Can the size of your nitrifying bacteria colony be measured?
- Thread starter Dom
- Start date
- Tagged users None
You could indirectly measure the concentration by spiking with a small, known amount of ammonia and measure the decay of the ammonia to nitrate. If the ammonia concentration is small with respect to the bacteria colony, then the decay should be exponential. And that exponential decay constant is a function of the bacteria population. This can give you relative information about the population between two different times for your tank.
mcshams
Slave to my wife's reef desires
Reef Tank 365
SDMA Member
Hospitality Award
Los Angeles Aquatics Club
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2020
- Messages
- 431
- Reaction score
- 1,227
This would be a form of measurement, but not a true fixed measurement as factors affecting bacteria metabolism even if fixed quantity can adversely or proactively help the bacteria fix the ammonia. It would be awesome if we could say with mathematical accuracy that if you add 1mol of ammonia per 20L of water and it processes that ammonia to nitrate in 5 days you have 2.0 x 10^9th bacteria, but that is not possible. So what we truly have is the knowledge that if you do process ammonia, then you have bacteria, and if you process it relatively logarithmic, you have enough bacteria to process the amount of ammonia you placed in the tank....but that won't answer the question as to whether or not you could have processed more.. or how much true bacteria that is.
this is how I measure it: by inference.
if we are looking at a picture of something submerged in a reef tank 30 days or more, its vital space is bacteria and typical starting biofilm. Thickness of colony is affected by interspace competition and water shear and other factors; but its a common mistake in the hobby for people to think 'more' bacteria on surfaces means more filtration, it doesnt. it means less efficient filtration.
you get a better filter by increasing surface area, not by adding more bac or by supplementing existing ones.
I always like this analogy: this letter W
has two V channels where water flows through as live rock contact surface area
if you pack in more things into the W space, its less water contact not more, turning into an O which is less surface area than a W all around. The thinnest possible biofilm covering is the most efficient filter. adding more bac reduces filtration efficiency, and thinning them out increases it for self-regulation.
aquabiomics has been measuring the constituents of typical biofilms but to know surface area and time submerged is to know at least something about nitrifier presence.
if we are looking at a picture of something submerged in a reef tank 30 days or more, its vital space is bacteria and typical starting biofilm. Thickness of colony is affected by interspace competition and water shear and other factors; but its a common mistake in the hobby for people to think 'more' bacteria on surfaces means more filtration, it doesnt. it means less efficient filtration.
you get a better filter by increasing surface area, not by adding more bac or by supplementing existing ones.
I always like this analogy: this letter W
has two V channels where water flows through as live rock contact surface area
if you pack in more things into the W space, its less water contact not more, turning into an O which is less surface area than a W all around. The thinnest possible biofilm covering is the most efficient filter. adding more bac reduces filtration efficiency, and thinning them out increases it for self-regulation.
aquabiomics has been measuring the constituents of typical biofilms but to know surface area and time submerged is to know at least something about nitrifier presence.
Last edited:
more proofing we are dealing with size of population estimates:
surface area assessment is so powerfully accurate of a measure of filter bac, that with one tank picture its possible to assess what the system does with free ammonia even without a test kit. thats given all typical controls for no dead fish/rotting wastewater added in etc. but surface area is so reliable that simply seeing substrate and rocks and seeing clues that prove submersion timeframes allows one to know ammonia performance off a single tank picture.
if that was a form of guessing, tanks would be dead having not measured ammonia and chosen the view assessment, it would mean some tanks with rocks and sand didn't have completely full bacteria counts, or that filter abilities vary after the 30 day period, they don't.
we do better calling ammonia off pics than any testing shy of seneye thats for sure, and we can even catch seneye in a false measure scenario if its readings dont match the surface area apparent in the tank. to see surface area is to know something very powerful and predictable about nitrifying bacteria. all cycled reefs process their ammonia in very exacting conversion rates; best current measure is thousandths ppm is highest free ammonia runs in any reef tank, with sufficient surface area in place.
a handy part of visually verifying surface area is nobody's reefs runs .25 free ammonia, they all pass cycle assessment with no stuck cycles.
