulk open cell sponges and I also go floss and pumice heavy.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## thedood

Lonestarbandit said:


> I cut to fit bulk open cell sponges and I also go I floss and pumice heavy.
> 
> Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


ARe you using those in your sun sun? Where do you get them, the sponges I mean.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Ordered it in sheets from somewhere angelfish something 

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Lonestarbandit

thedood said:


> ARe you using those in your sun sun? Where do you get them, the sponges I mean.


Custom Foam Filters for Aquariums

I do my measurements, choose pore size and order bigger from these guys then cut to fit.
I use their foam in all my filters (which are all Aquatop or Sunsun)
I use the 30 and 15. I tried the 50 but it was too dense/fine clogged too easy.


----------



## Immortal1

Lonestar, very intersting!!!


----------



## thedood

Thanks!!


----------



## Lonestarbandit

That is not to say the 50 doesn't work it does and clog is perhaps too strong a word but I was cleaning it alot lol
Perhaps if I grow bored ill drag them out and cut them in half depth wise and use as a fine filter. 

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Freemananana

Kubla said:


> Just returned from out of state and my bags of GPP were here. The 15 pound bag (the standard size) just crams into a 12x12x5.5 flat rate box, so it's right at 1/2 cubic foot.




Nice! That's good to know. That means my rough guessing, size of the bag aside, was about right. 


Glad to see things coming along as they are. Set backs on both sides, typical! :grin2:


----------



## aja31

If this test goes much longer you'll have to start taking water out as you add cups of ammonia lol

I think at this point we've proven both of these are quite capable of going well above and beyond what is needed, but since they are almost identical materials this makes sense.

However it now occurs to me that a control should have been used. How much bacteria can glass and plastic walls of the aquarium and filter support? Maybe once we hit the limit this test can be repeated with a no-bio media tank and a more common bio media tank like bio balls. Would certainly be good to compare to something vastly different.


----------



## jw.cS

aja31 said:


> How much bacteria can glass and plastic walls of the aquarium and filter support? Maybe once we hit the limit this test can be repeated with a no-bio media tank and a more common bio media tank like bio balls. Would certainly be good to compare to something vastly different.


This please. Thank you for putting it so eloquently, without unnecessary ramblings and asides. I am willing to fund some portion(s) of this experiment.


----------



## Immortal1

aja31 said:


> If this test goes much longer you'll have to start taking water out as you add cups of ammonia lol
> 
> I think at this point we've proven both of these are quite capable of going well above and beyond what is needed, but since they are almost identical materials this makes sense.
> 
> However it now occurs to me that a control should have been used. How much bacteria can glass and plastic walls of the aquarium and filter support? Maybe once we hit the limit this test can be repeated with a no-bio media tank and a more common bio media tank like bio balls. Would certainly be good to compare to something vastly different.


Cups, LOL it is almost to that point. Regarding your other comment, that should be pretty easy to determine. Once I have called this experiment done, pull out the bio-media and close up the filter again. Dose 3ppm and see what happens. Granted the plastic media trays could have something growing on them as well but I would be surprised if that alone could handle 3ppm ammonia. 

Considering I will have about 550ml of Matrix/Pumice available once we are done, I could pull the AquaTop on the wifes 40 gallon tank apart, take out the Fluval Biomax and put in the Matrix/Pumice. Then throw the BioMax in the 10 gallon hell hole and see how many cups of ammonia I can give it before it cries enough


----------



## Immortal1

Well everybody, it would seem I have may have found the limit for the Matrix. Currently the matrix is showing 2ppm Ammonia and 0ppm Nitrite. My guess is the Nitrite bacteria was able to process what ever the ammonia bacteria could process, but the ammonia bacteria was not able to process the full 21ppm of ammonia (it did handle 16ppm ammonia). So, if I had to make a guess the Matrix is going to top out around 18-19ppm ammonia.

The Pumice looks to have handled the 16ppm of ammonia just fine (which I guess should be expected given the previous Matrix reading). Unfortunately the nitrite bacteria is slacking a little as it is still showing 0.5ppm.

I think tonite, I am going to dose the Pumice to 16ppm ammonia again and see if the nitrite level can make it back to 0ppm tomorrow nite. As for the Matrix tank, I am going to go with 18ppm ammonia and see what happens tomorrow nite.

Thoughts anybody on where these results have taken us or my assumptions?


----------



## Lonestarbandit

I think we have categorically PROVEN Matrix is Pumice.
Aside from the likely heat driven crash they are the same which was the goal really.
I'm thinking try either pumice product against alternative media?

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## thedood

I think it has been an interesting an educational exercise. Hey @Immortal1 lets get creative. I have an old wore out croc my kid used to wear. Lets test it lol.


----------



## Immortal1

Think I will let you handle that one buddy


----------



## thedood

Lol


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Lol.


Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Immortal1

Worn out croc vs plastic Hot Wheels....
And go.
LOL


----------



## thedood

My daughter is setting up a 10. Limited room so we picked up a tetra internal filter. I'm going to test pot scrubbies and see what it can do.


----------



## Immortal1

thedood said:


> My daughter is setting up a 10. Limited room so we picked up a tetra internal filter. I'm going to test pot scrubbies and see what it can do.


Sounds good!!! Guess the trick will be generating 275ml of pot scrubbies, LOL. Actually I wonder if it would really matter if it is a canister filter or an internal filter. I also wonder if it would really matter if the filter was running 275gph or 100 gph. As long as the bio media has access to sufficient amounts of oxygen and ammonia.

I just setup my old AquaTop 500 on a 6-8 gallon bucket and dumped in all the bio balls that I have (2 liters??) Figured I can get the growing process started.


----------



## aja31

Immortal1 said:


> Well everybody, it would seem I have may have found the limit for the Matrix. Currently the matrix is showing 2ppm Ammonia and 0ppm Nitrite. My guess is the Nitrite bacteria was able to process what ever the ammonia bacteria could process, but the ammonia bacteria was not able to process the full 21ppm of ammonia (it did handle 16ppm ammonia). So, if I had to make a guess the Matrix is going to top out around 18-19ppm ammonia.
> 
> The Pumice looks to have handled the 16ppm of ammonia just fine (which I guess should be expected given the previous Matrix reading). Unfortunately the nitrite bacteria is slacking a little as it is still showing 0.5ppm.
> 
> I think tonite, I am going to dose the Pumice to 16ppm ammonia again and see if the nitrite level can make it back to 0ppm tomorrow nite. As for the Matrix tank, I am going to go with 18ppm ammonia and see what happens tomorrow nite.
> 
> Thoughts anybody on where these results have taken us or my assumptions?


You're increasing at a pretty quick rate. It might not be maxed out, just not able to keep up with the pace. I'd dose 21 ppm again after it hits 0 and see if it can do it. If after 3 days of 21 ppm it still can't do it then i'd say that is the limit. It's probably to the point where the bacteria takes a while to find somewhere else to grow.


----------



## Immortal1

Opps. I think I may have push a little too hard. Matrix is now VERY unhappy - ammonia looks to be 10-16ppm (best guess) and considering I dosed it to 18ppm last nite I am guessing that part of the bacteria crashed. Nitrite is still 0ppm which does not surprise me seeing as the ammonia bacteria is now doing very little. 
Pumice handled the 16ppm ammonia just fine (ammonia is at 0.25ppm), but the nitirite bacteria is just not keeping up. 
I think tonite I will not add anything to either tank and see what happens tomorrow. It is possible the Pumice nitrite bacteria will come around.
As for the Matrix ammonia bacteria, not sure what to do. Thoughts?









For reference, this is yesterdays results. Pumice was given 16ppm ammonia and Matrix was given 21ppm ammonia.


----------



## thedood

I would give it a day. I still think its been an admirable performance by both products.


----------



## Immortal1

Well, I tested both tanks tonite and it did not look much better (actually, Matrix was the same). So, I did a very large water change on the Matrix tank which dropped the ammonia back down to around 4ppm (far right test tube). Going to let the Matrix tank run another 24 hours to see if it recovers a bit. The Pumice tank is still showing a bit of Nitrite but I don't want the ammonia bacteria to starve so I am going to give it a nice 4ppm dose of ammonia and see how it does in 24 hours.


----------



## Immortal1

Well, here I am again with another update. I think at this point I will have to admit, sometimes you can teach an old dog new tricks. 
Not too long ago I was dumping in ammonia without regard to certain other parameters. Recently I maxed out the Matrix tank with ammonia and it simply would not recover. Yesterday I did a big water change which brought the ammonia level back down to a somewhat normal 4ppm and sure enough, 24 hours later we are back to 0ppm. As for the Pumice tank, I have noticed it was having trouble completely processing the ammonia and nitrite. For grins I checked the Nitrate level. As my daughter stated, it should be some shade of orange. The closer it gets to red the more you should think of stopping and make a change. In this case I completely blew the stop sign. This could very well be the reason the Pumice tank is just not happy even though the ammonia level is not very high. So, after the samples below were collected, I did a very big water change on the Pumice tank. A little later I will bring both tanks upto some level of ammonia, say 6ppm. If it handles that I will increase ammonia at a little slower rate this time. I am also thinking of doing a big water change before stepping up the ammonia amount. This would eliminate the huge Nitrate level from limiting the bio medias ability to process ammonia and nitrite.

Any thoughts???


----------



## latchdan

Well in my experience when I did a fishless cycle dosing 3ppm a day my nitrate were off the charts.

Since you are dosing so much ammonia daily I could only imagine the numbers. I would think dosing 18ppm ammonia daily the nitrates became toxic and killed off bacteria.

I would say 100% water changes daily might help being able to step up ammonia levels with out crashing bacteria colonies.

Just my hypothesis.


----------



## Immortal1

I think that is a good hypothesis. 
Bump: given the testing results below, I am thinking the Nitrates did not necessarily become toxic to the bacteria. The Nitrite bacteria could not process because there was just no place left in the tank to dump more Nitrates. 

If you look at post 311 above, the ammonia level in the Matrix tank was off the chart. It was not necessarily toxic to the bacteria, the bacteria just stopped processing. Once I did a big water change and brought the ammonia level down to about 4ppm then the ammonia bacteria woke up and did it's job (see post 312).


----------



## Immortal1

Good morning. Lucky enough to have the day off so I thought I would do a little testing. About as I thought, both tanks processed the 6ppm of ammonia just fine in 12 hours.
So, just to test a theory, I did a large water change on both tanks and *added 10ppm ammonia to each*. My guess is by 9pm tonite I will have 0ppm ammonia and nitrite.


----------



## Immortal1

Well, it would seem 12 hours is not enough time for 10ppm ammonia. Will see what morning brings.


----------



## Immortal1

Good morning TPT. Well, as some of you might have guessed both tanks managed to process 10ppm ammonia down to 0ppm ammonia and nitrite in about 22 hours.

I did about a 40% water change to help clear up excess nitrates and dosed both tanks to 14ppm ammonia. Will see what the next 22-24 hours brings this time. 










Started doing a bit more research and found a very interesting site http://aem.asm.org/content/64/1/258.full. There is a lot of reading on this site, but the one bit of text I found interesting as it pertains to this experiment was "Whether in pure culture or on biofilters, *Nitrite-Oxidizing Bacteria (NOB) are slowly growing organisms with doubling times from 12 to 32 hours".* So, as I keep bumping up the ammonia level which in turn is bumping up the nitrite level I would think at some point I am goint to run out of space for the NOB to grow on. To be perfectly honest, that is kinda what this test is all about - how much Ammonia-Oxidizing Bacteria (AOB) and NOB can Matrix support and can Pumice support a similar amount of AOB & NOB? Once that is established, then we can test to see if a closely similar amount of bioballs, Fluval BioMax, etc. can support a similar amount of AOB & NOB.

I have a little faith in the Fluval BioMax doing a good job. I have been using that product for over 1 year. Thinking about how even the best bioballs are constructed, I just can believe they could support as much AOB & NOB as the ceramic/pumice/sintered glass product could. But, as most of you already know - that statement is likely why we have these ceramic/pumice/sintered glass products.


----------



## thedood

This is pretty amazing.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Crazzzzzyyy! Worth noting for the casual thread viewer this is already FAR in excess of anything a normal tank would throw at these products.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Immortal1

Lonestarbandit said:


> Crazzzzzyyy! Worth noting for the casual thread viewer this is already FAR in excess of anything a normal tank would throw at these products.
> 
> Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


True, it is. But, another way to look at it might be...

10 gallons at 20ppm and 275ml Matrix is the same amount of ammonia (21.63ml of 3.5% ammonia) as 
20 gallons at 10ppm and 275ml Matrix (21.63ml ammonia)
40 gallons at 5ppm and 275ml Matrix (21.63ml ammonia)
So, this tiny amount of biomedia (by most of our standards) is enough to handle an average fish load in a 40 gallon tank.
And thats assuming I can only get it to handle 20ppm. 
Now that I have figured out the overly high Nitrate levels were holding things back, I might be able to push it to 30ppm ammonia. Can you imagine trying to convince someone that 275ml of bio media alone will keep their glass bottom 60 gallon Discus tank safe?

Will be very interesting to see how much (how little?) ammonia the other bio media products can handle.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Probably run into the same trouble I have had convincing people MATRIX IS JUST PUMICE!😂

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## latchdan

Kinda funny how everyone stresses bio media when really only a small amount is required. I suppose I will swop out some filter space with for more mechanical filtration.

Bump: How much bio media comes with a 2217 2 liters?


----------



## Immortal1

latchdan said:


> Kinda funny how everyone stresses bio media when really only a small amount is required. I suppose I will swop out some filter space with for more mechanical filtration.


Or make room for Purigen (If you prefer to use it). With my AquaTop filters, I seem to be fighting removal of fine particles WAY more difficult than keeping the ammonia/nitrites in check.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Lol use the correct bag lmao

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Immortal1

Not sure if it is 2 liters or 1 liter of bio-media in a 2217. 
Bag??? Why would I use a bag - just pour it into the top tray - good to go!

Ok, just kidding! Finding a media bag with a fine enough weave for Pruigen can be a real PITA.


----------



## natemcnutty

Immortal1 said:


> True, it is. But, another way to look at it might be...
> 
> 10 gallons at 20ppm and 275ml Matrix is the same amount of ammonia (21.63ml of 3.5% ammonia) as
> 20 gallons at 10ppm and 275ml Matrix (21.63ml ammonia)
> 40 gallons at 5ppm and 275ml Matrix (21.63ml ammonia)
> So, this tiny amount of biomedia (by most of our standards) is enough to handle an average fish load in a 40 gallon tank.
> And thats assuming I can only get it to handle 20ppm.
> Now that I have figured out the overly high Nitrate levels were holding things back, I might be able to push it to 30ppm ammonia. Can you imagine trying to convince someone that 275ml of bio media alone will keep their glass bottom 60 gallon Discus tank safe?
> 
> Will be very interesting to see how much (how little?) ammonia the other bio media products can handle.


This is such a cool idea! Here's my question: If AOB and NOB can take up to half a day or more to double, how does a glass bottom with less surface area for BB handle ammonia spikes as compared to those with a substrate? You've established how phenomenal these materials are for biological filtration, but I'm curious how this affects things if we rely more heavily on it


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Immortal1 said:


> Not sure if it is 2 liters or 1 liter of bio-media in a 2217.
> Bag??? Why would I use a bag - just pour it into the top tray - good to go!
> 
> Ok, just kidding! Finding a media bag with a fine enough weave for Pruigen can be a real PITA.


Pour it in the top.......oh right lol.
A$$.
Yes that's why I just bite the bullet and buy their "The Bag". 
No particle magic that way lol

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## thedood

Immortal1 said:


> Not sure if it is 2 liters or 1 liter of bio-media in a 2217.
> Bag??? Why would I use a bag - just pour it into the top tray - good to go!
> 
> Ok, just kidding! Finding a media bag with a fine enough weave for Pruigen can be a real PITA.


I gave up. By the time you buy the purigen and the bag it seems more cost effective to just by the 100ml in a bag. SO I buy two bags for every filter.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Do you know I have both and it IS just a Damn sight easier to get the packets I call them.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Immortal1

Agreed on the packets of purigen - I have 2 at the moment.

As for just the glass, I intend on finding out soon.


----------



## Smooch

Immortal1 said:


> Finding a media bag with a fine enough weave for Pruigen can be a real PITA.


I order filter media bags from Amazon as my Pet Co and Pet Smart never have them. When in a pinch though, pantyhose work. Just cut off the leg part to whatever size you need and you're done. 

I currently have some orange pantyhose soaking with Purigen that is being regenerated. The pantyhose were not orange to start with, the bleach turned them that color. LOL


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Bleach weakens the fibers however if you have a blowout it will be a disaster lol or at least your tank will look like one of those tourist snowglobe things!

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Immortal1

Good morning again. About as anticipated, both products handled the 14ppm ammonia just fine within 24 hours. Based on my wonderful fishless cycle calculator it looks like we will be going to 17.8ppm ammonia this morning after I do a bigger water change to clear out some of those nitrates (getting pretty dark red again).


----------



## thedood

Any guesses what the ceiling will be?


----------



## Immortal1

I am hoping it will be over 20, maybe 25? 
I realize there is a lot of plastic in the canister filter and a certain amount of surface area in the tank for bacteria to grow on so I am starting to get a little curious what kind of ppm ammonia the system will support without ANY bio media. When I originally went down this rabbit hole I began realizing beneficial bacteria can and will grow on almost everything including the course filter media. Now granted, I don't think course filter media can hold nearly as much as the Matrix/Purigen. I also don't think WalMart pot scrubbies will hold that much either, but I have a friend who swears by them. given some of what I am learning, I suppose if you take your 2217 Eheim, pack it full of pot scrubbies with a layer of fine filter floss on the top it would probably work.


----------



## thedood

@Immortal1 I agree with you. I think this experiment has demonstrated, even more than the intended matrix is pumice purpose, how much we are over spending on bio-media. When one takes into consideration a heavily planted aquarium it really demonstrates it. What I am taking away from this is less bio-media, more mechanical filtration, and more chemical filtration like purigen are really the way to go in our planted tanks.

Bump: I also think this demonstrates why something so simple as pot scrubbies can be so effective.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

I agree.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## theatermusic87

I really should have posted this earlier... but since every time i look at this thread it's on my phone and the book mark is on my computer... ANYWAYS, here it is

1 ppm ammonia = 1 ppm nitrite = 1 ppm nitrate?

The details are in the short thread, but basically 1PPM ammonia turns into 2.7 PPM nitrite which turns into 3.64 PPM nitrate

basically when you dose 20ppm ammonia every day you're adding ~70ppm nitrate, add that up over a couple days and you can get stupidly high nitrate levels, which I'm willing to bet is crashing something


----------



## Immortal1

@theatermusic87 thanks for the link. Wish I would have seen that a few weeks ago lol. I have now realized in order to push the bio media as hard as I am i need to do very large water changes before I add the next days ammonia otherwise the nitrate level gets high enough that the bio media stops working.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Well now we know what happened.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Leeatl

I have followed this with great interest and thanks to Immortal1 for the time and effort . Now for your next project , find a generic for Purigen . That stuff is expensive...lol


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Purigen without Seachem eh?
THAT might be a toughie lol.
Given whatever poly product they are using might very well be proprietary and isn't it supposedly not a resin product?
Seems to trap organics so it's clearly macroporous then you export said organics from your system loop to your bleach solution thus destroying and removing them then do it all over again.
What is it exactly? No no I must not get wrapped up in that one or I'll not have a wife lol

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Immortal1

Pretty funny @Lonestarbandit. Well this mornings results are in and both products handled the 17.8ppm (25ml ammonia) just fine. I am even seeing some progress on the next batch of bio media (middle green tube for ammonia). Guess now I will have to get the water change done and figure out what the next level of ammonia will be.

I think without jumping too high, I will give 20ppm (28.2ml ammonia) a try. Somehow I have a feeling once we are done and I open up the canister filters I am betting the color of the Matrix/Pumice will be much different then when we started!


----------



## Freemananana

Well hot dog. Nearly 20ppm ammonia and no issues on either side. I like what I'm seeing and can already say, with confidence, it is a good alternative. No matter which product 'wins', they both have handled a ton of ammonia without issue. Very impressive.


----------



## thedood

I agree with @Freemananana, impressive indeed. When you do the clean out that bio-media is going to have so much bacteria its going to be like handling little balls of slime. I have started making the move to pumice from ceramic rings in all of my canisters. I have to be honest though after this I am wondering if even pumice is a waste of money and all of those pot scrubby users are really onto something. I mean 18ppm ammonia with only a handful of media? Insane.

Bump:


Lonestarbandit said:


> What is it exactly? No no I must not get wrapped up in that one or I'll not have a wife lol
> 
> Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


I wish i could like this one twice lol.


----------



## theatermusic87

thedood said:


> I agree with @Freemananana, impressive indeed. When you do the clean out that bio-media is going to have so much bacteria its going to be like handling little balls of slime. I have started making the move to pumice from ceramic rings in all of my canisters. I have to be honest though after this I am wondering if even pumice is a waste of money and all of those pot scrubby users are really onto something. I mean 18ppm ammonia with only a handful of media? Insane.
> 
> Bump:
> 
> I wish i could like this one twice lol.


I'm wondering if all those no filter people really have it figured out... I'm waiting to see how they do with no media!


----------



## Smooch

theatermusic87 said:


> I'm wondering if all those no filter people really have it figured out... I'm waiting to see how they do with no media!


I tried starting a nano in a cookie jar with no filter. Even with water changes the water always smelled stagnant which drove me nuts. I wasn't willing to live with the smell as the said nano was going to be on my desk, so I changed my plans.

I don't know if this is because I have a sensitive sense or smell or if tanks with no filtration smell that way normally. I tip my proverbial hat to those that keep unfiltered tanks if the smell is normal.


----------



## Immortal1

Well TPT it would seem we are close. This morning the Pumice still showed 0.25 to 0.5 Nitrite after about 24 hours of 20ppm. The Matrix handled it just fine. The far left tube is the third tanks that is growing BB on other types of media. Will see what the water looks like tonite when I get home. Will likely do a water change and dose 20ppm to the Pumice (27ml) and 22ppm (31ml) to the Matrix and see what happens. If the Pumice is maxed out on Nitrite, a second round at 20ppm will have the same results as this morning.


----------



## flynruff

For purigen without Seachem, I think something like this........
http://www.purolite.com/default.aspx?RelID=619325

There are several products on the market, looks like you have to commit to a $300 bag though.


----------



## aja31

Well I was away for a few days, glad that removing the nitrates solved the problem. I guess as much back in post 250. 

I see you are setting up some other materials to test. Are you going to test a tank with no bio media as well? I tried reading through all the posts I missed but I didn't see what you are testing next. 

at 20 ppm things are getting interesting. Took a while to work out the kinks, but I think you have nailed down a great experimental procedure here now that should be easily repeatable with other materials and really provide us with some hobby advancing information. Once we reach 5+ materials tested I think this thread should be put in a sticky somewhere for people to read. Maybe a summary post highlighting the things we learned and the important information. As we progress further I will look into making something like that since I think this is a great topic that people need to see more of. Threads like this are why I love this forum so much.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

flynruff said:


> For purigen without Seachem, I think something like this........
> -> Purolite® A860
> 
> There are several products on the market, looks like you have to commit to a $300 bag though.


Does indeed look similar doesn't it??
hmmm. What quantity is the 300 bag.
Get enough of us together could be worth it.
BULK BUY lol.

Found this: OUCH
Product Name : Purolite Micro Tannin Resin, 1 Cubic Foot 
Catalog ID : A860-100-BOX 
Our Price : $511.94









Product Name : Purolite Micro Tannin Resin 1/2 Cubic Foot Box 
Catalog ID : A860-50-BOX 
Our Price : $265.20


----------



## Immortal1

aja31 said:


> Well I was away for a few days, glad that removing the nitrates solved the problem. I guess as much back in post 250.
> 
> I see you are setting up some other materials to test. Are you going to test a tank with no bio media as well? I tried reading through all the posts I missed but I didn't see what you are testing next.
> 
> at 20 ppm things are getting interesting. Took a while to work out the kinks, but I think you have nailed down a great experimental procedure here now that should be easily repeatable with other materials and really provide us with some hobby advancing information. Once we reach 5+ materials tested I think this thread should be put in a sticky somewhere for people to read. Maybe a summary post highlighting the things we learned and the important information. As we progress further I will look into making something like that since I think this is a great topic that people need to see more of. Threads like this are why I love this forum so much.


Yes, I am going to test an empty tank/canister filter once I am done with the current pair. Will be interesting to see how much ammonia I can dump in LOL.

