• Amused
  • Angry
  • Annoyed
  • Awesome
  • Bemused
  • Cocky
  • Cool
  • Crazy
  • Crying
  • Depressed
  • Down
  • Drunk
  • Embarrased
  • Enraged
  • Friendly
  • Geeky
  • Godly
  • Happy
  • Hateful
  • Hungry
  • Innocent
  • Meh
  • Piratey
  • Poorly
  • Sad
  • Secret
  • Shy
  • Sneaky
  • Tired
  • Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
    Results 61 to 80 of 97

    Thread: KH and Bead Filters

    1. #61
      kdh is offline Senior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Feb 2011
      Location
      NW Arkansas
      Posts
      8,577
      So I talked to a bead filter company and there recommendation for a (strong) kh is 120. They got this information from talking to a few water scientists. And as mentioned. It comes down to how much acids are be buffered to drive the kh down that requires different levels of kh. That is why some bead filters work great at much less than 120. So 120 seems to be the magic number for now. lol

      • Remove Ads
        Advertising from Google
        Promoting Koi and Pond
        keeping since 2007

         

    2. #62
      Marilyn's Avatar
      Marilyn is offline Supporting Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Apr 2008
      Location
      happy in the Heartland! 46071
      Posts
      17,079
      Quote Originally Posted by kdh View Post
      So I talked to a bead filter company and there recommendation for a (strong) kh is 120. They got this information from talking to a few water scientists. And as mentioned. It comes down to how much acids are be buffered to drive the kh down that requires different levels of kh. That is why some bead filters work great at much less than 120. So 120 seems to be the magic number for now. lol
      IMO, these contradict one another.
      Put simply, monitor values, keep records, be aware of unique situations like rainfall and if water changes lower KH.

      The initial pond I had could easily drop 30ppm KH in a 24 hour period. It's foolhardy to tie people to a value without taking into consideration the total system and other factors. The single most important thing we can do for our koi and fish is provide healthy stable water.

      This is becoming an exercise in futility. If you could state absolutely that a pond with a bead filter running 120ppm of KH would perpetually maintain exactly that level, maybe that is worth more chatter. We all know that isn't the case as evidenced by the number of pH crashes that are posted in the ER section.

      Still learning as I go but y'all can call me Marilyn

    3. #63
      No Buddy is offline Senior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Oct 2018
      Location
      planet earth (mostly)
      Posts
      243
      Quote Originally Posted by Marilyn View Post
      IMO, these contradict one another.
      Put simply, monitor values, keep records, be aware of unique situations like rainfall and if water changes lower KH.

      The initial pond I had could easily drop 30ppm KH in a 24 hour period. It's foolhardy to tie people to a value without taking into consideration the total system and other factors. The single most important thing we can do for our koi and fish is provide healthy stable water.

      This is becoming an exercise in futility. If you could state absolutely that a pond with a bead filter running 120ppm of KH would perpetually maintain exactly that level, maybe that is worth more chatter. We all know that isn't the case as evidenced by the number of pH crashes that are posted in the ER section.
      That is reasonable except we need a range and not a magic number. With a magic number it suggests that you add buffer whenever it goes below 120. Well then how much below 120 and how often? This is why we need a range of minimum and maximum preferred kH levels, and this range will vary from pond to pond.

      I know of no science that relates to bead filters specifically. If anyone has any papers on the subject besides Roddy's interpretation of the Malone study please lead me to them. I have never seen this study and if anyone has Malone's paper on the subject I would like to read it.
      Last edited by No Buddy; 01-24-2020 at 07:46 PM.

    4. #64
      kdh is offline Senior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Feb 2011
      Location
      NW Arkansas
      Posts
      8,577
      Quote Originally Posted by Marilyn View Post
      IMO, these contradict one another.
      Put simply, monitor values, keep records, be aware of unique situations like rainfall and if water changes lower KH.

      The initial pond I had could easily drop 30ppm KH in a 24 hour period. It's foolhardy to tie people to a value without taking into consideration the total system and other factors. The single most important thing we can do for our koi and fish is provide healthy stable water.
      Yep. And some work just fine at 100 or less and some need more.

      This is becoming an exercise in futility. If you could state absolutely that a pond with a bead filter running 120ppm of KH would perpetually maintain exactly that level, maybe that is worth more chatter. We all know that isn't the case as evidenced by the number of pH crashes that are posted in the ER section.
      I did not know that all the other bio systems out there could maintain a perpetual level of 120 it they are at 120. Learn something every day.


      So all the ph crashes on kp are bead filters? And some crashed at 120 or 110 ? Don't think so and haven't seen one on KP?

    5. #65
      Marilyn's Avatar
      Marilyn is offline Supporting Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Apr 2008
      Location
      happy in the Heartland! 46071
      Posts
      17,079
      Quote Originally Posted by kdh View Post
      I did not know that all the other bio systems out there could maintain a perpetual level of 120 it they are at 120. Learn something every day.


      So all the ph crashes on kp are bead filters? And some crashed at 120 or 110 ? Don't think so and haven't seen one on KP?
      I am not quite sure where I said that other bio systems maintained that or are deliberately trying to twist my words?

      My point was, when I had a bead filter (and I DID have one on my pond, btw), my KH value could drop as much as 30ppm in a single day. This wasn't what someone told me, I saw it in real time with my own eyes on my own pond.
      If I got the KH at 120ppm, it wouldn't take all that long to be in the danger zone, right? We do still agree that bead filters can have pH crashes or is this something you're contesting as well?

      And I did not say that all pH crashes were bead filter related.

      My point, which I believe at this point you are willfully misunderstanding, is that it is dangerous to run bead filters (or any filters, right?) without keeping an eye on parameters and understanding how your pond functions.


      Quibbling about levels if levels are not observed is pointless.

