Ammonia Off the Charts

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
29,438
Reaction score
23,542
Location
tejas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I honestly would like to see this:

show me one reef past eighty days old full of corals and fish and decent surface area, not bare minimums, above is not bare minimum, that allows it’s free ammonia to reach .1 ppm


we must see the link, and how you make the case for the measure


my patterning comes from seneye post history averages, even with a dead tang lodged in the rocks = ~ .003 from our collection studies

where this comparison goes bad is when people disagree on the fundamental measure. many reefers for example are never going to believe anyone’s seneye post, they’re as good as total fabrication, I won’t believe any outlier claims that can’t be linked for direct inspection: new vs old cycling science is at a stand still until more digital means past seneye are available to benchmark patterns found in aged high flow high surface area setups. Id also add that being able to predict what the reef tank will look like before pics, and for a fair portion of the overall ammonia challenges we work, is reflective of the reliability of the visual assessment method. Nobody hits .1 nh3 in a reef unless a big fish kill happened and they’re left in to rot. I claim no outliers exist for sustained ammonia noncontrol, only nh4 reporting makes it seem that way, but I want to see one or two if available.


I would hone or change the general takeaway of it all given a sufficient case example. In the meantime, expect to be sold bottle bac by every perceivable angle in reefing for the next eight years lol. I get ads as pop ups on my phone, they r pouncing every sales angle / old cycling scare cycling proponents…nitrite testers!
 

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
29,438
Reaction score
23,542
Location
tejas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
You know what this cycling hobby needs MN

seneye on a very very heavily stocked fish only setup, like those ones on YouTube with so many angelfish nobody can understand how that many can be packed into the tank. We literally don’t know in the hobby, among the science of surface area maximum and minimum studies, what those average tanks run at

reef have it easy: overdone surface area and low fish loading. All the cycling data comes from those setups


It surely seems once bioload surpasses flow and surface area presentation a quick tipping point will form and we will see that beyond anyones test kit, merely by looking at the tank for signs of what kidney failure would look like in a dog or cat…clearly subdued and pained behavior vs total normalcy


so when the surface area and flow is sufficient, but let’s say the bioload is very very heavy and sustained, what levels of nh3 are the constant? I don’t know anyone with data on that, it’s tbd.
 

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
29,438
Reaction score
23,542
Location
tejas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
theres one thing seneye does very very well to give us insight: provides a calibrated constant where changes in sustained bioload and surface area can be precisely recorded, peak and troughs can be effectively and convincingly measured. Not possible with api or Red Sea… the thousandths-level assessment / constant


for example, Jon Malkersons seneye testing involved a meter shown to run .00x low thousandths on a display, same setup moved to a new quarantine + fish + feed and only one pad setup as reduced surface area ran at .05, safety maximum levels already known for quarantine setups, then at .001 on an absolutely bone dry reef startup tank with bottle bac and a clown as a load test.


on the same unit, he then demonstrates in another container that dosing liquid ammonia rises the reading as a peak, Dr. Tims bottle bac brings it down safely in hours (aligns with all the thousands of skip cycle threads we’ve reviewed) and then lastly- he puts the meter back on the display and it runs .00x


when that machine gives an nh3 reading I take notes. It’s dang convincing.

anyone who calibrates a seneye half that well has access to the newest and most cutting edge cycling input currently available, and we need such a unit plugged into a heavily stocked fish only setup to define nh3 tolerance and sustain maximums
 

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
22,490
Reaction score
21,733
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
t. I claim no outliers exist for sustained ammonia noncontrol, only nh4 reporting makes it seem that way, but I want to see one or two if available.
Define ammonia non-control. An ammonia of 0.25 on an api test is not an example of non-control for example. Is anyone claiming that a tank full of living thriving fish has ammonia out of control? I guess the op was. But obviously his test was wrong. To me the take home message that you’re saying is of your fish Coral etc etc are fine do t bother checking ammonia?
 