Right now I have Fluval BioMax, Eheim Substrat Pro, and what I would consider pretty decent bio-balls in a 3rd setup. Once I take out the next pair I will probably fill one of the trays in the 3rd setup with pot scrubbies or maybe some Menards Lava Rock of similar size (1/2"-3/4" sieve?). Eitherway, I will do my best to only put in the same quantity as the original test pair (275ml)


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Immortal1 said:


> Yes, I am going to test an empty tank/canister filter once I am done with the current pair. Will be interesting to see how much ammonia I can dump in LOL.
> 
> Right now I have Fluval BioMax, Eheim Substrat Pro, and what I would consider pretty decent bio-balls in a 3rd setup. Once I take out the next pair I will probably fill one of the trays in the 3rd setup with pot scrubbies or maybe some Menards Lava Rock of similar size (1/2"-3/4" sieve?). Eitherway, I will do my best to only put in the same quantity as the original test pair (275ml)


Good. How do you measure 250ml of potscrubbies lol>


----------



## Immortal1

I prefer Puree...


----------



## Lonestarbandit

they WILL be measurable in that configuration. Manageable......maybe not so much....


----------



## Leeatl

I may be wrong but it looks like the resins shown are for water softeners.....uses sodium to recharge . Not the same as Purigen . I have spent some time searching and I can't find out what Purigen is let alone a substitute . I do know it is not like the resins in softeners . I will keep looking , but Seachem has this one under severe lock and key...lol


----------



## aja31

Lonestarbandit said:


> Does indeed look similar doesn't it??
> hmmm. What quantity is the 300 bag.
> Get enough of us together could be worth it.
> BULK BUY lol.
> 
> Found this: OUCH
> Product Name : Purolite Micro Tannin Resin, 1 Cubic Foot
> Catalog ID : A860-100-BOX
> Our Price : $511.94
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Product Name : Purolite Micro Tannin Resin 1/2 Cubic Foot Box
> Catalog ID : A860-50-BOX
> Our Price : $265.20


That's still cheaper than purigen. 1 cubic foot is ~28 L. At $28 for 0.5 L that's $700 worth of Purigen.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Leeatl said:


> I may be wrong but it looks like the resins shown are for water softeners.....uses sodium to recharge . Not the same as Purigen . I have spent some time searching and I can't find out what Purigen is let alone a substitute . I do know it is not like the resins in softeners . I will keep looking , but Seachem has this one under severe lock and key...lol


Yep. You are quite possibly wrong lol. 
As stated in the other thread there are many different versions perhaps as numerous as the stars.
This version removes tannins and organics, it does not soften water.
Yes Seachem keeps a lid on most of their products. But doesn't mean it can't be cracked lol. Don't crack purigen. Not good for the beads.[emoji33] 










Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Immortal1

Good evening TPT!
I think we are getting pretty close to the end of this particular journey. Both Purigen and Matrix showed 0.25ppm ammonia this evening (previous dosing showed 0ppm ammonia after 24 hours). On the upside, I think the supercharged nitrite bacteria is really starting to kick it into gear as both of those tube were a nice cyan blue although I will admit the Pumice nitrite sample is a little darker than the Matrix sample.










So, tonite I am again stepping things up a bit after a large water change on each tank (about 90% of the water in the individual tank only). The Pumice tank gets 22.2ppm ammonia (30ml) and the Matrix tank is getting 24.2ppm ammonia (34ml). Have a feeling the white flag is out and we are on the final lap


----------



## thedood

Pretty amazing stuff. @Immortal1 good work!!


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Sweet deal. Really is crazy the level they are at. Those rocks should be coated in bacterial snot by now.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Immortal1

Lonestarbandit said:


> Sweet deal. Really is crazy the level they are at. Those rocks should be coated in bacterial snot by now.
> 
> Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


LOL, yes, I would guess they look pretty gross. But, if they really are coated that much, how much is coating the plastic trays and the plastic canister? If not much is on the plastic, why would bio balls work? If the plastic is very coated as well, then I guess bio balls may not be that bad. 

I can only say that the glass part of the tank really does not look gross at all. Honestly its remarkably clean. Go figure, the one tank I don't clean actually looks the cleanest.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

That would be annoying lol

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Immortal1

Good evening again. Would seem we have reversed who is struggling today. The Matrix tank is now showing about 0.5ppm Nitrite from the 24.2ppm ammonia (34ml) dosing. The Pumice tank seems to have handled the 22.2ppm ammonia (30ml) dosing just fine. I must admit, I am a bit surprised these products are still churning thru ammonia like they are. I guess tonite I will even things up and dose both tanks at 24.2ppm ammonia after I change a bit of water (well, maybe 90%). Just for grins I might even test one of the nitrate levels before I change the water. FYI, the far left tube is for the 3rd tank that I am growing the next batch in. It was at 4ppm 24 hours ago.


----------



## aja31

24ppm is quite impressive. My bet is they will reach 30 ppm before finally giving out.


----------



## Immortal1

Wow, this stuff will just not give up. I am really starting to think someone is sneaking onto the porch and changing the water when I am not home. Either that or somebody put water in my jug of ammonia LOL.
Both tanks seems to have handled the 24.2ppm ammonia just fine.










Guess I am going to jump it up to 27 ppm or 38ml ammonia after the big water change. I think I am going to post a pic of the Nitrate level as well before the water change.










Above pic is from the Pumice tank. Bear in mind, when I say I do a water change I dump 90%+ of the water out of the tank and re-fill it with tap water which has been pre-treated with Prime. I do not empty the water in the canister, so, assuming I have 2.5 to 3 gallons of water in the canister and 10 gallons of water in the tank, I am changing about 9.5 gallons of water (75%-77%). And the nitrate level still gets this high in about 24 hours. Guess those magic rocks must be doing something.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

So BOTH groups of rock are now magic? Lol

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Immortal1

Starting to think so @Lonestarbandit 
Might have to open one of them up and have a peek inside just to verify those "rocks" didn't somehow reproduce lol


----------



## Immortal1

Ok TPT people -what the heck! I dumped 27ppm ammonia in each tank 24 hours ago and guess what? I got 0ppm ammonia and nitrite now. 
I am starting to think the bio-media has built up so much bacteria that it has become sentient and began reproducing more Pumice Rocks / Matrix Rocks LOL.

Guess tonite, after the water change, I am going straight to 30ppm ammonia (42ml each tank). At this rate, my 1 gallon jug of ammonia is going to run out before the test is over 










For what is worth, I did look in the Pumice canister...










Compare the above picture to the one on post 85 - not much difference. Have a sneeky feeling this may go to 40ppm LOL


----------



## Immortal1

Well TPT, it would seem neither contestant is ready to throw in the towel just yet. Both handle the 30ppm ammonia just fine within roughly 23 hours. So, tonite they are going to get a nice dose of *34.8ppm ammonia (49ml)*. Sooner or later I am going to find out just how much ammonia this stuff can process. 

Starting to think 40ppm just might be possible. Should have set up a poll when this experiment started to see who could have guessed what the maximum amount of ammonia processed in 24 hours would be.










The 49ml I just put in each tank is getting dangerously close to 1/4 cup of ammonia.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

I still love my pumice rocks lol Goooooooo Pumice that is non branded pumice....but either pumice product has shocked me. I expected failure by now.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## aja31

Well it seems these things have no limit. I think I can make the bio chamber on my sump much smaller than I originally intended... I had planned on 4 L of pumice in my tank... but it just seems absurd now.


----------



## Immortal1

aja31 said:


> Well it seems these things have no limit. I think I can make the bio chamber on my sump much smaller than I originally intended... I had planned on 4 L of pumice in my tank... but it just seems absurd now.


Well, 4L of pumice would likely be ok  Now lets have some fun with math.
30ppm ammonia in 13 gallons of water is the same as; (13 gallons @ 30ppm of 3.5% ammonia requires 42.18ml)
15ppm ammonia in 26 gallons of water (26 gallons @ 15ppm of 3.5% ammonia requires 42.18ml)
7.5ppm ammonia in 52 gallons of water (52 gallons @ 5.7ppm of 3.5% ammonia requires 42.18ml)
3.8ppm ammonia in 104 gallons of water (104 gallons @ 3.75ppm of 3.5% ammonia requires 42.18ml)

So, if you were going to use 4ppm as your ammonia limit, then the 275ml of pumice would likely work in a 100 gallon tank.

But, you are talking about 4L of Pumice which is 14.54 times greater than what I am using. So;

30ppm ammonia in 189 gallons of water is the same as;
15ppm ammonia in 378 gallons
7.5ppm ammonia in 576 gallons
3.8ppm ammonia in 1,512 gallons

My guess is you are not caring for a 600+ gallon tank  
Kinda amazing what this stuff can really do. Until just recently I would have not given it a second guess to put at least 2L of bio-media on a 125 gallon tank. The other crazy part is your substraight, hard scape, plants, course canister filter, etc. all help process ammonia (not as well, but they help) and I have none of that in this experiment. 

http://www.fishforums.net/aquarium-calculator.htm


----------



## Immortal1

Good evening TPT. It would seem we (I?) have finally found the upper limit of these magic rocks. Both contestants were able to handle the 30ppm ammonia in under 24 hours. 
Unfortunately 34.8ppm ammonia in 24 hours is just not going to happen. To be overly truthful, it has been 25 hours since I added the ammonia yesterday. I had hopes of making it to 40ppm ammonia but that is just not going to happen.









From what I am reading in person, the Pumice has 4ppm ammonia and 0.25 nitrite. The Matrix has 8ppm ammonia and 0ppm nitrite. It is possible the Matrix stopped processing a little sooner but, who knows.

Either way, I am pretty comfortable at this point telling @Lonestarbandit that Seachem Matrix and General Pumice Products are actually the same thing as far as we are concerned 

Later tonite, I am going to dump all the biomedia from the Eheim filter into the Marineland filter. Then I am going to change out all the water in the Eheim setup (no biomedia at all), close it up and add 3ppm ammonia and see what happens. 

Also, it looks like the "Next Stuff" is now ready to put up a fight (or at least try, lol). 

Thank-you all for following along. It has been an interesting journey in which I have learned way more than expected. Thank-you also to @Lonestarbandit for the opportunity.


----------



## Leeatl

Thank you for the work . I am sure a lot of eyes have been opened , mine included...lol


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Thanks all due to @Immortal1 for all the actual effort.
And the confirmation of Matrix.
Also what is the "next stuff"???

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## aja31

Impressive! Well the original question has been answered, however the auxiliary questions are much more interesting lol. I can't wait to see what a bare tank can do, and how the other types of media compare.


----------



## Immortal1

Well @aja31, I do have some info for you regarding a bare, cycled tank. It seems 3ppm ammonia "may" be doable. The ammonia level is 0.25ppm to 0.5ppm and the nitrite level is 0ppm. Not sure what the issue is with the ammonia level so I am going to dose it back up to 3ppm tonite and let it run again. I may come around - especially if it was a bit upset with all the work I did last nite.










If I have time tonite, I will unload the other filter and throw in some cycled bio balls and see how much ammonia they can handle.


----------



## Leeatl

If a bare tank CAN handle 3ppm , then the question is , why would we ever see mini cycles ? Considering the substrate , plants , filter box surfaces , etc plus the tank walls , all have some bacteria .


----------



## Immortal1

Leeatl said:


> If a bare tank CAN handle 3ppm , then the question is , why would we ever see mini cycles ? Considering the substrate , plants , filter box surfaces , etc plus the tank walls , all have some bacteria .


That is a very good question. The only thing I can think of is BB can grow on almost anything but like the rest of us, may "prefer" to grow in the best place possible. Also, in my case, I was dumping a lot of ammonia in those tanks. I can only guess the preferred houses may have been full so some BB had to find another place to call home.

Not that I would want to try it, but, it would be interesting to take my/your current display tank and remove the bio media for 1 week. What would happen if you changed nothing else. Would ammonia or nitrites peak??


----------



## Leeatl

Immortal1 said:


> That is a very good question. The only thing I can think of is BB can grow on almost anything but like the rest of us, may "prefer" to grow in the best place possible. Also, in my case, I was dumping a lot of ammonia in those tanks. I can only guess the preferred houses may have been full so some BB had to find another place to call home.
> 
> Not that I would want to try it, but, it would be interesting to take my/your current display tank and remove the bio media for 1 week. What would happen if you changed nothing else. Would ammonia or nitrites peak??


That's a good point and the preferred oxygen rich/ammonia rich place is in the filter . We usually cause a mini cycle by changing out too much media or destroying it altogether by over cleaning . Much food for thought .


----------



## Immortal1

Well TPT, I am switching up the Marineland canister filter - and this seems hardly fair, LOL.
The pics below represent the bio balls that I have chosen to test (mostly because its what I have, lol). They are about 3/4" dia (are small ones available?)
I measured out 275ml just like I did with the 2 previous products. This resulted volume resulted in 25 balls. These should have some bacteria on them already but I don't think the nitrite bacteria is ready yet.


----------



## aja31

They look pretty pathetic in there lol. Guess that's why they usually sell them by the 5 gallon bucket.


----------



## Immortal1

LOL, yep! Pretty pathetic. I have also read bio balls may do better in wet/dry sumps than canister filters. This I can believe. But, WTH, I will give them a good run and laugh when they fall short.

Also, forgot to mention the bare tank handled the 3ppm dose last nite so I bumped it up to 4ppm tonite. Given the small amount of ammonia, I am not doing daily water changes at the moment.


----------



## Immortal1

Minor update. Bare tank/filter survived 4ppm ammonia. Bumped it up to 5ppm. Bio ball tank handled whatever I gave it last nite (just don't remember), so I added 7.1ppm ammonia.


----------



## skystrife

Very interesting thread. Thanks @Immortal1 for performing the experiments!

I have an interesting idea, given that the bare filter has handleded a (to me) surprising amount of ammonia already. There was some speculation earlier about mini-cycles being caused by beneficial bacteria having a preference for residing in filter media over other surfaces. When the bacteria on these "better" surfaces is removed/dies, the remaining bacteria are in insufficient supply to handle ammonia load and then you have residual ammonia.

Here is one way we could test this hypothesis: take one of the tanks that had Matrix or pumice product in the cannister. Dose some reasonable level of ammonia that can be processed in 24 hours. Then, the next day, remove all of the Matrix/pumice product. Dose the same amount of ammonia. If the ammonia is indeed no longer processed in time, we can safely conclude that most of the bacteria was on the rocks. But if the system still processes the ammonia...

Just a thought.


----------



## Immortal1

Hmmm, this is starting to get interesting again. Bare tank processed 5ppm just fine. BioBall tank handled 10ppm just fine (even though I don't think the bio balls were fully cycled). And I blasted 13.8ppm at my 3rd tank which has Fluval Bio Max, Eheim Substrat Pro, AND.... AND the Pumice / Matrix mix! Now why would I get ANY kind of a green ammonia reading with all THAT in the filter?


----------



## Immortal1

skystrife said:


> Very interesting thread. Thanks @*Immortal1* for performing the experiments!
> 
> I have an interesting idea, given that the bare filter has handleded a (to me) surprising amount of ammonia already. There was some speculation earlier about mini-cycles being caused by beneficial bacteria having a preference for residing in filter media over other surfaces. When the bacteria on these "better" surfaces is removed/dies, the remaining bacteria are in insufficient supply to handle ammonia load and then you have residual ammonia.
> 
> Here is one way we could test this hypothesis: take one of the tanks that had Matrix or pumice product in the cannister. Dose some reasonable level of ammonia that can be processed in 24 hours. Then, the next day, remove all of the Matrix/pumice product. Dose the same amount of ammonia. If the ammonia is indeed no longer processed in time, we can safely conclude that most of the bacteria was on the rocks. But if the system still processes the ammonia...
> 
> Just a thought.


I hear what you are saying regarding truly testing if the bio media really has that big of an impact. Because of where we are at the moment, I can't do exactly as you ask. But, if the bare tank hits 20ppm in 24 hours I am going to be REALLY surprised - and you just might have the answer you were asking for. The other tank (the former Matrix tank) now has Bio Balls in it which I did not have much hope for and it just handled 10ppm ammonia.


----------



## Immortal1

Another interesting round of results. The bare tank seems to have handled an 8ppm dose of ammonia without issue (0ppm ammonia & 0ppm nitrite). 

The bio ball tank received a 13.5ppm dose of ammonia and did not do very well with the ammonia (could be 8ppm ammonia). Now, is this because the ammonia bacteria in the filter and the tank can't process that much ammonia (i.e. the limit for a bare tank) and the bio balls have not kicked in yet? I don't know. I think at this point I am going to leave the tank alone and see what happens in another 24 hours.

The grow out tank, which has all the previously cycled Pumice and Matrix in it as well as 2 other bio medias, did pretty poorly with a 15ppm dose. Not really sure if this is because I have maxed out the nitrate level in the tank (this has happened before), or if the Pumice / Matrix mix somehow crashed? I think I will test the nitrates and likely do a water change.

Any thoughts on what might be happening?










Just so I don't forget (because I do). 11.1ppm (15ml) added to the bare tank. Bioball tank left as is. Growout tank received 90% water change, then 16.6ppm (18ml)


----------



## aja31

How long were they out of the first tanks before you moved them to the grow out tank? If they even partially dried out then all the bacteria probably died. 

Bio balls might just need some time to catch up. I'm shocked the bare tank handled that much.


----------



## theatermusic87

aja31 said:


> Bio balls might just need some time to catch up. I'm shocked the bare tank handled that much.


I'm not... TBH I have a feeling we are going to discover that bio media in general is vastly overrated. I have a feeling 20ppm on a bare tank is totally within reason

My logic for this is that the least oxygenated part of the tank is going to be the filter (hob excluded to some extent) because there is no air/water interface right before the intake tube we are left with whatever oxygen is already dissolved, and we are attempting to foster oxygen needing bacteria in what would otherwise be a oxygen poor environment.


----------



## Immortal1

aja31 said:


> How long were they out of the first tanks before you moved them to the grow out tank? If they even partially dried out then all the bacteria probably died.
> 
> Bio balls might just need some time to catch up. I'm shocked the bare tank handled that much.


 @aja31, the media never dried out. Was probably sitting in one tray or another maybe 10 minutes (likely less cause I am kinda paranoid like that). 

I did guess right why the Matrix/Pumice/Biomax/Substratpro tank failed - when the Nitrate level gets too high, the BB shuts down. this I think is just too high LOL.










As for the bare tank, I am a little surprised because I would not think there is enough surface area. But, on the other hand, those little rocks are still pretty little. If I crushed them to dust, I maybe could cover the floor of the 10 gallon tank. But the biofilm has access to all surfaces within the tank and filter and hoses. 

Again, never expected this experiment to take this turn 

Bump:


theatermusic87 said:


> I'm not... TBH I have a feeling we are going to discover that bio media in general is vastly overrated. I have a feeling 20ppm on a bare tank is totally within reason
> 
> My logic for this is that the least oxygenated part of the tank is going to be the filter (hob excluded to some extent) because there is no air/water interface right before the intake tube we are left with whatever oxygen is already dissolved, and we are attempting to foster oxygen needing bacteria in what would otherwise be a oxygen poor environment.


In most tank setups I would have to agree with you. In this setup, not so much. I have a 10 gallon tank connected to a 300+ GPH canister filter. Each tank has an air stone running in addition to surface agitation from the filter discharge. Simple math tells me I am circulating the water in the tank 30 times per hour of once every 2 minutes. I would find it hard to believe with that kind of turbulence in the tank there would be ANY portion of water within the tank that has a higher or lower level of oxygen.

Now, will the bare tank hit 20ppm? Maybe. My biggest limiting factor seems to be when the Nitrate level goes beyond 160ppm (everything seems to shut down). If I do daily water changes before I dose the insane levels of ammonia I seem to get very good results.


----------



## Immortal1

Question for the science majors our there.
I have 2 containers, each with 1 gallon of water.
The first container has regular tap water that has not been treated with Prime. 
The second container has regular tap water the was just treated with Prime.

I now add 8ppm ammonia to each container.

In 24 hours, will my API test show 8ppm ammonia in each container?

Well, I just had to test this theory to verify my previous testing was not in vain. The picture below was taken 15 minutes after 8ppm ammonia was added to each 1 gallon container. One with the correct amount of Prime, one without. Would seem the API test kit will detect NH3 (ammonia) and NH4 (ammonium, non-toxic version of ammonia) equally as well.

One of my other concerns is the statement on the Prime bottle that reads "Prime detoxifies nitrite and nitrate, allowing the biofilter to more efficiently remove them." Could the daily water changes using Prime effect these tests? I am thinking with the high doses of ammonia I was using, the answer would be no.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Damn it I'm on tapatalk can't see pic so what happened 

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Immortal1

Sorry @Lonestarbandit, I forgot not everybody can see the pics. 
Both 1 gallon tests showed the same 8ppm reading 15 minutes after the Prime and ammonia was added. I checked them this morning (about 11 hours later) and they are both still showing 8ppm.


----------



## Immortal1

Good evening again TPT. Another head scratcher for tonite. The bare tank managed the 11.1ppm ammonia just fine (0ppm ammonia and nitrite). I left the bio ball tank alone and it is still struggling a bit with a 2.0ppm ammonia and 0.0ppm nitrite. As for the grow out tank, I figured after the huge water change to lower the nitrates it would be back to chewing up ammonia and nitrites. Guess not. Looks like a 2.0ppm ammonia and 5+ on the nitrite.










For tonite, I am moving the bare tank up to 12.6ppm ammonia. The bio ball tank back up to 4ppm ammonia. And the grow out tank I am going to leave alone.
(really confused on the grow out tank but oh well)


----------



## fermentedhiker

I believe the reason the prime didn't affect the ammonia test is how prime binds it to make non toxic. It still ends up as a form of ammonium. It's no longer toxic but the hobby tests don't distinguish between ammonia and ammonium


----------



## Immortal1

Good evening again TPT. Another round of results and a new backdrop (old one was beginning to confuse me).
The grow out tank received no ammonia last nite because of the numbers. Tonite I get 0ppm on ammonia & nitrite. Guess something is working.
The Bare tank was given 12.6 ammonia last nite and is now showing 2.0ppm ammonia & 0.0ppm nitrite (might need to check nitrates).
The Bio ball tank was brought up to 4ppm from 2ppm and is now showing closer to 8ppm ammonia (really need to check nitrates!)










Ok, Grow Out tank gets 16.6ppm (18ml). Bare Tank gets 12.4ppm (14ml). Bio Balls gets 75% wc, then 4ppm (5.6ml)


----------



## Immortal1

Good evening again. Back with another round of results. Seems the water changed helped the bio-ball tank get thru it's issues. The bare tank seems to be either maxing out on what it can do, or the nitrates have gotten out of control. Did a big water change on that one tonite and will once again add 12ppm ammonia. 
I suppose it is possible that it just wont handle any more than 12ppm.


----------



## thedood

I'm curious what others think of the bare tank results.


----------



## Leeatl

thedood said:


> I'm curious what others think of the bare tank results.


Frankly I am surprised . I guess we don't need as much bio media as we think ? I still believe in having as much filtration as possible , but maybe we can do more mechanical and wash it in dechlorinated water or replace whenever we want ? If a bare tank can do this , then with plants and substrate who knows how much ammonia a tank could handle . I would like to know how much ammonia a decently stocked tank produces . Seems as though with enough Matrix or equivalent , the mechanical media can be disregarded as a bio media source . I know I rinse my prefilter sponges in dechlorinated tap water every WC and don't care about any bio they may contain . Also rinse the internal sponges as well when clogged . Just want to get them as clean as possible . Never have any ammonia or nitrite issues , now I know why .


----------



## thedood

Leeatl said:


> Frankly I am surprised . I guess we don't need as much bio media as we think ? I still believe in having as much filtration as possible , but maybe we can do more mechanical and wash it in dechlorinated water or replace whenever we want ? If a bare tank can do this , then with plants and substrate who knows how much ammonia a tank could handle . I would like to know how much ammonia a decently stocked tank produces . Seems as though with enough Matrix or equivalent , the mechanical media can be disregarded as a bio media source . I know I rinse my prefilter sponges in dechlorinated tap water every WC and don't care about any bio they may contain . Also rinse the internal sponges as well when clogged . Just want to get them as clean as possible . Never have any ammonia or nitrite issues , now I know why .


I'm surprised as well. On my 75g I have a magnum 350 with less than a liter of matrix and a sponge pre-filter, it also has a home made filter made of pvc with a sponge pre-filter, some floss, and a bag of purigen. The tank is fairly heavily planted. I use to worry I had enough bio media. I dont think I will worry anymore.


----------



## skystrife

thedood said:


> I'm curious what others think of the bare tank results.


The biggest question that remains for me is then: what causes mini-cycles? If a completely bare filter/tank can handle more than double the recommended maximum dosing rate for a fishless cycle, why do we see (or do we _think_ we see? hmm...) mini-cycles when changing out our filter media? Does the beneficial bacteria have a very strong preference for bio media?