      Still learning as I go but y'all can call me Marilyn

    6. #66
      No Buddy is offline Senior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Oct 2018
      Location
      planet earth (mostly)
      Posts
      243
      Ok I think we are on the right track now for the most part as for the relationship between pH and kH, as well as it's role in nitrification. Now we can discuss why possibly a bead filter would require a higher kh to function properly. I know of no science that can explain this or if it is truly the case the case at all. I think most folks reading thru this thread should understand the basics now. It seems that no one can come up with any science that would suggest a bead filter needs a different set of kH values as compared to any other bio filter. I am not saying this is impossible, I just need a starting point of science to be able to come up with any theories of my own. Is it bead filters or is it just any pressurized filter that we are talking about? Once again I know of no science that suggests a bead filter needs a different set of parameters as compared to other types of biofilters to function properly. With the dozen bead filters I have in operation I have never noticed a difference in their function as compared to other biofilter types which I also run. About half of my bead filters are used as the sole biological filtration for heavy fish loads, and the other half are used in conjunction with other types of biofiltration as well. In the latter case the bead filters are not primarily for nitrification but more for polishing the water in my retail tanks.

      So, as for the question of the possibility of a bead filter needing a higher kH, could it be the pressurized part of all this that could possibly matter? I don't think so but invite anyone to show me some science on this particular subject, and that the problem exists at all. Until then, and with the information discussed by all in this thread I think we have come to the conclusion that a bead filter does not require a different kH than other filters as for the nitrification process in general. With that said find your own personal levels of kH that keep your pH stable and your nitrification working at its optimal capacity, no matter what type of biofilter you may have. IMHO that range will vary and be between 80 ppm minimally if you are one that add BS as a buffer to maintain kH and as for the maximum I know of no reason to keep it above 200 ppm, other than if you only wanted to have to add more buffers because of kH depletion once every six months or more. Otherwise I would go out on a limb and say most folks that buffer with BS should maintain a range from 80ppm to a max of 175 (or 200 if it makes you feel better.) You can easily find all of this out for yourself if you have a bead filter and buffer with baking soda. Peace out
      Last edited by No Buddy; 01-24-2020 at 09:07 PM.

    7. #67
      KoiRun's Avatar
      KoiRun is offline Senior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Nov 2015
      Location
      Mississauga, Ontario
      Posts
      2,267
      Quote Originally Posted by No Buddy View Post
      Ok I think we are on the right track now for the most part as for the relationship between pH and kH, as well as it's role in nitrification. Now we can discuss why possibly a bead filter would require a higher kh to function properly. I know of no science that can explain this or if it is truly the case the case at all. I think most folks reading thru this thread should understand the basics now. It seems that no one can come up with any science that would suggest a bead filter needs a different set of kH values as compared to any other bio filter. I am not saying this is impossible, I just need a starting point of science to be able to come up with any theories of my own. Is it bead filters or is it just any pressurized filter that we are talking about? Once again I know of no science that suggests a bead filter needs a different set of parameters as compared to other types of biofilters to function properly. With the dozen bead filters I have in operation I have never noticed a difference in their function as compared to other biofilter types which I also run. About half of my bead filters are used as the sole biological filtration for heavy fish loads, and the other half are used in conjunction with other types of biofiltration as well. In the latter case the bead filters are not primarily for nitrification but more for polishing the water in my retail tanks.

      So, as for the question of the possibility of a bead filter needing a higher kH, could it be the pressurized part of all this that could possibly matter? I don't think so but invite anyone to show me some science on this particular subject, and that the problem exists at all. Until then, and with the information discussed by all in this thread I think we have come to the conclusion that a bead filter does not require a different kH than other filters as for the nitrification process in general. With that said find your own personal levels of kH that keep your pH stable and your nitrification working at its optimal capacity, no matter what type of biofilter you may have. IMHO that range will vary and be between 80 ppm minimally if you are one that add BS as a buffer to maintain kH and as for the maximum I know of no reason to keep it above 200 ppm, other than if you only wanted to have to add more buffers because of kH depletion once every six months or more. Otherwise I would go out on a limb and say most folks that buffer with BS should maintain a range from 80ppm to a max of 175 (or 200 if it makes you feel better.) You can easily find all of this out for yourself if you have a bead filter and buffer with baking soda. Peace out
      I think bead filters is a unique beast or else KH and bead filters would not make a unique topic and too often. It is basically the only filter that is truly both mechanical and biological all in one. There is a spectrum as to how how biological or how mechanical it works. The more frequent it is flushed and the more harsh it it flushed the more biological it is. The less frequent and the gentler it is flushed the more mechanical it is. The same in true that the bead filter can either nitrify and denitrify. Again there is a spectrum. The more you flush and the harder is it agitated the more of a nitrifying machine it becomes. The opposite is true too. The less frequent it is flushed and the gentler it is agitated the more denitrifying machine it becomes. The same is true on how much KH it uses. There is a spectrum. The more you flush and the more it is agitated the more KH it will use up. The opposite is true too. The less frequent it is flushed and the gentler, the less KH is used up. The same is true with fish and feeding load too. There is a spectrum. The more frequent it is flushed and the more agitation the more fish you can have along with their feed rate. The opposite is true too. The you less fish you have along with their appropriate feed rate, flushing can be less frequent and agitation can be gentler. You get the pattern here? This is all interconnected and scientifically based. And... unique to bead filters.



      Let me give you a scenario example, one from each side of this spectrum. Ponder A has a fairly light fish load. Sometimes he forgets to feed his koi and gold fish. He flushes his bead filter once a munth. After months of not logging on to KP he encounters this thread on KH and bead filters. Appalled, he would like to prove the world that you don't need a KH of 200. If fact he thinks you are all making koi keeping way too complicated that it needs to be. He goes and looks for his test kit. He finds that his kit are all expired but then so what. But he finds his kit doesn't even include a KH test kit. He goes out and he purchases a genuine drop API KH test kit knowing dang well he will never have to use it again in his life. He measured his pond KH and it is 100. KP is disproven.

