Analyzing Hanna Ammonia checker Hi784, chemistry and performance
- Thread starter taricha
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Taricha
I use your detailed procedures and findings as reference links in lots of threads. I thought it would be fun to outline how the greater population still views ammonia control much differently than chemists do.
noticed nobody had chatted since Sunday, a week approaching, so it seemed a fair and decent bump to state that your clear measurement of how fast test load ammonia resolves in a common reef tank is really a telling view of what reef tanks do in general, even if the tester reporting the numbers doesn't have this kit.
It is going to be beneficial for cycling science in the future to ask stalled cycle posters, displaying full on rock stacks with coralline etc, to resolve their inability to handle ammonia against your ability to do so, with the two reefs looking just the same the whole time and only the digital vs non digital test kits differing
I use your detailed procedures and findings as reference links in lots of threads. I thought it would be fun to outline how the greater population still views ammonia control much differently than chemists do.
noticed nobody had chatted since Sunday, a week approaching, so it seemed a fair and decent bump to state that your clear measurement of how fast test load ammonia resolves in a common reef tank is really a telling view of what reef tanks do in general, even if the tester reporting the numbers doesn't have this kit.
It is going to be beneficial for cycling science in the future to ask stalled cycle posters, displaying full on rock stacks with coralline etc, to resolve their inability to handle ammonia against your ability to do so, with the two reefs looking just the same the whole time and only the digital vs non digital test kits differing
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2018
- Messages
- 6,675
- Reaction score
- 7,170
How many times have you seen in the last five years posts about high ammonia concentrations in established saltwater systems? Are these problems ever solved or do the posters just go quiet?I realize this scope of this thread isn’t what reef tanks do with ammonia, it’s the tester. A free bump is a bump
but that snippet of what ammonia does in reef tanks as measured by Taricha is causing ripples in the cycling community especially in those not owning digital kits ~ when I post this thread for them to read.
I’m amazed at the rate people find reef tanks completely unable to control ammonia in total opposition to findings above. They’re on api mostly, vs digital measures, so it remains to be seen what reef tanks do for the masses
what our hobby needs: a clear, pre tested and factually known data plot on what it takes to make a matured reef display full of rocks stop controlling ammonia. We don’t have that list, it doesn’t exist. It’s being consulted on a recurring basis though, in non digital ammonia test threads. Everyone knows dead fish can spike ammonia but minus dead fish, the ways in which ammonia stops getting controlled in reef tanks is lengthy in non digital test threads while the actual published causes for that condition have yet to be written.
I would be so incredibly happy to know the instances Taricha could run that initial ammonia control benchmark on his reef tank, and there was no drop at the end of the day as shown above. The written list of things causing that inability are worth gold for cycle troubleshooters
I am still thinking about scenarios that might inhibit nitrifying bacteria.
In thinking further about the @taricha demonstration of ammonia consumption by a reef tank, I am struck by the linearity of the consumption rate. I feel the zero order kinetics, the rate is independent of ammonia concentration, might be worth looking into. Is it repeatable? Does it happen in every saltwater aquarium? Does it hint at bottleneck in ammonia consumption when ammonia suddenly appears in the system?
They go quiet usually/impasse occurs as the pages unfold.
The thread on the 9 month tank with the very interesting seachem alert badge at true alert levels went quiet, op could not get answers he was looking for i suppose. There was no known source for the claimed broken ability to cycle ammonia at month 9, however with the alert badge showing high level everyone in the thread believed the cycle broke at month 9
That was a very interesting test conflict, with the alert badge, too bad it remains unfinished as a cycling problem
*if cycle authorities had that list of things required to fail a cycle at month 9, or any month after cycle closes and fish are stocked, we could have reviewed his tank against the list
And without the list, anything a non digital test kit says is taken as a broken cycle no matter how much the tank shows complete ability to control ammonia by keeping animals alive like sensitive starfish etc, things that never survive in true ammonia water.
Scan any broken cycle thread ever posted to the board, if a fish died ammonia caused it; fish disease is never discussed, ever, in any of them.
The thread on the 9 month tank with the very interesting seachem alert badge at true alert levels went quiet, op could not get answers he was looking for i suppose. There was no known source for the claimed broken ability to cycle ammonia at month 9, however with the alert badge showing high level everyone in the thread believed the cycle broke at month 9
That was a very interesting test conflict, with the alert badge, too bad it remains unfinished as a cycling problem
*if cycle authorities had that list of things required to fail a cycle at month 9, or any month after cycle closes and fish are stocked, we could have reviewed his tank against the list
And without the list, anything a non digital test kit says is taken as a broken cycle no matter how much the tank shows complete ability to control ammonia by keeping animals alive like sensitive starfish etc, things that never survive in true ammonia water.