Could one eliminate mini-cycles entirely by _not having_ bio media, thus forcing the bacteria to occupy other surfaces (tank glass/substrate)?

I would also agree with a few of the previous comments suggesting that we have probably been over-thinking our filter media for quite some time, and could probably get away with nothing but mechanical.


----------



## thedood

skystrife said:


> The biggest question that remains for me is then: what causes mini-cycles? If a completely bare filter/tank can handle more than double the recommended maximum dosing rate for a fishless cycle, why do we see (or do we _think_ we see? hmm...) mini-cycles when changing out our filter media? Does the beneficial bacteria have a very strong preference for bio media?
> 
> Could one eliminate mini-cycles entirely by _not having_ bio media, thus forcing the bacteria to occupy other surfaces (tank glass/substrate)?
> 
> I would also agree with a few of the previous comments suggesting that we have probably been over-thinking our filter media for quite some time, and could probably get away with nothing but mechanical.


Your average tank probably doesnt have much bb on the glass as thats a surface that regularly gets cleaned.


----------



## Immortal1

True, true. And I have not cleaned the glass on these tanks since this all started.


----------



## aja31

thedood said:


> I'm curious what others think of the bare tank results.


I think a few things are at work here:

1. Glass is not being cleaned so bacteria can really build up on all surfaces.

2. Flow rate is 10x higher than in a normal tank, creating better oxygen conditions for surfaces such as glass that normally only get very little flow/oxygen

3. No competing media to hinder the growth. The bacteria will preferentially grow in the area with the best oxygen content, which is usually where the bio media is. This is why swapping it out causes mini-cycles because it never had a chance to grow on the glass in the first place. It is important to remember that only enough bacteria will grow that has food. If the fish only produce 5 ppm of ammonia then only 5ppm worth of ammonia processing bacteria will grow. If you remove the stuff that they grew on you are back to no bacteria and start recycling again. 

While it is interesting to see how much a bare tank can support, it is not practical for a normal tank since we clean our glass and have much slower flow rates, thus the addition of bio media. 

With enough plants you might be able to forgo bio media since we don't clean plants and they produce oxygen so growing on the leaves might be preferential for the bacteria. But you may run into mini-cycles if you trim the plants, so probably not the best idea either.


----------



## Immortal1

Interesting observations @aja31. Now if I could just set up a tank full of plants and substraight/hard scape but without fish 
Would be interesting.


----------



## thedood

I think @aja31 summed it up nicely.


----------



## Immortal1

Well, about as I would have guessed. All three tanks should get a water change before adding more ammonia. The Bare tank did just fine with the 12ppm ammonia dose. But, given the current level of nitrate (considering I just did a large water change 24 hours ago) I likely should do another water change.
The bio ball tank is now coming around but should also get a water change as I don't think it could process another round of ammonia. 
The grow out tank has been getting pretty large doses of ammonia so it does not surprise me it needs a water change also. 
One of the interesting thing is all the nitrite levels were 0.0ppm.










Adding some math notes from data obtained from post 338 of this thread to help estimate Nitrate levels since water change.
Grow out tank; 15ppm + 16.6ppm + 14.8ppm = 46.4ppm ammonia * 2.77 = 128.5ppm Nitrite or * 3.64 = 168.9ppm Nitrate (this looks about correct)
Bare tank; 12.57ppm ammonia * 2.77 = 35ppm Nitrite or * 3.64 = 46ppm Nitrate (likely a lot of nitrate in filter after water change)
Bio Ball tank; 4ppm + 5ppm = 9ppm ammonia * 2.77 = 25ppm Nitrite or * 3.64 = 33ppm Nitrate (likely a lot of nitrate in filter after water change)


----------



## Immortal1

Good evening again. Another interesting round of testing. Last nite I did a large water change on all three tanks due to high nitrate levels. So I sorta expected the results below, but am still very supprised the bare tank is still holding on even without ANY bio-media at all. The bio ball tank does not supprise me as the amount of ammonia dosed is almost 1/2 that of the bare tank. If the bio balls are really doing something, I should be able to at least reach 20 - 24ppm on that tank. FYI for those who can't see the pics, @ lonestarbandit, all 6 tubes are 0.0ppm.

Tonite I am going to change water in the grow out tank and the bare tank. Going to leave the bio ball tank alone. Prediction for tomorrow - 0.0ppm for all 6 tubes. 










Grow out tank will be increased to 16.6ppm (18mL)(10g total water)
Bare tank will be increased to 16.3ppm (22mL)(12.5g total water)
Bio ball tank will be increased to 7.8ppm (11mL)(13g total water)


----------



## skystrife

aja31 said:


> I think a few things are at work here:


Just some devil's advocate. =)




aja31 said:


> 1. Glass is not being cleaned so bacteria can really build up on all surfaces.


How often do y'all clean your glass? I scrape my _front_ glass maybe once a week, if that. I'd buy a reduction in "wall" surface area, but only for the front pane really. Not to mention all the yummy plant surfaces that sit around inside the tank and aren't regularly scrubbed.

Here's a test for this: once we've established what the maximum ammonia level is for the bare tank, do a nice thorough glass scrub and another dose. If it can't handle what it could before, then I think this assumption is right.




aja31 said:


> 2. Flow rate is 10x higher than in a normal tank, creating better oxygen conditions for surfaces such as glass that normally only get very little flow/oxygen


This is interesting. What happens if we reduce the flow in one of the established tanks? Does it process less ammonia with less turnover? It seems logical to say "yeah, absolutely", but...




aja31 said:


> 3. No competing media to hinder the growth. The bacteria will preferentially grow in the area with the best oxygen content, which is usually where the bio media is.


Do we really know this to be true? Are we arguing that the circulation through the canister leads to higher oxygen content in the filter than anywhere else in the tank? I would actually think the oxygen content could be higher _outside_ the canister on the tank walls/plant surfaces (near the outlets) where there is a large surface area for gas exchange.




aja31 said:


> This is why swapping it out causes mini-cycles because it never had a chance to grow on the glass in the first place. It is important to remember that only enough bacteria will grow that has food. If the fish only produce 5 ppm of ammonia then only 5ppm worth of ammonia processing bacteria will grow. If you remove the stuff that they grew on you are back to no bacteria and start recycling again.


I really want to see a run where we yank the bio media suddenly, just to definitively prove this "preferential attachment" theory. Who's to say that the majority of the bacterial colony isn't on our tank's decor and substrate?


Anyway, enough of me being contrarian... 


Another thing I'm quite curious about is the limits of the "adaptability" of a bacteria colony: how _quickly_ can a colony expand to meet rising ammonia demand (or, alternatively, recover/recolonize to meet existing ammonia demand when disrupted). It would be interesting to be able to say something about the duration of an expected mini-cycle based on some reasonable load assumption.


----------



## aja31

skystrife said:


> Just some devil's advocate. =)


I think those would be great tests. Should be easy enough to do with what we have too.

1. Once we max out the bare tank, clean all 4 walls with a razor blade and towel, do a water change and redose the same amount. 

2. Once we max out the bio ball tank, remove the bio balls and redose the same amount. 

That should give us a pretty good idea of this thinking it correct or not.


----------



## Immortal1

aja31 said:


> I think those would be great tests. Should be easy enough to do with what we have too.
> 
> 1. Once we max out the bare tank, clean all 4 walls with a razor blade and towel, do a water change and redose the same amount.
> 
> 2. Once we max out the bio ball tank, remove the bio balls and redose the same amount.
> 
> That should give us a pretty good idea of this thinking it correct or not.


I should be able to handle that.
I am thinking this weekend might be the end of the bare tank - hard pressed to believe it will go past 20ppm. The bio ball tank has a ways to go, I hope.
@skystrife = "Another thing I'm quite curious about is the limits of the "adaptability" of a bacteria colony: how quickly can a colony expand to meet rising ammonia demand (or, alternatively, recover/recolonize to meet existing ammonia demand when disrupted). It would be interesting to be able to say something about the duration of an expected mini-cycle based on some reasonable load assumption."

Earlier on in this thread I noted that the nitrite bacteria can double in size in less than 36 hours. This being the slower bacteria, I strongly suspect the ammonia bacteria can reproduce much faster.


----------



## Immortal1

Well, here we go again. all the nitrite readings are 0.0ppm. For the most part the ammonia readings are 0.0ppm, and the Nitrate readings are at the top end of the scale even thou I completely emptied all the water out of the Grow out tank and Bare tank, then filled them back up again before adding ammonia last nite.
Very surprised the Bare Tank is handling 14+ppm ammonia this well. Guess I will just have to push a little harder this weekend... after I do another round of water changes cause I don't think we will get much BB activity given the amount of nitrate in each tank.

Any bets on how much ammonia an empty filter can process? Also, thanks to everyone for following this crazy little adventure.










For reference:
Growout tank 14.8ppm (16mL)
Bare tank 16.3ppm (22mL) (seriously, this is 1/2 what the Matrix maxed out at)
BioBall tank 7.8ppm (11mL)


----------



## aja31

Personally I like how the background gets more and more fancy with every post. By the end of this it will be a custom made LED digital display lol.


----------



## Leeatl

The thanks goes to you for all the work and record keeping . I know I am learning from it as I am sure others are , and it has started some good discussions .


----------



## Immortal1

LOL @aja31. Actually I am almost done with the animated holographic 3D signboard. Just have not figured out the proper interface for posting on the site.


(ok, did that sound techi enough LMAO? And no, I have no idea how to do that kind of stuff)


----------



## theatermusic87

I think a very busy side effect to this test is that we've determined (at least to my satisfaction) that nitrate is toxic to our beneficial bacteria at high levels

If be interested to see what would happen if one of the tanks were dosed with ammonia to a set ppm it can handle. Then the next day, water change, doors say 4-500ppm kno3 with the same ppm of ammonia and see what happens

This would show wether the nitrates is killing the population (can't handled dosed ammonia), or just retarding it's growth speed (handles dosed ppm)


----------



## Immortal1

theatermusic87 said:


> I think a very busy side effect to this test is that we've determined (at least to my satisfaction) that nitrate is toxic to our beneficial bacteria at high levels
> 
> If be interested to see what would happen if one of the tanks were dosed with ammonia to a set ppm it can handle. Then the next day, water change, doors say 4-500ppm kno3 with the same ppm of ammonia and see what happens
> 
> This would show wether the nitrates is killing the population (can't handled dosed ammonia), or just retarding it's growth speed (handles dosed ppm)


I'm not sure if I would call nitrates "toxic" to the beneficial bacterial (BB) @theatermusic87. To support that statement, I have found that if I don't do a water change when the nitrate level is high, the BB simply won't process the ammonia or at least not all of it. If I do a major water change (i.e. 70-90%), then add in the exact same amount of ammonia as the previous dose, then the BB does just fine and I don't notice any cloudy water just before or 24 hours after the water change.

I am not a scientist by any stretch of my imagination, but, it is almost as if the Ammonia Oxidizing Bacteria (AOB) will process all of the ammonia only *if *the Nitrite Oxidizing Bacteria (NOB) does it's job in converting it to Nitrate. Once the 10 gallons of water has reached saturation level of nitrates, then the NOB stops processing. Once that happens, the AOB stops processing and I get a brite green ammonia sample. Oddly enough, the nitrite sample usually shows 0.0ppm so I can only guess after the AOB stops processing, the NOB finishes up it's job (best it can). To add another thought/angle to this - it is possible that the AOB can detect the nitrate level in the tank and is *directly* effected by it regardless of what the NOB is doing. I say this because of the add results noted in the next paragraph. 

Also, early on in this testing process I was getting really strange colors from the API test kits. I have now learned that I was WAY out of range for that particular test. As an example, when you test nitrite, the test tube starts out cyan then slowly changes to a shade of purple. More blue/purple and it is a lower number. More red purple and it is a higher number. I had samples early on that as soon as I got the 5 drops in the tube it immediately changed to dark red/purple, then after 5 minutes it had changed back to something closer to cyan (but not the right shade of cyan). I have sense figured out I was probably closer to 20ppm nitrite than .25ppm nitrite.

Again, the above is just a guess. But with all the testing I have done (and actually learned from - hard to believe for an old man) it seems to hold true now that I know what I am looking for. Sorry for the long post, just figured I would add the information / observation to the rest of the info in this thread.


----------



## Immortal1

Well, here we go again with another update. Will try to add a little something interesting this time 
So, each of the three tanks tested 0.0ppm for ammonia and nitrite. For those of you just joining in, the bare canister filter/bare tank combo just processed 16.3ppm ammonia (22mL) in 24 hours! (what do I need to do to kill this thing?)









So, after the testing, I drained all the 85.5 degree water from all 3 tanks,










then refilled them with cold water from the hose and added 1mL Prime to each tank. 










They are now happily running at 74 degrees.
The grow out tank got 16.7ppm (18mL), the bare tank got 19.5ppm (26mL) and the bio ball tank got 10ppm (14mL). Guess we will see what happens tomorrow nite. 

Now, just in case you thought I was trying to fake something - I really am putting 26mL of Blue Ribbon Clear ammonia in the bare tank (note the frosty glass)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8xSC7TBOnw


----------



## Pantokrator

@Immortal1, do you know what's the exact type of the Eheim filter you use in this test? Is it Eheim Pro II 2028 or 2026?


----------



## Pantokrator

PS: The Seachem company directly mentions in their MSDS that Matrix is *100% pumice* (see <here> => Section 3, page #2).

But here's how they explain the superiority of "their pumice" (see the FAQ tab):

_*Q:* I saw on the internet that Matrix is just pumice. Is that true?
*A:* We certainly understand why people look at Matrix and compare it to pumice; they are both porous stones. But remember, not every porous stone is the same. Matrix is a specific type chosen for its extremely high porosity, pore size, durability, and inert nature. When you buy Matrix, you know what you are getting. It has been tested in the lab and in thousand of hobbyist's aquariums for more than a decade with excellent results. You aren't just purchasing the physical material when you buy a container of Matrix; you are purchasing the research which has sourced and tested this specific type of stone, and the assurance that it is safe for use in your aquarium._

So with Seachem pumice you buy not only the raw *material*, but the *research & assurance* also. How funny, isn't it?


----------



## Immortal1

Pantokrator said:


> @*Immortal1*, do you know what's the exact type of the Eheim filter you use in this test? Is it Eheim Pro II 2028 or 2026?


It is the Eheim Pro II, Model 2028


----------



## Immortal1

Good evening TPT. I honestly thought I would be giving you all the bad news that the bare tank finally failed. Guess I was wrong. All three tanks tested 0ppm nitrite and ammonia. I also tested the nitrate on the bare tank (just for reference). If you remeber the pics & video from last nite you can clearly see I added almost 10 gallons of fresh water to teh bare tank before adding the 19.3ppm ammonia (26mL). So one would think the nitrate level would not be that high 22 hours later. Well as you can see, I now have well over 160ppm nitrate in the bare tank. If I cut my finger I doubt my blood is that red 

Anyway, here is the pic. I will figure out how much ammonia I am going to dump in the tanks after I dump the water and add fresh.










Growout tank stayed the same at 16.7ppm (18mL ammonia)
Bare tank jumped 22% to 23.66ppm (32mL ammonia)(of note, the previous percentage increase in reverse order - 18.5%, 15%, 12%)
Bio Ball tank up to 14.2ppm (20mL ammonia)

And just for a little bit of fun - this is what the tests look like about 10 minutes after I add the ammonia to the bare tank. Hard to see in the pic, but the ammonia vile is well past Jade green. Looks like more of a dark green with a tint of blue in person.


----------



## Immortal1

Because @Pantokrator asked about the grow out tank (that is a loose term), here is an overall pic of the 3.


----------



## aja31

So what do we do if the bare tank supports more ammonia than the pumice lol?


----------



## Pantokrator

This would mean that filtration is superfluous or even disserviceable (at least as far as nitrification is concerned). >


----------



## Immortal1

Would seem I am just going to have to try a little harder, LOL. The Bare Tank and the BioBall Tank both returned 0.0ppm Ammonia & Nitrite. As expected, the Nitrate levels are once again off the scale. @aja31, that is a good question. The Matrix/Pumice groups maxed out around 30-32ppm ammonia. Now I have a bare tank with NO bio media handling 22+ppm ammonia. Does this say the bio media does not do that much? Or is my current setup only capable of handling around 30ppm ammonia and the Matrix/Pumice products could have handled significantly more? Don't have that answer.










And here we go;
Growout tank stayed the same at 16.7ppm (18mL ammonia)
Bare tank jumped 25% to 30ppm (40.5mL ammonia)(of note, the previous percentage increase in reverse order - 22%, 18.5%, 15%, 12%)
Bio Ball tank up to 20.6ppm (29mL ammonia)


----------



## Pantokrator

Immortal1, is everything OK? Would there be any update?


----------



## Immortal1

Sorry, forgot to update this thread as well. 
Tuesday nite the Bare Tank was able to process 30ppm ammonia and showed a 0.0ppm ammonia and nitrite 24 hours later. 
This brought up a few questions 

Did the Matrix / Pumice actually do any thing?
If so, did the beneficial bacteria just find somewhere else to grow once the Matrix / Pumice was removed?
If it did find somewhere else to grow, where?

To partially answer the last question, I shut off the filter, then used a razor blade to scrape all glass surfaces within the tank, drained the tank completely, wiped off all glass surfaces, filled the tank back up with Primed water, then re-dosed the tank to the same 30ppm ammonia. 24 hours later (Wednesday nite) I got the following result.









Ammonia was 0.25ppm and nitrite was 1.0ppm. So, the conclusion was the glass was contributing some to the processing of ammonia and likely a little more to the processing of nitrite.

From this point, I have not decided what to do. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Pantokrator

Pity, you did not continue increasing NH3/NH4 dosage until the end. This way we don't know how much of ammonia would the bare tank be able to process. If it would be able to process more than 30 ppm, then the result can be that the filter media (Matrix, Pumice, etc.) can be actually somewhat lowering the nitrification capacity of our tanks. I have read many times that filter can function as a collector/producer of waste. If the bacteria/waste clog its pores, then anaerobic (rather than aerobic) processes may prevail. I know of one guy from Germany who has great results eliminating filter media in his tank, and moving all the filtration processes right into his tank. He claims that this way the filtration (and mineralization) is much more effective than using any filter packed with filter media. If the bacteria are forced to live in the tank and its surfaces, they are "more aerobic", while when they are in the filter media larger part of them change into anaerobic. In the tank (on the substrate, glass, plants, etc.) the bacteria are more in the aerobic environment. So I am inclined to believe that a bare tank can have higher nitrification capacity than a tank with premium filter media.

Also, we should be aware that nitrification is only a small part of decomposition processes that take place in our tanks. Only about 0.002% of all the bacteria in sand filtration were nitrifiers! So there is much more than only nitrification. Much more important is mineralization (or humification).


----------



## thedood

My suggestion is to pack a filter as we normally would with lets say a course sponge, floss, and pumice and see just how far you can push it. I have some spare pumice I can send you. I would suggest set up the filter, get it running, scrape the glass and let the scrapings free float so the filter will suck in the bb. See how far that puppy will go!!

Bump:


Pantokrator said:


> Pity, you did not continue increasing NH3/NH4 dosage until the end. This way we don't know how much of ammonia would the bare tank be able to process. If it would be able to process more than 30 ppm, then the result can be that the filter media (Matrix, Pumice, etc.) can be actually somewhat lowering the nitrification capacity of our tanks. I have read many times that filter can function as a collector/producer of waste. If the bacteria/waste clog its pores, then anaerobic (rather than aerobic) processes may prevail. I know of one guy from Germany who has great results eliminating filter media in his tank, and moving all the filtration processes right into his tank. He claims that this way the filtration (and mineralization) is much more effective than using any filter packed with filter media.


He is most likely using a Hamburg Matten filter? I have thought about going this route but am not sure I want to give up the tank space. People who use them swear by them.


----------



## hbosman

So, my observation from you efforts is, a standard filter is more than adequate and if, there is any ammonia or nitrite available, its food for the plants. Without plants, perhaps the most effective filtration is desirable but with plants, no big deal.


----------



## Immortal1

@thedood, the problem I found was to get close to the 30ppm ammonia daily dose you have to do a complete water change of atleast the tank water to keep the nitrate levels low enough for the ammonia oxidizing bacteria to do their job. I found if I was able to does say 26ppm, wait 24 hours, get a 0.0ppm reading, then does another 26ppm without doing a large water change I would end up with a very green ammonia test sample the next day. 

Given the 10 gallon aquarium size, I don't think I can push it too much higher. If I dumped all the water out of the canister filter and the tank daily, I suspect I could get closer to 40ppm but it seems the major limiting factor is dealing with the very high nitrate levels that develop.

It would not take much to get the bare tank back to 30ppm. I did not do anything with it last nite so it is likely within 1 or 2 days I would be back at 30ppm. 

"Pity, you did not continue increasing NH3/NH4 dosage until the end. This way we don't know how much of ammonia would the bare tank be able to process. If it would be able to process more than 30 ppm, then the result can be that the filter media (Matrix, Pumice, etc.) can be actually somewhat lowering the nitrification capacity of our tanks."

Again, as stated above - it seems the real limiting factor is the nitrate levels. If I were to change 100% water every 12 hours, I likely could process a much larger quantity of ammonia in 24 hours. Unfortunately I would not be able to dedicate that much time to this project. 

I have not looked yet at the possibility, but, if I could somehow modify one of the canister filters to be only 1 tray and limit the bacteria to only 1 tray with say 1/3 of a gallon of water in the canister filter that would significantly reduce the surface area in the canister filter. Would this give us a better idea of what just the bio media can do? I don't know. Obviously a canister without any bio media can process a significant amount of ammonia.


----------



## Pantokrator

*Filter-free tank*



thedood said:


> He is most likely using a Hamburg Matten filter? I have thought about going this route but am not sure I want to give up the tank space. People who use them swear by them.


No, he uses just a pump with a small (4*4*1cm) mat/sponge in his 180L (45G) tank, and a fine sand as a substrate.
See "Konzept für ein Pflanzenaquarium" : Kein Thema - wenig Regeln - Aquascaping - Aquarium - Wasserpflanzen - Flowgrow

Bump:


Immortal1 said:


> Again, as stated above - it seems the real limiting factor is the nitrate levels ... Unfortunately I would not be able to dedicate that much time to this project.


I understand that, and really appreciate your effort. Thank you very much!


----------



## aja31

Pantokrator said:


> No, he uses just a pump with a small (4*4*1cm) mat/sponge in his 180L (45G) tank, and a fine sand as a substrate.
> See "Konzept für ein Pflanzenaquarium" : Kein Thema - wenig Regeln - Aquascaping - Aquarium - Wasserpflanzen - Flowgrow
> 
> Bump: I understand that, and really appreciate your effort. Thank you very much!


Even without any bacteria on the glass it was able to process 29.5 of the 30 PPM of ammonia in 24 hours. It seems to me that the glass is pretty ineffective as a bio filter and the VAST majority of the bacteria lives in the filter itself. 

The only thing left to test at this point is if the bacteria prefers the filter or the bio media. A tank with bio media at max load, then remove the bio media and see if it crashes. If it doesn't crash then I am just about ready to call bio media worthless.


----------



## Immortal1

I think I can do something like that @aja31. Going to feed the bare tank maybe 20ppm ammonia to keep it happy. Going to open up the bio ball tank, pull out the bio balls and replace it with a full load of Fluval Biomax that I already have growing. We will bring the Biomax up to 30ppm or more, then pull the bio media and dose it again to 30ppm or more. Might take a few days to get it back up to 30ppm but I think it can work.


----------



## Immortal1

Interesting. I did load up the Marineland C360 canister filter with about 1000mL of Fluval Biomax from the Grow out tank/filter and I removed all the water and bio balls from the C360. Dumped maybe 50% of the water out of the filter and ended up adding at least 2 gallons of fresh water to the tank last nite. I then dumped in 20mL ammonia (14.2 ppm) into the bare tank and the C360 tank around 9:30pm last nite. This is the ammonia reading I got this morning at 6:00am.


----------



## CowBoYReX

Immortal1 said:


> Interesting. I did load up the Marineland C360 canister filter with about 1000mL of Fluval Biomax from the Grow out tank/filter and I removed all the water and bio balls from the C360. Dumped maybe 50% of the water out of the filter and ended up adding at least 2 gallons of fresh water to the tank last nite. I then dumped in 20mL ammonia (14.2 ppm) into the bare tank and the C360 tank around 9:30pm last nite. This is the ammonia reading I got this morning at 6:00am.


I can't see the pics, what are the results?


----------



## Immortal1

The bare tank was maybe 0.25ppm ammonia. The BioMAX tank was darker, maybe 0.5ppm. Neither test tube was green by any stretch. So, in 8.5 hours both tanks nearly handled 14 some ppm ammonia; could they have handled 28ppm in 17 hours??? How about 24 hours???
It is almost the weekend so I will see how hard I can push the BioMax tank. Maybe Sunday nite I will have the tank over 30ppm and be able to pull the bio media out and re-test at the same ppm to see if the bio media made any difference.


