throwing a bags of ceramic rings by return pumps?

[rbby228]

hey guys i was thinking of throwing my extra bags of ceramic rings by my return pumps. that water would have to run through my filters anyways so my thinking is it would have minimal detritus build up. plus if it does it should be easy to clean out in some saltwater anyways. what are your guys thoughts?

[RocketEngineer]

To what end? If you already have them, okay but they really won't do much. If you're looking to buy them, then I personally would spend my money elsewhere. They are mostly a freshwater thing, in a saltwater system the rocks do most of the biological filtration.

[ca1ore]

If you intend them as pre-seeded media for a QT tank, great; otherwise, don't bother.

[mitchb]

If you think you tank needs more biological filtration and there is no room in the tank for rock then go ahead. I run rock rubble in my sump, you're right that is is easy to keep clean.

[jstack]

Originally Posted by rbby228

hey guys i was thinking of throwing my extra bags of ceramic rings by my return pumps. that water would have to run through my filters anyways so my thinking is it would have minimal detritus build up. plus if it does it should be easy to clean out in some saltwater anyways. what are your guys thoughts?

what these guys said BUT if you are running less then required rock in you're DT then yes I would add them or the block form of it if you have the cash to spend

[heathlindner25]

The best thing I would use those for is seeding the quarantine tank when needed

[ca1ore]

Originally Posted by jstack

what these guys said BUT if you are running less then required rock in you're DT then yes I would add them or the block form of it if you have the cash to spend

There really is no reliable way to know that (other than getting ammonia readings I suppose). I've found that the rules of thumb are useless, and even modest amounts of rock prove quite sufficient in all but the most heavily stocked tanks.

[acesq]

I think it's a great idea, especially if they are Siporax which have an enormous amount of surface area available for bacteria to colonize. I have 18 liters of the stuff in my sump, with 3 liters in my return pump chamber. I have no problems with nitrate or phosphate.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CStrickland]

I don't think surface area is an issue in most tanks, despite what the sellers of siporax and bioballs and ceramic rings would like us to believe. More often than not they cause problems with nitrates rather than solving them. I don't have anything like that, and run well under a pound per gallon of rock. I've never had a nitrate issue that wasn't caused by my own dumbness.

[acesq]

High nutrient levels is one of the most common issues reefers, especially new ones, encounter. The more available surface area bacteria have to colonize, the greater the margin of error. I can't see any harm, and potentially a lot of good in encouraging the use of Siporax and other high surface area media in sumps where filter socks are used. There is a good thread on Siporax use in the SPS forum. I have been able to eliminate GFO entirely in my tank using the Siporax and light carbon dosing and still keep my nitrates below 5 and my phosphates below .04.

[jstack]

Originally Posted by ca1ore

There really is no reliable way to know that (other than getting ammonia readings I suppose). I've found that the rules of thumb are useless, and even modest amounts of rock prove quite sufficient in all but the most heavily stocked tanks.

Let put two n two together here guy is asking about increasing his ability to process waste in an understock tank come on Watson

[CStrickland]

Originally Posted by acesq

High nutrient levels is one of the most common issues reefers, especially new ones, encounter. The more available surface area bacteria have to colonize, the greater the margin of error.

This is only true if the error that needs a wider margin is the lack of real estate for bacteria. I see no reason to think that is the case here, or in most tanks. Rather, the problem here seems to be that op has leftover stuff they don't want to throw out. The risk is that they will create a detritus trap, and increase nitrates, by cluttering up the sump; or create a nitrate factory by placing the rings in a high flow area. So in this case, there's not a legit problem, and the solution might create the very issue you identified.

I have also used carbon dosing to address acute nutrient issues successfully. But haven't found it, or sintered glass (siporax) or the ceramic rings op is asking about, necessary for long term control (nitrates <5, phos <.05). Perhaps I am just lucky, but I think it also has to do with keeping my setup pretty simplified, and not trying to fix problems that I don't have

I would be more interested in these "fixes" for a lack of surface area if anybody could point to a symptom of the problem. I don't think it's a case of "if a little is good, more is better," based on the experiences of bio ball users.

