What do bio balls do???
- Thread starter asharp13
- Start date
florida joe
Well-Known Member
they are inefficient surface area for aerobic bacteria to grow on
This is absolutely wrong. My good friend reef did you mean “they are an efficient media for nitrification to take place
can i drop bioballs under the gray box (sponge filter media)? will this do anything?
put them in on the left where your influent water is coming in
This is absolutely wrong. My good friend reef did you mean “they are an efficient media for nitrification to take place
can i drop bioballs under the gray box (sponge filter media)? will this do anything?
put them in on the left where your influent water is coming in
florida joe
Well-Known Member
Yes
florida joe
Well-Known Member
Any form of filtration is good, providing you understand it and take care of it proper.
From your mouth to hobbyists ears
stanlalee
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefkprZ
http:///forum/post/3131098
they are inefficient surface area for aerobic bacteria to grow on.
nothing inefficient with their aerobic functioning.
http:///forum/post/3131098
they are inefficient surface area for aerobic bacteria to grow on.
nothing inefficient with their aerobic functioning.
reefkprz
Active Member
I call it innefficient because of the surface area avaiable for the square inch of space consumed. you can pack more surface area in the same square inches with rock rubble. I'm not saying the bacteria is inefficient. I'm saying its more of a waste of space that alternative methods. they definatly work, and I'm not one of those stooges that think they cause nitrate explosions, any imporoperly maintained equiment will cause problems.
BUT IMO you can get more valuable surface area out of the same space my using rock rubble as opposed to bioballs. hence inefficient when compared to the amount of surface area you can contaijn in the same space.
maybe I should have been clearer on that. as stanalee seems to think i was calling the bacteria inneficient, i have said some ignorant things in my time but thats not what I meant to imply. sorry for the confusion.
I'll reiterate, They are inneficient SURFACE AREA for bacteria to grow on, you can get more SURFACE AREA by using rock as opposed to bioballs in the same amount of space. thus improving the efficiency of the utilization of that same amount of space.
BUT IMO you can get more valuable surface area out of the same space my using rock rubble as opposed to bioballs. hence inefficient when compared to the amount of surface area you can contaijn in the same space.
maybe I should have been clearer on that. as stanalee seems to think i was calling the bacteria inneficient, i have said some ignorant things in my time but thats not what I meant to imply. sorry for the confusion.
I'll reiterate, They are inneficient SURFACE AREA for bacteria to grow on, you can get more SURFACE AREA by using rock as opposed to bioballs in the same amount of space. thus improving the efficiency of the utilization of that same amount of space.
srfisher17
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefkprZ
http:///forum/post/3132368
I call it innefficient because of the surface area avaiable for the square inch of space consumed. you can pack more surface area in the same square inches with rock rubble. I'm not saying the bacteria is inefficient. I'm saying its more of a waste of space that alternative methods. they definatly work, and I'm not one of those stooges that think they cause nitrate explosions, any imporoperly maintained equiment will cause problems.
BUT IMO you can get more valuable surface area out of the same space my using rock rubble as opposed to bioballs. hence inefficient when compared to the amount of surface area you can contaijn in the same space.
maybe I should have been clearer on that. as stanalee seems to think i was calling the bacteria inneficient, i have said some ignorant things in my time but thats not what I meant to imply. sorry for the confusion.
I'll reiterate, They are inneficient SURFACE AREA for bacteria to grow on, you can get more SURFACE AREA by using rock as opposed to bioballs in the same amount of space. thus improving the efficiency of the utilization of that same amount of space.
I agree with the surface area idea; However, bio-balls are much easier to rinse (never scrub them) than LR rubble. Rubble can easily become clogged with detritus under many circumstances. A good pre-filter can solve this problem. BTW, SeaChem sells an excellent natural substitute for rubble in several sizes (Matrix et al). With proper flow, it will even help with nitrate.
http:///forum/post/3132368
I call it innefficient because of the surface area avaiable for the square inch of space consumed. you can pack more surface area in the same square inches with rock rubble. I'm not saying the bacteria is inefficient. I'm saying its more of a waste of space that alternative methods. they definatly work, and I'm not one of those stooges that think they cause nitrate explosions, any imporoperly maintained equiment will cause problems.
BUT IMO you can get more valuable surface area out of the same space my using rock rubble as opposed to bioballs. hence inefficient when compared to the amount of surface area you can contaijn in the same space.
maybe I should have been clearer on that. as stanalee seems to think i was calling the bacteria inneficient, i have said some ignorant things in my time but thats not what I meant to imply. sorry for the confusion.
I'll reiterate, They are inneficient SURFACE AREA for bacteria to grow on, you can get more SURFACE AREA by using rock as opposed to bioballs in the same amount of space. thus improving the efficiency of the utilization of that same amount of space.