----------



## CowBoYReX

Immortal1 said:


> The bare tank was maybe 0.25ppm ammonia. The BioMAX tank was darker, maybe 0.5ppm. Neither test tube was green by any stretch. So, in 8.5 hours both tanks nearly handled 14 some ppm ammonia; could they have handled 28ppm in 17 hours??? How about 24 hours???
> It is almost the weekend so I will see how hard I can push the BioMax tank. Maybe Sunday nite I will have the tank over 30ppm and be able to pull the bio media out and re-test at the same ppm to see if the bio media made any difference.


Thank you, that is awesome. I was wondering how much might be due to gas off, especially with such a high turn over in small space


----------



## fermentedhiker

I'm wondering if the lack of much difference between how much a bare tank is handling and the biomedia is that you're reaching the upper range of the ppm of ammonia that the bb can tolerate. For example how much higher could you go if the ammonia dose was broken up into hourly additions instead of all at once. Not that many people would have the time necessary to test the idea.


----------



## Immortal1

fermentedhiker said:


> I'm wondering if the lack of much difference between how much a bare tank is handling and the biomedia is that you're reaching the upper range of the ppm of ammonia that the bb can tolerate. For example how much higher could you go if the ammonia dose was broken up into hourly additions instead of all at once. Not that many people would have the time necessary to test the idea.


From what I have been able to determine, if I did a 100% water change, dosed it to 40ppm ammonia, the ammonia oxidizing bacteria would likely be just fine... until the nitrate level exceeded a certain level (say 300-400ppm). 

I am hoping to prove this, hopefully next week. 

I have on several occasions during this testing found that if I do a very large water change, does a high amount of ammonia and get a 0.0ppm reading, then try to does the exact same level without changing water I get a fail the next day. At that point I test the nitrate level and the test tube is blood read and nearly opaque (oops).

Bump:


CowBoYReX said:


> Thank you, that is awesome. I was wondering how much might be due to gas off, especially with such a high turn over in small space


I suppose that is an option. There are small air stones in each tank and given the heat lately, the small computer fans on top of the tanks keep the air above the water pretty fresh.


----------



## fermentedhiker

One thing I've been mulling over as I've been following this thread is that it would be nice to redo it with a view to nitrate processing ability. I mean that's the real reason Matrix was supposed to be worth the extra cost was that it's micro-porosity(similar to reef rock only even greater) allows from NNR to take place. Otherwise as you've clearly shown it doesn't require a great deal of biomedia to deal with the amount of ammonia you'd normally see in a tank. Which incidentally is what you see in reef tanks. Biomedia(outside of the reef rock itself and the amount of that that is recommended has steadily gone down over the years) has been completely abandoned.


----------



## Immortal1

@fermentedhiker, curious if a significantly larger volume of Matrix would have had some effect on the Nitrate levels? One thing I have noted here is the Nitrate level out of the tap is pretty high when tested using API test kit (20-30ish). I take those readings with a grain of salt and use the kits to show more of a change then get an exact ppm results. 

Also, if I am understanding your post correctly, on reef tanks the use of bio media is almost non existent? In a way, I could believe this.

For reference, the pic below was taken 5 minutes after I did a 100% water change on the Bare tank & BioMax tank, then added 23ppm of ammonia around 5pm this evening. I am going to try and check both tanks around 11pm tonite (6 hours later) and likely 7 hours after that. The hope is to see how much the ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate levels change. Once I get the ammonia down under 1ppm I am going to dump all the water and jump the ammonia level to 30ppm. My hope is to get the tank(s) well into the 30s, maybe close to 40ppm. Once I get the BioMax tank to it's highest level, I will remove the BioMax and retest the exact same amount.










This is 12 hours after the above pic.










This is 5 hours after the above pic (17 hours after the 23ppm was added)


----------



## fermentedhiker

Yeah sorry I wasn't clearer. Reefers found that biomedia(as reflected in your results) is a nitrate factory. Not such a big deal in FW where plants love it and fish are quite tolerant of it as well as the ease with which you can do a WC to dilute it. Since large scale WC get pricey with SW they try to avoid this. They found that reef rock with it's microporosity allowed for NNR to occur. Incidentally if you have biomedia and reef rock you still get high nitrates. The theory is that the conversion from ammonia to nitrite to nitrate and then NNR has to all occur in close proximity and that somehow the process in synergistic. So reef tanks typically run 0 ammonia 0 nitrite and nitrates in the 10-20 range(depending on what the hobbyist goals are) without added biomedia and modest WC although typically a protein skimmer is also used. How much of this can be transferred to a FW setup I can't answer.


----------



## Immortal1

For those following this thread, both tanks returned 0.0ppm within 18 hours. I did a 100% water change on both and raised them both to 30.6ppm ammonia (43mL).
Any bets on if one of them can return 0.0ppm in 18 hours again at this level?


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Just got to thinking, that's a lot of test kit usage going on.
Have you ever thought of reducing to 1 or 2 drop tests?

Bought me one of these.








NH3 is a two drop test with 1.3ml
NO2 is a one drop test with 1ml
NO3 is a two drop test with 1ml

In most cases this is 5x the number of tests per kit.


----------



## Immortal1

If I knew then what I know now, then yes that would have saved a bunch on test kit usage. For general reading, I suspect that kit would be useful. For more accurate readings I would probably go with the full 5mL test tube. Even with the full 5nL test tubes, I don't think the Nitrate tests are very accurate. I know my tap water must be 10 or less to meet standards but it always tests 20-40ppm.


----------



## Leeatl

I think the Nitrate test is inaccurate as well . I can shake,rattle,roll,batter,beat,drag the bottle 2 behind my car and get one reading , then put bottle 2 in my wifes ultrasonic jewelry cleaner for 5 minutes and get a lower reading . I wish there was an easier test for Nitrates that didn't cost a fortune .


----------



## Maryland Guppy

5ml graduated cylinder from evil bay was $6 shipped for quantity of 6.
They are glass and I have lost 1 in the past couple years.
From same company purchased a rack of test tubes too.

Been doing the reduced tests for a few years.
NH3 will sometimes provide a false positive test.
I then pull another sample just to be sure.

Back to trimming plants for the evening.

Bump:


Leeatl said:


> I think the Nitrate test is inaccurate as well . I can shake,rattle,roll,batter,beat,drag the bottle 2 behind my car and get one reading , then put bottle 2 in my wifes ultrasonic jewelry cleaner for 5 minutes and get a lower reading . I wish there was an easier test for Nitrates that didn't cost a fortune .


API is very inaccurate IMO.
I go by the stop light rule.
Yellow = dosing
Orange = all good
Red = change some water
I never try to judge the ppm, the red and orange colors are hard to judge.


----------



## Immortal1

LOL, never thought about a ultrasonic jewelry cleaner... 
Might have to give it a try.

Hmm, gives me another idea - saws all!
Take old blade, modify it to hold the bottle, then let it run for a minute. Best shake it will ever get LMAO


----------



## Leeatl

Maryland Guppy said:


> Just got to thinking, that's a lot of test kit usage going on.
> Have you ever thought of reducing to 1 or 2 drop tests?
> 
> Bought me one of these.
> View attachment 656761
> 
> 
> NH3 is a two drop test with 1.3ml
> NO2 is a one drop test with 1ml
> NO3 is a two drop test with 1ml
> 
> In most cases this is 5x the number of tests per kit.


Would you please explain how you do the smaller sample tests?Thnaks.


----------



## Immortal1

@Leeatl, I think this will work LOL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc3zN4UaozQ


----------



## Leeatl

Did you just go and do that ? That was quick if you did ...lol That should work . I have rubber banded mine to my cordless drill and spun it for a while and someone on here keeps theirs banded to an air pump ....lol


----------



## Immortal1

LOL, yes, I just threw it together. Did not know it was going to work until I did the video.
Not sure if the drill idea would work - that would be more of a centrifuge. Vibrating air pump would be more like the jewelry cleaner... Surprised my DIY never thought of those. Guess I am slipping in my old age.


----------



## Leeatl

Yea the drill is more centrifugal , but I would let it bang against the edge of my workbench as it spun too .


----------



## Immortal1

That will work 
Think I will test my tap water - curious what kind of reading I will get. The water company report says it is less than 10ppm. I trust there measuring system is far superior to my API kit. But, I sure would feel better if my API kit would show something lower than 20ppm out of the tap.


----------



## smackpixi

I found this very interesting, thanks. But I thought part of the point was "myth-busting" Matrix. Turns out it's just pumice stone and other pumice stones will perform as well. Got it. But the big "magic" promised by this bio media is that it also reduces nitrate...other bio medias don't claim that. Testing that seems to have been forgotten with water changes to test just how much ammonia can one throw at pumice stone. And as we've learned, a lot. But we also learned that high nitrates will stall the bio-filtration process.

Did I miss it or did you just skip over the question of weather matrix/pumice stone also reduces nitrate?


----------



## Immortal1

@smackpixi, the nitrate reduction aspect of Matrix would be something I would also like to test. Unfortunately I am not real certain how I would do it / verify it. Especially considering how vague the API Nitrate test method is. The graduated cylinders that @Maryland Guppy found may be very useful. If I can take tank samples and reliably reduce them with specific amounts of RO water I might be able to determine minimal changes in Nitrate levels. If I can do that, then I might be able to challenge 550mL of Matrix/Pumice against 550mL of Fluval BioMax.

Also, for what it's worth, I am very curious how an empty canister filter can process the same amount of ammonia as a canister filter with 1,000mL of bio media. If you look at post 445 you can see the 12 hour test shows the BioMax was processing ammonia faster than the bare tank. that was at 23ppm. Now if my next 12 hour test shows an even bigger difference with 30ppm then I can reliably say that bio media of any type does something over nothing at all.


----------



## Leeatl

I don't know if Matrix can do much with nitrates like we use it no mater what Seachem says . Remember they sell De-Nitrate which is especially for Nitrate removal , but requires a much lower flow than we use with the Matrix .


----------



## Immortal1

Well, I'll be darned. I used the "sawzall" method to give bottle #2 a good shaking and the pic below is probably the lowest Nitrate reading I have seen from my tap water. So, back to @smackpixi question, did I get a 10 or 20?
Unless I can come up with a more accurate method to measure nitrate, I don't think I can prove or disprove Matrix does anything with Nitrates.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Leeatl said:


> Would you please explain how you do the smaller sample tests?Thnaks.


Assume all tests are API and never use less than 1ml sample.
Less than 1ml has proven poor results IMHO.

Example #1
Nitrite test is 5ml and 5 drops? 1ml and 1 drop would provide 5 times the testing from testing reagents.

Example #2
Nitrate is 5ml and 10 drops of each bottle. 1ml and 2 drops of each bottle would be an equivalent test.

Example #3
Ammonia test is 5ml and 8 drops of each bottle.
Check for 1 drop first, 5/8=.625ml = <1ml
Move to a greater than 1ml sample.
2 drops is 2x.625=1.250ml, round up to 1.3ml for a 2 drop test.

Example #4
Phosphate test is 5ml and 6 drops of each bottle.
1 drop check is 5/6=.833ml = <1ml
2 drops is 2x.833=1.666ml, round up to 1.7ml for a 2 drop test.

Example #5
GH or KH test is 5ml, each drop = 1 degree
Use a 2.5ml sample for harder water, each drop then = 2 degrees
For softer water use a 10ml sample and each drop = 1/2 degree

Example #6
Ca test is 5ml with a 10 drop reagent from bottle #1
Bottle #2 proves each drop @ 20ppm of Ca
Cut sample to 2.5ml with 5 drops from bottle #1
Bottle #2 proves each drop @ 40ppm of Ca

These methods can save $$$ on test kits.

Only false positives I have ever gotten were on ammonia(NH3)
If a test shows positive on reduced samples just do another test.

Between my wife and I there are 7 tanks.
Once per month I perform a complete test on all tanks.
Nitrate is usually weekly, it determines WC's for us.
This may seem trivial but it does save some $$$ on test kits.

All that is needed to stretch the test kits is a 5ml graduated cylinder.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Leeatl said:


> I don't know if Matrix can do much with nitrates like we use it no mater what Seachem says . Remember they sell De-Nitrate which is especially for Nitrate removal , but requires a much lower flow than we use with the Matrix .


I would not bet my money on pumice removing nitrates.
Tried two LFS nitrate removal products in the past, neither worked.
Purolite has a resin for NO3 removal, I'd bet it works.
I have not tried it yet.

Still testing an organic removal resin from Purolite!


----------



## Immortal1

Thank-you @Maryland Guppy for the above post on API testing. Looks like I will be hitting Amazon or Fleabay later today. As you said, with 7 tanks it would get to be a bit pricey but the end of 1 year.
For water changes, I have found I rely more on my TDS meter than anything. For the $20 spent it is well worth it in my mind. 

Curious, did not think to check these test tanks with the TDS meter. If tap water tests at 205ppm TDS I wonder what it would show after adding the ammonia. Would it change? I would bet after the ammonia is transformed to more than 160ppm nitrate it would show up on the TDS meter. Hmmm, more testing


----------



## Maryland Guppy

pH & TDS pens are priceless.
Run around the room with quick results.

I will be back to TDS for WC's soon.
Too many fish and by next week bulk of fish should all be sold.

Something I forgot to add regarding nitrate removal.
This would not apply to the empty tank testing with Matrix though.
This is noticed in 3 of my heavily planted tanks.
I have noticed that if NO3 is creeping up I test for phosphates.
If they are low I add only phosphates to reach @ least 1ppm.
NO3 will then drop almost in half within 24 hours.
This is above and beyond my normal fert dosing that does contain PO4.
I cannot explain this but guessing if PO4 falls too low plants slack on using NO3.
Maybe some plants in the tank are phosphate hogs??? Who knows.
Next batch of solutions may need to be altered.


----------



## Immortal1

Well, the 30.6ppm ammonia dose did not get handled in 18 hours by the BioMax tank. The bare tank did better but I dumped the test tubes before I got a pic of them. The pic below is 18 hours on the BioMax tank and the pic below that was the 24ppm ammonia at 12 hours. Will see what 24 hours brings.
Likely around noon today I will get the 24 hour reading, do a water change, and give them both a 38ppm dose. 
I would HOPE the bare tank will do much worse at some point - hopefully this is it. EDIT - 24 hour reading on both tanks was 0.0ppm ammonia and nitrite.
Would still like to know how an empty canister filter can process just as much ammonia as a canister filter with 1L of bio media.


----------



## Immortal1

Maryland Guppy said:


> pH & TDS pens are priceless.
> Run around the room with quick results.
> 
> I will be back to TDS for WC's soon.
> Too many fish and by next week bulk of fish should all be sold.
> 
> Something I forgot to add regarding nitrate removal.
> This would not apply to the empty tank testing with Matrix though.
> This is noticed in 3 of my heavily planted tanks.
> I have noticed that if NO3 is creeping up I test for phosphates.
> If they are low I add only phosphates to reach @ least 1ppm.
> NO3 will then drop almost in half within 24 hours.
> This is above and beyond my normal fert dosing that does contain PO4.
> I cannot explain this but guessing if PO4 falls too low plants slack on using NO3.
> Maybe some plants in the tank are phosphate hogs??? Who knows.
> Next batch of solutions may need to be altered.


Very interesting observation. I have that test kit; will have to monitor my 2 heavily planted tanks. Might give me some more information that I did not have before.

I do know, at least in my tanks, when the phosphate level is in a certain sweet spot (lets say 2ppm), the green spot algae seems to grow faster on the glass. If I push the PO4 up to say 5ppm, no GSA. 
As you just stated, if I let it get too low, higher nitrates.
Did not realize when I started all this I would need to be a chemist :grin2:


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Immortal1 said:


> Would still like to know how an empty canister filter can process just as much ammonia as a canister filter with 1L of bio media.


Invisible lava rock?

Makes one wonder how important all this media is.

My theory is we could run a tank with no bio-media.
This is proven in your testing for sure.
I'll bet this way of running a tank could prove very unstable when a mistake is made.
Things like dirty hands, chlorine, anything else we may introduce may kill all bacteria from water, hoses, filter glass, etc..
Introduction of Excel or H2O2 as algae treatment may even kill some bacteria.
What is to say when we dose ferts that first shot in high concentration blasts across the tank and kills 10 square inches of bacteria attached to the glass.
Dry dosing may settle to a spot and do the same on the bottom of the tank.
Once established everywhere else I'm sure it will re-colonize quickly.
Chemiclean for BGA treatment, Paraguard for fish illness.
Bio-media could possibly be a type of insurance policy.
I'm sure bacteria in and on bio-media is more safe and sound than mere attachment to all surfaces.

Some freak out over a power outage.
I was worried about this and tested my water after a 16 or so hour outage.
NH3 about .25ppm and no NO2, nitrates don't count for this issue.
20 minutes of filter back on and no NH3.
Was bacteria disturbed, I doubt it. No flow was the issue I'll bet.
Fish waste not moving around for contact with all bacteria.
Maybe some bacteria did die, seems it was replenished quick in an established environment.

There are so many things that could be open for testing.

You have surely proven the power of the bacteria in the tanks.
Sustainability with the all of the crap we introduce may be another story.

This was an awesome test on your part.
It surely opens one's eyes and mind.


----------



## Pantokrator

Maryland Guppy said:


> Things like dirty hands, chlorine, anything else we may introduce may kill all bacteria from water, hoses, filter glass, etc.. Introduction of Excel or H2O2 as algae treatment may even kill some bacteria ... Bio-media could possibly be a type of insurance policy. I'm sure bacteria in and on bio-media is more safe and sound than mere attachment to all surfaces.


I don't have such a believe as you do. We have substrates in our tanks, plants and wood or rocks also. These are all places with a huge amount of surface for bacteria. I still believe that bacteria living directly in our tanks are much more efficient than bacteria living in our filter boxes. If chlorine, Excel or H2O2 will kill some bacteria, I think that the ones in our filter will die first, because all the water flows through it, every medication or nutrients will accumulate in it. It's like a buffet and a waste basket at the same time.


----------



## aja31

Pantokrator said:


> I don't have such a believe as you do. We have substrates in our tanks, plants and wood or rocks also. These are all places with a huge amount of surface for bacteria. I still believe that bacteria living directly in our tanks are much more efficient than bacteria living in our filter boxes. If chlorine, Excel or H2O2 will kill some bacteria, I think that the ones in our filter will die first, because all the water flows through it, every medication or nutrients will accumulate in it. It's like a buffet and a waste basket at the same time.


Unfortunately we already ruled this out. Scraping, and cleaning all 4 walls and the bottom showed a negligible change in the amount of bacteria in the system. While it COULD grow on the surfaces you mention, it doesn't because there is plenty of space for it to grow in the filter which is prefers.

After killing and removing bacteria on every surface that wasn't the filter it processed 99% of the ammonia it could handle before doing that. This is why we see mini cycles and tank die offs after major filter cleanings. The tests here show that it is best to just never fully clean your filter, as there is a lot of bacteria in it.


----------



## Pantokrator

aja31 said:


> Unfortunately we already ruled this out. Scraping, and cleaning all 4 walls and the bottom showed a negligible change in the amount of bacteria in the system. While it COULD grow on the surfaces you mention, it doesn't because there is plenty of space for it to grow in the filter which is prefers.


You did not rule this out, as I am speaking of regular planted tank, and not an empty tank without any substrate, plants or wood/rocks! I read a book were there was described about 40% nitrification drop after rinsing the top layer of sand substrate, and ever higher when the sand was rinsed once again. Now, some hobbyists use clay-based types of substrates that have much higher surface area than sand.



> The tests here show that it is best to just never fully clean your filter, as there is a lot of bacteria in it.


No, not yet! If there will be some substantial drop in nitrifiers activity after all the biomedia is removed (which is were are we heading right now, but are not there yet!), then the tests will show that it is best to never fully clean your filter *in an empty tank*. But in the planted tank the results may be different. In the planted tank the filter media may prove superfluous, thus its removal may lead to no visible/measurable differences, as the number of bacteria present in the substrate, and on plants and other decorations may be high enough to transform all the ammonia to nitrites > nitrates (without any need for further filter media).


----------



## Immortal1

Pantokrator said:


> No, not yet! If there will be some substantial drop in nitrifiers activity after all the biomedia is removed (which is were are we heading right now, but are not there yet!), then the tests will show that it is best to never fully clean your filter *in an empty tank*. But in the planted tank the results may be different. In the planted tank the filter media may prove superfluous, thus its removal may lead to no visible/measurable differences, as the number of bacteria present in the substrate, and on plants and other decorations may be high enough to transform all the ammonia to nitrites > nitrates (without any need for further filter media).


One point of interest to the above - I scraped and cleaned the Bare Tank which showed minimal change. I have never scraped the Bio Ball/BioMax tank. Once I reach a maximum (or what I might guess is a maximum) for this tank, I will pull the bio media and retest with the same amount of ammonia. Hopefully this will tell us something  If for some reason the tank processes nearly the same amount of ammonia without out the BioMax, then I will simply do a "normal" maintenance on the filter - i.e., clean the impeller with tap water, rinse out the trays with tap water, rinse off the pump head area with tap water, rinse out the canister can with tap water and put it all back together again. Honestly this is pretty much most of us do for a canister filter maintenance. 

Somehow I suspect if I did all that the tank will fail badly. So, if that is true, what does that tell us about our filter maintenance routine?
I am now starting to think about a good cleaning on the impeller and leaving all the rest of the slime on everything else. I will of course clean the sponges but I may start doing that in used tank water vs spraying off with tap water.


----------



## aja31

Pantokrator said:


> You did not rule this out, as I am speaking of regular planted tank, and not an empty tank without any substrate, plants or wood/rocks! I read a book were there was described about 40% nitrification drop after rinsing the top layer of sand substrate, and ever higher when the sand was rinsed once again. Now, some hobbyists use clay-based types of substrates that have much higher surface area than sand.
> 
> No, not yet! If there will be some substantial drop in nitrifiers activity after all the biomedia is removed (which is were are we heading right now, but are not there yet!), then the tests will show that it is best to never fully clean your filter *in an empty tank*. But in the planted tank the results may be different. In the planted tank the filter media may prove superfluous, thus its removal may lead to no visible/measurable differences, as the number of bacteria present in the substrate, and on plants and other decorations may be high enough to transform all the ammonia to nitrites > nitrates (without any need for further filter media).


I don't think the surface area really has anything to do with it. Surface area is certainly what we've been told over the years, but these actual tests seem to refute that. The bare tank, which was shown to only have bacteria in the filter and not the glass processed the same amount of ammonia as a tank with 250 ml of pumice added to it. The extremely high surface area density of pumice did absolutely nothing for ammonia processing (nitrate processing still undetermined). Additionally in a bare tank the surface area of the 4 walls plus the bottom makes up at least 50% of the total surface area of the system, yet contained less than 1% of the bacteria. I have seen no evidence that bacteria lives anywhere but in the filter where the flow rate is high. If you were to use an undergravel filter then I suspect the vast majority of the bacteria would live in the substrate as you suggest, but most people don't use those since they interfere with root systems.

Might be interesting to conduct another test with substrate in the system, but from a scientific point of view there is no reason to perform that experiment since the more basic tests have shown nothing to suggest it would supply a different result. If the other tests don't yield new questions and there is time then I think we should do this test as well to see if other things in the system support bacteria even in low flow areas. 

One thing I would expect would be more nitrate consuming bacteria found in the substrate or similar places where there is very low flow and a lack of oxygen. It may be that the substrate is a good way to keep nitrate under control. Plants consume a lot of nitrates as well assuming they don't run out of other nutrients.


----------



## Immortal1

Well guys, I think I might have found the limits of the bare tank (i.e., canister filter with no media or filters just bare trays). Seems it did not like the *38ppm ammonia* dose very well. The other tank with the 1 Liter of Fluval BioMax on the other hand.....

I think for tonite, I am going to leave the bare tank alone (i.e. give it another 24 hours to try and recover). Eitherway, I am pretty comfortable saying the bare plastic surface area within an Eheim Pro II (Model 2028) simply will not support enough beneficial bacteria to consume 38ppm ammonia in 24 hours when connected to a 10 gallon aquarium (12.5 total gallons of water).

As for the other contender, I will do my regular 100% water change and go up another step. The jump from 30ppm to 38ppm was about 25%. Another 25% jump will take us to *48ppm ammonia*. According to my calculator thats 68mL of ammonia (yes, I am now well over 1/4 cup of ammonia). 

Curious, just for fun, if I fill all 4 trays of the canister filter with quality bio media do you think I could process an entire gallon of ammonia in 24 hours? Starting to feel like that could be possible, LOL.


