Filter flow and nitrates..silly question?

[Caliban07]

I'm going to put something across here. A question that has been playing on my mind. I am more than likely missing something so please give reasons why this theory could be incorrect. I'm open to answers from all angles.

Although there is no substitute for changing water to control nitrates. Would I be right in saying that in order to prolong the build up if nitrates a slower filter flow would be beneficial.

The reason I say this is that although I know bacteria colonise every surface the majority I believe is in the filter. This is because the food is 'brought' to the BB via filter flow. The faster the filter flow the quicker the nitrogen cycle? The quicker end product of nitrates would appear?

If we could get a flow rate that would still ensure 0ppm Ammonia and nitrite but was slower. In theory would it take longer for nitrates to build giving more time for plants to use them up reducing the length between water changes? In theory I do stress.

If I'm talking a load if tripe please do say so.

 

[Delapool]

I'm going to put something across here. A question that has been playing on my mind. I am more than likely missing something so please give reasons why this theory could be incorrect. I'm open to answers from all angles.

Although there is no substitute for changing water to control nitrates. Would I be right in saying that in order to prolong the build up if nitrates a slower filter flow would be beneficial.

The reason I say this is that although I know bacteria colonise every surface the majority I believe is in the filter. This is because the food is 'brought' to the BB via filter flow. The faster the filter flow the quicker the nitrogen cycle? The quicker end product of nitrates would appear?

If we could get a flow rate that would still ensure 0ppm Ammonia and nitrite but was slower. In theory would it take longer for nitrates to build giving more time for plants to use them up reducing the length between water changes? In theory I do stress.

If I'm talking a load if tripe please do say so.

Hmm, I have seen something on flow rates. I think it was the slower flow actually gave more 'residence' time but I will have to see if I can find the website. I know it's temperature, ph and aerated water(?) dependant.

I suspect the bacteria will be too efficient even on reduced flow. Just in theory I guess you could drop ph / temperature to slow down the bb. It's pretty late here, I think I'd want something that continuously measured water specs to try it as I assume that if conversion to nitrates is slower, then ammonia and nitrite levels could build up.

 

[Ian086]

I'm going to put something across here. A question that has been playing on my mind. I am more than likely missing something so please give reasons why this theory could be incorrect. I'm open to answers from all angles.

Although there is no substitute for changing water to control nitrates. Would I be right in saying that in order to prolong the build up if nitrates a slower filter flow would be beneficial.

The reason I say this is that although I know bacteria colonise every surface the majority I believe is in the filter. This is because the food is 'brought' to the BB via filter flow. The faster the filter flow the quicker the nitrogen cycle? The quicker end product of nitrates would appear?

If we could get a flow rate that would still ensure 0ppm Ammonia and nitrite but was slower. In theory would it take longer for nitrates to build giving more time for plants to use them up reducing the length between water changes? In theory I do stress.

If I'm talking a load if tripe please do say so.

Not a silly question at all mate. My take on that would be, Nitrate is the least toxic part of the nitrogen cycle. By not filtering the tank properly(gph) the Ammonia 'hangs' around the tank longer. This is then more damaging for the fish. Also a slower filter will not circulate the water in the tank and all the debris in the tank will not be removed.
I'm no expert with planted tanks, maybe it could work in a heavily planted tank. Just my thoughts. I'm interested to see what other members have to say....

 

[Delapool]

I think a low level of salt will neutralise some nitrite? And prime will keep ammonia as ammonium?

So you neutralise the nitrite and ammonia until they can be used by plants and before conversion to nitrate? Hopefully some-one can yay or nay that I'm off to bed

 

[Caliban07]

Thanks. Yes it was just theoretical to start off with and something that I'm sure has been pondered on before now. But could there be that 'optimum' flow rate that, in theory could ensure ammonia and nitrite were at 0ppm at all times as well as stretching the nitrate build up time to as much as was possible.

I mean it might just be that you get an extra few days before trates were to build up to a water changing level.

There must be that optimum flow rate?

 

[Masha]

Also factor in that "bb processing time" in itself can't possibly be the same under all conditions. I'd guess temperature and ph play a significant role.

 

[flitabout]

In my personal experience I like the flow as high as possible. I have a heavily planted tank. Meaning that I have at least 75% of the substrate planted and I also have a tun of floaters. It has taken a lot of work but I am currently at a point where I can maintain my nitrate at 5-10ppm even with my overstocked tank without water changes. I still do at least 50% wc once a week. But that's how I deal with it. That and I am plant crazy!

 

[Caliban07]

I have a fairly heavily planted tank that, after a week is still only at 10ppm nitrates. This is with a well maintained filter, clean gravel and same feeding pattern.

I haven't tried to see if this settles at a certain level if left.

Flit. Do you think that if you reduced the filter flow, nitrates would remain at a constant LOWER level?

 

[Pass_lake]

I think your question is whther or not a faster flow will deliver more nitrate to the bb, and hence increase their produductivity. It is my understanding that the bb operate at rate that is not dependent on the amount of nitrogen passing their way. There is always plenty of nitrogen for them to work optimally.
Higher flow rates, as mentioned by another poster, is good to remove debris that can decay into nitrogenous products, but it does not improve the efficiency of the bb

 

[flitabout]

It's hard to tell but I would have to say that I think the tank would be a lot dirtier. Without the high flow more of the detritus would get left in the tank and not processed by the bb. I doubt it would be a good thing in the long run. But at the same time the plants are able to use the ammo. In a heavily planted I think it would be more possible than in a fish only system. In a fish only there wouldn't be anything to eat the ammo and nitrate. I don't know if I am correct on this one but I believe I read some where that plants don't use nitrite, just the trates and ammo. But again I could be wrong about that.

 

[Masha]

I don't know if I am correct on this one but I believe I read some where that plants don't use nitrite, just the trates and ammo. But again I could be wrong about that.

Apparently plants can process ammonia, nitrites and nitrates, but they first have to convert these to ammonium. Amonia and nitrites are easier to convert to ammonium, nitrates most difficult.

So plants will process nitrates, but they prefer ammonium, and after that, ammonia and nitrites.

I don't have access to the article right now, if you are interested I can post the link later.