aerobic bacteria

[RyanPlanted]

So my filter is a closed system meaning there no open area where water can like evaporate. With my aerobic bacteria i was planning on using K1 or Hel-x since it is a fast flowing water and those two do best in that environment. In order to establish aerobic bacteria do I need an airstone or would the fast flow of water (300 gph) moving through the media be enough to create and establish aerobic bacteria.

 

[vetteguy53081]

So my filter is a closed system meaning there no open area where water can like evaporate. With my aerobic bacteria i was planning on using K1 or Hel-x since it is a fast flowing water and those two do best in that environment. In order to establish aerobic bacteria do I need an airstone or would the fast flow of water (300 gph) moving through the media be enough to create and establish aerobic bacteria.

Although the water flow should help, an air stone never hurts especially with air exchange helping PH also

 

[RyanPlanted]

Although the water flow should help, an air stone never hurts especially with air exchange helping PH also

yeh but i would be very hard and riskey to rig an airstone in there

 

[Azedenkae]

Out of curiosity, what type of aerobic bacteria are you trying to establish?

 

[GARRIGA]

If your fish can breath than there should be sufficient DO. Impossible to create an airtight lid with hoses and cables having to enter the display tank.

 

[damsels are not mean]

What aerobic bacteria?

 

[GARRIGA]

Technically speaking. There’s no such thing as aerobic bacteria. There are autotrophs and heterotrophs that we encounter in our filtration. Former requiring an aerobic environment and the latter being able to operate in both aerobic and anoxic. There are also bacteria that thrive in an anaerobic environment but I’m not well versed in those and not sure we actually encounter those in our tanks.

 

[vetteguy53081]

So my filter is a closed system meaning there no open area where water can like evaporate. With my aerobic bacteria i was planning on using K1 or Hel-x since it is a fast flowing water and those two do best in that environment. In order to establish aerobic bacteria do I need an airstone or would the fast flow of water (300 gph) moving through the media be enough to create and establish aerobic bacteria.

For aerobic bacteria support and stabilization, Many use Seachem Stability which rapidly and safely establishes the biofiltration reducing chance of fish death often blamed on new tank syndrome. Stability is a blend of aerobic, anaerobic, and facultative bacteria which facilitates the breakdown of waste organics, ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate.

 

[Azedenkae]

Technically speaking. There’s no such thing as aerobic bacteria.

Can you elaborate your definition of 'aerobic' here?

There is absolutely a thing as 'aerobic' organisms in biology, so I am not entirely sure what you are meaning here.

 

[GARRIGA]

Can you elaborate your definition of 'aerobic' here?

There is absolutely a thing as 'aerobic' organisms in biology, so I am not entirely sure what you are meaning here.

Biology can be confusing or confused in general speech. Organism can’t be technically aerobic. Were that the case we’d be aerobic. However, environments can be aerobic, anoxic or anaerobic. Organism existing in all yet we can only exist in an aerobic environment.

Aerobic: contains dissolved oxygen > than 0.5 ppm
Anoxic: devoid of DO but containing bound oxygen in the form of nitrates and sulphates.
Anearibic: devoid of DO and bound oxygen.

As it pertains to our aquatic boxes we have two types of bacteria that perform filtration as I stated before. Autotrophs that perform nitrification requiring DO therefore requiring an aerobic environment. The other being heterotrophic which can decompose organics in both an aerobic or anoxic environment. In the latter it utilizes bound oxygen in nitrates, nitrites and sulphates but can also utilize DO in an aerobic environment.

Which brings up more confusion for myself. Why couldn’t heterotrophic bacteria utilize the bound oxygen in CO2 and phosphates in an anoxic environment and how exactly are these same bacteria able to remove nitrates and phosphates in an aerobic environment where carbons are dosed. I’d think carbon dosing would still require an anoxic environment where heterotrophic bacteria would utilize the bound oxygen in nitrates. Might explain why some take longer to see results because it is likely all tanks have areas of lacking DO yet might be carbon deficient because all too busy exporting detritus. I’m the opposite yet still find myself dosing carbon to get the best performance and have created a large anoxic environment and don’t export detritus which leaves me scratching my head and questioning my grasp of biology as it pertains to filtration. Rather confusing.