      Ponder B on the other hand is a koi addict. The worst kind. He visits koi shows and can't help to bring home koi every time. As a result his pond is now way too over crowded. No worries though. Form past learned experience he has learned to deal with this. In the present time he recently enlarged his filtration to comprise of two bead filters. He power flushes each one every other day. He has learned to monitor his water closely especially his KH if nothing else. At his current stocking level he determines that a KH anywhere from 180-220 is quite safe. Lucky he is a costco member. Baking soda there is very cheap.
      Last edited by KoiRun; 01-24-2020 at 10:59 PM.
      Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time. ---- Marthe Troly-Curtin

      KoiRun on YouTube, latest video:
      https://youtu.be/72iiuRXY2Wk

    8. #68
      No Buddy is offline Senior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Oct 2018
      Location
      planet earth (mostly)
      Posts
      243
      I am sorry but I am not following what you are trying to say here. All biofliters have a degree of mechanical filtration associated with them, either purposefully or non intentionally. The degree varies from type to type for sure, as well as what other, if any, filters are incorporated with the total system filtration. Even with a stand alone bead filter with just a skimmer situation I still do not see how this relates to why a bead filter needs a higher kH level from your explanation. It is probably just me though...it's late and I am ready for bed.

    9. #69
      KoiRun's Avatar
      KoiRun is offline Senior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Nov 2015
      Location
      Mississauga, Ontario
      Posts
      2,267
      Ok good night.

      Here is the morning paper when you wake up:

      https://www.researchgate.net/publica...g-bead_filters

      The little understanding I get in this paper is that, with heavy a fish load, nitrification is related to the frequency and severity of how bead filters are flushed. The theory is that more nitrification takes place when a bead filter is flushed more aggressively and frequently because oxygen penetration will be at it's highest when the filter is clean. We are talking about mature filters here. The higher the nitrification rate, of course, the more KH will be consumed.

      With bead filters, under high load, with the frequent flushing required, there seems a huge swing back and forth along the said spectrum that is differently than any other filters. Bacteria never seems to settle in, are in constant exponential growth, requiring more KH.
      Last edited by KoiRun; 01-25-2020 at 12:21 AM.
      Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time. ---- Marthe Troly-Curtin

      KoiRun on YouTube, latest video:
      https://youtu.be/72iiuRXY2Wk

    10. #70
      No Buddy is offline Senior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Oct 2018
      Location
      planet earth (mostly)
      Posts
      243
      Quote Originally Posted by KoiRun View Post
      Ok good night.

      Here is the morning paper when you wake up:

      https://www.researchgate.net/publica...g-bead_filters

      The little understanding I get in this paper is that, with heavy a fish load, nitrification is related to the frequency and severity of how bead filters are flushed. The theory is that more nitrification takes place when a bead filter is flushed more aggressively and frequently because oxygen penetration will be at it's highest when the filter is clean. We are talking about mature filters here. The higher the nitrification rate, of course, the more KH will be consumed.

      With bead filters, under high load, with the frequent flushing required, there seems a huge swing back and forth along the said spectrum that is differently than any other filters. Bacteria never seems to settle in, are in constant exponential growth, requiring more KH.
      Wow! I guess I have to be more careful what I wish/ask for! LOL. I asked for some science and you surely supplied that with this paper! I knew I should not have clicked your link right before my bedtime., but it was calling to me LOL. So I did. I had to break out some old text books to fully follow and comprehend it, but I did get thru it.

      With that said, I think the average Koi hobbyist or even professional would have a difficult time comprehending this paper. Neither here nor there though, it does give you the deep deep science as for the nitrification process inside a bead filter, BUT only as it applies to backwashing frequency and aggressiveness of a given backwash cycle. It does not directly affect how these things affect the kH and why a bead filter would need to maintain a higher kH as compared to any type of biofilter including a bead filter.

      I do see now what you are saying as to how it could possibly affect the kH level but I still don't see why it would require a higher overall kH level as compared to other biofilters.

      Everything I read in this paper seems to be directed at what happens when we clean a bead filter. The same thing happens when we clean any biofilter however, and this fact does not separate out a bead filter as needing more kH. How and how often you clean any biofilter will absolutely affect the nitrification process. To what degree is not all that relevant in what we are discussing as for the kH level required in a bead filter needing to be higher than that of any biofilter.

      This referenced paper is written on a Doctoral level and goes into the deepest of science and chemistry. I don't think the average Koi hobbyists needs to or wants to go this deep. They may become overwhelmed and not want to bother. I am not be condescending here, just realistic. To try and help anyone that may have a hard time following this papers deep science in the referenced link I will offer my interpretation of it in basic terms. Again this is only my interpretation of it and not gospel;

      The paper is primarily discussing how the nitrification process is affected when a bead filter gets dirty, when it gets cleaned, how often it gets cleaned and how aggressively it gets cleaned. All of these variables affect the nitrification process.
      If a biofilter gets dirty it is not good for the nitrifying bacteria as they need high 02 to work optimally. When the filter is full of muck the 02 available to the nitrifiers goes down as they cannot get to it thru the muck. When this happens a portion of the bacteria will die. When a filter gets this dirty that it impedes the nitrification process it means that it is time to clean it. However in our Koi ponds and systems the flow will normally slow down coming out of the bead filter, or any type of biofilter. So noticing the slower flow rate is when we normally clean them. We have no way of knowing the deep science and chemistry that is happening in the filter and most of us really don't care to know. We know the basics that when a biofilter gets dirty it hurts the bacteria and caused the filter to become less efficient in flow as well as to how well it works as for removing the dangerous nitrogenous compound of ammonia, and nitrite.