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
29,438
Reaction score
23,542
Location
tejas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
show me any link of a ~3 month reef packed with rocks and coral and clear water and daily fed fish that you think constitutes non control outside any degree of normalcy


I set .1 nh3 as a threshold above, try and find any living marine system from a forum post, a practical living fish tank from the modern era, that can’t control ammonia and holds at or near .1 ppm nh3 on a constant basis and would be counted as a true outlier among logged works as you’d define it.

post an example of a symptomless ammonia noncontrol reef, any example you can find / I want to see if it’s like the ones from my study link, or vastly different.
 

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
22,490
Reaction score
21,733
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
show me any link of a ~3 month reef packed with rocks and coral and clear water and daily fed fish that you think constitutes non control outside any degree of normalcy


I set .1 nh3 as a threshold above, try and find any living marine system from a forum post, a practical living fish tank from the modern era, that can’t control ammonia and holds at or near .1 ppm nh3 on a constant basis and would be counted as a true outlier among logged works as you’d define it.

post an example of a symptomless ammonia noncontrol reef, any example you can find / I want to see if it’s like the ones from my study link, or vastly different.
Show me a post of a unicorn eating candy from a 5 year old Child - and the candy is poison? Its the same kind of (sorry) stupid question
 

Dan_P

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
6,539
Reaction score
6,994
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Show me a post of a unicorn eating candy from a 5 year old Child - and the candy is poison? Its the same kind of (sorry) stupid question

Are you saying that a poisonous level of ammonia wouldn’t make aquarium inhabitants look bad 100% of the time?
 

Jedi1199

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Jan 16, 2021
Messages
4,597
Reaction score
10,227
Location
Mecred, CA.
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
@MnFish1, do you test ammonia regularly in your own tanks?

I stopped testing for ammonia about 35 years ago when I realized that it is completely unnecessary and didn't wish to continue wasting money on worthless test kits.

I never tested any of my salt tanks for ammonia at any time and still have happy healthy thriving tanks. Who cares if it spikes by an extra 10% when I add a new fish or 2?

Want to know another "anti-reefer" fact? I never used anything more to cycle my tanks than a few chunks of recycled rock. The 55 was cycled using 2 large pieces of rock I got from the guy I bought my 180 from that had been sitting in a bucket outside for several days with zero flow. I put fish in that tank on day 2 and it never missed a beat.
 

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
22,490
Reaction score
21,733
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
@MnFish1, do you test ammonia regularly in your own tanks?

I stopped testing for ammonia about 35 years ago when I realized that it is completely unnecessary and didn't wish to continue wasting money on worthless test kits.

I never tested any of my salt tanks for ammonia at any time and still have happy healthy thriving tanks. Who cares if it spikes by an extra 10% when I add a new fish or 2?

Want to know another "anti-reefer" fact? I never used anything more to cycle my tanks than a few chunks of recycled rock. The 55 was cycled using 2 large pieces of rock I got from the guy I bought my 180 from that had been sitting in a bucket outside for several days with zero flow. I put fish in that tank on day 2 and it never missed a beat.
Never
 

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
22,490
Reaction score
21,733
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Are you saying that a poisonous level of ammonia wouldn’t make aquarium inhabitants look bad 100% of the time?
No I never said that. But thats a loaded question. 1. Never say 100% of the time. 2. Depends on the inhabitants. Lets take your copepod experiment as an example. You had to bring the ph up to 8.6 - and the ammonia - I believe to >4 ppm - to cause a problem (sorry I didnt memorize it).
 

Jedi1199

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Jan 16, 2021
Messages
4,597
Reaction score
10,227
Location
Mecred, CA.
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
But - If you look at it honestly - just looking at the tank is also not 'the gold standard; Just like every other test (and looking at the tank is basically a visual test) - there will be exceptions and a margin of error.

Define ammonia non-control. An ammonia of 0.25 on an api test is not an example of non-control for example. Is anyone claiming that a tank full of living thriving fish has ammonia out of control? I guess the op was. But obviously his test was wrong. To me the take home message that you’re saying is of your fish Coral etc etc are fine do t bother checking ammonia?


In this example, Brandon is right. Even to my eye, that tank is healthy and thriving. NO tank, with prolonged ammonia exposure as the OP claimed, would EVER look that good. In this example, in my opinion, a picture IS worth a thousand words.