 

[Azedenkae]

Biology can be confusing or confused in general speech. Organism can’t be technically aerobic. Were that the case we’d be aerobic. However, environments can be aerobic, anoxic or anaerobic. Organism existing in all yet we can only exist in an aerobic environment.

Aerobic: contains dissolved oxygen > than 0.5 ppm
Anoxic: devoid of DO but containing bound oxygen in the form of nitrates and sulphates.
Anearibic: devoid of DO and bound oxygen.

As it pertains to our aquatic boxes we have two types of bacteria that perform filtration as I stated before. Autotrophs that perform nitrification requiring DO therefore requiring an aerobic environment. The other being heterotrophic which can decompose organics in both an aerobic or anoxic environment. In the latter it utilizes bound oxygen in nitrates, nitrites and sulphates but can also utilize DO in an aerobic environment.

Which brings up more confusion for myself. Why couldn’t heterotrophic bacteria utilize the bound oxygen in CO2 and phosphates in an anoxic environment and how exactly are these same bacteria able to remove nitrates and phosphates in an aerobic environment where carbons are dosed. I’d think carbon dosing would still require an anoxic environment where heterotrophic bacteria would utilize the bound oxygen in nitrates. Might explain why some take longer to see results because it is likely all tanks have areas of lacking DO yet might be carbon deficient because all too busy exporting detritus. I’m the opposite yet still find myself dosing carbon to get the best performance and have created a large anoxic environment and don’t export detritus which leaves me scratching my head and questioning my grasp of biology as it pertains to filtration. Rather confusing.

Got it. Yeah mate you are confused.

Environments can have a range of oxic conditions, ranging from anoxic (basically no oxygen), micro-oxic (little oxygen), to well, oxic conditions.

When it comes to biology (or more relevant, microbial physiology), metabolic processes are described as aerobic/anaerobic if they can or can't work in oxic conditions, but there is more specifically a particular definition when describing an organism as aerobic/anaerobic, pertaining to their respiratory capacities.

An aerobic organism can utilize oxygen as a terminal electron acceptor, while an anaerobic organism can utilize other terminal electron acceptors. It is as simple as that, and is also why organisms can in fact exhibit both aerobic and anaerobic respiration.

Note that this does not actually have anything to do with whether oxygen is ‘bound’ in a molecule or not. Nitrate and nitrite both contain oxygen, yes, and are terminal electron acceptors. But it is not because they contain oxygen, rather simply because of their high(er) electronegativity. This is why terminal electron acceptors that do not contain oxygen exists, including things like Fe(III), Mn(IV), etc., but also compounds like trimethylamine. This answers your confusion of why heterotrophic bacteria can utilize nitrates and stuff. They are not utilizing the oxygen in it, not directly like an aerobe would, no. Respiration is effectively a redox reaction which yields energy at the end that is bound into ATP (which is also where phosphate is utilized, to convert ADP to ATP).

Nitrate consumption also does not have to be a strictly anaerobic process, especially now that we know of the existence of HNAD (heterotrophic nitrification and aerobic denitrification) microorganisms that can consume both ammonia and nitrate concurrently, under oxic conditions.

Note that this is also distinct from the mode in which organisms obtain carbon. Both strictly aerobic and anaerobic heterotrophs exist, and there are also those that are heterotrophic under both oxic and anoxic conditions. In fact when we consider the growth of organisms, we have four pairings in total - aerobic/anaerobic, photo/chemotrophic, litho/organotrophic, and auto/heterotrophic. The nitrifiers that we want to establish during a cycle for example, are aerobic chemolithoautotrophs. The pairings are not mutually exclusive though, just to be clear. Many organisms for example, can utilize both organic and inorganic substrates as electron donors, making them both litho- and organotrophic.

