A thread tracking pure skip cycle instant reefs, no bottle bac

[Garf]

i'm gonna be honest with you, i have no clue what you are alluding to

That's fine, stick around, lol. I have another bone of contention with the physical identification of ammonia presence through the health of lysmata shrimp. For years it has been indicated that if a lysmata shrimp is alive and all the water is not grey, and everything is not turning into mush, then ammonia must be zero. This is by no means accurate and the 24hr to 72hr lethal dose is actually rather high for shrimp (the ones tested anyway).

How toxic is ammonia, really?

Your points are valid, however I would raise a complicating issue. I have not read the primary literature carefully, but I would expect there is one significant limitation. While valid, the experiments have only a single variable-artificially elevated ammonia. Therefore these experiments show...

www.reef2reef.com

 

[Lasse]

Going back to my long post showing the relationship between total ammonia (NH3+NH4) and ammonia ion (NO3) and toxic concentrations of NH3. Not LC50 (that's often is species depended) but when a concentration can be lethal or sublethal during time.

Dark blue NH3 concentrations at 25 degree C and 1 mg/L NH3/NH4 (total ammonia as measured with Hana or API)
Reddish NH3 concentrations at 25 degree C and 2 mg/L NH3/NH4 (total ammonia as measured with Hana or API)
Green NH3 concentrations at 25 degree C and 3 mg/L NH3/NH4 (total ammonia as measured with Hana or API)
Light blue NH3 concentrations at 25 degree C and 4 mg/L NH3/NH4 (total ammonia as measured with Hana or API)

25 degree C is around 77 degree F If the temperature is around 2 degree C higher (27 degree C) - the NH3 will be around 14 % higher,

The different "damage" levels is taken from Sea Chem Ammonia Alert

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Going back to my long post showing the relationship between total ammonia (NH3+NH4) and ammonia ion (NO3) and toxic concentrations of NH3. Not LC50 (that's often is species depended) but when a concentration can be lethal or sublethal during time.

Dark blue NH3 concentrations at 25 degree C and 1 mg/L NH3/NH4 (total ammonia as measured with Hana or API)
Reddish NH3 concentrations at 25 degree C and 2 mg/L NH3/NH4 (total ammonia as measured with Hana or API)
Green NH3 concentrations at 25 degree C and 3 mg/L NH3/NH4 (total ammonia as measured with Hana or API)
Light blue NH3 concentrations at 25 degree C and 4 mg/L NH3/NH4 (total ammonia as measured with Hana or API)

25 degree C is around 77 degree F If the temperature is around 2 degree C higher (27 degree C) - the NH3 will be around 14 % higher,

The different "damage" levels is taken from Sea Chem Ammonia Alert

Sincerely Lasse

FWIW, I do not have confidence in Seachem’s decisions about what levels of ammonia are a problem.

I think the real risk levels are pretty high, and it is to their benefit to scare people into using products like Prime to “save” their fish.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I assume it is not just concentration but also duration of exposure at a given level that dictates toxicity (be it discomfort or death, etc.).

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I assume it is not just concentration but also duration of exposure at a given level that dictates toxicity (be it discomfort or death, etc.).

Yes, true. The lethal concentrations to kill half the fish are most often determined over a few days. In the section below from my ammonia article, I quote 96 h values:

Marine fish generally have 96 h LC50 levels that range from about 0.09 to 3.35 ppm NH3-N. That result is not particularly different from the range observed for freshwater fish, 0.068 to 2.0 ppm NH3-N. Remember that these values are ppm NH3-N, and at pH 8.2, the marine range becomes 1.3 to 50 ppm total NH4-N because only 7% of the total ammonia in seawater is present as free ammonia.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Would there be a guess as to when discomfort or injury (be it permanent or something that requires healing recovery) begins to occur?

I think that when we reference a lethal level and/or timeframe some people may assume that anything approaching but not reaching that threshold would be okay.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

There’s not much sublethal data for organisms we keep, but it is lower.

Same article;

Concentrations of ammonia that are not acutely lethal can still cause significant problems for fish. Salmon in seawater at pH 7.8, for example, show changes in white blood cells and various blood chemicals, and were more prone to disease, when exposed to sublethal concentrations of ammonia. Consequently, aquarists should strive to keep ammonia concentrations well below lethal levels.
Ammonia and the Reef Aquarium by Randy Holmes-Farley - Reefkeeping.com

 

[BeanAnimal]

Sorry - will read full article when I am on a full size device. Thank you for the responses.

