⚠️ This forum has been restored as a read-only archive so the knowledge shared by the community over many years remains available. New registrations and posting are disabled.

All times are UTC + 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 150 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Oct 9th, '13, 14:54 
Bordering on Legend
Bordering on Legend
User avatar

Joined: Oct 30th, '12, 06:01
Posts: 351
Gender: Male
Are you human?: plant
Location: UK Somerset
Another consideration is the bacteria colony coating the pebbles...... in a Flood and Drain scenario the water flushing the pebbles will allow the build up of biofilm that ultimately will considerably cover a bigger surface area than CF.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
    Advertisement
 
PostPosted: Oct 9th, '13, 22:06 
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Aug 26th, '10, 07:17
Posts: 9104
Gender: Male
Are you human?: YES
Location: Oregon, USA
bioaquafarm wrote:
Another consideration is the bacteria colony coating the pebbles...... in a Flood and Drain scenario the water flushing the pebbles will allow the build up of biofilm that ultimately will considerably cover a bigger surface area than CF.


I'm not convinced this is true. Even if it were, the additional solids in the CF growbed would also provide attachment sites for biofilm.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Oct 9th, '13, 22:11 
I can't grasp what's being said either... my "pebbles" don't build up biofilm.. whether F&D or constant flood....

They do build up "gunk" over time... but this would deprive the bacteria of a surface area to live on... :dontknow:


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Oct 9th, '13, 22:48 
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Aug 26th, '10, 07:17
Posts: 9104
Gender: Male
Are you human?: YES
Location: Oregon, USA
You lost me Rupe. I'm sure there is a biofilm, I'm just not convinced that there is much difference in this, between the two systems and there's nothing in his statement to convince me otherwise. Bacteria would have no problem attaching to the gunk I suspect (It's probably part of the biofilm and I suspect it contains bacteria and polysaccharides they've excreted, amoung other things).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Oct 9th, '13, 22:54 
Bacteria die and slough off... and other solids build up in the bed to some degree... coating the pebbles...


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Oct 10th, '13, 00:06 
Legend Member
Legend Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 25th, '13, 00:38
Posts: 552
Location: Nanniode, Kerala, India
Gender: Male
Are you human?: YES
Location: Nanniode, Kerala, India
RupertofOZ wrote:
Bacteria die and slough off... and other solids build up in the bed to some degree... coating the pebbles...


How can we really differentiate what bacteria is being colonized on pond walls, filter media/tank walls, grow bed media, etc.?

Today evening, I was amazed to look a white screen over the siphon, standpipe, bell interiors, everywhere, which was not there till yesterday. Is this fungus growth? Or something else? Beneficial or detrimental? I am a bit worried, though. This is in an F&D. I do not have a similar problem with CF growbed.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Oct 10th, '13, 00:37 
Bordering on Legend
Bordering on Legend
User avatar

Joined: Oct 30th, '12, 06:01
Posts: 351
Gender: Male
Are you human?: plant
Location: UK Somerset
Biofilm:

Biofilm covers every underwater surface. In a newly set-up aquarium, within hours of first filling the tank, the first bacterial colonists and germinating algal and fungal spores have already begun settling on every available surface, plant, leaf litter, root, rock, gravel, or glass. With them, the processes that build up the living biofilm community have begun. The community is based on its bacteria and algae, and, where leaf litter is present (introduced in the aquarium by you), on the concentration of proteins in the fungal mycelium that quickly covers the surfaces of dead leaves that have washed into the stream and penetrates their largely inert structure.

Bacteria on surfaces. Few bacteria remain free in the water column, many fewer than there are in the moist films in soils, for instance. Solid surfaces present the only secure sites for making a microscopic living. Any bacteria present in the water tend to be drawn to surfaces and adhere to them. Several forces are involved in this. Even in very still waters, isolated bacteria are unlikely to settle on horizontal surfaces by sedimentation alone. Brownian motion, caused by the random buffeting of molecules, is ordinarily involved in bacterial settling, and once bacteria have come very near to surfaces, various fluid dynamic forces take effect: van der Waals forces and electrostatic interactions. Bacteria become irreversibly bound to surfaces, in processes broadly analogous to adsorption of molecules to surfaces. So all the surfaces in the aquarium tend to "pull" the bacteria from the water. Bacterial populations in open water are likely to be adhering to free-floating particles of organic floc or colloidal silt.