Hope that helps improve your understanding of biology. ^_^ What is taught in school is usually both not enough and highly simplified, which is frustrating in such cases like this where the wrong information can lead to misunderstandings that cause a lot of confusion for you.

 

[Noxsolaris]

Educational and entertaining!

 

[GARRIGA]

Got it. Yeah mate you are confused.

Environments can have a range of oxic conditions, ranging from anoxic (basically no oxygen), micro-oxic (little oxygen), to well, oxic conditions.

When it comes to biology (or more relevant, microbial physiology), metabolic processes are described as aerobic/anaerobic if they can or can't work in oxic conditions, but there is more specifically a particular definition when describing an organism as aerobic/anaerobic, pertaining to their respiratory capacities.

An aerobic organism can utilize oxygen as a terminal electron acceptor, while an anaerobic organism can utilize other terminal electron acceptors. It is as simple as that, and is also why organisms can in fact exhibit both aerobic and anaerobic respiration.

Note that this does not actually have anything to do with whether oxygen is ‘bound’ in a molecule or not. Nitrate and nitrite both contain oxygen, yes, and are terminal electron acceptors. But it is not because they contain oxygen, rather simply because of their high(er) electronegativity. This is why terminal electron acceptors that do not contain oxygen exists, including things like Fe(III), Mn(IV), etc., but also compounds like trimethylamine. This answers your confusion of why heterotrophic bacteria can utilize nitrates and stuff. They are not utilizing the oxygen in it, not directly like an aerobe would, no. Respiration is effectively a redox reaction which yields energy at the end that is bound into ATP (which is also where phosphate is utilized, to convert ADP to ATP).

Nitrate consumption also does not have to be a strictly anaerobic process, especially now that we know of the existence of HNAD (heterotrophic nitrification and aerobic denitrification) microorganisms that can consume both ammonia and nitrate concurrently, under oxic conditions.

Note that this is also distinct from the mode in which organisms obtain carbon. Both strictly aerobic and anaerobic heterotrophs exist, and there are also those that are heterotrophic under both oxic and anoxic conditions. In fact when we consider the growth of organisms, we have four pairings in total - aerobic/anaerobic, photo/chemotrophic, litho/organotrophic, and auto/heterotrophic. The nitrifiers that we want to establish during a cycle for example, are aerobic chemolithoautotrophs. The pairings are not mutually exclusive though, just to be clear. Many organisms for example, can utilize both organic and inorganic substrates as electron donors, making them both litho- and organotrophic.

Hope that helps improve your understanding of biology. ^_^ What is taught in school is usually both not enough and highly simplified, which is frustrating in such cases like this where the wrong information can lead to misunderstandings that cause a lot of confusion for you.

Never said heterotrophic bacteria breath. Just that they can break down organics in both an aerobic environment and anoxic environment. Anoxic being oxygen is bound such as in nitrates.

You lost me when describing an organism as being aerobic or otherwise then previously stated there are aerobic and anaerobic activities.

Where exactly am I confused in stating autotrophs require DO yet heterotrophs can exist in both aerobic and anoxic?

Not sure what warranted that response. Has been 40 plus years since my high school biology class but have been researching the process of waste treatment lately and perhaps I didn’t explain it in scientific precise jargon nor was I trying to since that’s well beyond my grasp. Just clarifying the fact no bacteria is aerobic or anaerobic and simply that their environment is based on level of DO or bound oxygen.

That response did however remind me of my 5th grade English teacher who hated me calling her Teach. Not sure I’m going to sleep well tonight. Didn’t sleep well in fifth grade either.

 

[Azedenkae]

Never said heterotrophic bacteria breath. Just that they can break down organics in both an aerobic environment and anoxic environment. Anoxic being oxygen is bound such as in nitrates.

What I am getting to here is that your definition is rather off. Anoxic conditions only speak to the lack of oxygen (in its O2 form). This can be when there is no oxygen atoms present in any molecule in said environment. I believe you think that the heterotrophs require oxygen even in an anoxic condition, and so takes it from nitrate/phosphate, is that correct?

