Fluidized Beds On Reefs and FOWLRs- Waste of Time?

[Johnny Reefer]

Hello,

I've heard two significant factors for fluidized beds. One pro, the other con.

The pro: A fluidized bed of a size relative to the system it is on can double the amount of fish capacity for that system.

The con: They are nothing but nitrate factories.

Just wondering what the general consensus on these things are, when it comes to Reefs and FOWLRs. I wish to simplify matters and am thinking of doing without a fluidized bed.

Thanx much,

[AC33]

I think like bio-balls, they are great for fresh water tanks and fish-only tanks, but they have no place in reefs and FOWLRs.

[StirCrazy]

exelent for freshwater or fish only tanks, waist of money if you have live rock.

Steve

[Chin_Lee]

i think you should rephrase your poll to indicate for what type of system ie reef/FOWLR/FW.

[Pescador]

Mine works great---- as an add on Ca reactor chamber.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y126/Pescador58/Reef%20Tank/IMG_2096.jpg

[Johnny Reefer]

i think you should rephrase your poll to indicate for what type of system ie reef/FOWLR/FW.
Yes, of course. Reef and FOWLR.
Sorry about that.:redface:

Edit: Hmmm. It seems I can't edit the actual question. Just the thread title and the original post. If a mod could possibly edit the question I'd like it to read....."Are fluidized bed filters on Reefs and FOWLRs a waste of time?"

Thanx much and cheers,

[GrimReefer]

i think the term 'nitrate factory' is misguided. nitrate comes from the conversion of ammonia and nitrite...and nitrate is definitely the most prefered. any aerobic biological filtration will be a 'nitrate factory', and that's desirable because nitrate is the least toxic. now if you ran a fluidized bed filter in a anaerobic environment...for instance, after the oxygen has been eaten up by aerobic bacteria, you would create a denitrator. but there are better options for reducing nitrate. nutrient export, sufficient LR for anaerobic biological activity, efficient skimming, and coil denitrators all seem like they would be more effective. a fluidized bed filter is nothing more than surface area for bacterial activity...therefor i don't think it would be any more effective for increasing fish capacity than some filter floss in your sump or bio-balls, and less effective than additional LR.

[kwirky]

I think a fluidized bed filter, followed by a sulfate denitrator, then a calcium reactor of some sort is a perfect combination.

Liverock doesn't do much denitrating. Think of the people with reef tanks fighting with nitrates. in a FO setup, there isn't much denitrating going on.

the advantage of having your nitrification ON the liverock is so there's a CHANCE it'll be denitrated on the liverock. but i think it's pointless hoping for that, since you don't have the proper carbon fed to the anaerobic bacteria. do some research. there's like 50 different types of anearobic bacteria, and if they're not provided with the carbon nutrients, then you begin to harvest the bacteria that doesn't denitrifty the way we want. they end up producing more nitrite, and things like that.

one promising field, I think should be studied, and is being studied for waste water treatment in lower income countries, is cotton denitrification. using organic cotton as the filter bed, AND it is the carbon source. quite efficient, and low cost.

anyways, I'd rather have SOLID denitrification done in a reactor rather than HOPING it's done on the liverock. the macro algae will still grow on it, and the coraline.

the only drawback I see with fluidized bed filter is the oxygan intake. you NEED to aerate the water before puting it back in the tank. I've had fish die from using a fluidized bed filter on a heavily stocked tank because the return was fed below the water column.

[Pescador]

There is a concern if there is a power outage with a fluidized bed. The bacteria uses up all the oxygen in the bed and dies in anywhere from a few minutes to an hour.This produces ammonia that is dumped back into your tank when the electricity returns. Fluidized beds are great for large systems or breeder/dealers that have high turnover of livestock because they have such a huge surface area.

[kwirky]

I run a computer UPS on my tank. it provides enough backup juice to run my water pumps for 3 hours straight, since most pumps are 20W at the most in 160 gallon and under setups.

but fluidized bed filters are great filters I think, if you plan for any of the cons for it.

[StirCrazy]

Think of the people with reef tanks fighting with nitrates.



I have never seen a proper set up reef tank have any nitrates.. I have seen phosphat problems though..

Steve

[BCOrchidGuy]

As usual I'm going to go against popular opinion, I myself like fluidized bed filters. My experience however is ONLY in fresh water but it's been something that I am planning on for a project I've got in my dreams. Fluidized bed in my opinion is a great filter as it allows bacteria to grow but not build up on the particles. It responds quickly to density changes (tank population density) and can help when you are running a breeding program. As far as marine systems go I believe it's another way to add filtration and if you have a small crash of sorts it may be just the ticket to help you save some of your livestock. YES if your power goes out it's not going to help but, a battery operated air pump plumbed in would keep things alive for a period of time maybe....

Doug