Bio-Balls or Something Else?

[Br0k3nMachin3]

Should I keep the bio-balls in my sump or should I switch to some other type of media?

[thegrun]

Use live rock, not bio-balls.

[Br0k3nMachin3]

That's what I've been told. How small should the live rock be, or does it matter?

[Guygettnby]

Originally Posted by Br0k3nMachin3

That's what I've been told. How small should the live rock be, or does it matter?

doesnt really matter. but it depends on your setup. i use rubble rock in mine, nothing smaller then 2in. i had bigger pieces before i needed the space for other equipment. depending on your LFS most the time rubble rock is alot cheaper being as most people just want bigger rocks.

the rubble rocks are also great for growing frags on.

[shifty51008]

if either the bio balls or the LR isn't completly underwater, even the LR rubble will act like bioballs so make sure they are completly submerged.

[cloak]

Originally Posted by shifty51008

if either the bio balls or the lr isn't completly underwater, even the lr rubble will act like bioballs so make sure they are completly submerged.

+1.

[Palting]

If you want to switch to live rock, you'll have to modify your sump.

The sump design of wet/dry filters with bioballs allows the bioballs to stay above the water. Water cascades over the bioballs. As a result, there is a film of running water over the bioballs that are constantly exposed to air, so this water is well oxygenated leading to excellent aerobic proceses that break down ammonia rapidly to nitrate.

Live rock, OTOH, can break the nitrates down further to nitrogen gas. However, this requires anaerobic processing. If you simply replace the bioballs with live rock, the live rock will remain in a highly aerobic environment and cannot perform the anaerobic processing. In order for the liverock to do the anaerobic processing, the rock has to be larger, porous, and be completely submerged in water. In this setting, the first processing by aerobic bacteria will consume oxygen, leaving areas low in oxygen where anerobic processing can occur. So, if you want to replace your bioalls with ive rock, you have to raise the water levels in your sump to submerge the larger, porous live rock. I don't believe anyone has really determined how large the rock pieces have to be. But, IMO, rock rubble cannot create anaerobic areas. IMO, you need larger porous pieces, porous enough so that anerobic condtions can exist within the rock

You can do a hybrid of bioballs plus live rock. I did. Here's a photo:

[AliciaP]

Instead of the bio-balls, I use the ceramic rings. I can't fit a lot of live rock in my sump, and the ceramic rings in my opinion have more surface area being porous than the balls.

[elrey]

PALTING, I love the sticker that indicates the water level, this sticker come with the sump, or it can be bought online?

[H.reidi.MN]

I have hybrid like above as well. I converted my oceanic sump into more of a refuge, by increasing the water hight i added mostly LR the the lower portion of intake chamber which is all completely submerged, then i have like 3" of bio balls on top out of water.

[Palting]

Originally Posted by elrey

PALTING, I love the sticker that indicates the water level, this sticker come with the sump, or it can be bought online?

It came with the sump. It's actually imprinted unto the sump, not a sticker. It's purpose is more to indicate the maximum water height for the bioballs, to make sure that at least 90% of them stay above the water level. It has nothing to do with the safe water levels to prevent the tank overflowing.

The sticker on the next photo, however, does have to do with maximum water level with the pumps running. So long as the water level stays below the red line with all the pumps running, the sump will never overflow. This one came with the sump, too, a Marineland brand, but you have to figure out where that maximum level is so you can properly apply the sticker. On prior tanks, I just used a decal or masking or electrical tape.

[keithhays]

Both live Rock and bio-balls are just biological surface area for bacteria to grow on and/or in. Bio-balls have relatively small amount of surface and actually live rock is not that far behind it contrary to popular belief. Depending on the rock type, the specific surface area is actually lower in many cases for the rock vs the bio-balls.

The best stuff I have used so far is Pond matrix in the sump. Keep the live rock for looks in the aquarium, but if you had to put enough of it in the aquarium to do nitrification/denitrification, there would be no room for the fish.