      So once we see it is dirty, we clean it. When we clean it we get rid of the muck that was inhibiting the bacteria from working efficiently. However when we clean it we can also damage the biofilm/bacteria and lose some in the cleaning process. This is where the papers discusses how often and how aggressively a filter is cleaned will affect the nitrification process, both negatively and positively at the same time. Once cleaned however the lost biofilm/bacteria will quickly replenish/recolonize themselves. So these negatives of losing bacteria are only temporary.
      Now once cleaned and allowed to restabilize, the filter will now be back to working at its optimal level assuming all other parameters and variables of the system remain the same as prior to the cleaning. So basically put how often and how aggressively a bead filter or any biofilter is cleaned can and will affect its efficiency when it comes to the nitrification process, and this paper clearly shows that. This paper just said this same thing in a very deep scientific and chemistry related manner. So this is my take on the primary discussion in this paper.
      Now with that said, I still see nothing in this paper that directly addresses why a bead filter needs a higher overall kH level as compared to other types of biofilters.

      Now indirectly we can hypothesize some reasons based on the information given in this paper, and I think this is what Koirun is trying to say. Correct me if my assumption is wrong;

      How often and how aggressively you clean a bead filter could possibly affect it and cause it to require a higher kH level because of the damage that is done when backwashing as it relates to how often and how aggressively, to the nitrifying bacteria. However I do not agree with this theory. Once again how often and how aggressively you clean any type of biofilter affects their nitrification process the same in my opinion and therefore I see no reason why it is different in a bead filter.

      The only difference I could see with a bead filter is in general folks are going to clean them more often than other types of biofilters. This is because of how the flow gets impeded when a bead filter get too dirty, and because of the ease of cleaning a bead filter as compared to other types of biofilters. However I still cannot relate this to an increased depletion of the kH in a bead filter as compared to any other type of biofilter. IMHO the effect is the same and therefore having a higher overall kH in a bead filter is not going to make a difference.

      Now I will say that when you clean a bead filter as compared to other biofilters you will most likely lose more water. This in turn will require more new water being added back to the system. Now depending on the pH and kH levels of the new water could affect both the pH and kH of the pond water remaining after backwashing. In other words if you add new water that has a pH of 7 and a kH of say 50ppm to a pond with a pH of 8 and a kH in the remaining water of say 100, then it is possible that in the end you are depleting the overall pH and kH levels desired in the pond. In this scenario however it still does not dictate needing a higher kH of 200 or higher, and is not directly related to a bead filter being unique in this respect. Depending on the water parameters of the new water in combination to the parameters of the existing water remaining still does not lead me to see how the total kH needs to be higher. The only thing that may change as for the frequency and aggressiveness of cleaning a bead filter is how often you need to replenish any buffering agent like baking soda, due to the amount of water lost in the backwash cycle. Still does not affect what total kH we need in my opinion. Bead filter or not it will still function properly with lower total Kh below 200 in my opinion .This can easily be self proven to anyone that runs a bead filter. Personally I have never seen any negative or positive results of keeping a higher total KH of 200 or more in a bead filter, no matter the fish load or the cleaning schedule and aggressiveness of the cleaning.

      Let me say one more thing. It has been my experience that most bead filter manufacturers grossly over estimate their filters carrying capacity in relationship to fish loads and feed rate if they even list it in their specs at all. Most don't. Only the better ones actually list recommended total fish weight capacity. Instead many just say this bead filter is for a 2000 or whatever size pond with the different size filters they sell and do not even discuss bioloads. The size of the pond does not always directly relate to the fish loads and feeds rates that will be used in them.When I design systems for myself or clients they will normally end up having a bead filter that is twice the size that is recommended by the manufacturers, but they will be designed for the end users needs. This is very relevant to this discussion as well. As with any biofilter, bigger is better and this is especially true in the case of bead filters. By sizing them the way I do based on fish loads and feed rates, the fact that they are larger leads to less frequent backwashing as well. Also this is why I disagree that a bead filter cannot make an adequate stand alone biofilter. When you consider their small footprint, their ease of cleaning and other factors they can make for a fine biofilter when sized properly and more importantly have some sort of mechanical prefiltration before the bead filter.Also some of the bead filter manufacturers have very low maximum flow rates they suggest. This has less to do with the pressure build u pin the filter as it does with their concerns over the "dwell time" of the water going thru the filter. With some of the bead filter companies out there that I have had discussions with, I do not agree with some of their assessments regarding dwell time, not to mention that adequate dwell time is a subject of great debate scientifically. How fast or slow the water goes thru the given filter is what dwell time is all about, and it is an extremely complex and debated subject in the science world.

      Once again however let me emphasize that when i refer to a bead filter I mean one with true, floating bead media and ones that have a blower for the backwash cycle specifically. I do not consider filters like Aqua Ultima to be bead filters. These are simply pressurized filters and have many drawbacks as compared to a true bead filter with a blower. This is a whole other thread however and I won't go there deeply in this thread.

      To me this is how a discussion should go and I thank you for the referenced paper, BUT I hate you for the sleepless night LOL I commend everyone for getting this thread back on track with one subject at a time and for keeping it civil while doing so.
      Last edited by No Buddy; 01-25-2020 at 06:40 AM.

      • Remove Ads
        Advertising from Google
        Promoting Koi and Pond
        keeping since 2007

         

    11. #71
      KoiRun's Avatar
      KoiRun is offline Senior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Nov 2015
      Location
      Mississauga, Ontario
      Posts
      2,267
      Good morning!

      I'm glad you enjoyed this paper and sorry about your sleep time but slowly but surely I think we are getting there. I least we've just been given a clue that you (Buddy) live in the same continent in planet earth as most of us.

      Now that we know a bead filter's requirement (under heavy load) in order to nitrify, I turn your attention to denitrification so discussion and explanation will flow better later on.

      Here's video. Try to see how the filter within is much different than a bead filter though both are flushed daily under heavy loads. Also imagine the difference in water contact time ie. how long water dwells in each filter. From about 10 minutes into the video it relate to oxygen gradient in a fix bed biological system.

      Last edited by KoiRun; 01-25-2020 at 07:44 AM.
      Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time. ---- Marthe Troly-Curtin

      KoiRun on YouTube, latest video:
      https://youtu.be/72iiuRXY2Wk

    12. #72
      No Buddy is offline Senior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Oct 2018
      Location
      planet earth (mostly)
      Posts
      243
      Quote Originally Posted by KoiRun View Post
      Good morning!