[acesq]

Originally Posted by CStrickland

This is only true if the error that needs a wider margin is the lack of real estate for bacteria. I see no reason to think that is the case here, or in most tanks. Rather, the problem here seems to be that op has leftover stuff they don't want to throw out. The risk is that they will create a detritus trap, and increase nitrates, by cluttering up the sump; or create a nitrate factory by placing the rings in a high flow area. So in this case, there's not a legit problem, and the solution might create the very issue you identified.

I have also used carbon dosing to address acute nutrient issues successfully. But haven't found it, or sintered glass (siporax) or the ceramic rings op is asking about, necessary for long term control (nitrates <5, phos <.05). Perhaps I am just lucky, but I think it also has to do with keeping my setup pretty simplified, and not trying to fix problems that I don't have

I would be more interested in these "fixes" for a lack of surface area if anybody could point to a symptom of the problem. I don't think it's a case of "if a little is good, more is better," based on the experiences of bio ball users.

Have you read the Siporax thread in the SPS forum? There is alot of actual data in there, negating the need to assume.

The bottom line is, the more surface area the better. Its not like a drug where too much of a good thing can be a bad thing, the surface area is inert and does nothing other than provide a site for bacteria to grow in response to the environmental conditions. The more food (ammonia, nitrites, nitrates and phosphates), the more bacteria, the less food .... You'd hate to have the limiting factor be the surface area if you needed more bacteria to process your waste.

The bio balls issue is entirely different. They allow the colonization of bacteria that produce nitrate only. There are no deep interstices in bio balls which is where anaerobic bacteria live and break down nitrates and phosphates. Most of the ceramic and sintered glass media are full of them which is why they work much better for our purposes.

[CStrickland]

Originally Posted by acesq

Have you read the Siporax thread in the SPS forum?

Some of them, if you have a particular one in mind you'd have to give a link for me to know whether I read the one you mean. I also read the thread about ceramic media in the chem forum, which is more germane to OP's question: http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh....php?t=2453931 When I went to get the link just now I noticed your posts, but I didn't read the whole thread again. Did you resolve your aluminum issue?

You keep saying there is no downside, but you aren't responding to the risks of increased nitrates that I'm identifying:
- The extra surface area is not inert because it can inhibit flow, encouraging detrital accumulation (this is why these media are better placed in vertical sheets, or arranged with the holes all lined up to provide a channel into a easily cleaned collection area)

- A bag of ceramic rings in front of the return pump (OP's plan) does risk the bioball issue - excess oxygen from high flow inhibiting denitrifying bacteria.

[gallegos]

I have had them in my sump before when I'm setting up another tank to really get some bacteria going and transfer it to the new tank for a jump start but that's it. Doesn't do anything to my main tank

[acesq]

Originally Posted by CStrickland

Some of them, if you have a particular one in mind you'd have to give a link for me to know whether I read the one you mean. I also read the thread about ceramic media in the chem forum, which is more germane to OP's question: http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh....php?t=2453931 When I went to get the link just now I noticed your posts, but I didn't read the whole thread again. Did you resolve your aluminum issue?

You keep saying there is no downside, but you aren't responding to the risks of increased nitrates that I'm identifying:
- The extra surface area is not inert because it can inhibit flow, encouraging detrital accumulation (this is why these media are better placed in vertical sheets, or arranged with the holes all lined up to provide a channel into a easily cleaned collection area)

- A bag of ceramic rings in front of the return pump (OP's plan) does risk the bioball issue - excess oxygen from high flow inhibiting denitrifying bacteria.

This thread: http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2526998

I did have elevated aluminum, but could not attribute it to the marine pure blocks since it did not decrease much when I removed them. More importantly, I could not attribute any issues with my livestock to the aluminum readings. Ultimately, I switched over entirely to Siporax to remove any risk. I will say that my nitrates and phosphates did rise during the changover until the Siporax was sufficiently colonized, which supports the conclusion that the blocks and the Siporax do work.

As for the high flow issues, I don't believe placing the media in the return area creates high flow deep in the tiny channels where the anaerobic bacteria live. If you look how people are using the Siporax, it appears to work as well in higher or lower flow areas. Obviously, in a low flow area the anaerobic bacteria can live closer to the surface, but the porosity of the media is so great that there is still plenty of dead space for anaerobic bacteria to live even in higher flow applications.

So bottom line is there are no downsides for the OP since he is putting the bags in after filter socks. Also keep in mind these media are easily cleaned by rinsing them in a bucket of salt water every six months or so.