surface area assessment is so powerfully accurate of a measure of filter bac, that with one tank picture its possible to assess what the system does with free ammonia even without a test kit. thats given all typical controls for no dead fish/rotting wastewater added in etc. but surface area is so reliable that simply seeing substrate and rocks and seeing clues that prove submersion timeframes allows one to know ammonia performance off a single tank picture.
if that was a form of guessing, tanks would be dead having not measured ammonia and chosen the view assessment, it would mean some tanks with rocks and sand didn't have completely full bacteria counts, or that filter abilities vary after the 30 day period, they don't.
we do better calling ammonia off pics than any testing shy of seneye thats for sure, and we can even catch seneye in a false measure scenario if its readings dont match the surface area apparent in the tank. to see surface area is to know something very powerful and predictable about nitrifying bacteria. all cycled reefs process their ammonia in very exacting conversion rates; best current measure is thousandths ppm is highest free ammonia runs in any reef tank, with sufficient surface area in place.
a handy part of visually verifying surface area is nobody's reefs runs .25 free ammonia, they all pass cycle assessment with no stuck cycles.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Yes... I understand that the tanks appearance will tell you if you have enough.
But I've read two schools of thought on this subject...
The first is that the size of your nitrifying bacteria colony population fluctuates based on the size of the bio load.
The other is that the bacteria colony population will continue to grow until all available surface areas are covered, regardless of the size of the bio load.
So I was curious if the size of the colony can be measured.
What I find amazing is the lack of hard referees for the matter. we're either dealing with refs who sell things related to bac...lack of bac or diversity assessements, or we're dealing with online poster findings
Chemistry has hard refs. state incorrectly how ions work/zapped.
microbiology? too new to ref and everyone has a slant that affects their calls on what bacteria do.
thats why I was happy to see the wastewater phd guy join up the other day, his entire industry runs on what surface area does or water drinkers will certainly perish.
im meaning free ammonia above the accepted safe conversion levels, where people fear that its measure in an API reading means bac are missing, dead or weakened.
seneye has shown us there is no zero ammonia, there is only thousandths-ppm free ammonia as the active conversion rate
these testers that report based on zeroes are attempting a reading that doesnt exist, no wonder so many show low level readings always.
For any ref that may take the side of #of fish regulates # of filter bacteria, ill ask them to tie in two proofs we have on file:
1. The W factor above, how can increasing bac make a filter more efficient.
2. The sand rinse thread. 33 pages of instant sandbed removals across reefs, all at once, with no ramp up. Bacteria were kept at max levels the whole time regardless of sand; we ripped it out. They didn't get a ramp up phase. The live rock instantly took on fish waste management without the sand *because* live rock W surface has that much extra reserve carry capacity.
I believe a microbiologist will have to account for those two tenets above to convince me that # of fish regulates filter efficiency, meaning running systems with low fish will be shocked when you add more fish, without ramp up time.
ramp up time doesn't exist, looking for a ref that says it does/excellent way to vet claims.
Chemistry has hard refs. state incorrectly how ions work/zapped.
microbiology? too new to ref and everyone has a slant that affects their calls on what bacteria do.
thats why I was happy to see the wastewater phd guy join up the other day, his entire industry runs on what surface area does or water drinkers will certainly perish.
im meaning free ammonia above the accepted safe conversion levels, where people fear that its measure in an API reading means bac are missing, dead or weakened.
seneye has shown us there is no zero ammonia, there is only thousandths-ppm free ammonia as the active conversion rate
these testers that report based on zeroes are attempting a reading that doesnt exist, no wonder so many show low level readings always.
For any ref that may take the side of #of fish regulates # of filter bacteria, ill ask them to tie in two proofs we have on file:
1. The W factor above, how can increasing bac make a filter more efficient.
2. The sand rinse thread. 33 pages of instant sandbed removals across reefs, all at once, with no ramp up. Bacteria were kept at max levels the whole time regardless of sand; we ripped it out. They didn't get a ramp up phase. The live rock instantly took on fish waste management without the sand *because* live rock W surface has that much extra reserve carry capacity.
I believe a microbiologist will have to account for those two tenets above to convince me that # of fish regulates filter efficiency, meaning running systems with low fish will be shocked when you add more fish, without ramp up time.
ramp up time doesn't exist, looking for a ref that says it does/excellent way to vet claims.