      I'm glad you enjoyed this paper and sorry about your sleep time but slowly but surely I think we are getting there. I least we've just been given a clue that you (Buddy) live in the same continent in planet earth as most of us.

      Now that we know a bead filter's requirement (under heavy load) in order to nitrify, I turn your attention to denitrification so discussion and explanation will flow better later on.

      Here's video. Try to see how the filter within is much different than a bead filter though both are flushed daily under heavy loads. Also imagine the difference in water contact time ie. how long water dwells in each filter. From about 10 minutes into the video it relate to oxygen gradient in a fix bed biological system.

      I see that this video is primarily about anoxic filtration. Before I devote an hour and a half of my life to watching it let me say that I am not well versed on this subject. What little I am familiar with as for anoxic filtration it seems it is more devoted to nitrate removal and specifically geared towards waste water management on a municipal level. I have read a few papers on the subject and each one has caused more skepticism as to its application in koi aquaculture, and therefore I stopped perusing it. No matter what these authors on the subject say in the papers I have read to date, it seems to me to be just a glorified bog filter with less of an organic substrate then a traditional bog filter but that still adds additional organic loads to the system, even though they seem to stress it is not a bog filter. Personally I do not want this for my needs and Koi. However this judgement to date could possibly be due to my ignorance on the subject as well as my total lack of personal experiences with anoxic filtration. I like to have both theory and application experience before a make a final assessment on something, but from what I have researched to date I saw no need to do so.

      With that said, and before I delve into this please give me your theory on how this video will directly address why a bead filter may or may not require a higher alkalinity overall to function optimally in our Koi ponds. This way I can assess your theory to see if it is worth and hour and a half perusing something I have no personal interest in, and focus on that theory while possibly eventually watching this entire video on a subject of which I am currently skeptical about. My skepticism may well be because of my lack of knowledge on this anoxic subject for sure, but as well I need to see the relevance of why I would care about it as compared to conventional biofiltration, and nitrification. I mean to say I find conventional biofiltration to be more than suitable for my needs. So please lead me into this video with your theory on how this video may apply to the discussion at hand.
      Last edited by No Buddy; 01-25-2020 at 01:50 PM.

    13. #73
      KoiRun's Avatar
      KoiRun is offline Senior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Nov 2015
      Location
      Mississauga, Ontario
      Posts
      2,267
      The ratio of carbon:nitrogen:phosphorus in bacterial make up is approximately 100:10:1

      There is large variety of chemicals that provide KH. These chemicals include bicarbonates (HCO3-), carbonates (CO3--), and hydroxides (OH-).

      KH is lost during nitrification. This loss occurs through the use of KH as a carbon source by nitrifying bacteria and by the destruction of KH by the production of acids during nitrification. Acids are produced when ammonia in converted to nitrite. Significantly more KH is lost through the conversion of ammonia than through the use of KH as a carbon source. During the exponential growth phase of nitrifying bacteria (please google), however, relatively more KH is required as a building block to produce more bacteria than in the stationary phase. There are many types of alkalis (KH) that provide inorganic carbon for nitrifying bacteria. Nitrifying bacteria prefers bicarbonate alkalinity (baking soda). Approximately 7.07 mg of KH are destroyed per milligram of ammonia that is converted to nitrite. Some ammonia are not converted but are used as building blocks. If ammonia is used as building blocks KH is destroyed.

      KH is produced when organic-nitrogen compounds are deaminated and nitrates are destroyed during denitrification. The amount of KH produced or returned to the water column during denitrification is 3.57mg per milligram of nitrate that is converted to nitrogen gas. This amount of KH that is returned during denitrification is approximately one-half the amount of KH that is lost during nitrification.

      Unlike other filters bead filters, because of their intrinsic design (not getting into), with their need to be aggressively and more frequently flushed during heavy loads in order to obtain optimal nitrification are not very good at denitrification. Unlike other filters they miss out on the KH that is returned during denitrification thereby requiring more KH. Nitrifying bacteria spends more time in exponential growth phase which requires relatively more KH.
      Last edited by KoiRun; 01-25-2020 at 06:46 PM.
      Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time. ---- Marthe Troly-Curtin

      KoiRun on YouTube, latest video:
      https://youtu.be/72iiuRXY2Wk

    14. #74
      No Buddy is offline Senior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Oct 2018
      Location
      planet earth (mostly)
      Posts
      243
      The ratio of carbon:nitrogen:phosphorus in bacterial make up is 100:10:1
      Agreed
      There is large variety of chemicals that provide KH. These chemicals include bicarbonates (HCO3-), carbonates (CO3--), and hydroxides (OH-). Agreed but there are also other things like phosphates, borates and silicates that also provide alkalinity to a lesser extent than the aforementioned, but they can contribute

      KH is lost during nitrification. Agreed This loss occurs through the use of KH as a carbon source by nitrifying bacteria and by the destruction of KH by the production of acids during nitrification. Agreed Acids are produced when ammonia in converted to nitrite. Agreed
      Significantly more KH is lost through the conversion of ammonia than through the use of KH as a carbon source.
      ??? I don't understand your sentence above

      During the exponential growth phase of nitrifying bacteria (please google), don't need to google as I am very familiar with the multiple stages of bacteria growth and this phase being just one of them
      however, relatively more KH is required as a building block to produce more bacteria than in the stationary phase. There are many types of alkalis (KH) that provide inorganic carbon for nitrifying bacteria. Nitrifying bacteria prefers bicarbonate alkalinity (baking soda). Approximately 7.07 mg of KH are destroyed per milligram of ammonia that is converted to nitrite. Some ammonia are not converted but are used as building blocks. If ammonia is used as building blocks KH is destroyed. Agreed to this point

      KH is produced when organic-nitrogen compounds are deaminated and nitrates are destroyed during denitrification. The amount of KH produced or returned to the water column during denitrification is 3.57mg per milligram of nitrate that is converted to nitrogen gas. This amount of KH that is returned during denitrification is approximately one-half the amount of KH that is lost during nitrification.......This applies more to specialized filtration like your anoxic and it totally depending on if there is substantial denitrification processes occurring in a bead filter on a Koi pond with or without a heavy fish load. This is not the case in a bead filter and a Koi pond to any great extent in most cases, but it depends on other variables like aeration and 02 content, as well as if any other types of degassing filtration in incorporated in the system to name just a few variables.