The accumulation of bacteria on surfaces isn't just passive, either. Nutrients also tend to bind to surfaces, and bacteria actively move towards nutrients, a reaction that bacteriologists call chemotaxis.

Once attached to a surface, bacteria have mastered the art of clinging. They exude coatings made of sticky proteins assembled from amino acids and starches built of linked-up sugars, and their communal life-processes are continually renewing these exudations. The polysaccharide matrix bears a light negative charge, which tends to attract positively-charged cations, including some nutrients. The stringy, sticky, spongy, flaky, water-penetrated polysaccharides accumulate into a highly-structured labyrinthine protective environment in which mutually beneficial bacterial communities thrive. Additional bacterial nutrients are adsorbed to these gummy surfaces. Anti-bacterials, even chlorine, are rendered much less effective by this protective sugar-based envelope, which bacteriologists like to call the glycocalyx, which is Greek for, um, "sugar-based envelope." The spongy structure continues to build up, maintained by an interactive web of bacterial signals, eventually becoming hundreds of times thicker than the size of a single bacterium. Deep within a matured biofilm, where surface oxygen becomes rapidly depleted, even anaerobic bacteria find microzones that are secure from the damaging effects of oxygen.

Aufwuchs. This structure and the community that lives on it and within it is called the benthos when it's accumulated in and on the bottom sediment, or more generally the biofilm. This is the stuff German aquarists call Aufwuchs, which could be translated "overgrowth." The bacterial communities in the biofilm and in water trapped within the substrate provide the energy that drives all the recycling of organic and inorganic substances within the aquarium's ecosystem. This same biofilm forms in the woven crimped fibers of the rotating biowheel, so you'll find the description of bio-filtration relevant here. If you think that a biofilm structure built out of simple sugars linked into polysaccharide chains has a nutritious sound to it, well, you're right. Our snails and otocinclus are more omnivorous than their "algae-eater" titles suggest. A snail passing across what looks to us like a simple algal film is also ingesting a whole community of organisms founded on the bacterial polysaccharides.

"The greatest population of bacteria is in the gravel" is a familiar statement that you often hear when the bacteria at work in filter media are being discussed, but don't forget that even older statement, "A rolling stone gathers no moss." A more nurturing location for those nitrifying bacteria and the others said to be "in the gravel" must be in the floc, or humic compost that is lodged among the grains. If your substrate started out purely gravel, with all silt carefully rinsed out of it, it could take months for this floc to develop. Some additives to substrates for planted tanks are expressly designed to substitute for floc: laterite and colloidal clay and humic compost. Floc and biofilm in the interstitial water of the substrate work like humus in an undisturbed forest soil; they provide homes for most of the bacterial energy that runs the whole cycling system. So, you won't be surprised to hear that I scarcely ever vacuum my gravel, just siphon off loose surface detritus.


Scotty I wasn't trying to convince anybody here, just sharing my opinion.
Now considering all of the above try to imagine the surface area covered by the media in a F&D system, water moves up and down and the biofilm will attach in areas that in a CF water will never get to, and we are not talking about a few centimetre........ a whole foot deep! That mathematically translate to trillion of colonising bacteria that will be absent on a dry pebble surface area of CF methods.
The gunk.... it like a plastic bag on your face!
Suffocating the aerobic bacteria will be detrimental for any system, hence the gunk should be slowly removed from your system as it build up!
Rupe...if you have gunk coating your pebbles.... then your system is in urgent needs of attention!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Oct 10th, '13, 00:52 
Bordering on Legend
Bordering on Legend

Joined: Jun 28th, '12, 22:36
Posts: 301
Gender: Male
Are you human?: YES
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
RupertofOZ wrote:
Jake wrote:
It would not surprise me to see certain plants doing better under one method vs. another. Hard to do a controlled experiment, given all the other variables involved.
.