----------



## Pantokrator

aja31 said:


> I have seen no evidence that bacteria lives anywhere but in the filter where the flow rate is high.


I see many such evidences in planted tanks that use *no filter at all*. But it's of no use to discuss these things here as we obviously can't reach an agreement on this. The experiment is not investigating the influence of substrate or plants on the nitrification bacteria colony. It's focused on bare tank and ammonia processing. It might be of interest to you to read some professional books on *aquaculture*, biomedia, and ammonia processing. There are formulas to calculate how much of surface area do you need to process certain amount of ammonia, and how much ammonia is created from certain amount of fish food. You really don't need any astonishing surface area for this job. And there are many planted tanks with no filtration at all that do very well in ammonia processing. If it were true that bacteria do not live anywhere but in the filter, then all these tanks will fail.



> Plants consume a lot of nitrates...


I did many exepriments with nutrient consumption under high-light, high-CO2, and high-nutrient levels, and I know nothing about plants consuming a *lot of nutrients*. Only about 3-4 ppm NO3 seems to be an average weekly consumption under high-tech conditions. But that's another story (irrelevant for this thread).


----------



## roadmaster

Bacteria that processes ammonia lives everywhere,not just inside the filter.
Only place it does not thrive ,is deep in substrate where O2 level's are not suited for it's growth.
It can be found on first few centimeter's of substrates,on rock's,wood,plant leaves,(real or artificial) on the glass,inside wall's of canister filter's or HOB filter's,intake and return hoses, and tubes.
Hard to kill off a healthy colony unless one clean's all these area's at one time.
The bacteria is slow to establish initially,but once it has established itself,it can regenerate fairly quickly (hour's).


----------



## aja31

Pantokrator said:


> I see many such evidences in planted tanks that use *no filter at all*. But it's of no use to discuss these things here as we obviously can't reach an agreement on this. The experiment is not investigating the influence of substrate or plants on the nitrification bacteria colony. It's focused on bare tank and ammonia processing. It might be of interest to you to read some professional books on *aquaculture*, biomedia, and ammonia processing. There are formulas to calculate how much of surface area do you need to process certain amount of ammonia, and how much ammonia is created from certain amount of fish food. You really don't need any astonishing surface area for this job. And there are many planted tanks with no filtration at all that do very well in ammonia processing. If it were true that bacteria do not live anywhere but in the filter, then all these tanks will fail.
> 
> I did many exepriments with nutrient consumption under high-light, high-CO2, and high-nutrient levels, and I know nothing about plants consuming a *lot of nutrients*. Only about 3-4 ppm NO3 seems to be an average weekly consumption under high-tech conditions. But that's another story (irrelevant for this thread).


I know people use no filter aquariums and those process ammonia just fine. I guess a more precise way of saying it is that bacteria will always grow and concentrate on the area with best flow and most oxygen. In the case of a tank with a filter the majority of the bacteria will grow in the filter since the flow and oxygen there is greater than elsewhere in the tank. In a tank without a filter the bacteria will grow pretty much uniformly overall all surfaces since the flow rate and oxygen content is the roughly the same throughout the tank. I was only referring to tanks that have a filter with a decent flow rate. 

I do think that if you regularly cleaned the filter thoroughly you could probably get the bacteria colony to grow elsewhere, though it may start to move back as soon as you stop cleaning. I think once established the bacteria colonies can double in size in just hour long time spans, which makes them fairly robust. 

I think we are almost at the point where we can test the next theory and see if it prefers high surface area bio media in the filter or if it prefers the filter itself. Once we remove the biomax from the filter we will have to see what the ammonia processing is like.


----------



## thedood

@aja31 How many people do you know who use no filter with _unplanted_ tanks? I have just given a cursory glance to the thread, I just got back from North Carolina, but it seems to me these tanks have high flow and the canisters are large compared to what your average 10g would have. Is this correct Immortal1? So that said I am thinking these tanks have excellent oxygenation and lots of surface area in the canister themselves. Try this same experiment with a bare internal filter or a small hob and I doubt the results are the same. That said take your average hob with just a carbon insert, no bio media to speak of, and people toss those inserts away and the tanks seem to be fine. LOL Very confusing.


----------



## Immortal1

Yes, that is correct @thedood - I am VERY much over filtering my 10 gallon tanks. On the other hand, you can project out the canister filter bioload to a much larger tank (with a small ppm) and get the same results. 
I actually have a 40g breeder tank and have been thinking about something - depending on which test I do next.
If I simply pull the canister filter off of the 10 gallon tank and put it on the brand new 40 gallon tank, then dose 1/4 the ppm of ammonia (which ends up being the same mL of ammonia that I put in the 10 gallon tank) I should in theory get the same results I got on the 10 gallon tank. 
Yes, the flow in the 40 gallon tank tank would be less.
Yes the new glass would have no beneficial bacteria (but then again, the one 10 gallon tank glass got scraped and it was still fine).

Just a note: Assuming the BioMax tank survives the 48ppm dose of ammonia tonite (which is more than 25% greater than what failed the bare tank), I think I will pull the Bio Max media and re-test the tank at the same 48ppm. This should tell us if the biomedia is really doing something.

Assuming the tank then fails (to some degree), I will put the BioMax back in and verify with another test that it can still handle the 48ppm. 

Then I will do a through filter cleaning on the canister without touching the actual biomedia to see if that makes a noticeable difference.

Thoughts?


----------



## Immortal1

Ok, so here are tonites results.









The bare tank finished processing the 38ppm ammonia just fine (kinda expected that - it just needed more than 24 hours to do so)(look at post 425 for a pic reference of 38ppm at 24 hours)

The BioMax tank handled the ammonia side of 48ppm just fine but is behind in handling the Nitrite side. I'm sure if I tested the nitrites again at 10pm tonite they would be almost gone.
So, I would guess more than 38 and less than 48 is where the BioMax would likely top out. Probably around 44-46ppm would be my guess. Eitherway, it handled atleast 20% more than the bare tank.

With that said, I am planning on pulling the BioMax out, changing the water, then dumping in 45-46ppm ammonia back into the tank. If my guess is correct it will test pretty badly around 7pm tomorrow nite.

Assuming the above is correct, I will put the BioMax back in and run another test at 45-46ppm to verify it can handle that much. I will following that test with a full filter maintenance.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

I like your plan so far!

As I have been thinking of all this testing it is great by all means.
Now my thoughts have moved to our livestock(fish).
Do we have any idea what amount of waste a typical fish leaves behind daily in say ppm of ammonia?
By typical referring to say a molly, platy, or swordtail.


----------



## Immortal1

I was researching that very topic. What I found out is there is hundreds of variables - which kinda sucks.
Some of them were;
How much food is consumed daily? What is the makeup of the food (more variables then I can remember)
Mass of the fish? Some are short but fat.
Metabolism of the fish - Gold fish poop a lot of food. Pleco's poop a lot. Needle nose gar are VERY long, but have a slow metabolism so they dont generate much ammonia per inch.
There were a few other things but I really lost interest after all that. 

I was really HOPING there was some Excel spreadsheet with every know fish listed and there ammonia output - sadly that does not exist.


----------



## Pantokrator

*Formula*



Maryland Guppy said:


> Do we have any idea what amount of waste a typical fish leaves behind daily in say ppm of ammonia? By typical referring to say a molly, platy, or swordtail.


You can calculate this. I have found a following formula in <this PDF>:
*Ammonia = feed * (protein / 100) * (nitrogen / 100) * (wasted-nitrogen / 100) * (1.2 NH3 / 1 N)*
_PS: All values are in grams_

Typical fish eats about 1% of its body weight per day.
Weight of different fishes can be calculated based on data from fishbase.org.

*How to find out the fish weight:
*
1) Find out your fish on fishbase.org
2) Note the _"Bayesian length-weight"_ values
3) Find out the length of your fish
4) Substitute data into the formula for the calculation of fish weight
Formula: *W = a * (L^b)*
W = fish weight in grams
a = constant for fish body shape
b = exponent for isometric growth in body proportions
L = fish length in centimeters​5) Calculate the result

*Example:
*
Let's say you have 100 pcs of Poecilia sphenops (Black Molly), each 3" long.

1) Poecilia sphenops, Molly : aquarium
2) Bayesian length-weight: a=0.00851, b=3.15
_(the mean is a=0.00851, the range is from 0.00366 to 0.01979)_
3) 3" = 7.62 cm
4) W = a * (L^b) = 0.00851 * (7.62^3.15) = 5.11
_(Just put the underlined formula into Google field, and press Enter.)_
5) Result: 3" long Black Molly weighs about 5.11 grams (100 pcs of Black Molly weight about 511 grams)

If typical fish eats about 1% of its body weight per day, then 100 pcs of Black Mollys (511 g) eats about 5 g of fish food daily (in case you overfeed feel free to increase this value or *simply weight your daily feed ration*).

_PS: This formula can be used to estimate the right amount of fish food that should be given to our fish each day._

Now, back to our first formula:
Ammonia = feed * (protein-content / 100) * (nitrogen-content-in-protein / 100) * (wasted-nitrogen / 100) * (1.2 NH3 / 1 N)

_Typical protein content in fish food is about 32%._
_Typical nitrogen content in the protein is about 16%._
_About 61% of the nitrogen is wasted._
_If you know the exact contents of your own fish food, feel free to change these numbers._​Ammonia = 5 * (32 / 100) * (16 / 100) * (61 / 100) * (1.2 / 1)
Ammonia = 5 * 0.32 * 0.16 * 0.61 * 1.2
Ammonia = 0.2 g

Let's say you have 100L (25G) tank, so you have 0.2 grams (= 200 mg) of NH3 in 100L of water, thus 2 mg/L NH3 (= 2 ppm).

So daily your 100 pcs Black Molly flock produces about *2 ppm NH3*.

As was said, other factors play role in the metabolism of fish, but as a raw estimate this method should be good.


----------



## Immortal1

I like math, this should be fun. Amazed you found the info! Or, more amazed at how bad my search methods are LOL.


----------



## aja31

Well if we can shove 100 black mollies in a 25 gallon tank and only produce 2 ppm NH3 then I think it is safe to say we don't need a lot of bio media in our tanks. Based on these tests, with the bare filter alone you could eventually stock 1000 black mollies in a 25 gallon tank and not have an ammonia problem. Of course you would need to do 100% water changes every 12 hours to not kill them from nitrates, but the ammonia would not be a problem lol.


----------



## aja31

thedood said:


> @aja31 How many people do you know who use no filter with _unplanted_ tanks? I have just given a cursory glance to the thread, I just got back from North Carolina, but it seems to me these tanks have high flow and the canisters are large compared to what your average 10g would have. Is this correct Immortal1? So that said I am thinking these tanks have excellent oxygenation and lots of surface area in the canister themselves. Try this same experiment with a bare internal filter or a small hob and I doubt the results are the same. That said take your average hob with just a carbon insert, no bio media to speak of, and people toss those inserts away and the tanks seem to be fine. LOL Very confusing.


Well you can do unplanted filterless tanks with betta fish since they are lung fish, but you run out of oxygen without plants, which also means your bacteria will die. If you don't have a filter you must plant densely to keep the oxygen level sufficient. I've never run a tank without a filter, but i've seen some very nice ones that do. 

Also the bacteria will grow wherever the highest flow is even if it is not completely over the top like it is in this experiment. Once we finish these experiments I am confident now that what we will find is that biomedia is not necessary but it is still very good to have to prevent mini cycles and other such problems from cleaning filters or moving things around. 

What I do find interesting is that so far the BioMAX is performing much better than the pumice did. I don't know why that is the case, but I may have to look into the stuff.


----------



## Immortal1

@aja31, I think I can answer your question regarding how good the BioMax is doing vs the MAtrix/Pumice - When I concluded 32 or 33ppm was the max for those 2 materials, I was only changing maybe 70% of the water each time. The Nitrate levels were much higher back then compared to what they are now with doing 100% water changes. Funny how 1 seemingly minor change can make such a big difference. Given the total amount of water I am working with, I strongly suspect if I filled the canister filter with bio media (say 4 liters worth), then tried dumping in 200ppm ammonia (4x more than I am now with the 1 liter of BioMax) the system would crash or simply stop working due to an insainly high Nitrate level.


----------



## jeffkrol

aja31 said:


> Unfortunately we already ruled this out. Scraping, and cleaning all 4 walls and the bottom showed a negligible change in the amount of bacteria in the system. While it COULD grow on the surfaces you mention, it doesn't because there is plenty of space for it to grow in the filter which is prefers.


Where do you think it comes from w/ new media???
Nitrifying bactera is everywhere O2 and a surface is available. Media is an attempt to create a "super colony" vs "villages" that have competition..
Heterotrophic Bacteria and Their Practical Application in a Freshwater Aquarium









And light.. or lack of..


> Nitrifiers are light sensitive, especially toward ultraviolet (UV/ sunlight). Room light has a negative impact on bacterial activity as well. Colonizing the filter is therefore the preferred settlement of the bacteria, as it provides a dark environment. Light exposure (i.e. cleaning the filter) will not cause stress, as the time frame is too short allowing the colony to recuperate within hours.
> 
> The nitrifier’s colony creates a surrounding, slimy bio-film, as they clutter together. This somewhat protects the settlement from light exposure. Good films smell earthy, if otherwise, it is an indication of problems in the aquatic environment.


----------



## aja31

jeffkrol said:


> Where do you think it comes from w/ new media???
> Nitrifying bactera is everywhere O2 and a surface is available. Media is an attempt to create a "super colony" vs "villages" that have competition..
> Heterotrophic Bacteria and Their Practical Application in a Freshwater Aquarium
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And light.. or lack of..


That was an interesting read, thanks for posting it.

However in this experiment there are no heterotrophic bacteria because there are no organics in the system and therefore it can not support a heterotrophic population. Only the autotrophic bacteria are present here, and they seemed quite happy to live in the filter and nowhere else in this test. We scraped, wiped, dried and refilled every surface outside the filter and saw no impact on the ammonia processing capabilities. Given the relatively slow reproduction time of autotrophic bacteria and the fact that no heterotrophic bacteria are present in the system we can pretty safely say that in our case the bacteria is concentrated in the filter. 

They may be present in the environment everywhere, but they only colonized the filter in any meaningful numbers. However the article does bring forward the importance of having biomedia. In normal tanks you will have a heterotrophic bacteria population and in order to limit it you want to kill off as much of it as you can during maintenance while still maintaining a good colony of autotrophic bacteria. The question we are currently trying to answer is if we can successfully get a significant portion of the good bacteria to populate the bio media as opposed to just the filter. It's looking like the answer is yes if you max out the ammonia it can process, but we will see for sure tomorrow, and if it does turn out to be true then this article makes a very good case for still having excess bio media even if it isn't needed to just process ammonia.

The article also touches on the point of denitrifying substances, which was the original question asked, if pumice and maxtrix both remove nitrates as they claim. We never got to answer that question, but I think we learned a lot of interesting things along the way. 

I'm going to read through the other parts of that page now and see what else I can learn.


----------



## Immortal1

Well, tonite I am out of town so I had the daughter pull samples. Both tanks tested 0.0ppm ammonia and nitrite. That was not supposed to happen! I pulled the Biomax from the Fluval filter and put it in the bare filter. Then dosed both tanks to 46ppm ammonia. Left tank should have passed, right should have failed!

I just now realized what I did wrong. I put in 46mL ammonia, not 46ppm ammonia so of course they both passed. Guess that's what I get for being in a hurry. Oh well, I will be back tomorrow nite - will redo test.


----------



## Pantokrator

*The (heterotrophic) bacteria rule the world*



aja31 said:


> That was an interesting read ... In normal tanks you will have a heterotrophic bacteria population and in order to limit it you want to kill off as much of it as you can during maintenance while still maintaining a good colony of autotrophic bacteria ... I'm going to read through the other parts of that page now and see what else I can learn.


I think that the above article is distorted, and downright bad in its view of heterotrophic bacteria as the "bad guys". I highly recommend to read the book *"Ecology of the Planted Aquarium"* by Diana Walstad, and especially the chapter 4 => "Bacteria".

*Autotrophic bacteria *do the nitrification job (ammonium > nitrites > nitrates), and there are only about 0.002% of these guys in the total amount of bacteria in sand filtration according to one study (I suppose in other kinds of filtration it will be similar). From the total amount of 18,000,000 bacteria in 1 gram of sand, there are only about 425 autotrophic nitrifiers! The rest (99.998%) are heterotrophic bacteria.

*Heterotrophic bacteria *do the decomposition job which is much more important in any tank where there are organic waste (but not only this). Heterotrophic bacteria do not only the aerobic decomposition of organics creating mineral nutrients for plants (like CO2, NH3, PO4, SO4, etc.), but anaerobic decomposition also (producing humus, organic acids, ethanol, NH3, H2S, etc.). The anaerobic decomposition includes denitrification, iron or manganese reduction, fermentation, methanogenesis, hydrogen sulphide production, etc. _For example, the denitrification heterotrophic bacteria remove up to about 50% of nitrogen from the system (this work is probably done mainly in the substrate/sediment)._

So under _aerobic conditions _the heterotrophic bacteria do mainly the *mineralization* (creating anorganic minerals from organics), while under _anaerobic conditions _they do mainly the *humification* (creating hardly degradable humus and humic/fulvic acids). Under anaerobic conditions the decomposition of organics into anorganic nutrients can't be complete (this is important to know)!

The mineralization would not be possible in our tanks without the heterotrophic bacteria, but for the whole "mineralization (complete) cycle" to establish it needs some (long) time. So whenever we disturb the system, rinse the filter media and/or clean the glass or vacuum the substrate, we actually "reset" the evolution of the heterotrophic decomposition (or in other words, we break/destroy the mineralization chain).

Also, how could you say that the nitrifiers live only in the filter box, if you did not do any test with the substrate and plants? Again, around the plant roots there are several orders higher amount of bacteria than in the water or on the tank glass, and the same applies for the top layer of substrate. Great amount of bacteria live also in the detrit. It was shown that after removing the top layer of the sediment the nitrification efficiency decreased substantially. If you don't have substrate and/or plants in the test tank, then it's logical that most of the bacteria will be in other places. But once you put substrate and plants in there, they for sure will draw a substantial amount of bacteria. Also, it's not true that bacteria will move only to the most suitable area in the tank. They will live everywhere where they can. But in some areas (surfaces) their colony may be bigger than in other areas.

_Immortal1, I'm sorry to derail your thread._


----------



## aja31

Immortal1 said:


> Well, tonite I am out of town so I had the daughter pull samples. Both tanks tested 0.0ppm ammonia and nitrite. That was not supposed to happen! I pulled the Biomax from the Fluval filter and put it in the bare filter. Then dosed both tanks to 46ppm ammonia. Left tank should have passed, right should have failed!
> 
> I just now realized what I did wrong. I put in 46mL ammonia, not 46ppm ammonia so of course they both passed. Guess that's what I get for being in a hurry. Oh well, I will be back tomorrow nite - will redo test.


I love that adding 46 ml of ammonia is a mistake because it is not enough...


----------



## jeffkrol

> Autotrophic bacteria do the nitrification job (ammonium > nitrites > nitrates), and there are only about 0.002% of these guys in the total amount of bacteria in sand filtration according to one study (I suppose in other kinds of filtration it will be similar). From the total amount of 18,000,000 bacteria in 1 gram of sand, there are only about 425 autotrophic nitrifiers! The rest (99.998%) are heterotrophic bacteria.


so what is the difference? There is as mich "carbon" going through a filter than there is in the sand bed. Seems if competition were a major factor than the same would apply to the filter media.. i.e more heterotrophs than autotrophs..
Unless light is that critical ..and of course the canister probably has a higher turnover in O2..

I admit this is all complicated and don't think any current answer is 100% inc. my own..
Oh and the type of substrate could play a major factor here. compact sand being less permeable to o2 than say clay or pebble based substrates..
fluidized sand beds seem just fine as an autotrophic/hetrotrophic media..
A link to your reference would be appreciated. most in-depth are "pay per view"...like this:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144860914001137

hmm seems heterotrophic also consume nitrogen:


> Introduction
> In nature, microorganisms are subjected to alternating periods of excess substrate availability, substrate limitation
> and true starvation (Bodelier et al., 1996). This is certainly
> the case for ammonia-oxidizing bacteria (AOB). AOB face
> periods without ammonium supply as a result of the competition for ammonium with heterotrophic bacteria and plants


http://femsec.oxfordjournals.org/content/femsec/58/1/1.full.pdf

Interesting statement:


> it has been reported that autotrophic ammonia-oxidizing activity is repressed by heterotrophic microorgan-isms (e.g. Arthrobacter globiformis,
> Thiosphaera panthotropha) at C/N ratios of higher than 10 (Jansson, 1958; Hanaki et al ., 1990; Verhagen
> et al
> ., 1992).


May need to take a deeper look..
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC168074/pdf/622888.pdf
Older paper.. needs a followup:


> To a certain extent, models of nitrification are dependent on
> the known biochemical properties and pathways of the classical
> nitrifiers. The data from our study indicate that the bacterial
> species responsible for nitrification in simple freshwater systems
> remain unknown. It is likely that nitrification and the
> associated nitrifying bacterium diversity in natural systems are
> even more complex. Therefore, models which assume, in a
> general fashion, that Nitrosomonas spp. are the major nitrifiers
> may have to be revised as novel species of nitrifying bacteria
> are identified, isolated, and characterized and the biochemical
> properties of these species are determined. Molecular phylogenetic
> methods, along with classical isolation and culture
> techniques, all of which are aimed at determining the responsible
> organisms and their physiological properties, should provide
> a more complete understanding of biogeochemical processes
> mediated by nitrifying bacteria.


As it stands it is a big wrench in the system..
http://aem.asm.org/content/67/12/5791.short


> Our results suggest that the AOB found in fish culture environments, such as public aquaria,
> aquaculture facilities, and home aquaria, where the ambient ammonia concentration rarely exceeds 5 mg of N per liter, are
> different from the traditional Nitrosomonas europaea-Nitroso-coccus mobilis
> cluster type AOB, which are prevalent in the
> high-ammonia concentrations typically found in environment
> such as wastewater and sewage treatment facilities. This, and
> our results with enrichments of the various strains of AOB in
> newly set-up aquaria, strongly suggest that start-up inocula for
> the establishment of nitrification in aquatic culture systems
> should optimally consist of Nitrosomonas marina-like AOB
> rather than Nitrosomonas europaea-Nitrosococcus mobilis
> cluster AOB


sorry for the mess.. mostly food for thought than a "statement"..


----------



## Immortal1

Minor update - I changed water and added ammonia.

this time I added the correct amount of ammonia.

That is all.


----------



## Immortal1

Well, here are tonites results. This looks a little more like I expected, although I am a bit surprised the right hand tank did as well as it did with the 46ppm ammonia dose considering I removed the 1 liter of bio material and put it into the left hand tank, which also got a 46ppm ammonia dose.


----------



## hard determinist

Immortal1 said:


> the right hand tank did as well as it did with the 46ppm ammonia dose considering I removed the 1 liter of bio material...


 So if I understand it well, the Fluval Biomax tank with 1L media did not process the 46 ppm NH3 completely (0 ppm NH3, >2 ppm NO2). After you removed the media from it and put 46 ppm NH3 into it, it did exactly the same (ie. 0 ppm NH3, >2 ppm NO2). So from this it seems like the biomedia was of no use here. But at the same time, the Bare Tank without any filter media did completely process only about 30.6 ppm NH3. When you tried higher dose (post #475) it collapsed. But then you added 1L of filter media into it, and now it was able to process 46 ppm NH3 (0 ppm NH3, 0 ppm NO2). So from this it seems like the biomedia helped the tank to process more NH3. So now, what's the final result? What did we learn from it?


----------



## Immortal1

From post 481, The right hand tank (Fluval BioMax) completely processed 48ppm ammonia and nearly processed all of the resulting nitrite in 24 hours. My assumption at that point was this tank "should" be able to process around 46ppm ammonia (generate a 0.0ppm for ammonia and nitrite).

Going with the assumption a bare filter/tank tops out around 30ppm ammonia (left tank), I removed the biomedia from the right tank (canister filter) and placed it in the left tank canister filter. My hope was the tests would confirm the 1 liter of BioMax would help the left tank process more than 30ppm ammonia and that without the 1 liter of BioMax in the right tank it would have a very difficult time processing 46ppm ammonia. IF the latest round of tests matched my assumption, then I could say the Fluval BioMax increased the ammonia processing ability of a canister filter by atleast 16ppm ammonia. This works out to just over a 50% increase in ammonia processing ability.

Unfortunately, the above round of tests do not confirm my assumptions completely. 
The Fluval BioMax did help the *Left* tank process more ammonia / nitrite - as expected.
The absence of the biomedia from the *Right* tank should have resulted in a failed test. As you can see above, the ammonia test passed and the nitrite test is not far behind.