You lost me when describing an organism as being aerobic or otherwise then previously stated there are aerobic and anaerobic activities.

You have metabolic activities that can be classified as 'aerobic' or 'anaerobic', i.e. linked to the necessity of oxygen or lack thereof. This does not necessary mean oxygen has to be involved or otherwise by the way. For example, there are two types of carbon monoxide dehydrogenases (both catalyzing the oxidation of carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide), but one type can only function in anoxic conditions, while the other (encoded by coxMSL) can function whether in oxic or anoxic conditions.

That's when we describe metabolic activities (and enzymes and pathways), but when we describe the actual organism, then aerobic/anaerobic refers specifically to the oxygen requirement for respiration, even more specifically what terminal electron acceptor can be utilized in the electron transport chain.

Where exactly am I confused in stating autotrophs require DO yet heterotrophs can exist in both aerobic and anoxic?

Well firstly, autotrophs do not necessarily require DO (or just oxygen in general), and that heterotrophs are not always capable of existing in both oxic and anoxic conditions, and that's what I was trying to explain earlier.

You can absolutely have anaerobic autotrophs, like methanogens.

Not sure what warranted that response. Has been 40 plus years since my high school biology class but have been researching the process of waste treatment lately and perhaps I didn’t explain it in scientific precise jargon nor was I trying to since that’s well beyond my grasp. Just clarifying the fact no bacteria is aerobic or anaerobic and simply that their environment is based on level of DO or bound oxygen.

What warranted my response is that what you are saying is very confusing and can mislead others, which is not a good thing in this hobby. Thus I felt the need to explain this, so that anyone reading can better understand what is right and wrong. Because I want to clarify again, there is in fact aerobic or anaerobic bacteria. Such classification is crucial for microbial physiology.

That response did however remind me of my 5th grade English teacher who hated me calling her Teach. Not sure I’m going to sleep well tonight. Didn’t sleep well in fifth grade either.

Well I do feel somewhat bad that you probably won't sleep well tonight, but this is important and needs to be communicated through.

 

[GARRIGA]

What I am getting to here is that your definition is rather off. Anoxic conditions only speak to the lack of oxygen (in its O2 form). This can be when there is no oxygen atoms present in any molecule in said environment. I believe you think that the heterotrophs require oxygen even in an anoxic condition, and so takes it from nitrate/phosphate, is that correct?

You have metabolic activities that can be classified as 'aerobic' or 'anaerobic', i.e. linked to the necessity of oxygen or lack thereof. This does not necessary mean oxygen has to be involved or otherwise by the way. For example, there are two types of carbon monoxide dehydrogenases (both catalyzing the oxidation of carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide), but one type can only function in anoxic conditions, while the other (encoded by coxMSL) can function whether in oxic or anoxic conditions.

That's when we describe metabolic activities (and enzymes and pathways), but when we describe the actual organism, then aerobic/anaerobic refers specifically to the oxygen requirement for respiration, even more specifically what terminal electron acceptor can be utilized in the electron transport chain.

Well firstly, autotrophs do not necessarily require DO (or just oxygen in general), and that heterotrophs are not always capable of existing in both oxic and anoxic conditions, and that's what I was trying to explain earlier.

You can absolutely have anaerobic autotrophs, like methanogens.

What warranted my response is that what you are saying is very confusing and can mislead others, which is not a good thing in this hobby. Thus I felt the need to explain this, so that anyone reading can better understand what is right and wrong. Because I want to clarify again, there is in fact aerobic or anaerobic bacteria. Such classification is crucial for microbial physiology.

Well I do feel somewhat bad that you probably won't sleep well tonight, but this is important and needs to be communicated through.

I'll try my best to dissect each point and perhaps we come to a consensus on my being technical about not calling bacteria aerobic. Not trying to rewrite the literature and just pointing out the oddity in labeling a heterotroph as being aerobic and then anarobic which to us laymen could be confusing.