Isn't your own experiment proving that it just isn't possible to have ammonia levels sustained at that level? @Coxey81 showed pretty clearly that ammonia levels, even VERY high levels, when exposed to nitrifying bacteria, decline in a reasonable amount of time. Any tank that has been up and running for long enough to develop nitrifying bacteria, will do exactly that.

Another point that seems relevant here. There has never been a mention of what nitrate levels are. Whatever eats, poops! For ammonia levels to be that high for that long would by default show nitrate levels off the charts or, at least extremely high if given a regular water change schedule, which of course also bring ammonia down as well.. Funny how it all fits together huh?
 

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
22,490
Reaction score
21,733
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
In this example, Brandon is right. Even to my eye, that tank is healthy and thriving. NO tank, with prolonged ammonia exposure as the OP claimed, would EVER look that good. In this example, in my opinion, a picture IS worth a thousand words.

Isn't your own experiment proving that it just isn't possible to have ammonia levels sustained at that level? @Coxey81 showed pretty clearly that ammonia levels, even VERY high levels, when exposed to nitrifying bacteria, decline in a reasonable amount of time. Any tank that has been up and running for long enough to develop nitrifying bacteria, will do exactly that.

Another point that seems relevant here. There has never been a mention of what nitrate levels are. Whatever eats, poops! For ammonia levels to be that high for that long would by default show nitrate levels off the charts or, at least extremely high if given a regular water change schedule, which of course also bring ammonia down as well.. Funny how it all fits together huh?
Yes in this example - Brandon is of course correct. Its him asking for the example - of course - there are no 'successful' tanks with that amount of ammonia present? Right - its a moot point and a moot question. No one can show that - unless they take a great tank and immediately add 3 ppm ammonia - and take a picture. Its a moot point - no one is arguing with Brandon. But he keep putting up the statement that people 'are'
 

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
22,490
Reaction score
21,733
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Isn't your own experiment proving that it just isn't possible to have ammonia levels sustained at that level? @Coxey81 showed pretty clearly that ammonia levels, even VERY high levels, when exposed to nitrifying bacteria, decline in a reasonable amount of time. Any tank that has been up and running for long enough to develop nitrifying bacteria, will do exactly that.
No - my experiment is tanking already 'cycled' rock - and exposing it to 2 ppm ammonia. Its not taking 'dry rock' and exposing it to 2 ppm ammonia. Again what most people - including those touting the seneye - the NH3 level varies A LOT based on pH Alone. At pH 8,6 - where some experiment were done - .25 ppm ammonia (total) - free ammonia is a lot higher than at pH 7.8.
 

Spare time

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Apr 12, 2019
Messages
11,977
Reaction score
9,610
Location
Here
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Good morning reefers. I am reaching out for help with a long standing issue that is getting the better of me. I cannot figure out what is causing my ammonia issue.
I am using the hanna ammonia test device and the reading is off the chart, above 3.0ppm. The is has been happening for months now.
I have a skimmer, a reactor with high quality carbon, 2 different types of ammonia remover in media bags in my socks, another reactor with Dr. Tim's pearls.
I do a water change weekly with distilled water. I feed once per day with small pellets and I closely watch that as much food as possible is consumed. The bottom of the tank has crushed coral.
Please help!!

Your fish would be dead at 3ppm.

One way to confirm that there is no ammonia is if you get 0 for nitrite. The reason for this is that nitrite is removed more slowly than ammonia, thus you would expect a rise in nitrite if ammonia was reading high
 

Dan_P

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
6,539
Reaction score
6,994
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
No I never said that. But thats a loaded question. 1. Never say 100% of the time. 2. Depends on the inhabitants. Lets take your copepod experiment as an example. You had to bring the ph up to 8.6 - and the ammonia - I believe to >4 ppm - to cause a problem (sorry I didnt memorize it).
Got it. You were being pedantic.
 

