Totally Aerobic Nitrogen Cycle

[Jason McKenzie]

OK Lets not attack the messenger. This was newage's fears come true.
Lets talk about what failed in your test Big Wally and we will see what comes of it. I feel this type of new thinking is important to the evolution of reefing. So lets discus and not be confrontational.

Thanks

Originally Posted by Big Wally B

I do not use the word loosely. Although I am an engineer, (electrical) I can be naive about chemisty in the hopes of defeating entropy. I have tried Tri-based Pelletized Carbon and the Right Now Bacteria, yada yada. My tank followed the normal cycle and after a year I thru all of it away. This is my experience. Take it for $.02. Sorry if I offended anyone, except the charlatan.

[newagereefer]

Originally Posted by Jason McKenzie

Sound very Zeovitian. elements are very similar

http://www.wetwebmedia.com/ca/cav1i3...tem/zeovit.htm

Jason

Actually, this system is very different from Zeovit.
Based on the info provide on the web site.
Please correct me if I am wrong.

Zeovit still use a skimmer, ca reactor and zeovit reactor
Zeovit use activated carbon that have to be replace very 30 days.
I count at lest 5 elements that need to be dose very week, may be more
Zeovit's bacteria need to be replace after every exchange of Zeoliths
You have to dose ZEOfood 7 for the Zeovits' bacteria.
The web site did not mention how long the cycle time was, so I am assuming its a regular nitrogen cycle of 28 days.

This system that I am testing
Does not use skimmer, or any kind of reactor
Tri-base carbon only need to replace every 2-5 year if it is kept clean
All trace element are from the pH rock and sea lab trace element blox #28
RN bacteria only need to be add one time. An optional boost can be add every six month or so.
Food for the bacteria comes from left over food for the fish and fish waste, or dead fish or coral.
Tank can be cycled in 24 hours

Again, please correct me if I am wrong.

[newagereefer]

Originally Posted by Jason McKenzie

OK Lets not attack the messenger. This was newage's fears come true.
Lets talk about what failed in your test Big Wally and we will see what comes of it. I feel this type of new thinking is important to the evolution of reefing. So lets discus and not be confrontational.

Thanks

I don't think I been attack here, but I am sure everyone would like to know what failed in big Wally's case.

Take Zeovit for example, I know people who use Zeovit with great success, I mean the tank is like Wow, that looks awesome. But its very long process and a lots work need to put in to get that kind of result. I also know people who have tried Zeovit and claim it didn't work for them.

[inwall75]

My time is VERY limited right now and will remain so until April 15th. However, I will pop in as time allows.

I think that comparing this system to Zeovit will result in confusion for all involved. Discussing Zeovit on a different thread seems to be the best approach IMO. However, it's your choice how to proceed with the thread.

With all of the above stated, I'm NOT in favor of skimmerless reef tanks unless you are specializing in filthy water corals like goniopora, xenia, zoanthids, etc. There are MANY things that a protein skimmer can remove from a tank that no bacterium ever will (nor is able to). With that said, my mantis nanos (which contain softies too) have typically been skimmerless.

Activated Carbon serves a purpose. Many organics are adsorbed to it. The smell goes away...the yellowness of the water goes away so your lights can penetrate further, etc. IMO, once the carbon becomes a biofilter, it's time to throw it out because the transport pores and adsorption pores are no longer useful. Your method is quite different because it promotes utilizing the Carbon as a biofilter due to it's porosity as opposed to using carbon for it's normal purpose. I partially see where you are going here (I think). I've not seen any Molasses numbers, Angstrom numbers, etc. on this carbon so I cannot praise it nor express doubt in it's effectiveness....especially because it appears to not be used as carbon in this system....it's being used primarily for surface area in my estimation. However, I merely glanced over the web page and my initial thoughts could be completely wrong.

EDIT: Since the carbon is IMO being used for biofilter purposes, how does this system remove tannins and other gelbstoff?

[Rungeg]

This system, looking strictly at the setup, is doomed for failure with time. Unless you totally remove all of the rock and carbon, there will be a build up of detrius, and other bio mass in both chambers, too big and too much for any bacteria, kind of like a dsb crash with time. The only way I see to avoid a potential disaster down the road, is to put a skimmer in line before either chambers.

