Jaubert Plenum

[Cougra]

Originally posted by mojoreef
I have no idea when he is going to put out the article, he says when he gets some time, lol so who knows.
On the plenum and or our modified system, man I am kinda been set back a few steps here now. I always new thier was some ammonia being circed back but man if we are not getting off gassing at all, I dont know. I got some info from albert theil and he is along the same thinking, that the gas we see is simply co2 not nitrogen gas and that nitrogen based products are just being cycled like everything else in the bed. I have a call into a friend that runs the NOAA and i am going to pick his brain on the phone. One way or another I want to figure this out.

Mike

Mike: If there is no Nitrogen reduction in the lower layers of a DSB or Plenum, how is it that so many tanks have little to no nitrate build up over time? What happens to the nitrate? Does it get bound in the system waiting to be released? Are we somehow removing it through other means without realizing it?

As for the P and Si levels in the bottom layers of the plenum, I find that to a big concern as well.

I also think that without a complete understanding of what's going on and all the results from that study, I don't think we should jump to drastic conclusions.

 

[Maxx]

I don't think we should jump to drastic conclusions.

WHAT???? THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!!

Nick

 

[mojoreef]

OK Coug I am going to give it a shot, hopefully its understandable. We as hobbist think that the nitrogen cycle is a simple thing, ammonia-nitrite-nitrate-nitrogen gas, all this is done by bacterial action. Well of course its not quite like that. Thier are basically two types of processes that can occur Both with simular results but with some big differences. The two processes are called assimilative and dissimilative. Ok now before we go thier you have to understand this. In the reduction process (as in ammonia to nitrite and so on) is a process done by selective baceria in each step, now each bacteria uses a distinct enzyme to catalyze a reduction (so no enzyne no reduction). Ok here we go, the process we are all used to is the Dissimilative dentrification. In this process nitrate replaces oxygen as the electron acceptor in the biochemistry of the cell. Basically the bacteria uses nitrate in place of oxygen to respire. the result of this is the conversion of nitrate to nitrogen gas. now the bacteria that does this are fuclative and can live in either oxygenated or suboxygenated water. Ok now for assimilative denitrification. what happens in this process is that with the presence of ammonia, the ammonia represses assimilative nitrate reductase (which is the first enzyme in this nitrate reduction pathway ) the result of assimilative dentrification means that ntriate does not turn into notrogen gas but instead to ammonium, the ammonium then would perk through the bed and enter the cycle once more at the ammonia to nitrite reduction part of the cycle.
Ok now looking at the results of Charles study he is saying that ammonia was present through out the bed and in the plenum. So if you take these results and apply them to how the cycles work it would mean that only assimilative dentrification is occuring and not the off gassing we are looking for.
Did I make a muckery of trying to explain that??????????

Mike

 

[Cougra]

So in other words, we are just giving more ammonia to the system and the bacteria we need to process it just multiply to utalize an ever increasing demand?

Wouldn't there have to be some sort of nitrogen release in the system? We are adding a lot of it, I still have a hard time believing that it's not going anywhere besides in a perpetual cycle!

 

[NaH2O]

Mike, I think you did well in your explaination. My problem with Chemistry and Biochemistry, is I'm a visual learner (the little ball models helped me a lot) and I have a hard time without a diagram of some kind. I do think I have a grasp on what you are saying, and it makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to put it out there, as I'm slow on the uptake

 

[ScottT1980]

Perfect explanation...

 

[mojoreef]

Nikki that is to funny. I am the same way just opposite, I have a hard time explaining things with out drawing pictures and lots of hand motions, lol

Mike

 

[mojoreef]

Wouldn't there have to be some sort of nitrogen release in the system? We are adding a lot of it, I still have a hard time believing that it's not going anywhere besides in a perpetual cycle!

I here ya Cougra. let me go a little deeper
thier are two forms of nitrogen, inorganic and organic. Ammonium/nitrite/nitrate/Nitrous oxide/Dinitrogen are all inorganic and stuff like protiens/Nucleuc acids/amino sugars/urea are the organic forms.
Nitrogen can transform by several methods, but here are the two we are really relating to
>Ammonification is wher organic N is broken down into Ammonium
>Immobilization is where inorganic N matter is built up to form Organic N.
In the second process this is part of the organic goo I was always refering to in the DSb debates. Its a sink.



Mike

 

[RogueCorps]

Hmm... For the process "not" to be working, we sure have a lot of fairly successful tanks running. Couldn't it just be that ammonia is present but it is being broken down at a rate the same as it is being produced? If there were some fault in the process, ammonia would quickly overrun and leach from the substrate wouldn't it?