 

[Lasse]

FWIW, I do not have confidence in Seachem’s decisions about what levels of ammonia are a problem.

I think the real risk levels are pretty high, and it is to their benefit to scare people into using products like Prime to “save” their fish.

Thank you - I have not the actual figures for saltwater fish - I try to check them up.

There is on part in my post that you quote that´s not true. I wrote ammonia ion (NH3) - of cause it should be non ionized ammonia (NH3)

Sincerely Lasse

 

[MnFish1]

FWIW, I do not have confidence in Seachem’s decisions about what levels of ammonia are a problem.

I think the real risk levels are pretty high, and it is to their benefit to scare people into using products like Prime to “save” their fish.

I believe there are more than one article stating toxicities for various aquarium inhabitants. Here is a very good reference for clownfish. Some might find this one interesting https://www.researchgate.net/public...icity_to_false_clownfish_Amphiprion_ocellaris

 

[Garf]

Would there be a guess as to when discomfort or injury (be it permanent or something that requires healing recovery) begins to occur?

I think that when we reference a lethal level and/or timeframe some people may assume that anything approaching but not reaching that threshold would be okay.

Seems there are complications, lol;

Ammonia concentration and toxicity increases as pH increases, although less ammonia is required to produce toxic effects at lower pH;

https://www.waterquality.gov.au/anz-guidelines/guideline-values/default/water-quality-toxicants/toxicants/ammonia-2000#:~:text=However%2C%20data%20also%20indicate%20that,increases%20and%20it%20dominates%20toxicity.

Appears that at a pH of 8.0 generally, action should be taken at a total ammonia of 0.9ppm, if I'm reading it correctly;

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I believe there are more than one article stating toxicities for various aquarium inhabitants. Here is a very good reference for clownfish. Some might find this one interesting https://www.researchgate.net/public...icity_to_false_clownfish_Amphiprion_ocellaris

I think I had seen all available data when writing the article. I also address all the data I could fined in this thread, where I postulate that folks misunderstand and overestimate ammonia toxicity, possibly driven by companies with an agenda to do so.

From it:

ALL of the data supports the idea that few of these fish (much less than half) would die in 10-20 ppm total ammonia in 2 days. It takes 4 days in more than twice as much ammonia to kill even half of them.

How toxic is ammonia, really?

In the context of trying to understand why so many people believe Seachem Prime was useful for them in an elevated ammonia situation, against the data in the link below about Prime potentially doing nothing to free ammonia in seawater, the question arises, why...

www.reef2reef.com

 

[MnFish1]

I think I had seen all available data when writing the article. I also address all the data I could fined in this thread, where I postulate that folks misunderstand and overestimate ammonia toxicity, possibly driven by companies with an agenda to do so.

From it:

ALL of the data supports the idea that few of these fish (much less than half) would die in 10-20 ppm total ammonia in 2 days. It takes 4 days in more than twice as much ammonia to kill even half of them.

How toxic is ammonia, really?

In the context of trying to understand why so many people believe Seachem Prime was useful for them in an elevated ammonia situation, against the data in the link below about Prime potentially doing nothing to free ammonia in seawater, the question arises, why...

www.reef2reef.com

Yes, I was basically agreeing with your numbers. The article I mentioned above basically confirms your numbers by LD 50 - however the reason I mentioned the article was that it also evaluated histologic changes at sublethal concentrations of ammonia (NH3) and nitrite "Analysis of gill lesions caused by sublethal concentrations of these nitrogenous compounds showed that both nitrogenous compounds induced tissue lesions such as hyperplasia of epithelium cells, hypertrophy of chloride cells and lamellar lifting to all concentrations tested. However, histopathological alterations were more conspicuous accordingly the increase of ammonia or nitrite in fish exposed to 0.57 mg/L NH3-N or 100 mg/L NO2−-N."

Additionally, the longer the fish are exposed, the lower the LD 50 goes. I think this is especially significant since it implies cumulative toxicity suggesting the longer fish are exposed to even sublethal levels of ammonia the more histologic damage (which may or may not be reversible) occurs. I also wonder if quick changes in pH may also affect the danger of the various levels - since one would expect that any pH change would result in a rapid increase in free ammonia? IMHO - I would continue to strive for a free ammonia as close to 0 as possible?