      Unlike other filters bead filters, because of their intrinsic design (not getting into), with their need to be aggressively and more frequently flushed during heavy loads in order to obtain optimal nitrification are not very good at denitrification. Unlike other filters they miss out on the KH that is returned during denitrification thereby requiring more KH. Nitrifying bacteria spends more time in exponential growth phase which requires relatively more KH

      Ok, with part of this paragraph you are enforcing what I previously replied. However I don' think there is a need for the nitrification process of a bead filter in a Koi pond or system (even with a heavy fish load and feed rate) to require any additional kH as compared to any other biofilter.
      So far , unless you have more, your responses seem to be taking information from what occurs in a waste water/ sewage treatment facility. This is not apples for apples when comparing that to a Koi pond. With that said I agree with your debate as it concerns waste water treatment but I disagree that the same applies to a heavily loaded Koi pond and a bead filter. So I guess we will have to agree to disagree unless more relevant information is provided.
      As I stated in a previous post, while I am open minded to theory and hypothesis, it is this combined with practical experience that will dictate my end determination of things. In my case of having many bead filters in operation ( as well as just about every other conventional type of biofilters,) I have never experienced a need to run a higher kH level than 175 in a system that incorporates a bead filter even when it is used as the sole means of biofiltration for heavy fish loads.. Understand that this level of 175 ppm kH is only to keep me from having to add buffers/BS more often than I would like to. ( the maintenance schedule) as well as give me a "buffer zone" to help eliminate any chance of a pH crash. As I sated I never let my systems go below 100 ppm. When they get to that point I than gradually raise them up to 150-175 ppm. If I allow them to go below my minimal desired kH of 100, the pH will begin to fall from the normal and constant pH of 8.2 in my systems. The only other times that I may not allow the kH to go below 100 ppm is when I am cycling a new bead filter, adding more fish to the system, or increasing the feed rates or protein content. This as you know are times when the kH will get depleted much faster than that of a mature/cycled filter.
      Last edited by No Buddy; 01-25-2020 at 08:18 PM.

    15. #75
      pondfishguy is offline Senior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Dec 2018
      Location
      Los Angeles
      Posts
      398
      Quote Originally Posted by kdh View Post
      So I talked to a bead filter company and there recommendation for a (strong) kh is 120. They got this information from talking to a few water scientists. And as mentioned. It comes down to how much acids are be buffered to drive the kh down that requires different levels of kh. That is why some bead filters work great at much less than 120. So 120 seems to be the magic number for now. lol
      I'm not a water scientist or expert by any means but have run bead filters over 8 years at ph 7.2-7.4 using a stock solution of sodium bicarbonate and a metering pump. High fish loads and only the occasional crash when I run out of solution or the there is a pump problem. KH always less than 50. IMHO you just need enough to keep the ph in a good range and stable. Higher kh means more buffering and less to worry about.

    16. #76
      No Buddy is offline Senior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Oct 2018
      Location
      planet earth (mostly)
      Posts
      243
      Quote Originally Posted by pondfishguy View Post
      I'm not a water scientist or expert by any means but have run bead filters over 8 years at ph 7.2-7.4 using a stock solution of sodium bicarbonate and a metering pump. High fish loads and only the occasional crash when I run out of solution or the there is a pump problem. KH always less than 50. IMHO you just need enough to keep the ph in a good range and stable. Higher kh means more buffering and less to worry about.
      Yes that is another way to keep the pH stable without have to maintain a higher kH. However, if you truly have the occasional pH crash below 7 you better be careful. Enough of a crash and depending on other variables involved you could lose your entire population it the blink of an eye. With your current stats you are walking the line IMHO

    17. #77
      No Buddy is offline Senior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Oct 2018
      Location
      planet earth (mostly)
      Posts
      243
      Let me also add to my previous post #74 that I do not really care about nitrates and denitrification. Firstly I am not as concerned about nitrate levels until they get above 100. Yes, I am completely aware that many many folks may think this is outrageous but I have never experienced Koi health issues concerning nitrates up to 100ppm for an extended period. Most aquaculture farms have the same lack of concerns. There are certain fish species however as well as other propagated species including some non fish species where higher nitrate levels can have a far greater negative affect as compared to carp/Koi.

      With that said however in general in most of my recir systems the nitrate levels never get close to 100 ppm. This is especially true in the systems that incorporate bead filters as the primary biofliter. This has to do with the frequency of backwashes and the need for adding new source water back to top off the systems after a backwash cycle. In general most of my systems require a once per week backwash with my heavy fish loads, feed rates, etc, and using a 42% feed most often. ( Some fry tanks the feed is 55% protein)
      With the low nitrate levels of my well water, it does a good job of removing any excess nitrate build up that may occur. With this in mind is why I have no needs or desires for anoxic filtration or denitrification other than what little denitrification that occurs normally which is very minimal in conventional biofilter systems.
      Last edited by No Buddy; 01-26-2020 at 12:15 AM.