For what it's worth, what if we're making this all more complex than it really needs to be. Maybe with a sufficient amount of surface, be it sand, plenum, mud, etc. and flow, nature is able to adapt to best make a solution for itself. There are a whole bunch of different setups who people all claim is the best, eh? (DSBs... DSBs...)

So this inedible "goo"... This must be pretty far down the food chain because there are some bugs who will eat pretty much anything. I still find it hard to worry about the goo with too much urgency. Some sinks are lasting a good long time.

-Rogue

 

[ScottT1980]

Ok, so the ammonium (NH4) is not broken down initially broken down into N2 but instead, incoorporated into amino acids and perhaps ultimatly, proteins (which might also be a good sink for our sulfur since disulfide bonds are important to protein tertiary structure). This protein can either act as a sink or be broken down by some sort of scavenger, thus giving the nitrogen the oppurtunity to be gassed off again?

I have never seen in the literature that a protein goo acts as a sink. Is this just speculation or is this actually a pretty consistent dogma in the hobby?

It seems that there either has to be this goo, N2 is gassed off, or there is some other sink because most of our tanks have very low nitrogen readings (if properly maintained)...

Ah, I am lost again in all the ideas, someone please find me...

Take er easy
Scott T.

 

[mojoreef]

Hmm... For the process "not" to be working, we sure have a lot of fairly successful tanks running. Couldn't it just be that ammonia is present but it is being broken down at a rate the same as it is being produced? If there were some fault in the process, ammonia would quickly overrun and leach from the substrate wouldn't it?

Not sure RC, some might just keep cycling, some get bound in organisms, some may leach in one form of nitrogen or another.

For what it's worth, what if we're making this all more complex than it really needs to be. Maybe with a sufficient amount of surface, be it sand, plenum, mud, etc. and flow, nature is able to adapt to best make a solution for itself. There are a whole bunch of different setups who people all claim is the best, eh? (DSBs... DSBs...)

I have never personally been a big one on the just dump it in and hope all goes well, seen hundreds of tanks die that way. sand systems are complicated and I think folks need to know how they work in order to keep a healthy system.

So this inedible "goo"... This must be pretty far down the food chain because there are some bugs who will eat pretty much anything. I still find it hard to worry about the goo with too much urgency. Some sinks are lasting a good long time.

yep they average about 3 to 4 years... so lots of time

Mike

 

[Maxx]

ummm...I'm feelin kinda dumb here right now...so how do we get arround this particular obstacle?
Nick

 

[mojoreef]

Sorry Scott "goo" was just an easier word then to list all the components of it

Ok, so the ammonium (NH4) is not broken down initially broken down into N2 but instead, incoorporated into amino acids and perhaps ultimatly, proteins (which might also be a good sink for our sulfur since disulfide bonds are important to protein tertiary structure). This protein can either act as a sink or be broken down by some sort of scavenger, thus giving the nitrogen the oppurtunity to be gassed off again?

Yep the ammonium could be have the chance to off gas, but only if thier was no presence of ammonia. The ammonia would not allow for the first enzyne in the dinitrifiaction process to occur. I think it does a little of all of what you are saying. Most protiens are that of the bacteria that they use for thier reducing (by products). One would assume that it would be used to some degree by critter though as energy sources.

I have never seen in the literature that a protein goo acts as a sink. Is this just speculation or is this actually a pretty consistent dogma in the hobby?

Ok lets not use the word goo anymore, my bad, lol. Look at it this way, a collection of enzynes, bacterial flock, particulate dust, end product detritus, food/waste, microbes and so on that are all used or are biproducts of biochemical cycles. or just goo if you want, hehe. This is not really hobby stuff but more in the marine biology stuff.

It seems that there either has to be this goo, N2 is gassed off, or there is some other sink because most of our tanks have very low nitrogen readings (if properly maintained)...

agreed . do you think the sink is locked in the substraight??? if it coould be locked or sunk in the substraight or plenum area I guess it could still be viable with good maintence. If it leaches that would make it a scrub. I think I will email charles back and see if he monitored any leaching.

Mike

 

[mojoreef]

Maxx for everything that is not nitrogen based a sand substriaght is a sink, so....maybe as long as this doesnt leach, maybe it being a nitrogen sink can also work. If we sink all this stuff in the plenum, maybe that is a good thing, then at least we know where it is, lol.

Mike

 

[NaH2O]

I'm going to digest this for awhile....I've had to tap into the lost resources of my brain, clean out the cobwebs, and now am trying to direct my thoughts in a constructive way....why do I feel dense all of the sudden? lol

 

[RogueCorps]

Originally posted by mojoreef
yep they average about 3 to 4 years... so lots of time

Mike

Cough, Cough (16), cough...