On the point about being anoxic. My understanding being that DO is below 1 ppm or often quoted as 0.5 ppm (in my research) yet contains bound oxygen in the form of nitrates. As for heterotrophs requiring oxygen, that's seems to be the underlying element that allows nitrates to be reduced to nitrites then ultimately one last reduction of bound oxygen resulting in nitrogen that escapes back into the atmosphere. The science behind what exactly happens in an aerobic environment vs anoxic is of no value to me. I'm not studying to pass an exam. Just looking to understand how to best filter my water to obtain the release of nitrogen into the atmosphere. I'm a finance professional. Not a biologist. Most of us likely aren't the latter either.

Second: I'm only concerned with bacteria as it pertains to keeping a box of life full of water. Why I don't bother learning more about HNAD since that requires infusion of oxygen along the path from what I've researched. Therefore, the only bacteria of concerns are those autographs that require an aerobic environment to process ammonia and nitrites along with heterotrophs to decompose detritus which is performed in both aerobic and anoxic conditions. Let me emphasize. How exactly that is done is of no consequence to me because it has no impact on how I go about providing that aerobic and anoxic condition other than understanding that an anoxic condition can only be derived in our box of water by having organisms either respire the DO or through nitrification. As I understand it.

Once again, I'm not trying to change the literature. Just pointing out that technically speaking an organism isn't aerobic but it's environment is. I get it. When that organism is doing that which it does in an aerobic environment science calls it an aerobic bacteria which just seems odd and confusing. Why not just call it an autotroph or heterotroph or what ever it actually is when talking about this hobby. We aren't scientist. Why act like it. You might be. I'm not. Can assure you most probably aren't.

BTW, which is it? Anoxic or anaerobic when describing an environment lacking DO but containing bound oxygen vs one devoid of DO and bound oxygen? Always thought the former being anaerobic then the literature (depending on who's writing it) says it's anoxic and the latter being devoid of DO and bound oxygen is anaerobic. I used to be of the opinion that we had aerobic and anaerobic but now replace the latter with anoxic and that's how I roll these days.

Don't worry about my sleep. My aerobic self will be just fine. Survived fifth grade, too.

 

[Azedenkae]

I'll try my best to dissect each point and perhaps we come to a consensus on my being technical about not calling bacteria aerobic. Not trying to rewrite the literature and just pointing out the oddity in labeling a heterotroph as being aerobic and then anarobic which to us laymen could be confusing.

Sure.

On the point about being anoxic. My understanding being that DO is below 1 ppm or often quoted as 0.5 ppm (in my research) yet contains bound oxygen in the form of nitrates.

Yep, so first thing here is that anoxic conditions does not need to mean oxygen is bound in anything else. It can simply be where there is no molecules at all that contain oxygen. Anoxic conditions are just conditions that lack oxygen. The actual concentration itself varies depending on the field of research, but yes some fields define it as less than 0.5ppm (or mg/l rather, but basically same thing).

As for heterotrophs requiring oxygen, that's seems to be the underlying element that allows nitrates to be reduced to nitrites then ultimately one last reduction of bound oxygen resulting in nitrogen that escapes back into the atmosphere. The science behind what exactly happens in an aerobic environment vs anoxic is of no value to me. I'm not studying to pass an exam. Just looking to understand how to best filter my water to obtain the release of nitrogen into the atmosphere. I'm a finance professional. Not a biologist. Most of us likely aren't the latter either.

Ah, so yeah here is the problem. The science DOES matter because we are dealing with it, whether we want to or not. The statement 'heterotrophs requiring oxygen, that's seems to be the underlying element that allows nitrates to be reduced to nitrite' is wrong here. It's not because they need oxygen that allows them to reduce nitrate to nitrite. It is simply that a redox reaction is catalyzed via the electron transport chain, with nitrate as the terminal electron acceptor: https://metacyc.org/META/NEW-IMAGE?type=REACTION&object=RXN-11236. I want to clarify this point because it is not as if the bacteria somehow pulls out the oxygen from nitrate first, prior to using that as a terminal electron acceptor. No, it is one direct reaction. It is also why phosphate is not used as a terminal electron acceptor (aside from the redox potential stuff), these organisms are not taking out oxygen to use it.