    18. #78
      KoiRun's Avatar
      KoiRun is offline Senior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Nov 2015
      Location
      Mississauga, Ontario
      Posts
      2,267
      Quote Originally Posted by No Buddy View Post
      Ok, with part of this paragraph you are enforcing what I previously replied. However I don' think there is a need for the nitrification process of a bead filter in a Koi pond or system (even with a heavy fish load and feed rate) to require any additional kH as compared to any other biofilter.
      So far , unless you have more, your responses seem to be taking information from what occurs in a waste water/ sewage treatment facility. This is not apples for apples when comparing that to a Koi pond. With that said I agree with your debate as it concerns waste water treatment but I disagree that the same applies to a heavily loaded Koi pond and a bead filter. So I guess we will have to agree to disagree unless more relevant information is provided.
      As I stated in a previous post, while I am open minded to theory and hypothesis, it is this combined with practical experience that will dictate my end determination of things. In my case of having many bead filters in operation ( as well as just about every other conventional type of biofilters,) I have never experienced a need to run a higher kH level than 175 in a system that incorporates a bead filter even when it is used as the sole means of biofiltration for heavy fish loads.. Understand that this level of 175 ppm kH is only to keep me from having to add buffers/BS more often than I would like to. ( the maintenance schedule) as well as give me a "buffer zone" to help eliminate any chance of a pH crash. As I sated I never let my systems go below 100 ppm. When they get to that point I than gradually raise them up to 150-175 ppm. If I allow them to go below my minimal desired kH of 100, the pH will begin to fall from the normal and constant pH of 8.2 in my systems. The only other times that I may not allow the kH to go below 100 ppm is when I am cycling a new bead filter, adding more fish to the system, or increasing the feed rates or protein content. This as you know are times when the kH will get depleted much faster than that of a mature/cycled filter.
      I think we are getting off track here. Personal and practical experience aside, I thought you wanted scientifically based reasons why bead filters can require higher KH when compared to other filters. I just gave two scientifically based reasons why. What I got for reply I feel are more practical and personal in nature.

      I am not minimizing personal and practical experiences by any means. Myself and others I am sure appreciate them.
      Last edited by KoiRun; 01-26-2020 at 07:45 AM.
      Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time. ---- Marthe Troly-Curtin

      KoiRun on YouTube, latest video:
      https://youtu.be/72iiuRXY2Wk

    19. #79
      No Buddy is offline Senior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Oct 2018
      Location
      planet earth (mostly)
      Posts
      243
      Quote Originally Posted by KoiRun View Post
      I think we are getting off track here. Personal and practical experience aside, I thought you wanted scientifically based reasons why bead filters can require higher KH when compared to other filters. I just gave two scientifically based reasons why. What I got for reply I feel are more practical and personal in nature.

      I am not minimizing personal and practical experiences by any means. Myself and others I am sure appreciate them.
      I don't think we are getting off track. We are discussing two different aspects at the same time.
      One is the original topic of this thread whether a bead filter needs a kH of 200 or higher to work properly as a biofilter as compared to other types of biofilters. In my posts I am saying I see no evidence of this both in what you have supplied and based on my experiences. I asked if anyone had science to show how and why a bead filter may need a kH of 200 or more, and this is one topic we have been addressing.

      The second debate that has come up in this is whether a bead filter USES more kH as compared to other filters.. These are slightly different questions. Just because a bead filter may use more kH does not mean that it requires a kH of 200 or more. However I do not agree that a bead filter USES more kH overall from a nitrification standpoint. Basically put is I do not feel that the biofilm is damaged enough to cause this in reality, and this is based on my experiences and not theory. The title of the first paper you supplied is " A Theoretical model of nitrification in floating bead filtration" I am saying my experiences possibly disprove this theory, but more importantly they disprove your interpretation of this paper.

      Firstly, as for the first paper you supplied, as stated I disagree with your interpretation of that paper when you use it as evidence that a bead filter uses more kH from a biological standpoint. It seems you are using the premise that a bead filter is cleaned more often then other types of conventional biofilters. I agree with this as a stand alone statement. However I don't agree that that this would require having and maintaining a higher kH of 200 as compared to any other filter when we are discussing the key point of whether a bead filter requires a kH of 200 or more to counteract this action of backwashing and possibly depleting the kH from that standpoint. This is where my practical experience tells me it is not the case. I say based on the information you have supplied as well as your explanation of your assessment of said information, I disagree that this information shows evidence that you need a kH of 200 or more.

      As for the anoxic filtration information you supplied, I still have not watched this video. Started to, but its low quality presentation and recording makes it very difficult to sit thru. This combined with your synopsis of using it as why a bead filter may need more kH does not apply to me because we are not comparing apples to apples. Most Koi folks in the hobby have no purposeful anoxic filtration, meaning true stand alone anoxic filtration . They may have indirect anoxic filtration from plants that may be in there including algae, as well as a slight amount of denitrification that may occur in any system. My debate here is you can't compare waste water treatment and how biofiltration applies to it, to a Koi pond. While there are some basic similarities, these are two very different worlds with different goals in mind, as well as very different overall environments.

    20. #80
      No Buddy is offline Senior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Oct 2018
      Location
      planet earth (mostly)
      Posts
      243
      Basically I do not agree that the biofilm is as delicate as this supplied information implies. In other words I do not agree that a substantial amount of nitrifiers are lost during even the most aggressive of backwash cycles when talking about a Koi pond. There may be more of a loss in a commercial grade bead filter as utilized in waste water management, but these in no real way compare to out bead filters in design or maintenance practices and means.I do agree some are lost though. However as a bead filter is in operation even with heavy fish loads and feed rates, at some point the biofilm will cause beads to clump and stick together. This will cause the loss of some nitrification action. How much this impacts a given system will vary based on the size of the filter and thus the amount of media inside overall. This is one reason I say manufacturers undersize bead filter recommendations when they base it solely on the total water volume of the system it filters.

      This is why when I design a system it is based on fish load, feed rates and other variables, and not just the volume of water in the system. In my designs they will always end up larger than ones sized based on water volume alone. This includes both hobbyists systems, as well as commercial system. So with this in mind is one reason that I may see different results as compared to other folks that use the manufacturers recommendations of size based on system water volume alone. This in turn will lead to very different outcomes in what we are discussing.

      Now you may be wondering what this has to do with the subject at hand of kH. I will get to that so hear me out.