Last edited:
OP
OP
It doesn't have to matter. Reading threads here on R2R stimulates questions for me and I like to put them out there.
Again, there are two schools of thought on the nitrifying bacteria colony...
Allow me to quote my previous post:
" The first is that the size of your nitrifying bacteria colony population fluctuates based on the size of the bio load.
The other is that the bacteria colony population will continue to grow until all available surface areas are covered, regardless of the size of the bio load."
If there is a way to do measure the size of the colony, I could have a definitive answer to this question.
Last edited:
this is a great thread. If there was a thread on the internet where someone does Randy style microbiological cycle calling I want in, quickly.
claims need to be vetted, nobody trading in truth wants limited scrutiny.
you know why its fun to even hash this info
because it sets care and setup boundaries. The answer to that question above regulates how fish-in cycles work, it regulates how we're allowed to clean and move tanks without loss etc. $ are at stake in the answer to what reef surface area does, beyond just the supplementation machine.
posters in the new tankers forum get the most up to date procedural information at rtr
answering the above question from Dom is required to see if rtr is providing purely updated material or dated material.
claims need to be vetted, nobody trading in truth wants limited scrutiny.
you know why its fun to even hash this info
because it sets care and setup boundaries. The answer to that question above regulates how fish-in cycles work, it regulates how we're allowed to clean and move tanks without loss etc. $ are at stake in the answer to what reef surface area does, beyond just the supplementation machine.
posters in the new tankers forum get the most up to date procedural information at rtr
answering the above question from Dom is required to see if rtr is providing purely updated material or dated material.
Last edited:
lets do this inverse
give an explanation other than biofilm constancy to account for skip cycle sandbed removal
in pattern, hundreds of tanks.
what mechanism of up/down regulation is at play for surface area when all sand is removed, and rocks instantly carry the same # of fish.
seals the deal on bacteria regulating themselves because they're hydrated, not because they can't get feed without our help.
give an explanation other than biofilm constancy to account for skip cycle sandbed removal
in pattern, hundreds of tanks.
what mechanism of up/down regulation is at play for surface area when all sand is removed, and rocks instantly carry the same # of fish.
seals the deal on bacteria regulating themselves because they're hydrated, not because they can't get feed without our help.
no im telling you this thread is revealing a hidden secret
if polled, 97% of respondents who currently reef will fail basic questions of how microbiology works in reefing, and we dont have a ref who can make the call pass or fail on the answers. we're in the microbial wild west phase of our hobby, elementary understanding is missing. people fill those gaps with for-sale items.
there isn't an analog to Randy for cycling, someone build one/cyborg with google scholar live quantum reference ability.
if polled, 97% of respondents who currently reef will fail basic questions of how microbiology works in reefing, and we dont have a ref who can make the call pass or fail on the answers. we're in the microbial wild west phase of our hobby, elementary understanding is missing. people fill those gaps with for-sale items.
there isn't an analog to Randy for cycling, someone build one/cyborg with google scholar live quantum reference ability.
$$ wasted. I can link you a hundred threads where bottle bac wasnt needed and were repurchased. due to basic lack of answers above.
because gaps of knowledge exist in reefing, we are being sold remedies for conditions that dont exist.
with strong command over surface area science, and a convincing party relaying the info, money is saved. the knowledge is worth $
100% of our reference material says bacteria regulate based on bioload, its why Dom asked the question. the hobby is wrong and they buy bacteria to put in places that are already full of bacteria constantly. we try and catch the threads one by one.
so great thread>for exposing fallacies that get us tricked into buying things we dont need.
because gaps of knowledge exist in reefing, we are being sold remedies for conditions that dont exist.
with strong command over surface area science, and a convincing party relaying the info, money is saved. the knowledge is worth $
100% of our reference material says bacteria regulate based on bioload, its why Dom asked the question. the hobby is wrong and they buy bacteria to put in places that are already full of bacteria constantly. we try and catch the threads one by one.
so great thread>for exposing fallacies that get us tricked into buying things we dont need.
Last edited:
With the bioload I have I'm sure Its in the billions but I stopped counting at a million. I can tell you its gotta be alot with all the rock, fish and corals to process 12 Hikari cubes a day.
Similar threads
-
- Question