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
29,438
Reaction score
23,542
Location
tejas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
It’s mighty hard to find one single example to post correct? Finding two/ impossible. We only need one outlier linked, it’s mighty hard to find and the available data set to skim is literally millions of reef posts online. Out of a million, only looking for one posted example of the unicorn MN :)


I have never seen in posts anything but a fish kill or med dosing into a display stop a tanks ability to control ammonia


visual verification works well (on established setups) much better than non digital test kits. On brand new setups with no biomarkers in place agreed we need testing


this thread here shows on seneye how fast established reefs handle ammonia, none is left to spare, it’s metabolic fuel for so many life forms in the cycled reef tank there’s only very little left untended/ mid conversion rate = thousandths ppm in the established reef tank, maximum.

 
Last edited:

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
29,438
Reaction score
23,542
Location
tejas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
So I wasn’t meaning earlier that visual details can let us know if ammonia is backed up in a reef tanks, I was meaning ammonia backup can’t happen and those details so predictable are the proof. Since fish kills and meds are the only ways known to overpower established filtration command of free ammonia it becomes very easy to troubleshoot systems given those two variables in control


What’s missing in old cycling science write ups (and clearly shown directly above where they dose raw ammonia into full sps reefs) is the rule that the backup can’t happen. No cycling chart made has ammonia rising back up after day ten, no cycling chart has ammonia holding steady at .25 etc.


if we truly take time to search and read ammonia challenge posts it becomes clear in pattern that old cycling advice/umpires constantly advise the ten day ammonia controls on a cycling chart are wrong, and new cycling science says they’re right. Irony = the new way revalidates eighty year old charts and the old way constantly 100% advises readers the ammonia line and inherent drop timing is open to variance…(the variance is api or Red Sea lag times, prep or reporting issues, not actual control problems)
 
Last edited:

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
22,490
Reaction score
21,733
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Got it. You were being pedantic.
No - I was making it clear that it was a silly question - It is absolutely clear that 3 PPM ammonia is not going to be found in a perfectly functioning tank - EvER. So - asking people to post examples of that - is 'ridiculous' on the face of it. The question in the thread had been answered at least 5 times - that the ammonia was a testing error. Then it was answered that the test the OP was using was for freshwater only - Which is the likely cause of the problem. Thats it? What is the point of asking other people to POST EXAMPLES OF A 3 PPM ammonia in a perfect tank. Talk about being pedantic
 

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
22,490
Reaction score
21,733
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
theres one thing seneye does very very well to give us insight: provides a calibrated constant where changes in sustained bioload and surface area can be precisely recorded, peak and troughs can be effectively and convincingly measured. Not possible with api or Red Sea… the thousandths-level assessment / constant


for example, Jon Malkersons seneye testing involved a meter shown to run .00x low thousandths on a display, same setup moved to a new quarantine + fish + feed and only one pad setup as reduced surface area ran at .05, safety maximum levels already known for quarantine setups, then at .001 on an absolutely bone dry reef startup tank with bottle bac and a clown as a load test.


on the same unit, he then demonstrates in another container that dosing liquid ammonia rises the reading as a peak, Dr. Tims bottle bac brings it down safely in hours (aligns with all the thousands of skip cycle threads we’ve reviewed) and then lastly- he puts the meter back on the display and it runs .00x


when that machine gives an nh3 reading I take notes. It’s dang convincing.

anyone who calibrates a seneye half that well has access to the newest and most cutting edge cycling input currently available, and we need such a unit plugged into a heavily stocked fish only setup to define nh3 tolerance and sustain maximum.
No reason to doubt you - but I BELIEVE that the seneye reactors quickly to large changes in ammonia (high levels) - and then comes down more slowly. even if put back into water with no ammonia - much like the Seachem Alert
 

Aquatic acrobat in your aquarium: Have you ever kept an eel?

  • I currently keep an eel in my tank.

    Votes: 25 14.1%
  • I have kept an eel in my tank in the past.

    Votes: 30 16.9%
  • I have not kept an eel in my tank, but I hope to in the future.

    Votes: 27 15.3%
  • I have no plans to keep an eel.

    Votes: 92 52.0%
  • Other.

    Votes: 3 1.7%
Back
Top