[Rungeg]

Many other/easier ways to acheive better filtration, but to each his own.

[Blade_Runner]

OK, I've read all of the above and am still shaking my head. For the sake of discussion purposes I've got some "random" comments. By no means are any of my comments intended to "attack" the messenger. The system is up and running and doing well for him. Since he doesn't work for the manufacturer, he has no "profit" in this.

The first thing I did was Google “right now bacteria”. Here is the manufacturer’s site.

http://www.hdltd.com/technical/t_24hour.html

Much seems to depend on the properties of the RN bacteria. The manufacturer states that it is a blend of naturally occurring bacteria. Granted RN can be composed with multiple bacterial strains and they may have stumbled onto a strain that can aerobically complete the last leg of the cycle. It was also mentioned that Nitrate and Nitrite move back and forth. I know of no natural process where Nitrate and Nitrite move back and forth. Nor is it mentioned in the manufacture’s write up. I really question that statement.

TriCarbon seems a little hokey to me. The stated purpose of the TriCarbon is to provide increased surface area for the bacteria to populate not as a chemical filter media. As a long term user of fluidized beds, I'm not wild about the thought of using carbon for that purpose. Further, bacteria really are not so small as to require some special TriCarbon. If you look at fluidized beds, you will find most use very fine silica sand. It doesn't clog and provides massive amounts of surface area. If RN works, it should be just fine in a traditional fluidized bed unless it is somehow utilizing carbon in an internal digestive process. BTW, I've got OLD fluidized beds running on 2 of my tanks. They almost never need to be changed. String a couple Rainbow Lifeguard 900s in line and you can build huge bases for aerobic biologic filtration capable of handling all but the largest of systems. Just seed them with the RN.

The first 2 aerobic processes seem pretty straight forward. It is the 3rd that get me. Supposedly they have a strain that works aerobically with carbon to reduce nitrate to N2 and O2. If so, that is news to almost all reefers’ out there. I know of no bacteria able to do this aerobically. Just look at all of the denitrifies out there. They are 100% anaerobic. I have my doubts, but don’t claim to know all. I’ve learned the hard way not to listen to a single manufacturer’s claims.

As a side effect/benefit the bacterial process produces carbonic acid reducing the ph allowing it to be used as a "natural" calcium reactor. I didn’t find this in the manufacturer’s notes. As we know, this requires reducing the ph to 7.7 or less with the best results around 7.2. Based upon my understanding of the plumbing diagram, this seems to be a rather high flow area to be doing this in. I rather doubt that the bacteria is processing that much carbon rapidly enough to be of any benefit in quickly reducing the ph. It would have to happen over time. Wouldn't that also reduce the ph in the tank to unacceptably low levels? It was also mentioned that the return should be above the water level to allow the CO2 to gas off. Again, from a high flow area? This whole process strikes me as a little odd.

Based on the above rationales, this system seems to rely on RN to provide all of the basic filtration and when used with an available carbon supply can handle the whole cycle aerobically. I also question not using a skimmer. Even the manufacturer mentioned using a skimmer. IMO, not having a skimmer on any marine tank is just unnecessarily flirting with disaster. I see no benefit to eliminating this valuable piece of equipment.

I’m interested in hearing about the long term results, but for now I’m going to stay with a more traditional system.

Thanks for the interesting write up.

[newagereefer]

Originally Posted by inwall75

I'm NOT in favor of skimmerless reef tanks unless you are specializing in filthy water corals like goniopora, xenia, zoanthids, etc. There are MANY things that a protein skimmer can remove from a tank that no bacterium ever will (nor is able to)......

This is true for a regular setup system but with this setup the RN bacteria gets rid it of just about anything include oil. I use Teflon paste and Vaseline on all threads in the PVC where no one is dare to use it in aquarium setup, why? Because the RN bacteria will eat the oil in Teflon paste and Vaseline if it ever get in to the water.

Your analysis is partly correct on the carbon. Once the carbon becomes a bio-filter we don't throw it out we BACK FLUSH IT! By back flush the filter chamber it get rid of detritus, and other bio mass in both chamber. The transport pores and adsorption pores become CLEAN again, some bacteria will be kill during the back flush but not all them. Once the filter is back to normal operation the bacteria will quickly re-colonize, plus you always add a little pinch of new bacteria to the water if you so desire.