Second: I'm only concerned with bacteria as it pertains to keeping a box of life full of water. Why I don't bother learning more about HNAD since that requires infusion of oxygen along the path from what I've researched.

I mean, it is precisely because of concerns you raised that I talked about the HNAD bacteria. You did ponder 'how exactly are these same bacteria able to remove nitrates and phosphates in an aerobic environment where carbons are dosed'. Well, one possibility is via HNAD.

Therefore, the only bacteria of concerns are those autographs that require an aerobic environment to process ammonia and nitrites along with heterotrophs to decompose detritus which is performed in both aerobic and anoxic conditions. Let me emphasize. How exactly that is done is of no consequence to me because it has no impact on how I go about providing that aerobic and anoxic condition other than understanding that an anoxic condition can only be derived in our box of water by having organisms either respire the DO or through nitrification. As I understand it.

If you really do not care about the functions, then don't go around trying to explain how it works. It is fine to tell everyone you believe the first part of this quote, but not to try to explain the science behind it.

Once again, I'm not trying to change the literature. Just pointing out that technically speaking an organism isn't aerobic but it's environment is. I get it.

No you don't.

When that organism is doing that which it does in an aerobic environment science calls it an aerobic bacteria which just seems odd and confusing.

And I defined it for you multiple times already. Whether an organism is aerobic or anaerobic (or both, which we call facultative (an)aerobic) is dependent on what terminal electron acceptors they can utilize for their electron transport chain.

Why not just call it an autotroph or heterotroph or what ever it actually is when talking about this hobby. We aren't scientist. Why act like it. You might be. I'm not. Can assure you most probably aren't.

Then why refer to these microorganisms as 'autotrophs' and 'heterotrophs' anyways? Those are scientific terms, with scientific definitions. You can't have a foot in both camps.

BTW, which is it? Anoxic or anaerobic when describing an environment lacking DO but containing bound oxygen vs one devoid of DO and bound oxygen? Always thought the former being anaerobic then the literature (depending on who's writing it) says it's anoxic and the latter being devoid of DO and bound oxygen is anaerobic. I used to be of the opinion that we had aerobic and anaerobic but now replace the latter with anoxic and that's how I roll these days.

Anoxic conditions are conditions devoid of oxygen (in O2 form), that's all there is to it. It can contain substrates containing oxygen, or not. But if it is devoid of O2, i.e. dioxygen, then it is anoxic. Anaerobic conditions refer to the exact same thing. When it comes to the environment, both terms are used interchangeably. The preference however is to use the terms 'oxic/anoxic' rather than 'aerobic/anaerobic' to describe environments.

Don't worry about my sleep. My aerobic self will be just fine. Survived fifth grade, too.

Coolio.

 

[GARRIGA]

Sure.

Yep, so first thing here is that anoxic conditions does not need to mean oxygen is bound in anything else. It can simply be where there is no molecules at all that contain oxygen. Anoxic conditions are just conditions that lack oxygen. The actual concentration itself varies depending on the field of research, but yes some fields define it as less than 0.5ppm (or mg/l rather, but basically same thing).

Ah, so yeah here is the problem. The science DOES matter because we are dealing with it, whether we want to or not. The statement 'heterotrophs requiring oxygen, that's seems to be the underlying element that allows nitrates to be reduced to nitrite' is wrong here. It's not because they need oxygen that allows them to reduce nitrate to nitrite. It is simply that a redox reaction is catalyzed via the electron transport chain, with nitrate as the terminal electron acceptor: https://metacyc.org/META/NEW-IMAGE?type=REACTION&object=RXN-11236. I want to clarify this point because it is not as if the bacteria somehow pulls out the oxygen from nitrate first, prior to using that as a terminal electron acceptor. No, it is one direct reaction. It is also why phosphate is not used as a terminal electron acceptor (aside from the redox potential stuff), these organisms are not taking out oxygen to use it.