$100 worth of pond matrix will do the work of many thousands of dollars worth of live rock. Don't use the small Matrix unless you have a really small aquarium, stick with the Pond size.

[mpsullivan]

Bio Balls, for the most part, are 'meh' and are more problematic than helpful. The hybrid approach helps minimize issues with bio balls, but what really minimizes most issues is consistency and time.

IMHO, ditch the bio balls, and use LR that is at least 4 inches thick, from what I read this is the sweet spot for nitrate removing bacteria (hence most DSB being 4-5 inches).

Marinepure offers great alternatives to LR in that regard, they have a 4x8x8 plate that would really help you out if you have the room, if you dont you can always strip it down a bit. They also offer marinepure bio balls which are MUCH better than plastic bio balls, however they are more expensive and still don't help with the nitrates, they are more for ammonia and nitrate removal.

I havent heard of pond matrix being used but I assume it is similar to other ceramic media (marinepure, aquaroche, etc...).

While purists may disagree with me, I think using a combo of Aquaroche, marine pure, uncured dead rock, and dead sand is the best chance to have a "clean system" in terms of pests. However, you lose out on the 'realness', it takes much longer to cycle, takes much longer for coraline algae, and you lose out on potentially neat hitchhikers and critters.

Also some high end LR is just downright amazing looking and provides unrivaled bioload capacity. I should also note that even though one may go through the ceramic media route, buying a cuc containing a micro hermit that has a microscopic baby aiptasia on it's shell is enough to undue all your careful planning.

Just my 2 cents.

[Chiefillini]

Are you going to be keeping a coral reef tank? If so, you can put the live rock right into your display and don't have to worry about having LR in your sump. I have a 90 gallon mixed tank and have about 180lbs of LR. You don't need 180lbs, I just wanted the rock built up with caves, etc. Get rid of the bio balls.

[keithhays]

Originally Posted by mpsullivan

Bio Balls, for the most part, are 'meh' and are more problematic than helpful. The hybrid approach helps minimize issues with bio balls, but what really minimizes most issues is consistency and time.

IMHO, ditch the bio balls, and use LR that is at least 4 inches thick, from what I read this is the sweet spot for nitrate removing bacteria (hence most DSB being 4-5 inches).

Marinepure offers great alternatives to LR in that regard, they have a 4x8x8 plate that would really help you out if you have the room, if you dont you can always strip it down a bit. They also offer marinepure bio balls which are MUCH better than plastic bio balls, however they are more expensive and still don't help with the nitrates, they are more for ammonia and nitrate removal.

I havent heard of pond matrix being used but I assume it is similar to other ceramic media (marinepure, aquaroche, etc...).

While purists may disagree with me, I think using a combo of Aquaroche, marine pure, uncured dead rock, and dead sand is the best chance to have a "clean system" in terms of pests. However, you lose out on the 'realness', it takes much longer to cycle, takes much longer for coraline algae, and you lose out on potentially neat hitchhikers and critters.

Also some high end LR is just downright amazing looking and provides unrivaled bioload capacity. I should also note that even though one may go through the ceramic media route, buying a cuc containing a micro hermit that has a microscopic baby aiptasia on it's shell is enough to undue all your careful planning.

Just my 2 cents.

I have been meaning to try Marinepure; their specific surface area looks good.
It cost a lot more than Matrix, so I have been a bit slow about testing it. I did a quick calculation of what currently exists in my 300 gallon system to give some idea of the difference between the various rock/media:

• 5-Gallons(18.9271 liters) of Pond Matrix @ 700m²/liter = 7534.7ft²/liter
  13,249 m² or
  142,611 ft²
  
• 8 Cubic Feet of *Pukani live rock & aragonite @ 86 SSA per cubic foot (started as dry rock and aragonite)
  688 ft²
  
• 4 cubic ft of plastic bio media @ 160 SSA per cubic foot (this varies radically per brand of plastic bio media type)
  640 ft²

As a comparison the Marinepure 1.5" spheres are 435m²/liter compared to the Pond Matrix at 700m²/liter. I wanted to check it out however because it also comes in blocks with rough the same SSA (specific surface area) as the spheres, but the blocks can be setup in such a way as to force water through the interior. This may or may not be a good thing (aerobic vs anaerobic areas), but it looks to be interesting approach.