-Rogue

 

[ScottT1980]

agreed . do you think the sink is locked in the substraight??? if it coould be locked or sunk in the substraight or plenum area I guess it could still be viable with good maintence. If it leaches that would make it a scrub. I think I will email charles back and see if he monitored any leaching.

It makes sense to me that this "goo" or in more scientific terms, this proteinaceous accumulation would be a great sink for our nitrogenous wastes as well as other contiminants. It is something I have never thought of but makes perfect sense. As for it contributing to a sudden crash, I am unsure. It seems that these accumulations of amino acids would have the nitrogen bound pretty tightly although bacteria would always be breaking it down.

I am starting to get a bit confussed about this protein because it appears that it came from bacteria and will be continually processed by bacteria. If so, then is it like a nutrient storage type idea or are different species of bacteria working at this stuff? If it is cyclical, then eventually the nitrogen would have to be gassed off at some point or as I mentioned, there has to be some other sink involved (because the nitrogen in our tank is zero). I wonder what the nitrogen (NH3, NO3, etc...) readings would be in the plenum space...

Ah, I almost need to chart all of this out as a biochemical pathway to get it straight in my head. I love this stuff but man it is so hard to keep every idea straight in your head...

Oh, and definitly let me know what you hear from Charles and also, there is no better word in the world to describe a huge mass of non-differentiated amino acids as "goo," be it in the scientific community or otherwise.

I will be back for more.

Take er easy
Scott T.

 

[Maxx]

Originally posted by RogueCorps
Cough, Cough (16), cough...

-Rogue

Okay so Rob Toonan had a tank that lasted 16 years w/o crashing. He later broke down and parted out things for reasons unrelated to OTS or a crash of somesort. But how many others do you hear about like that? I don't think that if you looked at it in straight percentages that you'd get very many going over the 6 year mark. It would be an interesting study at least. Maybe not the most useful, but certainly interesting.
Nick

 

[mojoreef]

Maxx Robs tank had 2 fish and some soft corals and was run by a marine biologist, I dont know if one could say that is the average system. Reef central ran a poll on DSB's (not a real scientific poll but a poll all the same) from it of all the folks with DSB's thier were ony 24 that actually lasted over 4 years. 51 failed after 2 years, 40 that failed between 2-4 years and 5 that failed after 5 years. But really alot to do about nothng. The concept here on this forum and this board is not really to argue what is best but is to know how they work. with this knowledge it is easy to find the merits of any system.

Scott I am sorry if I am being a little confusing in my discriptions, I am not very good at relaying what I know.

It makes sense to me that this "goo" or in more scientific terms, this proteinaceous accumulation would be a great sink for our nitrogenous wastes as well as other contiminants. It is something I have never thought of but makes perfect sense. As for it contributing to a sudden crash, I am unsure. It seems that these accumulations of amino acids would have the nitrogen bound pretty tightly although bacteria would always be breaking it down.

I agree, the protienaceous waste also has alot of other things mixed in it, but for the sake of this problm lets stick to just this. I think your post hits it pretty much on the head.

I am starting to get a bit confussed about this protein because it appears that it came from bacteria and will be continually processed by bacteria. If so, then is it like a nutrient storage type idea or are different species of bacteria working at this stuff?

More like the nitrogen bouncing between inorganic and organic. Look at it this way, the nitrogen based products will always be off gassed unles thier is a presence of ammoina. If thier is a presence it cant o down the road of off gassin because the protien needed canto not be made. If this case occurs the nitrogen based stuff goes down a different road and basically turns to organic N and the cycle starts over.

If it is cyclical, then eventually the nitrogen would have to be gassed off at some point or as I mentioned, there has to be some other sink involved (because the nitrogen in our tank is zero). I wonder what the nitrogen (NH3, NO3, etc...) readings would be in the plenum space...

Yep I was seeing a little light on this setup until I got Charlies reply saying that the ammonia concintration in the plenum and subsraight was 3 times as much as in natural water. This is kinda how this latest side track started.

Thanks for the discussion, keep it coming.

Mike

 

[Scooterman]

In this system, is there tubes running down like an UGF?
I was studying a friends FW, UGF system, I help set-up. At one end, is air pumped down the tube, flowing water through the filter. On the other side I installed a PH that sucks water down the tube & from the UGF. He mentioned how he doesn't really need to clean his filter floss anymore. I'm sure by now, being months set-up it has tons of waste underneath. If I had a drain in the bottom center & drained as mentioned, would this in effect be doing the same as what we have here? Would there be benefit to add an array like an UGF and suck water through it?