It's been done Jake.... viewtopic.php?p=416912#p416912

:lol:

Sure, but all that limited experiment shows is how the 3 methods compare for that particular setup, in that climate, under those lighting conditions, etc. It's informative, but not definitive (which may be out of reach).

I run CF and the tomatoes blow everything else away. Certain plants seem to struggle a bit. My AP tomatillos pale in comparison to their dirt brethren planted at the same time. Greens do well, of course.

It would be interesting to run beds with the same plants under different methods on the same (established) system. Not to test cycling, fish health/growth, etc. but just the plant response.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Oct 10th, '13, 01:43 
Jake, the BYAP trials were about as good as possible...

Same systems, same location, same numbers & type of fish, same numbers & type of plants etc....

Feed rates, pH, temp, water top ups... recorded....


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Oct 10th, '13, 02:09 
Bordering on Legend
Bordering on Legend
User avatar

Joined: Oct 30th, '12, 06:01
Posts: 351
Gender: Male
Are you human?: plant
Location: UK Somerset
in the BYAP trial they had three different system with almost similar water parameters but.... from a MACROCHEMISTRY point of view the equation has endless possibilities...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Oct 10th, '13, 02:19 
No.. all three system were identical in components...

The only difference was the F&D method... continuously pumped siphon standpipe overflow, timed standpipe overflow, and continuously pumped standpipe overflow...

The inputs to all three systems were essentially the same... why would the Macrochemistry be any different to any great degree....

What do you actually mean by "macrochemistry"... :dontknow:


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Oct 10th, '13, 02:30 
Bordering on Legend
Bordering on Legend
User avatar

Joined: Oct 30th, '12, 06:01
Posts: 351
Gender: Male
Are you human?: plant
Location: UK Somerset
The water was from three different tanks and as far as the basic DIY reading tells most parameter where similar, but in reality Microchemistry (The branch of chemistry concerned with the reactions and properties of substances in minute quantities, even bacteria and cell analysis) could tell other aspects and results in complete different data.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Oct 10th, '13, 02:35 
The same source water was used in all three systems...

Certainly there could have been variations in the microchemistry between the systems over time...

But it would take a very extensive and intensive study to not only keep all the parameters constant between the three systems... but to also to collect and analyse the data...

The trial was simple to demonstrate any observable differences between the three different flood methodologies...

And as such... the results have a fair degree of validity I'd suggest...


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Oct 10th, '13, 03:34 
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Aug 26th, '10, 07:17
Posts: 9104
Gender: Male
Are you human?: YES
Location: Oregon, USA
bioaquafarm wrote:
Scotty I wasn't trying to convince anybody here, just sharing my opinion.
Now considering all of the above try to imagine the surface area covered by the media in a F&D system, water moves up and down and the biofilm will attach in areas that in a CF water will never get to, and we are not talking about a few centimetre........ a whole foot deep! That mathematically translate to trillion of colonising bacteria that will be absent on a dry pebble surface area of CF methods.


Now I understand where the misunderstanding is -

In CF the bed is flooded to within 1 inch of the surface, same as it would be at the highest point in a Flood and Drain cycle. Every area that is covered by water in an F&D system will be covered by water in a CF system. There is no difference in dry pebble surface. The oxygen is provided by the constant movement of the water as opposed to the flood and drain cycle.

On another note - I don't know that floc is any more nurturing than the surface of a stone from the bacterial point of view but it's good to have. It's pretty obvious that both floc and surface area on the media are important. Floc is important for reducing Total Suspended Solids and filtration and there are formulas to predict filtration based on media surface area.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Oct 10th, '13, 04:05 
Bordering on Legend
Bordering on Legend
User avatar

Joined: Jul 27th, '12, 08:36
Posts: 467
Gender: Male
Are you human?: Half and Half
Location: Melbourne Australia
I run a RFF to reduce solids, and also run 4x CF and 1x FD
I've found grape vines hate 'wet feet' but when its flood and drain it seems to be fine.




Last edited by vk3laj on Oct 10th, '13, 04:07, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 150 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next

All times are UTC + 8 hours


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Portal by phpBB3 Portal © phpBB Türkiye
[ Time : 0.166s | 14 Queries | GZIP : Off ]