[mpsullivan]

Originally Posted by keithhays

I have been meaning to try Marinepure; their specific surface area looks good.
It cost a lot more than Matrix, so I have been a bit slow about testing it. I did a quick calculation of what currently exists in my 300 gallon system to give some idea of the difference between the various rock/media:

• 5-Gallons(18.9271 liters) of Pond Matrix @ 700m²/liter = 7534.7ft²/liter
  13,249 m² or
  142,611 ft²
  
• 8 Cubic Feet of *Pukani live rock & aragonite @ 86 SSA per cubic foot (started as dry rock and aragonite)
  688 ft²
  
• 4 cubic ft of plastic bio media @ 160 SSA per cubic foot (this varies radically per brand of plastic bio media type)
  640 ft²

As a comparison the Marinepure 1.5" spheres are 435m²/liter compared to the Pond Matrix at 700m²/liter. I wanted to check it out however because it also comes in blocks with rough the same SSA (specific surface area) as the spheres, but the blocks can be setup in such a way as to force water through the interior. This may or may not be a good thing (aerobic vs anaerobic areas), but it looks to be interesting approach.

Yeah I believe the potential anaerobic bacteria is one of the selling point. I did not realize Pond Matrix was superior in its porosity and m^2/liter. Buy almost 300 m^2 none the less...I was pretty much deadset on getting marinepure for part of my filtration...I think unless I get the 8x4x4 marinepure block (anaerobic), I may change my mind to pond matrix and save $$ in doing so!

I think a neat, yet frivolous, test would be to use the 8x4x4 block in a sump with a DSB around it of the same height. I.e. if you have a 12x7x9 space for your refugium (odd dimensions but im just throwing this out there for fun). you put the Marinepure block directly in the center and then, in the remianing 4x3 space outlining the block, you line the block with 4.25 inches of reef flakes/snow mix with ~.25 inches on top of the block itself. That way you get the biodiversity from the sand, the anaerobic bacteria activity with the dsb and marinepure block, increased bioavailability/bioload for your system, and it's easier to clean and maintain since there is less sand to worry about developing dangerous levels of various gases/toxins. (much easier to use a probe and poke along the edges once a week or so then stirring and cleaning an entire dsb). Furthermore, you could add some refugium mud and REALLY get creative.

Any thoughts on using such a setup? My money is it probably would be neglible in efficacy vs. a DSB but possibly easier to maintain. Although the sand outlining the block could mess with the flow entering the block in a such a negative manner that it could make it next to useless.

[keithhays]

Originally Posted by mpsullivan

Yeah I believe the potential anaerobic bacteria is one of the selling point. I did not realize Pond Matrix was superior in its porosity and m^2/liter. Buy almost 300 m^2 none the less...I was pretty much deadset on getting marinepure for part of my filtration...I think unless I get the 8x4x4 marinepure block (anaerobic), I may change my mind to pond matrix and save $$ in doing so!

I think a neat, yet frivolous, test would be to use the 8x4x4 block in a sump with a DSB around it of the same height. I.e. if you have a 12x7x9 space for your refugium (odd dimensions but im just throwing this out there for fun). you put the Marinepure block directly in the center and then, in the remianing 4x3 space outlining the block, you line the block with 4.25 inches of reef flakes/snow mix with ~.25 inches on top of the block itself. That way you get the biodiversity from the sand, the anaerobic bacteria activity with the dsb and marinepure block, increased bioavailability/bioload for your system, and it's easier to clean and maintain since there is less sand to worry about developing dangerous levels of various gases/toxins. (much easier to use a probe and poke along the edges once a week or so then stirring and cleaning an entire dsb). Furthermore, you could add some refugium mud and REALLY get creative.