Scan any broken cycle thread ever posted to the board, if a fish died ammonia caused it; fish disease is never discussed, ever, in any of them.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2016
- Messages
- 22,829
- Reaction score
- 21,964
The interesting thing to me is why do people check ammonia in an established tank (in the absence of a significant problem?). And I think you're on the right track with regards to thinking about scenarios which could inhibit nitrifying bacteria. Here are a couple I thought of (in an established tank):
1. An event causing low oxygen levels (a power failure or pump failure, for example)
2. Overgrowth by other bacteria - i.e. which outcompete, and may also lower oxygen levels on a local and global level.
3. Overfeeding could cause #2 and also cause outcompetition.
It is my opinion based on my limited studies, that nitrifies grow to the level of ammonia present in the tank. If .5 ppm ammonia ia produced/day, bacteria will grow to the point where .5 ppm ammonia can be processed. If all the sudden 2 ppm ammonia is added in a day - it will not be processed immediately.
reef_1
Active Member
What I had causing spikes:
- overfeeding
- dosed something which killed microlife
- disturbed detritus
- something died
- cleaned sump (and the parts I cleaned hosted bacteria not the media appearingly)
I am sometimes thinking the proper hardcore fishless cycling could be like the marinepure study, that we keep topping it up until it processes 100ppm per day or the tanks absolute limit, when the amount it can process per day doesnt go up anymore.
Then 100 percent water change and after that we can surely add first fish without future ammonia spikes.
Or to save water I add all filter media into a small box, like 1L media into a 1L box, seed with bacteria and then do the marinpure study on the box, keep topping up ammonia to 100ppm until it processes 100ppm in 1/display tanksize(L) day.
It's the best possible analogy.
Everytime someone takes time to test formally, cycles lock in around day ten in most practical arrangements, given all common variances cyclers do, and they don't undo
The only challenges to the version of cycling I think is most updated come from non digital test kits.
I cannot wait to see how 20 more of these hanna meters T has tested read on various reefs on the board, as time reveals the pattern. These cheap meters will catch on is the bet
Seneye does not put a variance much at all across reefs, even nano owners on seneye report .001-.006~ max variance and the highest baseline I've seen a seneye state for a packed nano was .04 ppm nh3 in that one thread where I viewed the comparative api ammonia reading to take much longer to show a drop vs seneye.
So the sum total average for all seneye readings on reefs where reasonable prep was applied to the slides etc is .005-.04 ppm nh3, that's a tight range.
Everytime someone takes time to test formally, cycles lock in around day ten in most practical arrangements, given all common variances cyclers do, and they don't undo
The only challenges to the version of cycling I think is most updated come from non digital test kits.
I cannot wait to see how 20 more of these hanna meters T has tested read on various reefs on the board, as time reveals the pattern. These cheap meters will catch on is the bet
Seneye does not put a variance much at all across reefs, even nano owners on seneye report .001-.006~ max variance and the highest baseline I've seen a seneye state for a packed nano was .04 ppm nh3 in that one thread where I viewed the comparative api ammonia reading to take much longer to show a drop vs seneye.
So the sum total average for all seneye readings on reefs where reasonable prep was applied to the slides etc is .005-.04 ppm nh3, that's a tight range.
Given that max range
The levels claimed sustained in this tank
*at the time of the picture, per the tank owner - are the unreasonable number. It's not possible in display tank reefing.
If any reasonable scientist ever reading this post now or in the future can prove with accuracy, accepted by peers here that they've seen a reef like that, with that much fish distribution and clarity of water and plant loading fail to maintain ammonia at month nine given no abnormal treatment, as that tank did not have, then a new article on cycling + macna talk can be made for what you've documented. It's that rare
The degree of load ammonia that Taricha dosed into his reef is far more than that tank would see as a worst- case scenario. T's tank, without symptoms, handled the shock absorber need easily and can do it every day. Without ramp up
That fact alone cancels a few firm rules of old cycling science and old cycling science is the only way that reef above is failing to control ammonia~
The only time a reef tank fails to control ammonia after cycling, and when current is still on (we're not talking power outage crashes) is after a multiple fish kill
No other natural cause. One or two fish won't do it; that's below T's loading threshold. Takes a multiple fish kill
*there are seneye posts in the chemistry forum in the seneye misread thread that show a tang fully degrading in the reef, couldn't extract deceased fish, and the .001-.006 did not budge
All reefs by rule of copy each other process ammonia at a very fast rate
~ faster than what T measured on hanna. Seneye has its own oxidation rate thread= 10 minutes per trial on average
There is only one thing that overcomes a cycle after one is set, a multiple fish kill left to rot.
Because that tank above looks the way it does, a direct copy in scale of every other reef tank on seneye, we already know his nh3 range
Off a tank pic.
The levels claimed sustained in this tank
*at the time of the picture, per the tank owner - are the unreasonable number. It's not possible in display tank reefing.