My only conclusion at this point is - the Fluval BioMax is helping process more ammonia than without it. But, I cannot confirm how much more.
I can also conclude that the Marineland C360 filter likely has more plastic surface area than the Eheim Pro II. This fact may have contributed to the right hand tank processing more ammonia (without any biomedia) than the left hand tank.

Any thoughts or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Immortal1

So, back on post #484, @Pantokrator posted an interesting formula. I spent some time playing around with it this morning. I did not find all of my fish on fishbase, but going with the information I did find and extrapolating to the fish I did not find, I was a little suprised by the results.
a=__value_b=value_Length_Girl_Boy_Total__Qty__Name
a=0.00000_b=0.00_00.0cm___0__5__30____6___Serpae Tetra (Hyphessobycon eques)
a=0.00000_b=0.00_00.0cm___0__3___3____1___Black Phantom Tetra (Hyphessobycon megalopterus)
a=0.01995_b=3.01_07.5cm___0__5__25____5___Black Skirt Tetra (Gymnocorymbus ternetzi)
a=0.00000_b=0.00_00.0cm___0_36__36____1___Bushy Nose Pleco (Ancistrus sp.)
a=0.00000_b=0.00_00.0cm___0_38__76____2___Bushy Nose Pleco (Ancistrus sp. L144)
a=0.01479_b=3.03_07.5cm___0__7__35____5___Albino Aeneus Cory Cat (Corydoras aeneus)
a=0.00000_b=0.00_00.0cm___0__0__20____3___Panda Garra (Garra flavatra)
a=0.01000_b=3.04_10.0cm__11_32__97____3+2_Desert Rainbow (Melanotaenia splendida tatei)
a=0.00000_b=0.00_00.0cm__10_26__82____3+2_Yellow Rainbowfish (Melanotaenia herbertaxelrodi)
a=0.00000_b=0.00_00.0cm__10_24__68____2+2_New Guinea Red Rainbow (Glossolepis incisus)
a=0.00562_b=3.10_16.0cm__30_31__61____2___Siamese Algea Eater (Crossocheilus siamensis)
______________________________533____39

So, the above information says I have about 533 grams of fish. I feel I over feed my fish and they are likely fatter than that. Lets use 600 grams of fish.

If typical fish eats about 1% of its body weight per day, then my fish (600g) eat about 6g of fish food daily. Just for fun, lets assume I suck at measuring fish food and I give them *7* grams/day.

Now, back to the first formula:
Ammonia = feed * (protein-content / 100) * (nitrogen-content-in-protein / 100) * (wasted-nitrogen / 100) * (1.2 NH3 / 1 N)

Typical protein content in fish food is about 32%.
Typical nitrogen content in the protein is about 16%.
About 61% of the nitrogen is wasted.

Ammonia = *7* * (32 / 100) * (16 / 100) * (61 / 100) * (1.2 / 1)
Ammonia = *7* * 0.32 * 0.16 * 0.61 * 1.2
Ammonia = 0.26 g

I have 227L (60g) of water and 0.26 grams (= 263 mg) ammonia so, (263mg / 227L of water), thus 2 mg/L NH3 (= 1.16 ppm).

So daily my fish produces about 1 ppm NH3 - this does not seem right.

Edit, WOW did that suck to get the above info to be readable.


----------



## aja31

Immortal1 said:


> So, back on post #484, @Pantokrator posted an interesting formula. I spent some time playing around with it this morning. I did not find all of my fish on fishbase, but going with the information I did find and extrapolating to the fish I did not find, I was a little suprised by the results.
> a=__value_b=value_Length_Girl_Boy_Total__Qty__Name
> a=0.00000_b=0.00_00.0cm___0__5__30____6___Serpae Tetra (Hyphessobycon eques)
> a=0.00000_b=0.00_00.0cm___0__3___3____1___Black Phantom Tetra (Hyphessobycon megalopterus)
> a=0.01995_b=3.01_07.5cm___0__5__25____5___Black Skirt Tetra (Gymnocorymbus ternetzi)
> a=0.00000_b=0.00_00.0cm___0_36__36____1___Bushy Nose Pleco (Ancistrus sp.)
> a=0.00000_b=0.00_00.0cm___0_38__76____2___Bushy Nose Pleco (Ancistrus sp. L144)
> a=0.01479_b=3.03_07.5cm___0__7__35____5___Albino Aeneus Cory Cat (Corydoras aeneus)
> a=0.00000_b=0.00_00.0cm___0__0__20____3___Panda Garra (Garra flavatra)
> a=0.01000_b=3.04_10.0cm__11_32__97____3+2_Desert Rainbow (Melanotaenia splendida tatei)
> a=0.00000_b=0.00_00.0cm__10_26__82____3+2_Yellow Rainbowfish (Melanotaenia herbertaxelrodi)
> a=0.00000_b=0.00_00.0cm__10_24__68____2+2_New Guinea Red Rainbow (Glossolepis incisus)
> a=0.00562_b=3.10_16.0cm__30_31__61____2___Siamese Algea Eater (Crossocheilus siamensis)
> ______________________________533____39
> 
> So, the above information says I have about 533 grams of fish. I feel I over feed my fish and they are likely fatter than that. Lets use 600 grams of fish.
> 
> If typical fish eats about 1% of its body weight per day, then my fish (600g) eat about 6g of fish food daily. Just for fun, lets assume I suck at measuring fish food and I give them *7* grams/day.
> 
> Now, back to the first formula:
> Ammonia = feed * (protein-content / 100) * (nitrogen-content-in-protein / 100) * (wasted-nitrogen / 100) * (1.2 NH3 / 1 N)
> 
> Typical protein content in fish food is about 32%.
> Typical nitrogen content in the protein is about 16%.
> About 61% of the nitrogen is wasted.
> 
> Ammonia = *7* * (32 / 100) * (16 / 100) * (61 / 100) * (1.2 / 1)
> Ammonia = *7* * 0.32 * 0.16 * 0.61 * 1.2
> Ammonia = 0.26 g
> 
> I have 227L (60g) of water and 0.26 grams (= 263 mg) ammonia so, (263mg / 227L of water), thus 2 mg/L NH3 (= 1.16 ppm).
> 
> So daily my fish produces about 1 ppm NH3 - this does not seem right.
> 
> Edit, WOW did that suck to get the above info to be readable.


That seems about right to me. An unsuspecting fish owner sets up a new aquarium but doesn't give the filter time to undergo the nitrogen cycle. They immediately add a full load of fish. The fish are fine for 2-3 days then begin to die. That would correspond to 3-4 ppm ammonia which is about what it takes to kill fish quickly. 

Since your last test failed I think the best next step is this:

1. Keep bioMax in left tank
2. Clean, bleach, and otherwise MURDER the remaining bacteria in the right tank
3. Thoroughly clean the right tank and make it bacteria friendly again
4. Re-add the biomax to the right tank and add say 20 ppm ammonia
5. See if the biomax has any bacteria in it by testing after 24 hours.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

aja31 said:


> 1. Keep bioMax in left tank
> 2. Clean, bleach, and otherwise MURDER the remaining bacteria in the right tank
> 3. Thoroughly clean the right tank and make it bacteria friendly again
> 4. Re-add the biomax to the right tank and add say 20 ppm ammonia
> 5. See if the biomax has any bacteria in it by testing after 24 hours.


I am liking this suggestion.


----------



## Immortal1

I am on it @aja31

Ok, this is looking a little bit slimy. The impeller was also over due for a good cleaning.









Now, I will not brag this stuff is pristine, but I can assure you there is nothing biological left here!

























After filling it back up, I gave it a double dose of Prime. Will give it an hour before moving the BioMax over. Then I will give it a good 16ppm dose. Chose that amount because I am pretty sure it should be a passing amount. Note (because I get forgetful), 16ppm = 22.5mL of 3.5% ammonia


----------



## Immortal1

Good morning TPT. Though I would get a sneak peak at how the right hand tank was progressing (16 hours after adding 16ppm ammonia). Well, it seems the BioMax must be good for something 










Added 22ppm ammonia (31mL) at 8:30am today - will test the tank before I go to work tomorrow. FYI, I did not do a water change this time. When I was dosing higher amounts 30+ ppm it was almost mandatory to do a 100% water change because you could not get another 30ppm to fully process. With the 16ppm yesterday and the 22ppm today, I am pretty confident I will not run into a nitrate overload.

Side note - at some point I really wish I would have done the above with the Matrix / Pumice part of this test. I feel I would have gotten a much better comparison of the 2 materials. On the other hand, we would not have discovered how much ammonia an empty canister filter could process.


----------



## thedood

@Immortal1 deserves a big thanks. Very interesting and educational thread. What I have found particularly interesting is the effect of nitrates on the bio filter, something I had never contemplated before. Thanks to @Lonestarbandit for starting this thread. This one turned into something real interesting.


----------



## aja31

This is a good result!

With this new result I think we can say that bacteria grows everywhere in the filter, including the biomedia but the amount of ammonia we can process is limited by the amount of nitrates we ultimately produce. 

If you can I would try adding the full amount of ammonia again and see if it can process it. It handled the half amount, which imo makes sense since it made up roughly half the surface area of the tank/filter. I suspect it will not be able to handle all 33 ppm of ammonia since it hasn't built up enough bacteria just in the media.


----------



## Ivory Aquariums

*Advice needed pls*

hey guys im a newbie to this whole aquarium biz but i got a 30 gallon hex tank and i want to grow a dwarf hairgrass carpet using one of amanos layouts. i have everything for the set up, the heaters, nutrient rich substrate by ADA, filters, co2, etc. BUT Im having a hard time finding a layout for my lighting and what type of lighting i would need for such a deep tank!!! Any suggestions?? I need serious advice XD


----------



## thedood

Ivory Aquariums said:


> hey guys im a newbie to this whole aquarium biz but i got a 30 gallon hex tank and i want to grow a dwarf hairgrass carpet using one of amanos layouts. i have everything for the set up, the heaters, nutrient rich substrate by ADA, filters, co2, etc. BUT Im having a hard time finding a layout for my lighting and what type of lighting i would need for such a deep tank!!! Any suggestions?? I need serious advice XD


I would begin with starting a thread in the appropriate forum board, you will be more likely to get reliable results. This is a bio-media thread, not a discussion on lighting and layout.


----------



## Immortal1

aja31 said:


> This is a good result!
> 
> With this new result I think we can say that bacteria grows everywhere in the filter, including the biomedia but the amount of ammonia we can process is limited by the amount of nitrates we ultimately produce.
> 
> If you can I would try adding the full amount of ammonia again and see if it can process it. It handled the half amount, which imo makes sense since it made up roughly half the surface area of the tank/filter. I suspect it will not be able to handle all 33 ppm of ammonia since it hasn't built up enough bacteria just in the media.


I'm am working on 22ppm (I think). Tomorrow nite, assuming I get a passing test, I will push it to 33ppm. I seriously doubt bacteria will generate fast enough on the plastic to help much (hopefully).


----------



## thedood

I think we can see why something as inexpensive and as simple as pot scrubbies can work so well. The amount of ammonia a planted tank with 150% bio load is not going to generate anywhere near the ammonia these tests are using. Very educational.


----------



## hard determinist

Just to let you know: "Marcel G" (58417) aka @Pantokrator was banned, because he deleted all his posts in one thread (http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1...-promote-algae-growth-toxic-aquatic-life.html). I know him personally. He told me that he offered admins to restore all his deleted posts, but they don't allowed it, and banned his new account as well.


----------



## Immortal1

No pictures from this morning. Ammonia and nitrite both tested 0.0 PPM. Did a water change then added 33 PPM ammonia.


----------



## Triton3

*More experimentation*

Given experiments conducted and discussion that took place to date, I would be most interested to compare test results of the tank that had 275ml pumice (General Pumice Products) in the tray with:
1. A tank without any filter and tubing connected but with 550mL of the same pumice on the bottom in the role of the substrate - 2x the pumice volume to compensate for lost surface area of filter and tubing.
AND
2. A tank without any filter and tubing connected but with enough of the same pumice to cover the bottom to a depth of ~2.5" (which I believe is the standard recommendation for substrate quantity).
Therefore, neither 1 nor 2 would have any water movement except for, perhaps, that due to aeration.


----------



## Immortal1

Tuesday morning results after 33ppm dose.

Going to give can and trays a quick clean, change water and see how it handles 40ppm.










Always amazed at how persistent life can be. I cleaned all surfaces in this filter on Saturday and now I have this much bio slime on all the plastic - pretty amazing. Not sure how I would test it, but, a question I get asked alot is "how long does it take for old bio-media to seed new bio-media? I have been suggesting leaving them together for atleast 3 weeks. I am now thinking it would take less time. But then again, I am dumping a lot of ammonia in these tanks so it would stand to reason the bacteria are going to grow faster.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

What is with people posting random stuff in this thread suddenly?

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Triton3

Bandit:
If your remark was about my question/suggestion, it is in no way random. Earlier experiments showed that a bare tank was able to process ~comparable amounts of ammonia and nitrites to tanks with pumice/matrix. The next logical question to ask is: is an external filter needed at all or can all of this be handled just by tank substrate of same type. Hence, my suggested experiment.


----------



## flynruff

Triton3 said:


> Bandit:
> If your remark was about my question/suggestion, it is in no way random. Earlier experiments showed that a bare tank was able to process ~comparable amounts of ammonia and nitrites to tanks with pumice/matrix. The next logical question to ask is: is an external filter needed at all or can all of this be handled just by tank substrate of same type. Hence, my suggested experiment.


I don't think he was talking about you. There's a couple really random posts a few ahead of you.


----------



## flynruff

Lonestarbandit said:


> What is with people posting random stuff in this thread suddenly?
> 
> Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


Old forum trick.
Look for hot topics and post in there for max exposure. Sad really.


----------



## Immortal1

Triton3 said:


> Given experiments conducted and discussion that took place to date, I would be most interested to compare test results of the tank that had 275ml pumice (General Pumice Products) in the tray with:
> 1. A tank without any filter and tubing connected but with 550mL of the same pumice on the bottom in the role of the substrate - 2x the pumice volume to compensate for lost surface area of filter and tubing.
> AND
> 2. A tank without any filter and tubing connected but with enough of the same pumice to cover the bottom to a depth of ~2.5" (which I believe is the standard recommendation for substrate quantity).
> Therefore, neither 1 nor 2 would have any water movement except for, perhaps, that due to aeration.


This would be an interesting experiment. Unfortunately I only have the 2 tanks. Also, I only have 275ml of General Pumice Products. Now, if we assume the pumice and the Seachem Matrix are the same, then I would have 550ml of those 2 materials combined. This could potentially get one tank setup. As for a tank with 2.5" pumice on the bottom - I simply don't have that here.

From my experiments so far, I have noticed an exponentially larger bio slime layer in the canister filters vs the glass in the tank. In normal tank setups I would believe a bio slime layer will form on most everything within a tank setup but it is my opinion a stronger film will be found in the filter. Also, in my experiments, I have a huge amount of water flow and surface agitation along with additional air stone aeration. Therefor I likely have fully oxigenated water throughout the setup. A tank with no circulation would very likely fail to handle even a small portion of the ammonia I am dumping in these systems.

Interesting article from Advanced Aquarium Concepts *Where Do They Live?*

"The good bacteria can live on any surface in the aquarium. However, like all organisms ever, they concentrate their populations where their limiting factors are best met. In an aquarium the two things that are the most limited for the bacteria are food and oxygen. Filters provide flow which provides food and oxygen. The surface area of the biomedia provides a surface for the bacteria to grow on where they can sit and allow the oxygen and food to come to them. At the end of the day it is not the biomedia itself that is anything magical, it is nothing more than surface area per volume. The bacteria are happy to grow on any surface, but they do not simply spread out evenly throughout the aquarium. Although any surface area in the tank (decor, glass, substrate, etc.) are otherwise perfectly acceptable, they do not have the same flow as the filter and therefore will not house significant colonies of bacteria.

I have moved entire setups many times by moving just the fish and filtration without any issues. This means no decorations or even the substrate were moved. The tanks did not re-cycle or go through any sort of mini-cycle. This shows that the substrate, decor, and anything in the tank besides the filtration did not house any significant amount bacteria. This isn’t to say they were sterile, just that if adequate filtration is provided effectively all the bacteria will be in the filter.

I have also replaced the entire substrate all at once dozens of times with the exact same results, no re-cycle, mini-cycle, or anything else that indicated any significant amount of bacteria were in the substrate. This again supports the concept that if adequate filtration is provided effectively all the bacteria will be in the filter.

Surface area doesn’t equal bacteria. Bacteria need much more than surface area to survive, thrive, and establish colonies. Many people focus only on surface area, which is the most ample resource bacteria have, there is no reason at all to think this alone would be a determining factor to where they live. They will grow where their most limited resources are found. Those resources are oxygen and food, both provided by flow, which in any tank is highest in the filter.

Trickle and other filtration methods that expose the bacteria or water to the massive amounts of oxygen in the air can create much more efficient colonies in otherwise more limited surface area (Bio-Wheel, Bio-Balls, etc.). If this is particularly appealing to you I suggest using a sump with a section specifically designed for K2 media. Biowheels stop turning and their filter cartridges are garbage like all other dinky slide-in cartridges. Bioballs are very ’80s and trap tons of debris, which rots and ruins water quality. K2 media is submerged but almost neutral in buoyancy. It is housed in a very aggressively aerated section of a sump that keeps the media tumbling. The aeration provides massive amounts of oxygen. The tumbling keeps the media free of debris and makes it self-cleaning. Together this means it is no maintenance for you and a superior filtration method."


----------



## Triton3

Immortal1 said:


> This would be an interesting experiment...


I am glad you find this experiment as interesting as I do. As far as only having enough "pumice" of both types just for one experimental tank - one is better that none. Your point on the importance of oxygenation is perfectly valid and the suggestion of K2 is interesting. However, I would like to try to contain as much of the ecosystem within the display tank as possible and including an enclosure with tumbling plastic wheels in the main tank would not look very natural. May I suggest the following method of oxygenation as a compromise between function and aesthetics. How about putting a (flat) disperser stone on the bottom, covering it with a pot scrubie and covering that with pumice (however much is available)?


----------



## Immortal1

Today's update - Biomax showed 0.0ppm ammonia and nitrite this morning. Did 100% water change, and dosed it to 50ppm ammonia (I think this is the most ammonia I have dosed to date).


----------



## thedood

How much bio-max are you using relative to the pumice and matrix?


----------



## aja31

thedood said:


> How much bio-max are you using relative to the pumice and matrix?


Fairly sure it is 1 L of Biomax, as opposed to 250 ml of pumice. so 4x

The pumice though did not reach its full potential because we didn't know about the nitrates stopping ammonia processing until later in the experiment so they can't be compared like that. Also it seems like the limit is how much nitrate is produced in 24 hours, not how much the media itself can support. 

It is however interesting that we seem to be able to go above that limit by cleaning the filter... anyone have any ideas why?


----------



## Immortal1

For this situation, is it possible the bio media is supporting a different or stronger grouping of beneficial bacteria? In my reading last nite there does seem to be several specific strains of bacteria that do a similar function.

Also as posted above, our bacteria will thrive where food and oxygen supply is the greatest. Maybe by cleaning the plastic, I have unnaturally forced the bacteria in the bio media to grow stronger (eliminated competition from the plastic bacteria?) 

Again, just guessing.


----------



## Immortal1

Triton3 said:


> I am glad you find this experiment as interesting as I do. As far as only having enough "pumice" of both types just for one experimental tank - one is better that none. Your point on the importance of oxygenation is perfectly valid and the suggestion of K2 is interesting. However, I would like to try to contain as much of the ecosystem within the display tank as possible and including an enclosure with tumbling plastic wheels in the main tank would not look very natural. May I suggest the following method of oxygenation as a compromise between function and aesthetics. How about putting a (flat) disperser stone on the bottom, covering it with a pot scrubie and covering that with pumice (however much is available)?


Just an FYI, this is what 550ml of pumice/Matrix looks like on the floor of a 10 gallon tank.


----------



## Immortal1

Ok, just because I find it a bit interesting and it pertains to alot of this thread I offer the following information. *Bold Red* text are items I found particularly interesting.

Nitrifying Bacteria Facts

The successful aquarist realizes the importance of establishing the nitrogen cycle quickly and with minimal stress on the aquarium’s inhabitants. Aquarium filtration has advanced from the old box filters filled with charcoal and glass wool to undergravel filters, then trickle filters, and most recently - fluidized bed filters. Every advance has been to improve upon the effectiveness of biological filtration which in turn increases the efficiency of the nitrogen cycle. The availability of advanced high-tech filtration systems has lent added importance to the understanding of basic aquatic chemistry.

Nitrifying bacteria are classified as obligate chemolithotrophs. This simply means that they must use inorganic salts as an energy source and generally cannot utilize organic materials. They must oxidize ammonia and nitrites for their energy needs and fix inorganic carbon dioxide (CO2) to fulfill their carbon requirements. They are largely non-motile and must colonize a surface (gravel, sand, synthetic biomedia, etc.) for optimum growth. *They secrete a sticky slime matrix which they use to attach themselves.*

Species of *Nitrosomonas (consumes ammonia)* and *Nitrobacter (consumes nitrite)* are gram negative, mostly rod-shaped, microbes ranging between 0.6-4.0 microns in length. They are obligate aerobes and cannot multiply or convert ammonia or nitrites *in the absence of oxygen*.

Nitrifying bacteria have long generation times due to the low energy yield from their oxidation reactions. Since little energy is produced from these reactions they have evolved to become extremely efficient at converting ammonia and nitrite. Scientific studies have shown that *Nitrosomonas bacterium are so efficient that a single cell can convert ammonia at a rate that would require up to one million heterotrophs to accomplish*. Most of their energy production (80%) is devoted to fixing CO2 via the Calvin cycle and little energy remains for growth and reproduction. As a consequence, they have a very slow reproductive rate.

Nitrifying bacteria reproduce by binary division. Under optimal conditions, *Nitrosomonas may double every 7 hours and Nitrobacter every 13 hours. More realistically, they will double every 15-20 hours*. This is an extremely long time considering that heterotrophic bacteria can double in as short a time as 20 minutes. In the time that it takes a single Nitrosomonas cell to double in population, a single E. Coli bacterium would have produced a population exceeding 35 trillion cells.

None of the Nitrobacteraceae are able to form spores. They have a complex cytomembrane (cell wall) that is surrounded by a slime matrix. All species have limited tolerance ranges and are individually sensitive to pH, dissolved oxygen levels, salt, temperature, and inhibitory chemicals. Unlike species of heterotrophic bacteria, they cannot survive any drying process without killing the organism. In water, they can survive short periods of adverse conditions by utilizing stored materials within the cell. When these materials are depleted, the bacteria die.
Biological Data
*
There are several species of Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter bacteria and many strains among those species.* Most of this information can be applied to species of Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter in general, however, *each strain may have specific tolerances to environmental factors and nutriment preferences not shared by other, very closely related, strains*. The information presented here applies specifically to Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter strains.
Temperature

The temperature for optimum growth of nitrifying bacteria is between 77-86° F (25-30° C).

Growth rate is decreased by 50% at 64° F (18° C).

Growth rate is decreased by 75% at 46-50° F.

No activity will occur at 39° F (4° C)

Nitrifying bacteria will die at 32° F (0° C).

Nitrifying bacteria will die at 120° F (49° C)

Nitrobacter is less tolerant of low temperatures than Nitrosomonas. In cold water systems, care must be taken to monitor the accumulation of nitrites.
pH

The optimum pH range for Nitrosomonas is between 7.8-8.0.

The optimum pH range for Nitrobacter is between 7.3-7.5

Nitrobacter will grow more slowly at the high pH levels typical of marine aquaria and preferred by African Rift Lake Cichlids. Initial high nitrite concentrations may exist. At pH levels below 7.0, Nitrosomonas will grow more slowly and increases in ammonia may become evident. Nitrosomonas growth is inhibited at a pH of 6.5. All nitrification is inhibited if the pH drops to 6.0 or less. Care must be taken to monitor ammonia if the pH begins to drop close to 6.5. At this pH almost all of the ammonia present in the water will be in the mildly toxic, ionized NH3+ state.
Dissolved Oxygen

Maximum nitrification rates will exist if dissolved oxygen (DO) levels exceed 80% saturation. Nitrification will not occur if DO concentrations drop to 2.0 mg/l (ppm) or less. *Nitrobacter is more strongly affected by low DO than NITROSOMONAS*. (this is why I don't think a layer of Pumice/Matrix laying on the bottom of an aquarium is going to do much - low amount of DO in this area.)
Salinity

Freshwater nitrifying bacteria will grow in salinities ranging between 0 to 6 ppt (parts per thousand) (specific gravity between 1.0000-1.0038).