Any thoughts on using such a setup? My money is it probably would be neglible in efficacy vs. a DSB but possibly easier to maintain. Although the sand outlining the block could mess with the flow entering the block in a such a negative manner that it could make it next to useless.

I would split the DSB from the other bio-surfaces so that if needed it could be removed in a single pull i.e. a container of some sort, but in general not bad setup. The marinepure and matrix are higher flow and the DSB would be much slower flow. It would definitely be a belt and suspenders thing, but I like redundancy in the bio-filters wherever possible. You don't want to stir DSB though, it is meant to be an anoxic area so you would get sulfides in your tank and it would cease to be denitrification become a nitrification filter.

[Br0k3nMachin3]

If I'm using live rock in my tank, do I need bio-balls or anything in my sump? I have about 5-6 fish and about 2-3 corals.

[keithhays]

Originally Posted by Br0k3nMachin3

If I'm using live rock in my tank, do I need bio-balls or anything in my sump? I have about 5-6 fish and about 2-3 corals.

5 or 6 clownfish or 5 or 6 groupers?

[Br0k3nMachin3]

I have 2 small clown fish, 1 yellow tang, 1 file fish, 1 watchman goby, and 1 pearlscaled butterlfy

[keithhays]

Originally Posted by Br0k3nMachin3

I have 2 small clown fish, 1 yellow tang, 1 file fish, 1 watchman goby, and 1 pearlscaled butterlfy

So you saw some of the Biological Surface Area totals above and about the amount of BSA per type of media including live rock in my previous post.

To that I will add two concepts:
One is Void Ratio: generally this is the space between the large component of you biological media (Live rock, sand, matrix balls, etc). The larger this is, the less likely the overall bio-filter will clock with debris.

The Specific Surface Area for instance of sand is pretty high for a non-manufactured product about 260 or so, but its Void Ratio is really low in its natural state of just lying around which is about 40%. This means that you will not likely have access to all that surface for very long because it is going to clog.
Rock (live or otherwise) has a very low SSA, but a very high void ratio most of the time for the large pieces most of us have sitting around in the display; about 86 and that is only for the most porous of the live rock, but it has potentially 100% void ratio. The problem here is that while it won't likely clog, you also don't have very much surface area in it to begin with.

The other is maturity of the bacterial colonies:
A biological filter that has been in place for a year or more will have mature colonies of bacteria capable of processing many times more ammonia to nitrate that new colonies of say less than a year old.

This means that new systems need to start out with many times more BSA(Biological Surface Area) than older systems may need to support the same weight of fish.

Why is the weight of the fish important? This is important because you need to feeding between 1% to 2% percent of body weight in a high protein diet daily. This is your primary variable for deciding how much BSA to keep in your system. I am going to stop there because, I risk making this too long and potentially loosing some folks just trying to figure out if they need more BSA.

We'll pretend that all of your fish if put together weigh .5 pounds.
Let's put out a generic rule that says you need 100 square feet per pound of fish of BSA. Generally, this should be higher, but this probably is a good minimum for an established mature system of at least a year old.

So lets say you are only using live rock at 86 SSA per cubic foot to support your .5 pounds of fish.
So our math is .5 times 100 which is 50 ft2 of BSA.
To get to 50 BSA we need approximately 1.5 cubic feet of live rock.

That would be for a fully established biofilter, for new systems, I would go with about 10 times that number.

This is just my personal number at this point, you can find all kinds of calculations for this, but a brand new system in general will require many times what an established system would require, but people don't usually get rid of BSA once they have it.

Now 10 times 1.5 cubic feet of rock = 15 cubic feet of the best most porous rock you can find.

If the rock is not all that porous as many types are almost solid (very heavy), then of course the SSA for that rock can go down to as little as 4 SSA for a solid 12" rock. If you do the math, that's a lot of rock to support .5 pounds of fish.

So if you don't have a very establish bio-filter on extremely porous (very light for their size) of at least 1.5 cubic feet
or,
15 cubic feet of new rock, I would add something like pond matrix to the mix of something on the order of 1.5 gallons of to 100 gallons of water which will be way more than enough.