If any reasonable scientist ever reading this post now or in the future can prove with accuracy, accepted by peers here that they've seen a reef like that, with that much fish distribution and clarity of water and plant loading fail to maintain ammonia at month nine given no abnormal treatment, as that tank did not have, then a new article on cycling + macna talk can be made for what you've documented. It's that rare
The degree of load ammonia that Taricha dosed into his reef is far more than that tank would see as a worst- case scenario. T's tank, without symptoms, handled the shock absorber need easily and can do it every day. Without ramp up
That fact alone cancels a few firm rules of old cycling science and old cycling science is the only way that reef above is failing to control ammonia~
The only time a reef tank fails to control ammonia after cycling, and when current is still on (we're not talking power outage crashes) is after a multiple fish kill
No other natural cause. One or two fish won't do it; that's below T's loading threshold. Takes a multiple fish kill
*there are seneye posts in the chemistry forum in the seneye misread thread that show a tang fully degrading in the reef, couldn't extract deceased fish, and the .001-.006 did not budge
All reefs by rule of copy each other process ammonia at a very fast rate
~ faster than what T measured on hanna. Seneye has its own oxidation rate thread= 10 minutes per trial on average
There is only one thing that overcomes a cycle after one is set, a multiple fish kill left to rot.
Because that tank above looks the way it does, a direct copy in scale of every other reef tank on seneye, we already know his nh3 range
Off a tank pic.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2016
- Messages
- 22,829
- Reaction score
- 21,964
My opinion - and I hesitate to say it - there is no such thing as a 'broken cycle'. It's probably 99% - broken testing procedures. I do not think that many people have issues with cycling - its more with the 'testing'.So you might say then that you have seen Big Foot more often than a truly broken cycle.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2016
- Messages
- 22,829
- Reaction score
- 21,964
One issue - I would assume you would agree with - forgetting seneyes or anything else - There are numerous calculators - which take pH Salinity temperature, etc etc - and the total ammonia level - and give a 'free ammonia' estimate. The Free ammonia in most tanks is far below the 'toxic' level - Whether your API test reads .25 or not. The truth is - if you calculate the toxic levels of ammonia in our tanks - it's non-toxic in most cases when you take into account the other parameters - the ammonia is actually not an issue. NOTE - I'm not talking about a new tank thats a day or 7 days old (unless bacteria was added). This is one takeaway I have from @Dan_P and @taricha - "we" are trying to solve a non-existent problem
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2016
- Messages
- 22,829
- Reaction score
- 21,964
IMHO - there is no need for a seneye - you can use an easy internet calculator that will tell you the same thing you said above
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2018
- Messages
- 6,675
- Reaction score
- 7,170
We need to remind ourselves that Seneye and other ammonia sensors detect unionized ammonia which is very roughly 1/10 to 1/20 the total ammonia. In the worse case, 0.005 to 0.04 ppm free ammonia is equivalent to 0.05 to 0.4 ppm total ammonia. That upper number will give an obvious non-zero result with API.
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2018
- Messages
- 6,675
- Reaction score
- 7,170
Has anybody actually measured the ammonia level in a cycled aquarium with a dead fish left to rot?Given that max range
The levels claimed sustained in this tank
*at the time of the picture, per the tank owner - are the unreasonable number. It's not possible in display tank reefing.
If any reasonable scientist ever reading this post now or in the future can prove with accuracy, accepted by peers here that they've seen a reef like that, with that much fish distribution and clarity of water and plant loading fail to maintain ammonia at month nine given no abnormal treatment, as that tank did not have, then a new article on cycling + macna talk can be made for what you've documented. It's that rare
The degree of load ammonia that Taricha dosed into his reef is far more than that tank would see as a worst- case scenario. T's tank, without symptoms, handled the shock absorber need easily and can do it every day. Without ramp up
That fact alone cancels a few firm rules of old cycling science and old cycling science is the only way that reef above is failing to control ammonia~
The only time a reef tank fails to control ammonia after cycling, and when current is still on (we're not talking power outage crashes) is after a multiple fish kill
No other natural cause. One or two fish won't do it; that's below T's loading threshold. Takes a multiple fish kill
*there are seneye posts in the chemistry forum in the seneye misread thread that show a tang fully degrading in the reef, couldn't extract deceased fish, and the .001-.006 did not budge
All reefs by rule of copy each other process ammonia at a very fast rate
~ faster than what T measured on hanna. Seneye has its own oxidation rate thread= 10 minutes per trial on average
There is only one thing that overcomes a cycle after one is set, a multiple fish kill left to rot.
Because that tank above looks the way it does, a direct copy in scale of every other reef tank on seneye, we already know his nh3 range
Off a tank pic.
Yep, at pH 8.1, normal salinity, 0.04 NH3 works out at over 0.7 ppm NH3 + NH4, Impossible, right?
I only see one regular poster that keeps on about broken or stalled cycles. It’s quite obvious they can be temporarily overwhelmed. However, like in the 8ppm thread, that number would need to get rather high normally to cause problems. I guess someone should search for an LC50 (seems to be popular) toxicity list and post it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2018
- Messages
- 6,675
- Reaction score
- 7,170
I just read some tox data. 0.05 ppm free ammonia causes gill damage, 2 ppm (!) is lethal for more sensitive fish. I did not have the energy to look for more details.
This kinda gives you a perspective why it is possible to have high total ammonia and still see fish swimming around, though maybe not for long.
Similar threads
New Posts
-
-
-
Adding water to tank, then salt?
- Latest: ChrisfromBrick