Saltwater nitrifying bacteria will grow in salinities ranging from 6 up to 44 ppt. (specific gravity between 1.0038-1.0329).

Adaptation to different salinities may involve a lag time of 1-3 days before exponential growth begins.
Micronutrients

*All species of nitrifying bacteria require a number of micronutrients.* Most important among these is the need for phosphorus for ATP (Adenosine Tri-Phosphate) production. The conversion of ATP provides energy for cellular functions. Phosphorus is normally available to cells in the form of phosphates (PO4). *Nitrobacter, especially, is unable to oxidize nitrite to nitrate in the absence of phosphates.* (so, lowering your phosphates to 0.0 can be very bad)

Sufficient phosphates are normally present in regular drinking water. During certain periods of the year, the amount of phosphates may be very low. A phenomenon known as "Phosphate Block" may occur. If all the above described parameters are within the optimum ranges for the bacteria and nitrite levels continue to escalate without production of nitrate, then phosphate block may be occurring. In recent years, with the advent of phosphate-free synthetic sea salt mixes, this problem has become prevalent among marine aquarists when establishing a new tank.

Fortunately, phosphate block is easy to remedy. A source of phosphate needs to be added to the aquarium. Phosphoric Acid is recommended as being simplest to use and dose, however, either mono-sodium phosphate or di-sodium phosphate may be substituted. When using a 31% phosphoric acid mixture, apply a one time application of 1 drop per 4 gallons of water to activate the Nitrobacter. This small dosage of phosphoric acid will not affect the pH or alkalinity of marine aquaria.

Minimal levels of other essential micronutrients is often not a problem as they are available in our drinking water supplies. The increasing popularity of high-tech water filters for deionizing, distilling, and reverse osmosis (hyper-filtration) produce water that is stripped of these nutrients. While these filters are generally excellent for producing high purity water, this water will also be inhibitory to nitrifying bacteria. The serious aquarist must replenish the basic salts necessary to the survival of the aquarium’s inhabitants. These salts, however, usually lack these critical micronutrients.
Nutriment

All species of Nitrosomonas use ammonia (NH3) as an energy source during its conversion to nitrite (NO2). *Ammonia is first converted (hydrolyzed) to an amine (NH2) compound then oxidized to nitrite.* This conversion process allows Nitrosomonas to utilize a few simple amine compounds such as those formed by the conversion of ammonia by chemical ammonia removers.

Nitrosomonas is capable of utilizing urea as an energy source.

All species of Nitrobacter use nitrites for their energy source in oxidizing them to nitrate (NO3).
Color and Smell

The cells of nitrifying bacteria are opaque to brownish in color. What you see are actually clumps of bacteria stuck together by their own slime matrix.

Most nitrifying bacteria solutions have an "earthy" smell.

Caution: solutions that contain dark brown or black liquids and/or product that smell of sulfur or rotten eggs can contain spoiled or even contaminated bacteria. If you suspect that the product is spoiled or contaminated, do not apply to closed aquatic system.
Light

Nitrifying bacteria are photosensitive, especially to blue and ultraviolet light. After they have colonized a surface this light poses no problem. During the first 3 or 4 days many of the cells may be suspended in the water column. Specialized bulbs in reef aquaria that emit UV or near UV light should remain off during this time. Regular aquarium lighting has no appreciable negative effect.
Chlorine and Chloramines

Before adding bacteria or fish to any aquarium or system, all chlorine must be completely neutralized. Residual chlorine or chloramines will kill all nitrifying bacteria and fish.

Most US cities now treat their drinking water with chloramines. Chloramines are more stable than chlorine. It is advisable to test for chlorine with an inexpensive test kit. If you are unsure whether your water has been treated with chloramine, test for ammonia after neutralizing the chlorine. You can also call your local water treatment facility.

The type of chloramines formed is dependent on pH. Most of it exists as either monochloramine (NH2Cl) or dichloramine (NHCl2). They are made by adding ammonia to chlorinated water. Commercial chlorine reducing chemicals, such as sodium thiosulfate (Na2S2O2) break the chlorine:ammonia bond. Chlorine (Cl) is reduced to harmless chloride (Cl- ) ion. Since dichloramine has two chlorine molecules, a double dose of a chlorine remover, such as sodium thiosulfate, is recommended.

*Each molecule of chloramine that is reduced will produce one molecule of ammonia. If the chloramine concentration is 2 ppm then your aquarium or system will start out with 2 ppm of ammonia. Chlorine Remover will reduce up to 2 ppm of chlorine at recommended dosages.* During the warmer months chlorine levels may exceed 2 ppm. A double dose would be required to effectively eliminate the excess chlorine.
Adding Bacteria

After all the chlorine has been safely neutralized, nitrifying bacteria should be added to rid the aquarium of ammonia. Depending on the aquarium pH, 3-4 days may be advisable before adding your fish in order to minimize stress. If the water supply does not contain chloramines, and there is no ammonia, nitrifying bacteria should be added at the same time as the fish.

Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter species of bacteria belong to the family NITROBACTERACEAE - the true nitrifiers. Five genera are generally accepted as ammonia-oxidizers and four genera as nitrite-oxidizers. Of these, Nitrosomonas (ammonia-oxidizers) and Nitrobacter (nitrite-oxidizers) are the most important. Marine species are different from those that prefer fresh water, and yet, are very closely related. Each species has a limited optimum range for survival. They are the most efficient, and most important, group of nitrifying bacteria and are ubiquitous (world-wide) in their distribution.


----------



## Immortal1

Well, this is surprising, the Biomax handled the 50ppm dose - both tests were 0.0ppm
So, did the 100% water change and dumped in 92mL of ammonia (65ppm).
Starting to think with the 1 liter of bio media (about 4 times more than the Matrix), I might get to 120ppm.


----------



## aja31

Immortal1 said:


> Well, this is surprising, the Biomax handled the 50ppm dose - both tests were 0.0ppm
> So, did the 100% water change and dumped in 92mL of ammonia (65ppm).
> Starting to think with the 1 liter of bio media (about 4 times more than the Matrix), I might get to 120ppm.


Huh... how does that fit in with the nitrates? Maybe the bio media is shielding the bacteria from the toxic levels of nitrates somehow? Before the processing stopped after 30 ppm ammonia until the nitrates were reduced.


----------



## thedood

aja31 said:


> Huh... how does that fit in with the nitrates? Maybe the bio media is shielding the bacteria from the toxic levels of nitrates somehow? Before the processing stopped after 30 ppm ammonia until the nitrates were reduced.


Maybe there are small pockets of anaerobic bacteria process enough nitrate to keep the level down below toxic. In this case where we have four times the quantity as with the matrix/pumice test there is enough anaerobic bacteria to make a difference where with 250ml there is not. Just a thought.


----------



## Immortal1

Good call @thedood - had not considered the possibility of the larger volume of bio-media having a larger grouping of anaerobic bacteria.


----------



## thedood

Seachem has claimed that Matrix will reduce nitrates, they have never claimed it eliminate nitrates. It just seems to me that is a distinct possibility.


----------



## Immortal1

Well TPT, I think I am going to call this the end of Fluval Biomax - 65ppm ammonia.
The ammonia reading is 0.25ppm
The nitrite is 0.5ppm
The Nitrate is off the chart










More discussion later.


----------



## Immortal1

Been pretty much a crazy Friday today - finally getting around to working on this post.
So, it would seem 60-65ppm ammonia is a pretty crazy amount to process. I can't say it is 100% the Fluval BioMax but I have done my best to keep the plastic within the canister clean.
As for the Pumice / Matrix bio medias, I would strongly believe they would do just as well when used at a similar 1L volume. 

A simple bit of math, the Seachem Matrix bottle says 1 Liter of their product will handle 100 gallons which is roughly 10 times greater than my 10 gallons. If I take 1/10th of the 65ppm the would mean the BioMax by itself would handle 6.5ppm ammonia in a 100 gallon tank. Given the color of the ammonia tube, I would guess one could even get it up to 7.0ppm in a 100 gallon tank without much issue. And this is without adding in any other surface that could help process ammonia. 

Using the info in an earlier post on this thread regarding how much ammonia your fish produce - it would seem unlikely a normal fish keeper could ever max out 1 liter of Pumice/Matrix/BioMax in a 100 gallon tank.

So, we have learned an empty Eheim Pro II or Marineland C360 could likely handle the bioload of a 100 gallon tank, provided the fish did not generate more than 3ppm ammonia. Add in some mechanical filtration to add to the bio surface area and you very well could process 4ppm ammonia with absolutely no bio media. But, to try this you would have to be VERY careful not to disturb ANY of the bio slime during filter cleaning.

By adding a quality bio media, you are assured of being able to handle the bio load of your tank without having to worry as much when cleaning your filter. 

Now, for those "crazy" fish keepers using pot scrubbers or other crazy sounding bio media products, I would guess they are getting by because their bio load is small or they simply have enough bio slime on everything else to get by. 

I certainly have learned a lot on this crazy journey and very much thank @Lonestarbandit for twisting my arm a bit to take it on. If there is something else of similar interest I could test using the setup that I have I would be more than happy to give it a try. Of course it might have to be a little shorter test than this one as in a few months it will be too cold to do these test on the back porch 

Thank you all for following along.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Lol I didn't have to twist much @Immortal1 but I enjoyed it as well. 


Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## CowBoYReX

It was my favorite to look for daily on tapatalk. What am I to do now, lol. I think you did a very good job on this especially considering all of the variables


----------



## Immortal1

Variables - the one thing I "thought" I had complete control over when I started - boy was I wrong, LOL.

I'm sure somebody will come up with something for everybody to follow...


----------



## Leeatl

Thanks again Immortal1 for the effort . I think we all learned something or at the very least have food for thought .


----------



## theatermusic87

There is one other thing I'd love to see tested, remove the filters, plop a power head/ air stone or the like for circulation and see what the tank will process, I'm guessing only a couple days should suffice

That way we can extrapolate how much an empty filter vs full filter vs no filter will process

Other than that I'd like to say this has been over if my favorite threads to be a part of


----------



## Immortal1

@theatermusic87, I accept your challenge  Mostly because I have wondered if the bare tank would offer any processing of ammonia at all. I realize this tank is not like most of our tanks, but I have seem many bare bottom discus tanks so I guess this could have some relevance.

So, the test - using the left tank which has been running continuously since the start and has been getting regular ammonia doses, I did a 100% water change, dosed it with 1mL Prime and tested the variables. As expected, the test showed some levels of ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate. I will give it 24 hours to see if the ammonia level can hit 0.0ppm without any help. If it does, I will begin dosing ammonia.


----------



## CowBoYReX

How about an air/sponge filter?


----------



## Immortal1

CowBoYReX said:


> How about an air/sponge filter?


I may be able to do that next.


----------



## CowBoYReX

Immortal1 said:


> I may be able to do that next.


I bet you are a little tired, you should definitely take a break for a little bit lol


----------



## Immortal1

LOL, no break for me - might get bored.

As for this bare tank with just an air stone - I think I am going to have to be very gentle with this thing! Using Prime to detoxify chloramine generates ammonia (1ppm chloramine = 1ppm ammonia). Granted, this is not much ammonia but it did take about 24 hours for the tank to reduce ammonia levels back to 0.0ppm. The nitrite level is still the same as the start - 0.5ppm. Think I will add 1-2ppm ammonia today and see what tomorrows readings show. I would "hope" this tank could handle atleast 5ppm ammonia / nitrite but at this point I am not holding my breath.

I did get a little sponge filter from a local fish keeper (new). It is in the other 10 gallon tank along with both canister filters (turn over rate in this tank might be a little high.... ;-). Curious for those who have used sponge filters, if i keeping adding 10-20ppm ammonia daily to that tank, how long before the sponge filter builds up some beneficial bacterial? I do still have the bio max in one of the 2 canister filters so there is definitely a large colony of bacteria in this system - will some of it jump ship and set up house in the sponge filter I have no idea.


----------



## CowBoYReX

Immortal1 said:


> LOL, no break for me - might get bored.
> 
> As for this bare tank with just an air stone - I think I am going to have to be very gentle with this thing! Using Prime to detoxify chloramine generates ammonia (1ppm chloramine = 1ppm ammonia). Granted, this is not much ammonia but it did take about 24 hours for the tank to reduce ammonia levels back to 0.0ppm. The nitrite level is still the same as the start - 0.5ppm. Think I will add 1-2ppm ammonia today and see what tomorrows readings show. I would "hope" this tank could handle atleast 5ppm ammonia / nitrite but at this point I am not holding my breath.
> 
> I did get a little sponge filter from a local fish keeper (new). It is in the other 10 gallon tank along with both canister filters (turn over rate in this tank might be a little high.... ;-). Curious for those who have used sponge filters, if i keeping adding 10-20ppm ammonia daily to that tank, how long before the sponge filter builds up some beneficial bacterial? I do still have the bio max in one of the 2 canister filters so there is definitely a large colony of bacteria in this system - will some of it jump ship and set up house in the sponge filter I have no idea.


Should be interesting


----------



## nakeeta

oh oh oh I found science! /squee

from a purely biological standpoint, you only need a single cell of each line to find the sponge to colonize it, which means dip it in and go - and you'll have more than that from an established tank.

the real answer to the question is impossible to give. you'd have to know if your bacterial colonies are in a lag, log, or stationary phase. with your controlled dosing, your lag and log phases are probably not as much a consideration. the real consideration is if the colony is in a stationary phase. if they've completely filled the available substrate then they're not actively reproducing and simply using the new foods as you dose them, back-filling as die offs occur. the new sponge will have some lag for the initial colonization of any bacteria that find it, but again, since you're actively dosing food for them, they'll get over that and rapidly enter a log phase of growth. i would recommend either turning off the air to the sponge for the first 24 hours, or turning it down very low. colonization happens much more rapidly when the bacteria can easily attach themselves to the substrate, flow rates will inhibit that.

in practice, for aquatic bacterial cell culture lines, ~20 generations - or two weeks, will pretty much guarantee total colonization. you could test the degree of total colonization of your BioMax tank by running another ammonia limit test on it after several more generation cycles and see if it has increased, decreased, or stayed the same. if it has increased then your bacteria were still in a log phase of growth in the last test, if it has decreased then they're experiencing a lag phase (causes - numerous), if its flat then they're in a stationary phase and have completely colonized the substrate.

this could actually be a very cool experiment. (because that's just what you were looking for right? another thing to test!)
once you establish the upper limit of a well colonized sponge to metabolize ammonia, it would be possible to set up an experiment to evaluate how long it would take a brand new dipped sponge to reach that level of activity under optimum growing conditions. this would then be a very generalized guide to beneficial bacterial transfer in biomedia between two filters in the same tank.


--always fashionably late to the party.


----------



## Immortal1

@nakeeta, thanks for your input!
"you could test the degree of total colonization of your BioMax tank by running another ammonia limit test on it after several more generation cycles and see if it has increased, decreased, or stayed the same." The biggest factor I have found so far is the ammonia oxidizing bacteria seem to stop or slow down drastically once the accumulated nitrate levels reach what could be considered a toxic level. I found the bigger the water change after each test, the more ammonia I can process. Earlier in the process I was only able to process maybe 25-30ppm ammonia using a quality bio media. Once I began doing 100% water changes, I was able to push the ammonia amount to 60 ppm. 

Given the info you have provided, there are some changes I think I will be making. At the moment, the current within the tank is probably pretty high with 2 canister filters running (will fix that today). I can also begin dosing ammonia and checking results


----------



## nakeeta

that nitrate becomes a detriment is potentially not unexpected. without anything to consume the nitrate end product of the cycle it is possible the bacteria will be prevented from poisoning themselves via chemical feedback mechanisms. the mechanism will usually be dependent upon the species, and I am not any kind of specialist in chemolithotroph biology to be able to say if they have one, and if they do what the mechanism is. and really the details are moot, as you have found a water change to be a rapid solution.

the tap water could also be supplying depleted nutrients of phosphate, oxygen, and carbon.

...maybe shove a water sprite in the tank? or some other fast growing bog plant that will consume the nitrate, but wont require any other variables to be added to the experiment in order to survive. too bad there aren't very many explicit denitrifying mechanisms for nitrates that are viable on the FW nanoaquarium scale. supposedly pumice stone biomedia allows anaerobic nitrifying bacteria to live inside them even in freshwater aquariums with relatively high oxygenation, and can therefore also control nitrates as well as ammonia and nitrites. i'm pretty sure biomax is not nearly porous enough to allow for that. but honestly, i've always wondered how valid such claims are. sure they "can" house the anaerobic bacteria, but 1) will you actually get a colony to start, and 2) would they ever actually have access to enough nitrate product from the external layer of aerobic bacteria to really make a difference? the only nitrate consuming media i've found to genuinely work is NitraStrate, which i suspect is because each bead is precisely sized, allowing the different bacterial colonies to work together properly. i had actually wanted to run my current experiment with a nitrastrate tank, just to be able to compare against matrix and another generic pumice stone supplier, but i only had two spare cubes and I know the NitraStrate works, so it was a sorta superfluous control at that point.

really, who we'd need to talk to is a bioreactor scientist. they'd have the real skinny on this.
ironically, the closest thing i could find to hard information on them was the same source you found for your earlier post of red important stuff. for giggles, you might try sending off an email to bio-con. you never know! if you can get a scientist to talk about what they love, the problem wont be getting them to talk, it will be getting them to stop talking.


----------



## theatermusic87

Immortal1 said:


> LOL, no break for me - might get bored.
> 
> As for this bare tank with just an air stone - I think I am going to have to be very gentle with this thing! Using Prime to detoxify chloramine generates ammonia (1ppm chloramine = 1ppm ammonia). Granted, this is not much ammonia but it did take about 24 hours for the tank to reduce ammonia levels back to 0.0ppm. The nitrite level is still the same as the start - 0.5ppm. Think I will add 1-2ppm ammonia today and see what tomorrows readings show. I would "hope" this tank could handle atleast 5ppm ammonia / nitrite but at this point I am not holding my breath.
> 
> I did get a little sponge filter from a local fish keeper (new). It is in the other 10 gallon tank along with both canister filters (turn over rate in this tank might be a little high.... ;-). Curious for those who have used sponge filters, if i keeping adding 10-20ppm ammonia daily to that tank, how long before the sponge filter builds up some beneficial bacterial? I do still have the bio max in one of the 2 canister filters so there is definitely a large colony of bacteria in this system - will some of it jump ship and set up house in the sponge filter I have no idea.


I think if anyone has any doubt about how much bacteria was in the filter vs in the tank, this summed it up pretty well. Almost all in the filter. It'll be interesting to see how much it'll adapt, or if it even does


----------



## Immortal1

So true @theatermusic87. I finally got a 0.0ppm on nitrite and ammonia this morning. this evening dosed it back "up" to 3ppm. OMG, that is a lot, LOL Anyway, hoping within 24 hours it will be back to 0.0ppm but not holding my breath. 
Have not really tested the other tank with the sponge filter in it but have been dumping in around 15-20ppm worth of ammonia. will probably test it tomorrow and see how the nitrate level is.


----------



## Immortal1

Well I'll be! It worked. Got a 0.0ppm ammonia and nitrite tonite. Guess I will have to push a little harder tonite - say maybe 4ppm ammonia.
As for the other tank with the sponge in it, I have not really been monitoring it yet but have been feeding the tank a good supply of ammonia (roughly 20-25ppm). Will likely have to do a water change on that tank tomorrow.


----------



## Immortal1

Well, it would seem I have done it again. Slacked off a bit on my water changes on the Fluval / sponge filter tank and guess what - nitrates thru the roof / ammonia thru the roof / nitrites 0.0ppm (nothing to eat). Oh well, did 100% water change and dumped in 30ml ammonia. Should be happy by tomorrow.

As for the empty tank with just an air stone - I gave it 4ppm yesterday and today all the ammonia is gone  Unfortunately the nitrite bacteria is just not very strong yet. Will give it another 4ppm dose tonite and see what tomorrow brings.


----------



## thedood

Dejavu!!


----------



## Maryland Guppy

@Immortal1 How many API test kits been used so far???


----------



## Immortal1

Maryland Guppy said:


> @*Immortal1* How many API test kits been used so far???


Well, I think maybe 2. But I have gone thru about 1.5 gallons of ammonia


----------



## theatermusic87

Immortal1 said:


> Well, I think maybe 2. But I have gone thru about 1.5 gallons of ammonia


Wow that's alot more reagents than I really thought you'd be using, ammonia too, though I never really pictured what 30ml of ammonia per tank would do to a gallon jug. Do you have a PayPal account or something similar could donate to so you can recoup some of the costs on these experiments?


----------



## Immortal1

theatermusic87 said:


> Wow that's alot more reagents than I really thought you'd be using, ammonia too, though I never really pictured what 30ml of ammonia per tank would do to a gallon jug. Do you have a PayPal account or something similar could donate to so you can recoup some of the costs on these experiments?


Thankyou for the offer @theatermusic87 - very kind of you.
Some time back I won a really nice metering valve from @kevmo911 on a RAOK. His only request was to pay it forward. Figured this is the least I can do. Ammonia is pretty cheap (especially the crap I get) but I am still supprised how much I have gone thru already. Yes, the reagents cost a bit but oh well. Kinda pales in comparison to the value of the brand new, still in the box precision metering valve  

I certianlly have learned a lot on this journey so in a way it was worth it!


----------



## Immortal1

Good evening TPT, about as expected, did a big water change in the Fluval / sponge tank and added 30ppm last nite and today we are once again at 0.0ppm - go figure.

As for the bare tank, the 4ppm dose yesterday got me 0.0ppm ammonia and a bunch of nitrite. Looks like it will take a bit for the nitrite bacteria to do something - assuming they show up.










No waterchange tonite. Gave bare tank 4ppm ammonia and sponge tank 28ppm ammonia


----------



## Immortal1

Good evening again. Tonites results look just like the above results. Dosed 4ppm in the left tank (air stone) and 28ppm in the right tank. Only difference is I pulled 66% of the Fluval matrix from the right canister filter. Hopefully the varoius bacterial will go searching for a new home (i.e. the sponge filter).


----------



## CowBoYReX

Immortal1 said:


> Good evening again. Tonites results look just like the above results. Dosed 4ppm in the left tank (air stone) and 28ppm in the right tank. Only difference is I pulled 66% of the Fluval matrix from the right canister filter. Hopefully the varoius bacterial will go searching for a new home (i.e. the sponge filter).


I still think you are such a trooper for doing all of what you are for this experiment, so thank you. This is very interesting.


----------



## thedood

@CowBoYReX I agree. Ive gotten to know @Immortal1 a little bit and the dude is a craftsman and a class act as well. He has went way above and beyond the original goal and those who have followed this thread have benefited with some pretty cool knowledge.


----------



## Immortal1

Good evening again. Todays results look just like yesterdays results. So, I am going to continue for a little while longer with 4ppm on the bare tank to see if the nitrite bacteria ever shows up (would have thought after all these months there would have been some stuck to the glass). If I don't get a 0,0 nitrite reading, then I would have to assume the nitrite bacteria just does not like living on the glass. Would seem the ammonia bacteria is doing just fine living on the glass.

As for the sponge tank, decided to mix it up a little more. I did a water change, completely shut down the Marineland C360, and moved all but 12 pieces of BioMax to the growout filter. The 12 pieces of BioMax are now laying in the bottom of the tank, some of which are near the sponge filter. Instead of the 28ppm of ammonia, I dosed around 9ppm ammonia. Hopefully tomorrow nites tests will show the sponge filter is doing something.


----------



## Immortal1

Good evening again 
Again, the bare tank looks the same as it did in post 556 above - good on ammonia, no so much on nitrite. Guess I will give it a few more days at 4ppm ammonia.

The interesting news is the sponge filter tested out 0.0ppm on both - very nice! So, I removed all but 4 pieces of BioMax from the floor of the tank and dosed it with 11.1ppm ammonia (12mL) - will see how it does tomorrow nite.


----------



## Immortal1

Good evening again. Not much has changed on the bare tank. Gave it another 4mL dose.

The sponge filter tank did just fine so I move the dose up to 16ppm


----------



## thedood

I expect the sponge to do very well.


----------



## Immortal1

I'm thinking you are right. Will it hit 60ppm, I doubt it. 
But, what is interesting, the 1 liter of BioMax should handle 100 gallons. 
The sponge filter is designed for 20 gallons. So, in theory it should be able to handle 1/5 of 60ppm or 12ppm. Which, it handled just fine today. 
Food for thought.


----------



## Immortal1

Well, well, well. I think the bare tank is starting to come around 
Nitrite level in the bare tank is now down to 0.25ppm and ammonia is 0ppm. This might actually work (still not holding my breath). Gave it a 4ppm dose tonite.