      Now not only does media clump at some point in operation, dirt and muck is accumulated in the filter. As this happens you are also losing some nitrification, because you are losing optimal substrate for nitrifiers with all the muck in situ. Then at some point due to clumping of media in combination with the build up of dirt inside the filter, you will start to lose total flow thru the filter. This as well could cause the loss of nitrification.

      Now my guess would be that most Koi enthusiasts would not let a bead filter go to the point of impeded flow. Some non enthusiasts and water gardeners maybe. In either situation you will have lost some degree of nitrification and this degree will vary based on backwashing schedules and many other variables. Are there plants in the system? How much algae and/or green water? etc etc.

      So we are to the point that the filter needs backwashing for either the reason of loss of flow or just because it is time in your maintenance schedule to backwash. If you take the worst case scenario of loss of flow, and clumping media, you have a very dirty and thus inefficient filter on your hands at this point. This filter will require multiple backwashes in order to break up the clumping, remove most of the muck and get the flow back to normal design. (assuming the original design in adequate)
      In my experience when a filter reaches this level of loss of flow it requires me to do at least three complete backwash cycles of blower, rinse, backwash and rinse again. Variables discussed will dictate how long and thus how much water loss is caused by the amount of time it takes to complete each backwash cycle. The parameters of any water that needs to be added afterwards to top off the sytem will also affect many aspects of this discussion. This is especially true when looking at pH and kH levels of the source water, but there are many other variables as well, like carbon dioxide , chlorine, chlorimine, heavy metals just to name a few. We won' get into all of this now as to how it may affect the kH and pH of the system and this discussion.

      Now after the filter is cleaned, we agree we have lost some bacteria, and thus some nitrification. For this reason the following day you may or may not experience some degree of spikes in ammonia. If the system is designed even close to adequately these spikes should be minimal and only last a day or two tops. With how I design my system speaking of size of filter alone, I normally will not experience these spikes even with my extreme organic loads. However, we can agree that the bacteria that are lost will attempt to repopulate based on the amount of ammonia being produced at this point. As the bacteria reproduce and as the existing bacteria work harder to keep up with the loss of some bacteria there is more nitrification going on. I agree that when this occurs the filter will deplete kH faster. The same holds true as to why a new uncycled filter will do the same as the nitrification process starts and increases over time.

      So we agree on most things to this point. Where I disagree is that with all the above that a bead filter needs a kH of 200 or more to operate efficiently, and I do not see where the supplied references prove or support this. You seem to be implying that this action of the bacteria reproducing and becoming more active overall is why a bead filter requires a higher kh as compared to other filters, because a bead filter is cleaned more often than other types and therefore requires more total kH to function efficiently. I disagree as the loss of nitrification due to clumping and muck is more damaging than the cleaning effect of the filter having to reproduce the lost bacteria/biofilm from the cleaning. With this in mind I am saying the cleaning does not do more harm to the bacteria as does the clumping and dirt that accumulated before the cleaning. Either way when a bead filter gets dirty, it slows the nitrification process substantially, and at this point the bead filter is using less kH. Once the filter is cleaned, even with any lost bacteria due to aggressive cleaning cycles, the cleaned filter can operate at maximum efficiency. So the cleaning effect counteracts the fact that you lose bacteria during the cleaning. because now when cleaned it will work more efficiently. It is at this point that the nitrification process will go into high gear and use more kH, but because it slowed the usage of kh progressively as it was clumping and getting dirty there is no substantial affect in needing anymore kH than any other biofilter.

      Personally I believe this whole thing that bead filters need a high kH started when someone asked why their bead filter was not cycling. Then I think they asked someone why this was, ( be it the manufacturer or someone else more advanced than they in the hobby). Then in trying to explain the relationship of how much kH is needed to aid a filter in optimal efficiency and cycling, that a certain level of kH was needed to do this came into the conversation. After all, this is scientific fact. When speaking of a bead filter or any biofilter cycling the kH will get depleted faster for sure, and on top of this fact a certain level of kH is required to get the most bang for your buck out of the nitrifiers, for them to be able to do their job at an optimal level.

      With this in mind we need to add to this that we need a stable pH and it needs to be above 7 for both the fish and the bacteria to thrive. This is where the kH comes in. As for the fish the pH being above 7 and stable is the point. This is an indirect requirement of the function of kH as it relates to folks that use baking soda as a buffering agent. As for the bacteria, it is fact that more alkaline conditions are needed for them to be able to do their job with the most efficiency. This is a fact as well, but not only that, the bacteria need a certain level of kH to work optimally. These two levels of kH are different. meaning the level of kH required to keep pH stable and above 7 may be different than the amount of kH required during cycling for the bacteria. I say this minimum is around 80 ppm for buffering capacity to function optimally, but again depending on other variables. Also I am only talking about the cases of folks adding baking soda as the primary buffering agent. This is a key point in my debate. I think somewhere in folks struggling to understand this kH depletion that someone along the lines took this as a bead filter needs a higher overall kH to operate efficiently.

      In all, I am saying that I believe a bead filter does not need an overall higher kH to work optimally as compared to other types of biofilters. Remember we need a RANGE of kH to accommodate both the buffering aspect of pH as well as to address the needs of the nitrifiers requiring a given amount of kH to operate efficiently . This range will vary from system to system, and from filter to filter based on many many variables. In order to maintain the kH in the desired range, some of us need to add baking soda periodically. Having a kH of 200 or more does nothing except keep you from having to add baking soda as often, before it gets to your desired minimal level. This is fine if you want to keep your kH at 200 or higher for a cycling filter that uses kH much faster than when fully cycled, and also fine if you don,t want to have to test or worry about the kH levels as much, BUT I do not believe a bead filter needs this high a kH to function at an optimal level. I I see this on a daily level in my operation and many that I have designed for both hobbyist and commercial operations.
      Last edited by No Buddy; 01-26-2020 at 05:14 PM.

      • Remove Ads
        Advertising from Google
        Promoting Koi and Pond
        keeping since 2007

         

    Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •