I added some additional LR about a month ago and i have noticed a rise of nitrates from 0 to 20. The one thing i did start doing when i bought the rick is adding DT's phytoplankton. Do you thing this could be the cause? I don't have any corals I am adding it mainly for some sponges and dusters on the rock. [/i]
nitrate rise
- Thread starter tsdid
- Start date
Nitrate is the natural result of nitrification. Unless you have something that disallows initial breakdown of nitrogenous wastes in significant proportions or some means of denitrification, you will see a rise in nitrates.
Even if the rock is already cured, you should expect a degree of die-off, this, I would guess, is the most likely reason for the rise in nitrate levels. I suggest doing one or two large (40%-50% or more) water changes to bring it back down and see if it comes up again. If so, then you may have something more going on.
Unless you're feeding an exorbitant amount of phyto, I would not initially suspect that as the root cause.
Do you skim, or use a refugium? Those are two possible solutions to consider if you do not already utilize.
Even if the rock is already cured, you should expect a degree of die-off, this, I would guess, is the most likely reason for the rise in nitrate levels. I suggest doing one or two large (40%-50% or more) water changes to bring it back down and see if it comes up again. If so, then you may have something more going on.
Unless you're feeding an exorbitant amount of phyto, I would not initially suspect that as the root cause.
Do you skim, or use a refugium? Those are two possible solutions to consider if you do not already utilize.
It is hard to pinpoint a cause based on that amount of information. Other factors could include:
- dieoff from the rock (likely) - How well was it cured?
- How long the tank has been running
- Protein Skimmer - type, tuning, and rating compared with size of system
- Other foods added
- quality of water used for top-off and seawater mixing
- bioload - amount of waste generating organisms
- other animal dieoff such as fish or inverts
- other unknown variables
- dieoff from the rock (likely) - How well was it cured?
- How long the tank has been running
- Protein Skimmer - type, tuning, and rating compared with size of system
- Other foods added
- quality of water used for top-off and seawater mixing
- bioload - amount of waste generating organisms
- other animal dieoff such as fish or inverts
- other unknown variables
I have had the tank running for 9 months now, I have 5 fish 2 cardinals and 2 clown, and a scooter blenny. I use RODI water with reef crystals. I have a protien skimmer rated for a 75 gallon, and a wetdry filter. I am in the process of building a fuge. As for inverts i have 5 hermits, 1 serpent star, 4 snails, and a BT anemone. Previously I had about 30 lbs if LR and I bumped it up to 55 so I added 25lbs. Even thought I don't have a fuge right now I use caulerpa in the tank to help with nitrates.
Yes, I think they are probably rising because of the addition of the live rock. Live rock can have a good amount of die-off when it is transported, like seamaiden said. That is probably what you are experiencing. But its no big deal, it'll pass.
But I would still get rid of the bio-balls. IMO they are not necessary in a reasonably stocked aquarium and often do more harm than good.
But I would still get rid of the bio-balls. IMO they are not necessary in a reasonably stocked aquarium and often do more harm than good.
i guess the next question i have is when you add benificail bacteria (LR) it will try to reach equilibrium right? the only things i have added since then are a scooter blenny and a BTA. so should my bioload be close to what i had before and will the same amount of nitrates be created from the bacterial as was before the rock and additions
Thanks
Thanks
Ok, now this is something that has never made sense to me, the idea of bioballs increasing nitrate levels.
Nitrate is the necessary end of the oxidation/conversion process of ammonia (nitrogenous waste). If you have ammonia, and you will, it must be converted. The natural process first creates nitrite, then nitrate. It doesn't matter on what medium this is done, it must be accomplished.
How would the medium itself contribute to an increase the nitrate when you're working with a given quantity of ammonia to start? It can't. What you need is either to reduce the amount of ammonia (nitrogenous wastes) available for conversion in the first place OR denitrification (via those nifty little anaerobic bacteria that exist deep within live rock). Better yet, in my opinion, have available in the system those organisms that utilize unconverted ammonia/nitrogenous waste directly. The issue I have with something like bioballs is that they don't have a surface that keeps the beneficial benthics safe from being accidentally washed off. They also don't have "deep tissues" where denitrifyers can live.
In my opinion a 40gal. is small for a BTA.
As for the last question regarding the "addition" of beneficial bacteria, you must remember that in order for them to exist there must be sufficient food. In other words there will only be as much bacteria available to perform conversion as there is waste available for them to convert. Change that balance, or do something that harm these (benthic) bacteria, and you will see a change in your readings.
You did change the bioload with the addition of the blenny and anemone, and something that seems small to you is big in a system as small as 40 gallons. Also, if the LR was ever moved out of the water you simply must expect that some organisms were damaged such that they ultimately did not survive.
So, how far off are the readings? How long have you been maintaining a presumed zero level of nitrate? Are you certain of your test's reliability? And have you changed anything else?
Do the water changes I suggested, test immediately afterwards. Then give it some time, test again and see what happens. If the nitrate went down after the water change, then came back up, your live rock isn't performing the denitrification that one would hope for. Converting the sump to a 'fuge and adding macroalgae that will consume wastes before conversion will do a great deal to eliminate this problem, should it prove to be one.
Nitrate is the necessary end of the oxidation/conversion process of ammonia (nitrogenous waste). If you have ammonia, and you will, it must be converted. The natural process first creates nitrite, then nitrate. It doesn't matter on what medium this is done, it must be accomplished.
How would the medium itself contribute to an increase the nitrate when you're working with a given quantity of ammonia to start? It can't. What you need is either to reduce the amount of ammonia (nitrogenous wastes) available for conversion in the first place OR denitrification (via those nifty little anaerobic bacteria that exist deep within live rock). Better yet, in my opinion, have available in the system those organisms that utilize unconverted ammonia/nitrogenous waste directly. The issue I have with something like bioballs is that they don't have a surface that keeps the beneficial benthics safe from being accidentally washed off. They also don't have "deep tissues" where denitrifyers can live.
In my opinion a 40gal. is small for a BTA.
As for the last question regarding the "addition" of beneficial bacteria, you must remember that in order for them to exist there must be sufficient food. In other words there will only be as much bacteria available to perform conversion as there is waste available for them to convert. Change that balance, or do something that harm these (benthic) bacteria, and you will see a change in your readings.
You did change the bioload with the addition of the blenny and anemone, and something that seems small to you is big in a system as small as 40 gallons. Also, if the LR was ever moved out of the water you simply must expect that some organisms were damaged such that they ultimately did not survive.
So, how far off are the readings? How long have you been maintaining a presumed zero level of nitrate? Are you certain of your test's reliability? And have you changed anything else?
Do the water changes I suggested, test immediately afterwards. Then give it some time, test again and see what happens. If the nitrate went down after the water change, then came back up, your live rock isn't performing the denitrification that one would hope for. Converting the sump to a 'fuge and adding macroalgae that will consume wastes before conversion will do a great deal to eliminate this problem, should it prove to be one.
seamaiden":20dusavb said:
Not true.
It is the end process when the media to break it down contains no anaerobic capacity to process nitrates (such as bio balls).
Bio balls rapidly break down ammonia waste into nitrate, but does nothing to remove nitrate. It is in that sense that they "increase" nitrate levels. A more well-rounded biological filtration (such as live rock) will break down ammonia all the way, without any significant increase in measureable nitrates. Using bioballs prevents the healthier biological systems from establishing themselves.
PitPat":3k9psfeg said:
You need to think about nitrification and denitrification. Denitrificatication takes place in anaerobic areas of which there are none in the usual bioball setup. One of the reasons sand beds became popular was because they are very good at denitrification - however they are not the only way to skin that cat. I don't know if I agree that bioballs prevent other biological systems from establishing themselves, and it may be the case that they just can sometimes produce a whole lot of nitrate.
tsdid,
I would cut off the DT's. I don't really see it being beneficial to anything in your tank, so I just floats around till it rots.
tsdid":1keo5380 said:
I don't understand the question, do you mean beneficial sandbed organisms like worms, or beneficial bacteria? Neither star nor blenny should have an impact on beneficial bacteria which is what breaks down waste if that is what you were asking.
If it was in regards to beneficial worms (that help keep a DSB from compacting etc), sifting stars scrounge for food in the sand, as do scooters. Both require a large amount of sand AFAIK to get enough nutrition and I'd imagine in a smaller tank they might impact the number of larvae of beneficial worms and other critters.
Depends on the depth of the sand, if it is a true DSB he shouldn't disturb the lower layers where denitrification occurs. The reason those that keep a DSB like to have lots of critters running around in it is so the sand doesn't compact-which would negatively impact the biolfilter. But again, how deep is the bed, and how much does he sift?
Here is the first in a great series of articles on DSBs, and how they function. Understanding why and how they work can save a lot of frustration down the road.
http://www.wetwebmedia.com/deepsandbeds.htm
Here is the first in a great series of articles on DSBs, and how they function. Understanding why and how they work can save a lot of frustration down the road.
http://www.wetwebmedia.com/deepsandbeds.htm
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