As for the sponge filter, it handled the 16ppm just fine so tonite I gave it 20ppm (probably have to do a water change tomorrow nite)(yes, I am reminding myself)


----------



## Immortal1

Good evening again. Bare tank still at 0.25ppm nitrite and 0.0 ammonia. Gave it another 4ppm dose.
Sponge filter tank did just fine at 20ppm so I went ahead and gave it a 26ppm dose (did not change water yet - probably bit me in the ass tomorrow nite).


----------



## Immortal1

Little early tonite, buy oh well. 
Bare tank still at 0.25ppm nitrite and 0.0 ammonia. Gave it another 4ppm dose. I think this weekend will be the end of this particular test. It's not showing any improvement on the nitrite side. 

Sponge filter on the other hand is a real trooper. Yesterdays 26ppm dose was handled just fine in only 21 hours (likely less). Doing a big water change and going to 34ppm tonite (37mL ammonia)


----------



## Immortal1

Good evening TPT. Well I have to admit, I am a bit surprised. Just not sure which surprises me more?
The bare 10 gallon tank with nothing but an air stone is almost handling 4ppm ammonia!
The other 10 gallon tank with a sponge filter rated at 20 gallons just handled 34ppm ammonia!










Guess I will just have to push a little harder with that sponge filter. Seeing as I just did a 90% water change last nite, guess I will just have to jump it up to 45ppm (48.67mL ammonia)  Any bets on if it fails at that level?


----------



## thedood

I think it will handle that load just fine. Those things have a TON of surface area. Go to about any small lfs and what are they using? Sponges and there is a reason. Economical and they just work. Many times the simplest solution is the most elegant solution.


----------



## Immortal1

thedood said:


> I think it will handle that load just fine. Those things have a TON of surface area. Go to about any small lfs and what are they using? Sponges and there is a reason. Economical and they just work. Many times the simplest solution is the most elegant solution.


Agreed 80% - Ton of surface area, dead simple, economical.
But, they are a bit ugly.


----------



## Leeatl

The sponge is definitely showing why it is used so much , but I would think you would have to run 2 in a tank so one could be cleaned good every so often and then the other after the first gets going again . I run prefilter sponges on all my filters and because I have so many filters and so much media in them I just use the pre sponges for mechanical filtering and clean them good in tap water that has no chlorine in it every weekly water change .


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Don't discount the sponge filter.
I have some from the early 80's still in operation today.
Made by Tetra with green plastic tubes and such.
I have replaced the suction cups a few times though.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

I used to have one of those!!!!

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Immortal1

My favorite LFS runs sponges on most of their tanks - and they have a LOT of tanks!!! I certainly understand their benefit to the industry and as far as a LFS goes, they likely are the best option. A good friend here in town has around 35+ tanks running in his garage and they all run sponge filters. For him, the best part is the 1 air pump is on a battery backup. Power outages just don't really bother him much.

So, anyway, I am just curious / surprised how much bacteria these things can support. I will definitely have to find some way of keeping this sponge going once the experiment is done.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

The deal with the sponge & LFS.
All they need is an air pump, every tank is separate, no water contamination.
Something happens and only 1 tank is infected.
Many basement hobbyist's and breeders use them in said manner also.
Late 70's and early 80's while converting to saltwater I had one in every tank.
Always run dual sponge filter, one gets dirty rinse in tank water from a water change only.
Very effective for the nitrogen cycle.


----------



## Immortal1

@Maryland Guppy, "Very effective for the nitrogen cycle" Are you saying they are effective at reducing nitrates?


----------



## Maryland Guppy

NO3 will not decrease with a sponge filter.
Just a great means of getting NH3 to NO3 very quickly.


----------



## thedood

Immortal1 said:


> Agreed 80% - Ton of surface area, dead simple, economical.
> But, they are a bit ugly.


We agree 100%, I never claimed they look good doing it :wink2: lol


----------



## theatermusic87

Hmf sponge filters esp if you plant in them actually look pretty good.

I'm also kind of surprised that the bare tank is able to process 4pm ammonia, but that the nitrite bacteria hasn't really grown a bigger population. I say this because there has consistently been. .25ppm nitrite left, not a larger amount every dose indicating the bacteria can't keep up, and not a smaller amount indicating the bacteria are expanding and consuming more, but exactly balanced


----------



## Immortal1

Good evening TPT - another update.
The bare tank is once again at 0.25ppm nitrite. At this point I an going to pull a Jamie & Adam and say it's "busted". A glass box with nothing but an air Stone is just not going to be able to safely process the ammonia waste generated by your fish (assumed 4ppm for this test).

As for the sponge filter - I am impressed. This little thing just keeps on going. It handled 45ppm ammonia without issue. (45 + 25% = 56) - So, tonite I will dose 56ppm ammonia and see what tomorrow nite brings.


----------



## thedood

Leeatl said:


> The sponge is definitely showing why it is used so much , but I would think you would have to run 2 in a tank so one could be cleaned good every so often and then the other after the first gets going again . I run prefilter sponges on all my filters and because I have so many filters and so much media in them I just use the pre sponges for mechanical filtering and clean them good in tap water that has no chlorine in it every weekly water change .


I run prefilters as well. I clean my canisters every two or three months to swap purigen and my filter floss is still in good shape. Big time help on the maintenance schedule


----------



## thedood

Who wants to place their bets on how far the sponge will go? I'm guessing 70ppm.


----------



## Leeatl

After all these tests have shown us I would not be surprised at 70ppm...lol


----------



## Immortal1

Well guys, we will know within 24 hours ;-)

The 56ppm was handled just fine by the simple little sponge filter. So, looking at the math (56ppm + 25% = 70ppm) I just dumped in 75mL ammonia after doing a 100% water change.

One thing I have noticed with all this experimenting - when we get closer to the ragged edge of what 10 gallons of water can handle, the ammonia test starts showing a slight orange tint. It still is yellow which is 0.0ppm but the color is just a bit odd.


----------



## Immortal1

Well, well, well. Would seem @thedood and @Leeatl are pretty smart. I would have bet money on a fail at this level but it would seem the little sponge filter is likely a better bacteria host than any of the previous stuff I have tested. And to be honest, I have seen the nitrate tube look even darker red than this one. When all is said and done, I think this little guy is going to find a home in the back of my 75g.



















So, I guess the only thing left for me to do is change all the water and go for 88ppm (70ppm + 25%) which equates to 95mL of ammonia !


----------



## Leeatl

The amazing thing to me is that it is doing it on such a low flow . I guess I had better rethink how thorough I clean my intake sponges......lol One thing I can tell you is I am going to set one up in a tank so I will have instant cycle for a QT if/when I need it . If I run it in a goodly stocked 75 gal , it should have no trouble with a fish or 2 in a 10 gal .


----------



## Immortal1

Agreed! This little 20 gallon sponge filter should be more than enough for a QT tank if you run into trouble. By no means will yours have as much bacteria as the one I have, but so what - it will already be stocked with a good level of both bacterias. Throw it in a QT tank and it will likely match the ammonia load of 1 or 2 fish in less than 48 hours.


----------



## Leeatl

Forgot to say I am not that smart...just a lucky guestamate...lol After thinking about it for a bit more I wonder if the low flow is not why it is doing so well...more dwell time in contact with BB ? If we could know that for sure it may be a revolutionary new filter strategy , or not....lol


----------



## thedood

Leeatl said:


> Forgot to say I am not that smart...just a lucky guestamate...lol After thinking about it for a bit more I wonder if the low flow is not why it is doing so well...more dwell time in contact with BB ? If we could know that for sure it may be a revolutionary new filter strategy , or not....lol


I think you are correct Leeatl and I am also wondering if the sponge has the better nitrate removal over lets say matrix which the last test seems to indicate. If I had known that my guess would have been even higher, lets say 95ppm. I'm like you it was a guess but watching this experiment I figured it would be a good guess.


----------



## Immortal1

I don't know all the specifics of nitrate reducing bacteria but I almost could believe there is some in that sponge. As I stated earlier, the nitrate level is just not as high as I would have expected. 

As for the flow, I wonder if companies like Eheim have not already figured that out. Slower flow thru the filter using a higher amount of media results in better removal of ammonia and nitrite. My Eheim Pro 4+ definitely does not move as much water as the AquaTop 500 - But, it might remove more ammonia/nitrite. Eitherway, I am impressed with how well this sponge is doing on the ammonia side. I would have to say the biggest drawback would be the amount of mechanical waste it can handle. Just visually looking at it, it simply does not have the same mechanical capacity as a large canister filter.


----------



## Leeatl

Perhaps , if you are willing Immortal1 , once you max out the sponge you could drop the daily ammonia to something manageable and then monitor nitrates and see if you can determine if nitrate is being consumed . That would be of great interest to me . As far as the mechanical side goes , if a sponge can do what this one is doing then you could have a HOB or canister filled with just mech media that you can just toss when it gets worn out and wash the crap out of it at every filter cleaning or WC depending on the type of filter . Just a thought .
Oh and another thing...is this proving that a simple sponge in any config...Air driven , HOB , canister , is better than Matrix , pumice , or any of the hard media ? I am going to have to go and reread this thread and see because I suffer from CRS ........


----------



## fernselvis

This thread still so busy. I admire your ability to test so many times. It's my night mare [emoji6]. Especially no3 with api is hard


----------



## thedood

Leeatl said:


> . As far as the mechanical side goes , if a sponge can do what this one is doing then you could have a HOB or canister filled with just mech media that you can just toss when it gets worn out and wash the crap out of it at every filter cleaning or WC depending on the type of filter . Just a thought .


I can say this. I have two home built filters made of pvc. I run ati filter max sponges as a prefilter and they are filled with floss (quilt batting) and a purigen packet and flow is provided by powerheads. When I clean these things they are slimey. I run one on my 75 and it also has a marineland Magnum 350 filled with matrix. I would bet I can pull the magnum and still have plenty of filtration.

Bump:


fernselvis said:


> This thread still so busy. I admire your ability to test so many times. It's my night mare [emoji6]. Especially no3 with api is hard


@*Immortal1* is the man. Look at his builds, they are filled with diy. The dude is smart and talented.


----------



## Immortal1

Good evening from Rochester MN. Spending the nite here on business so had the wife test the sponge tank. Would seem the ammonia went back to 0.0ppm but the nitrite only made it to what looks like either 0.5 or 1.0 ppm.

So I guess the sponge filter is not limitless, but 88 ppm is pretty amazing!


----------



## Leeatl

Are you going to try to increase ammonia when you get home or just call it a day ?


----------



## Smooch

@Immortal1: Sorry to butt in, but since you like playing around with this stuff, it's you're brain I'm going to pick. Again, sorry. LOL

Aside from the usual suspects that kill off bb, what else would do it?

If I heavily cycled filter media with large doses of ammonia then placed the cycled media in my current filters, would bb be lost due to the fact that my tanks would not ( do not) have the same amount of ammonia production? 

In case you're wondering, I'm still working through my own tank issues. I'm still getting nitrates so things are working, but I can't help but wonder if something caused the cycle of each tank to be hampered or lessened. For the amounts of ammonia I'm seeing via testing, all three of my tanks should be able to handle it.


----------



## Immortal1

@Smooch, you are correct regarding transferring media from a growout condition to a tank condition. Lets say you have 1 Liter of _______ and you do as I did and grow 1,000,000 bits of bacteria on that media. Once you move that media to a different setup, the media will adjust its "bits of bacteria" to what ever the available food source will support. Yes, there will likely be a large bacteria die off if your fish can only generate enough ammonia to support 1,000 bits of bacteria. The nice thing about growing out media, is the media is now heavily stocked with both types of bacteria. If you need 1,000,000 bits and you currently only have 500,000 bits, it won't take long to get to where you need and even the slow Nitrite Oxidizing Bacteria will double in size within 18-36 hours depending on conditions.

As for what else can kill off bacteria, that one I don't know a lot about. One other thing I was going to test was using a python system to add water to your tank. Obviously you can't "treat" the incoming water as it comes in. So, the question is, how long can your sponge filter be exposed to chloramine before it has a noticeable effect on bacteria. Can I wait 2 minutes before I add Prime? Can I wait 20 minutes before I add Prime? When I first started out, I assumed the chloramine would kill *all* my bacteria on contact! I have sense learned that is just not true (many people use Python systems without issue). So, what else could effect your bacteria population? It's always present in your tank and it is always looking for food. Give it more food and it makes more copies of it self. 

One thing I did find is if the Nitrate level exceeded say 160 - 200ppm then the ammonia oxidizing bacteria just kinda went dormant. In your case, I would highly doubt your Nitrate level is that high.


----------



## Smooch

Immortal1 said:


> @Smooch, you are correct regarding transferring media from a growout condition to a tank condition. Lets say you have 1 Liter of _______ and you do as I did and grow 1,000,000 bits of bacteria on that media. Once you move that media to a different setup, the media will adjust its "bits of bacteria" to what ever the available food source will support. Yes, there will likely be a large bacteria die off if your fish can only generate enough ammonia to support 1,000 bits of bacteria. The nice thing about growing out media, is the media is now heavily stocked with both types of bacteria. If you need 1,000,000 bits and you currently only have 500,000 bits, it won't take long to get to where you need and even the slow Nitrite Oxidizing Bacteria will double in size within 18-36 hours depending on conditions.
> 
> As for what else can kill off bacteria, that one I don't know a lot about. One other thing I was going to test was using a python system to add water to your tank. Obviously you can't "treat" the incoming water as it comes in. So, the question is, how long can your sponge filter be exposed to chloramine before it has a noticeable effect on bacteria. Can I wait 2 minutes before I add Prime? Can I wait 20 minutes before I add Prime? When I first started out, I assumed the chloramine would kill *all* my bacteria on contact! I have sense learned that is just not true (many people use Python systems without issue). So, what else could effect your bacteria population? It's always present in your tank and it is always looking for food. Give it more food and it makes more copies of it self.
> 
> One thing I did find is if the Nitrate level exceeded say 160 - 200ppm then the ammonia oxidizing bacteria just kinda went dormant. In your case, I would highly doubt your Nitrate level is that high.


My tanks sit at anywhere between 7-15 ppm nitrates. I have no idea what anything lets say over 80 ppm would look like.

Maybe I need to grow some bacteria anyway. If nothing else it will serve as a experiment worth the cause. I guess I need to start looking into the causes of what kills beneficial aside from lack of oxygen, chlorine, ect...

Thanks for the help. I'll be back to pick your brain about something else I'm sure. :grin2:


----------



## Smooch

If when time permits, I found a good read about heterotrophic bacteria. It is a form of bacteria in tanks that nobody talks about. The collective we always talk about the good bacteria, not the ugly stuff.

I was lead to this article Heterotrophic Bacteria and Their Practical Application in a Freshwater Aquarium after searching for potential problems with my bio media after discovering that many of the pores of the bio max filter media I've been using for what seems like forever were completely clogged despite 'swishing' them in tank water. 3-5 years of simply swishing may or may not be the problem with my tanks.

Of course I will no replace all the bio media at once as that would be really bad, but tonight I took the liberty of changing a small amount of 1 filter in each tank. I'll see how it goes. Since I was playing with filters, I also changed the order of my filter media. I never thought how I stacked media could lead to excessive amounts of gunk collecting in places that I don't want them to. AKA: bio media.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Smooch said:


> after discovering that many of the pores of the bio max filter media I've been using for what seems like forever were completely clogged despite 'swishing' them in tank water.
> 
> Of course I will no replace all the bio media at once as that would be really bad, but tonight I took the liberty of changing a small amount of 1 filter in each tank.


Quarterly I empty my canister filters into a bucket of tank water.
Taking 1/4 of the lava rock out and cleaning in H2O2.
Rinse that 1/4 in Prime ready water and mix back in with the rest.
This ensures a good porous media for BB.
Dollar store, 32oz H2O2 = $1

Don't think replacement is required just a proper cleaning.
@Immortal1 How is the sponge holding up?


----------



## Leeatl

Smooch said:


> If when time permits, I found a good read about heterotrophic bacteria. It is a form of bacteria in tanks that nobody talks about. The collective we always talk about the good bacteria, not the ugly stuff.
> 
> I was lead to this article Heterotrophic Bacteria and Their Practical Application in a Freshwater Aquarium after searching for potential problems with my bio media after discovering that many of the pores of the bio max filter media I've been using for what seems like forever were completely clogged despite 'swishing' them in tank water. 3-5 years of simply swishing may or may not be the problem with my tanks.
> 
> Of course I will no replace all the bio media at once as that would be really bad, but tonight I took the liberty of changing a small amount of 1 filter in each tank. I'll see how it goes. Since I was playing with filters, I also changed the order of my filter media. I never thought how I stacked media could lead to excessive amounts of gunk collecting in places that I don't want them to. AKA: bio media.


From what Immortal1 has shown us you could probably run a sponge filter in a tank for a couple 3 weeks and then take all the other biomedia out and bleach it , wire brush it , until it shines , dechlor it and then put it back in and be fine...lol


----------



## Smooch

Leeatl said:


> From what Immortal1 has shown us you could probably run a sponge filter in a tank for a couple 3 weeks and then take all the other biomedia out and bleach it , wire brush it , until it shines , dechlor it and then put it back in and be fine...lol


What is the difference if I cycle new bio media for 3 weeks or a sponge filter? It has to cycle either way. Then when I was done bleaching, brushing, coaxing, and cooing at the sponge, I'd have to cycle the new bio media in order to remove the sponge.

Sounds like a lot more work to me. And since bb works at only 50% efficiency with a pH 7.0 according to the first part of the article I link to, I'm not getting anything done fast anyway.


----------



## Immortal1

Well @Maryland Guppy, well I hope 
A good friend of mine was hosting a local fish swap yesterday (Sunday) at his house (first one I can remember in this area). He asked if I had any plants to donate and of course I said yes. So, I set up one of the 10 gallon tanks with some substraight, a couple of tiny decorations, and a bunch of crypts, hygrow, water lettuce and some Alternanthera reineckii cardinalis. And of course I thru in the sponge filter as well. The setup looked pretty good but unfortunately for me I had to make a 5 hour journey North to take the youngest back to college so I missed out on the swap. Hoping to get the tank and filter back today.

With all that said - it successfully handled 70ppm ammonia which I think is absolutely amazing.

Bump:


Smooch said:


> What is the difference if I cycle new bio media for 3 weeks or a sponge filter? It has to cycle either way. Then when I was done bleaching, brushing, coaxing, and cooing at the sponge, I'd have to cycle the new bio media in order to remove the sponge.
> 
> Sounds like a lot more work to me. And since *bb works at only 50% efficiency with a pH 7.0* according to the first part of the article I link to, I'm not getting anything done fast anyway.


I am definitely going to have to read that article! If the BB I grew on the sponge (or the other media for that mater) was only working at 50% I am now curious what conditions I would need to push it to 100% LOL


----------



## Smooch

Immortal1 said:


> I am definitely going to have to read that article! If the BB I grew on the sponge (or the other media for that mater) was only working at 50% I am now curious what conditions I would need to push it to 100% LOL


If you haven't read the article by now, the optimum pH is 8.0. I'm testing that as I type this as I'm growing bacteria in a bucket.

What is the pH of the tanks you're testing in?


----------



## Immortal1

@Smooch, I am at pH 7.6 GH of 12 and KH of 6. Quad Cities Water Report


----------



## Smooch

Immortal1 said:


> @Smooch, I am at pH 7.6 GH of 12 and KH of 6. Quad Cities Water Report


Noted. I'll let you know how the 8.0 pH works out.


----------



## DiscusStu

Immortal1 said:


> Think I will test my tap water - curious what kind of reading I will get. The water company report says it is less than 10ppm. I trust there measuring system is far superior to my API kit. But, I sure would feel better if my API kit would show something lower than 20ppm out of the tap.


The regulatory limit is 10 mg/L nitrate-nitrogen which converts to 44.3 mg/L nitrate. The API test uses the latter.



Immortal1 said:


> The biggest factor I have found so far is the ammonia oxidizing bacteria seem to stop or slow down drastically once the accumulated nitrate levels reach what could be considered a toxic level. I found the bigger the water change after each test, the more ammonia I can process. Earlier in the process I was only able to process maybe 25-30ppm ammonia using a quality bio media. Once I began doing 100% water changes, I was able to push the ammonia amount to 60 ppm.


I don't think nitrate inhibits nitrification--at least not at those levels. I've had nitrate over 400 ppm and ammonia and nitrite were still zero. Nitrification consumes alkalinity and will halt if it's depleted. A water change will replenish it as will the addition of carbonate.


----------



## yaunti

So what was the final verdict on pumice,is it matrix, does it work and does ph stay down ?


----------



## yaunti

@Lonestarbandit can I use any pumice or is there a special type of pumice.


----------



## Quagulator

yaunti said:


> So what was the final verdict on pumice,is it matrix, does it work and does ph stay down ?





yaunti said:


> @Lonestarbandit can I use any pumice or is there a special type of pumice.



This thread is over 2 years old. Just letting you know


----------



## yaunti

Yes , I am aware. I didnt discover it until about a month ago and I got back into the hobby back a year ago now. @Immortal1


----------



## psychofisho

*ultrasonic cleaning of pumic/matrix*

https://www.generalpumiceproducts.com/order-here/38-size-15lb-bag-garden-pumice

Shipping to contig U.S. is free. $27 for 15 lbs, which fills about 4.25 gallons.

A gal /4L of Matrix is going for $32.76 at Amazon. 

$27 of this particular pumice equates to $131 of Matrix.

Testing shows they are comparable and both extremely effective. No definitive conclusion whether one is more effective than the other, nor by a certain percentage. Too close to call. 

Eventually all porous bio media gets clogged and lose its effectiveness. You need to replace (in small portions) or find a way to remove the internal debris (I'm thinking ultrasonic cleaner - they work magic on porous material, literally cleans from the inside out). Don't assume that 15 lb bag is too much, the extra quantity will encourage you to replace your media regularly rather than delaying. Or split the cost with fishy friends. 


Gratitude to *Immortal1* for all the testing and reporting back in 2016.


----------



## Immortal1

yaunti said:


> Yes , I am aware. I didnt discover it until about a month ago and I got back into the hobby back a year ago now. @*Immortal1*





psychofisho said:


> https://www.generalpumiceproducts.com/order-here/38-size-15lb-bag-garden-pumice
> 
> Shipping to contig U.S. is free. $27 for 15 lbs, which fills about 4.25 gallons.
> 
> A gal /4L of Matrix is going for $32.76 at Amazon.
> 
> $27 of this particular pumice equates to $131 of Matrix.
> 
> Testing shows they are comparable and both extremely effective. No definitive conclusion whether one is more effective than the other, nor by a certain percentage. Too close to call.
> 
> Eventually all porous bio media gets clogged and lose its effectively. You need to replace (in small portions) or find a way to remove the internal debris (I'm thinking ultrasonic cleaner - they work magic on porous material, literally cleans from the inside out). Don't think that 15 lb bag is too much, the extra will encourage you to replace your media regularly rather than delaying.


 @yaunti - what we were using in the test was pumice that had been sorted to a 3/8" size with the fines removed (if I remember correctly). The color of the pumice was a bit different that the Matrix product but as far as I could tell, for our purposes they were the same. 



As psycofisho stated above, eventually porous bio media does get clogged. How long that takes has too many variables to define. For me, my canister filter is set up in such a way that all of the mechanical filtration happens before water reaches the bio media. Given that you can get 15# for $27 - you should have enough to outlast your interest in the hobby  (i.e. - many many years).


----------



## apastuszak

This is the thread that keeps on giving it seems. I read a good 20 pages into this thread and then went ahead and ordered the pumice from the recommended vendor.

So the question I have now, for anyone who has used pumice stone long term in their filter, did they see the denitrification that Seachem claims Matrix can do.

Has anyone who is using Matrix seen denitrification?


----------



## Bucho

Any updated sources for the pumice? The vendor listed in the thread, is no more... Ebay and Amazon listings are slim pickings these days.


----------



## somewhatshocked

Bumping this thread up because there have been a few discussions on this front over the past several weeks.

Give it a read if you're looking for a cheaper alternative to Matrix.


----------



## Bucho

somewhatshocked said:


> Give it a read if you're looking for a cheaper alternative to Matrix.


I'd love to, but given the sad state of commodities lately, I'm not really finding these economical sources to be all that apparent. Historically, yes. Currently, not so much.

That's my entry point to the discussion.


----------



## somewhatshocked

Bucho said:


> I'd love to, but given the sad state of commodities lately, I'm not really finding these economical sources to be all that apparent. Historically, yes. Currently, not so much.
> 
> That's my entry point to the discussion.


I bought a 5gal bucket of it from a local garden center two weekends ago for $8. Bonsai shop wanted about $40 for the same amount - and even that's about $3 million cheaper than a similar volume of Matrix.

Start poking around locally. Some florists have wholesale suppliers that offer it.


----------