I mean, it is precisely because of concerns you raised that I talked about the HNAD bacteria. You did ponder 'how exactly are these same bacteria able to remove nitrates and phosphates in an aerobic environment where carbons are dosed'. Well, one possibility is via HNAD.

If you really do not care about the functions, then don't go around trying to explain how it works. It is fine to tell everyone you believe the first part of this quote, but not to try to explain the science behind it.

No you don't.

And I defined it for you multiple times already. Whether an organism is aerobic or anaerobic (or both, which we call facultative (an)aerobic) is dependent on what terminal electron acceptors they can utilize for their electron transport chain.

Then why refer to these microorganisms as 'autotrophs' and 'heterotrophs' anyways? Those are scientific terms, with scientific definitions. You can't have a foot in both camps.

Anoxic conditions are conditions devoid of oxygen (in O2 form), that's all there is to it. It can contain substrates containing oxygen, or not. But if it is devoid of O2, i.e. dioxygen, then it is anoxic. Anaerobic conditions refer to the exact same thing. When it comes to the environment, both terms are used interchangeably. The preference however is to use the terms 'oxic/anoxic' rather than 'aerobic/anaerobic' to describe environments.

Coolio.

I get it. You feel the need to be precise. I admire that but I'm not that. Really don't care about the exact science behind the solution I seek and I'm not trying to explain the science. Don't see me speaking about electron acceptors (not that I know what that is). In the simplest terms, I'm merely expressing my opinion on the calling of a heterotroph as either aerobic or anaerobic. Yes, I'm going to call it a heterotroph. My choice. You don't have to accept it nor is your permission required.

As for the anoxic debate. That's not what I've read. Anoxic is lacking DO but contains bound oxygen. I've also read that's anaerobic. I'm going with the former. Why? Because I've read that of late more than the latter. Not more complicated than that. Key being it is an environment low on oxygen that contains nitrates for example. If my life depended on the correct answer then I guess it depends on who's asking because I've seen multiple reps ones. Like the one you've provided.

Thank you for the explanation and now I understand why phosphates aren't removed the same. In this case the science does matter but I'm not going to recall the exact details because in the end just knowing it can't is good enough for me. Have too many other concerns to trap in my mind that's not high on my priorities.

End of day. My filtration is removing waste products because I'm trapping detritus which is being converted by heterotrophic bacteria and other decomposers into ammonia which is being converted to nitrites in the aerobic section of my filtration and those same heterotrophic bacteria are continuing to decompose that waste in the anoxic section by converting nitrates to nitrites and ultimately to nitrogen which is released into the atmosphere. I'm also carbon dosing because apparently all that trapped detritus isn't enough or it's not getting to that anoxic zone. Don't know. Don't care. Mostly because there's no way for me to find out in my little slice of heaven what exactly is happening. I can look to you for some explanation but it's not going to ultimately give me a definitive answer. Just lots of science.

If you feel entitled to correct everything written incorrectly about the science behind the nitrogen cycle then have at it. Just don't assume I'm going to care. I've seen enough articles where they contradict each other, that I'm not going to lose sleep because I find it odd to call a heteratroph aerobic. Seems this is what got you started. Yet I'm fine labeling it's environment as such as it pertains to keeping life in a box of water. It was an opinion. We all have them. No need to correct them. One would never sleep if that was their life mission.

We good? Perhaps next we can discuss the idiocy of a "Calcium Reactor" which really is about adding alkalinity if you want to be technical about it.

 

[GARRIGA]

BTW, coolio? Aerobic or anaerobic?

 

[Azedenkae]

Yeah… I am gonna chalk this up to it being pointless to even try to talk to you and put you on my ignore list.