PS - I realize that we have talked about this before during the prime discussion - and that in your post/article you mention as well that the best ammonia level is the lowest possible.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I agree that there are significant sub lethal effects. 0.5 ppm free NH3, where the gill issues were noted is quite high total ammonia.

 

[brandon429]

All this data about the crash, the lethality, the loss of fish, the risk painted and portrayed

where the fear ends: trying to find it happening in a display tank reef. it never does

we aren't going to see that link

there's always this huge build up of consequence, risk, loss of biofiltration ability and then it Peters out when we try and find one time where that actually happened in a display reef, that's amazing to me.

to be clear: nobody is going to post a mere 3 links in a row for displays they've seen crash due to prior inability to control ammonia, it's a lark, a red herring old cycling science has been warning about for decades, and I can't even find one example for dry rock cycles which really might fail...much less this thread, where we're dealing in strictly precycled rocks.

I'm not talking about a vacation thread where someone's fish died due to a heater stuck, prior ammonia noncontrol before the crash is what's been stated here the last several posts, and that simply doesn't happen in display reefing.

Let's see some posts. Not random searches to fit a bill, but links where Bean, Garf, Lasse were working a thread where ammonia control stopped and the tank crashed.

Post me a mere 3 examples. You guys have never seen materialize that which you warn about, constantly

when people have to use university studies as links, in a thread where I'm only using living aquariums as links, we know the source data is lopsided.

nobody here has links for a failed cycle they've ever worked in. If so, let's see a mere 3 examples. They will be all pageslong battles over what a test kit said, it won't actually be a tank crash from prior ammonia noncontrol.

 

[brandon429]

See how easy it is to debate things when we get to make proofs outside of aquarium links? if we had to stick with solely tanks we're in-process working, like what I'm doing with link updates, there'd be a lot less arguing and a lot more outcome analysis going on.

I'll keep doing the actual jobs, you guys keep not doing them but posting with certainty how my cycling science isn't working or is about to fail someone.

 

[Garf]

See how easy it is to debate things when we get to make proofs outside of aquarium links? if we had to stick with solely tanks we're in-process working, like what I'm doing with link updates, there'd be a lot less arguing and a lot more outcome analysis going on.

I'll keep doing the actual jobs, you guys keep not doing them but posting with certainty how my cycling science isn't working or is about to fail someone.

Do you have a contribution to make on the livestock health ammonia scale that ranges from 0 to dead?

 

[brandon429]

in between skip cycle jobs/work links/ there's not a whole lot to discuss I guess.

we're not even on a gradient or a continuum of losses; there's simply no losses on file from failed cycles of any type, that means something about cycling in general.

it means the hype is just hype, and we're being hyped about ammonia risks when there are none, and we aren't getting hyped about disease risk which is the most pronounced risk to our animals lives in all of reefing.


again to state: no links are coming from anyone here who's been present in a failed cycle / loss thread, because they've never been in such a thread to link it to us.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

See how easy it is to debate things when we get to make proofs outside of aquarium links? if we had to stick with solely tanks we're in-process working, like what I'm doing with link updates, there'd be a lot less arguing and a lot more outcome analysis going on.

I'll keep doing the actual jobs, you guys keep not doing them but posting with certainty how my cycling science isn't working or is about to fail someone.

I’m not participating in a cycling debate. I’m pointing out that ammonia is not as toxic as most reefers think, and a 0.5 ppm total ammonia reading is inconsequential, whether real or not.

As to cycling, it is almost trivial to show that 2 ppm ammonia declines to 0.5 ppm or less, showing that cycling is complete.

 

[brandon429]

you are hinting that everyone with a cycled tank can dose 2 ppm, and it will always go down if the cycle is real, but in no cases faulty testing might confuse the keeper? I have uncountable number of links of that happening Randy...



Randy, if you would manage a cycling thread I think we could all learn a lot from that. It'll be easy: anyone who says they're stalled after 50 days, you just simply advise them to wait longer until it's .5 right? sounds easy

try it though, live time, with a hundred people sending you their pics and data. you'll see totally skip cycle tanks, like what I've carved off here, mixed in with those 50+ day "stalls" and I want to see how you handle those posts because I know you think chemistry testing is infallible and 100% reliable for cycling, for all these readers. I don't think that at all, from managing the threads I can see we needed to set up some divisions in reefing cycling where readers can simply be free of the confusing testing for ammonia, the rules that apply in interpretation of the results that change every decade.


and this particular division, live rock transfers, there is no cycle time they're all skipped and we don't test them for reasons stated.