I agree with the surface area idea; However, bio-balls are much easier to rinse (never scrub them) than LR rubble. Rubble can easily become clogged with detritus under many circumstances. A good pre-filter can solve this problem. BTW, SeaChem sells an excellent natural substitute for rubble in several sizes (Matrix et al). With proper flow, it will even help with nitrate.
reefkprz
Active Member
Originally Posted by srfisher17
http:///forum/post/3132397
I agree with the surface area idea; However, bio-balls are much easier to rinse (never scrub them) than LR rubble. Rubble can easily become clogged with detritus under many circumstances. A good pre-filter can solve this problem. BTW, SeaChem sells an excellent natural substitute for rubble in several sizes (Matrix et al). With proper flow, it will even help with nitrate.
agreed, and as the op shows in his diagram he/she has sponge media filtration above where he wants to place the bioballs, this should help negate clogging (not eliminate). with any bio matrix materials proper cleaning will prevent accumulation of detritus and compounding of nitrates. this also goes along with what posiden said about undestanding and maintaining your filtration.
http:///forum/post/3132397
I agree with the surface area idea; However, bio-balls are much easier to rinse (never scrub them) than LR rubble. Rubble can easily become clogged with detritus under many circumstances. A good pre-filter can solve this problem. BTW, SeaChem sells an excellent natural substitute for rubble in several sizes (Matrix et al). With proper flow, it will even help with nitrate.
agreed, and as the op shows in his diagram he/she has sponge media filtration above where he wants to place the bioballs, this should help negate clogging (not eliminate). with any bio matrix materials proper cleaning will prevent accumulation of detritus and compounding of nitrates. this also goes along with what posiden said about undestanding and maintaining your filtration.
florida joe
Well-Known Member
I call it innefficient because of the surface area avaiable for the square inch of space consumed. you can pack more surface area in the same square inches with rock rubble.
One gallon of Coralife Bio-Balls has a surface area of approximately 21-1/2 square feet. Rock in any form is not even in the same league
One gallon of Coralife Bio-Balls has a surface area of approximately 21-1/2 square feet. Rock in any form is not even in the same league
reefkprz
Active Member
Originally Posted by florida joe
http:///forum/post/3132449
One gallon of Coralife Bio-Balls has a surface area of approximately 21-1/2 square feet. Rock in any form is not even in the same league
correct LR has far more surface area. even plastic pot scrubbies have more surface area per gallon than that of bioballs, they just are far more difficult to clean effectivly.
I think this is a point we shall have to agree to dissagree on. I believe LR to have superior surface area over bioballs.
I think we can both agree that bio balls are very easy to clean where other media may not be as easy to effectively "unclog".
http:///forum/post/3132449
One gallon of Coralife Bio-Balls has a surface area of approximately 21-1/2 square feet. Rock in any form is not even in the same league
correct LR has far more surface area. even plastic pot scrubbies have more surface area per gallon than that of bioballs, they just are far more difficult to clean effectivly.
I think this is a point we shall have to agree to dissagree on. I believe LR to have superior surface area over bioballs.
I think we can both agree that bio balls are very easy to clean where other media may not be as easy to effectively "unclog".
florida joe
Well-Known Member
correct LR has far more surface area.
Reef look at the bio ball how can you possibly think a piece of rock the same size has the same surface area?
Reef look at the bio ball how can you possibly think a piece of rock the same size has the same surface area?
reefkprz
Active Member
joe simply because a piece of rock has far more solid of a build with very small pores, instead of wide open gaps. all the air gaps present in a bio ball is semi solid on rock providing surface area in the place there are gaps (nothing)on a bioball. I feel that you may be only construing the outer surface area of rock and not considering the porosity as internal surface area.
If you were to go surface area by weight then bio balls would be supirior as they are very light but IMO surface area by volume LR wins hands down.
If you were to go surface area by weight then bio balls would be supirior as they are very light but IMO surface area by volume LR wins hands down.
florida joe
Well-Known Member
.A cubic foot of bio-balls has a surface area of 160 square feet.
Bio-balls possess much greater surface area per pound than live rock as per my phone call to mote marine laboratories
But we are talking about surface area where we can establish colonies of nitrifying bacteria for these colonies to form with in the rock as you are stating they would have to be feed nutrients through advection and have oxygenation achieved the same way IMO 99 percent of your nitrification is achieved on the surface area and again IMO there is more surface area on bio ball then there in on rock.
BTW it is always a pleasure to cross swards with you my good old friend
Bio-balls possess much greater surface area per pound than live rock as per my phone call to mote marine laboratories
But we are talking about surface area where we can establish colonies of nitrifying bacteria for these colonies to form with in the rock as you are stating they would have to be feed nutrients through advection and have oxygenation achieved the same way IMO 99 percent of your nitrification is achieved on the surface area and again IMO there is more surface area on bio ball then there in on rock.
BTW it is always a pleasure to cross swards with you my good old friend
salty blues
Active Member
OK, allow me to throw a wrench into the works here. Concerning the issue of which media is easier to clean, in the case of live rock, why would you want to clean it at all. I don't clean the live rock in my DT, so why would I want to clean LR/rubble in my sump?