[quote=Rungeg]
This system, looking strictly at the setup, is doomed for failure with time. Unless you totally remove all of the rock and carbon, there will be a build up of detritus, and other bio mass in both chambers....[quote]

So you see Rungeg your statement on how this system will fail in time is complete wrong, we have build a cleaning system in to each tank so the chambers can be clean without even getting you hands wet.

The tri-base carbon was original develop to use with the RN bacteria for environmental use not aquarium, we simple adapted to use in aquarium because how will it clean up water when use in environmental issues. The tri-base carbon has a very strong adsorption rate it can last a very long time, long after all the other carbon have failed.

Keep in mind this is still a work in progress, many things have been and continue to be refine as we work to prefect the system.

The 220 gallon I am working on now just have the back flush installed and I perform the first back flush yesterday. I'll post some pics later on today so you can see how the back flush system works.

[newagereefer]

Originally Posted by Blade_Runner

Much seems to depend on the properties of the RN bacteria. The manufacturer states that it is a blend of naturally occurring bacteria. Granted RN can be composed with multiple bacterial strains and they may have stumbled onto a strain that can aerobically complete the last leg of the cycle. It was also mentioned that Nitrate and Nitrite move back and forth. I know of no natural process where Nitrate and Nitrite move back and forth. Nor is it mentioned in the manufacture’s write up. I really question that statement....

I know of no bacteria able to do this aerobically. Just look at all of the denitrifies out there. They are 100% anaerobic. I have my doubts, but don’t claim to know all. I’ve learned the hard way not to listen to a single manufacturer’s claims.

First, you are right all denitrifies are 100% anaerobic on the market today. This is the only 100% true aerobic process available. It took the person (not me) 11 years of R&D to find the strain of bacterias to do this, he has the U.S. Patent to profs the process does work.

Second, nitrate and nitrites does move back and forth, depend on how the compound is been move by the bacteria, this was explained to me by the person we invented this process.

Originally Posted by blade_runner

As a side effect/benefit the bacterial process produces carbonic acid reducing the ph allowing it to be used as a "natural" calcium reactor. I didn’t find this in the manufacturer’s notes. As we know, this requires reducing the ph to 7.7 or less with the best results around 7.2. Based upon my understanding of the plumbing diagram, this seems to be a rather high flow area to be doing this in. I rather doubt that the bacteria is processing that much carbon rapidly enough to be of any benefit in quickly reducing the ph. It would have to happen over time. Wouldn't that also reduce the ph in the tank to unacceptably low levels? It was also mentioned that the return should be above the water level to allow the CO2 to gas off. Again, from a high flow area? This whole process strikes me as a little odd.

This whole process is odd, it is not your normal every day science. The pH is very low come out of the first filter where the carbon is, that is why the filter with the pH rock is place right after so that low ph water react with the pH rock to buffer the pH back up to above 8 for marine tank. If you were to use for fresh water tank, you won't need the second filter with pH rock. All of these process happened in a high flow area you are correct, but not that high. The flow rate can not be over 10X an hour.

One other thing, by place the return above the water you can see how fast the water is coming out. When the filter start to clod up, the water will slow down. You'll know its time to clean the filter and perform a back flush. If you place the return under water, you will not know the flow rate has slow down, because you CAN'T see it.

Originally Posted by blade_runner

Based on the above rationales, this system seems to rely on RN to provide all of the basic filtration and when used with an available carbon supply can handle the whole cycle aerobically. I also question not using a skimmer. Even the manufacturer mentioned using a skimmer. IMO, not having a skimmer on any marine tank is just unnecessarily flirting with disaster. I see no benefit to eliminating this valuable piece of equipment.

You can still use the skimmer if that make you feel better, but you will find out over time, the skimmer will not function properly, because there is no protein in the water to skim.

[Rungeg]

For the sake of the hobby I hope that this miracle strain of bacteria, that lowers pH, converts Nitrates, and eats oil does exist, that would be great. If you back wash your system, you will have to add a large amount, not a pinch of bacteria, as it too will be backwashed. Like I said I hope it works, just in my nature to be skeptical without a wide range of unbiased test results. That being said I am not going to spend the extra money, or take the risk, when you can acheive the same thing with less effort, and less money.