cant keep ammonia up for cycling

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
11,192
Reaction score
8,780
Location
tejas
Dom I hear you. The only reason we came up with testless cycling was to remedy those aquariums that seem to never cycle. We know that bacteria do predictable things in water, we had to find out what part wasn’t complying (it was the testing only)

Had to find a new way just like when the heavy hitters/ rule makers in the hobby said fifteen gallons was the smallest one could go and still reef. Is it fair to say we presented them with some alternate proof as of 2019? cuz in 2001 they were just sure, mighty convicted sure.


This hobby and forum would be better served if the challenge material was a series of works and counterfindings/links by combatants. The threads could speak for themselves, the patterns. No personal attacks required, distractions. Work threads are the result of someone earnestly seeking new ways, taking time to test- they're rare (as in not many in this thread) because it's hard and accountable to ask people to put their $ on the line to test new ways. Work threads provide a form of proof for claims that no other verification method provides
 
Last edited:
Top Shelf Aquatics

Dom

wikireef.org
View Badges
Joined
Apr 29, 2016
Messages
2,643
Reaction score
2,590
Location
NY
NH4 is food for nitrifying bacteria. Maintaining a low concentration during "cycling" fuels the growth of these bacteria.

My suggestion that NH4 tests alone are inadequate proof of a mature community is based on the fact that lots of things take up NH4, and not all of these processes produce NO3. I've seen evidence of these repeatedly. To be sure, I recommend waiting until NH4 is declining and NO3 is rising to declare a tank cycled.
NO4 (ammonium). This is new to me. So if I understand correctly, the idea is to feed the bacteria colony and encourage its growth?

But the nitrifying bacteria colony isn't a fixed size; it grows and shrinks based on the size of the bio load. So if we develop a huge nitrifying bacteria colony at the start of a new tank in this way, the only way it will stay that size is by introducing a bio load large enough to maintain it.

Is this correct?

I'll have to re-read that thread.
 

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
11,192
Reaction score
8,780
Location
tejas
Surface area determines their ability to express ammonia that keeps going away half a day after being added several times now.

You can remove all fish from a reef tank, go fallow for a year, then put all fish back instantly and have no cycle. The bacteria didn't shrink due to lack of missing fish bioload, surface area remained constant so nitrification remained constant. Many posters claim you have to add fish back slowly to allow ramp up from the rocks, not at all required.

***bacteria existed before us, they were getting fed without our help a long time** only aquarists came along and typed that they had sole control over hydrated bac by what they feed or withhold

The unquestioned .25 is the cause

From the sand rinse work thread: we rip out full sandbeds instantly. The reason the live rocks instantly take on all the fish bioloading without ramp up time is because their surface area determines nitrification ability and a little live rock goes a very long way, we can see here.
 
Last edited:

EMeyer

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Jan 23, 2016
Messages
739
Reaction score
999
NO4 (ammonium). This is new to me. So if I understand correctly, the idea is to feed the bacteria colony and encourage its growth?

But the nitrifying bacteria colony isn't a fixed size; it grows and shrinks based on the size of the bio load. So if we develop a huge nitrifying bacteria colony at the start of a new tank in this way, the only way it will stay that size is by introducing a bio load large enough to maintain it.

Is this correct?

I'll have to re-read that thread.
Probably just a typo, but NH4 (or NH3 depending on pH), not NO4.

What you say is essentially correct. I'm sure there is some capacity for bacteria to go hungry before dying, but to a large extent yes, the bacterial population size changes with available nutrients. So to maintain a large bacterial community you need to keep providing food (either in the form of fish urine or dosing ammonia).

With that said, these bacteria grow pretty fast. I am not too worried about maintaining a large population, and more interested in getting a diverse community with the right members in the first place.

I'm not sure what brandon is getting at, but I see he mentioned surface area. Yes, surface area is an important factor that can limit population size, which is why we favor highly porous rocks or other things to provide this surface area.
 

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
11,192
Reaction score
8,780
Location
tejas
In the linked work thread are two starvation tests, one where feed was withheld three years then nitrification was tested and a two year one. The answer is linked, already avail for follow up. You cannot starve a cycled tank back to sterility. its been thoroughly tested for any one who wants to click
 
OP
J

James Matthews

Member
View Badges
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
26
Reaction score
13
NH4 is food for nitrifying bacteria. Maintaining a low concentration during "cycling" fuels the growth of these bacteria.

My suggestion that NH4 tests alone are inadequate proof of a mature community is based on the fact that lots of things take up NH4, and not all of these processes produce NO3. I've seen evidence of these repeatedly. To be sure, I recommend waiting until NH4 is declining and NO3 is rising to declare a tank cycled.
ammonia keeps dropping back down and nitrites are 0 and nitrates are now between 15 to 20 ppm
 
OP
J

James Matthews

Member
View Badges
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
26
Reaction score
13
In the linked work thread are two starvation tests, one where feed was withheld three years then nitrification was tested and a two year one. The answer is linked, already avail for follow up. You cannot starve a cycled tank back to sterility. You can however write that feeding is required, and ignore fallow test feedback already in place.
also brown diatoms have been taken over by green hair algae have heard from many sources that's when you add a clean up crew
 

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
11,192
Reaction score
8,780
Location
tejas
Yes agreed that’s an option and it’s better than no action. Those growths are bioindicators of nitrifer presence due to the time they take to anchor and emerge from rock surfaces... bacteria are there much sooner than plants, we know.
The diatoms only appear after establishment of bacterial biofilms

Your thread is valuable for the detailed feedback and the tie-in of your details to other cycled tanks we collect :) very helpful to reefing in general.


Adding a cuc is what most would do.
But for fun, entertainment, to observe truly deep thought given to insults typed to me lol + watch me get flamed by many see this thread
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/the-worst-advice-ever.600175/

What I would do is never add a cuc in response to algae. I can only advise what it takes to never lose a tank to invasion, and having algae in your tank that a cuc could eat means it was left in place when another option was lift out the rock, kill it, and be algae free. Have a clean up crew to prevent algae, not remove it, is the secret of the worlds oldest nano reefs that are never ever invaded


*********you can leave it in place, and it may go away, agreed.


That’s not good enough for me though.
 
Last edited:

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
11,192
Reaction score
8,780
Location
tejas
check this work thread out.

https://www.nano-reef.com/forums/topic/268706-peroxide-saves-my-tank-with-pics-to-prove-it/page/62/

I am absolutely not trying to sell you on dumping peroxide in your tank. Though that's a peroxide thread, seventy five times we did not dump some in when they wanted to originally.

patterns I feel are scientifically valid in that thread:

1. we can see that allowing an uglies phase caused most of those invasions. They tell us it never really went away. What we did after them hesitating seven months was available day 1 when the algae was seen. They opted not to apply it on day one, but they opted into applying right when the whole tank was about to die, ergo being invaded is a choice not a requirement. all of them were managing nutrients, had clean up crews etc.

2. I did not ask for nitrate or phosphate readings on any thread Ive ever managed in order to fix an aquarium

3. try to reverse engineer what made them need us. Not what we did to help, what were they doing before the invasion, during, and after matters more than the tool we chose. what made them need our crazy options, you can tell most only showed up as a total last resort. that's massive massive hesitation, not algae issues.

4. where are the other work threads using alt means? a demand exists. We need more ways to show alt options, invasions are a real prob nowadays. The reason a massive dichotomy exists between what we've been told to do vs what works to turn out powerful tanks is because our hobby needs new science regarding cycling and invasion control. if we keep following old rules, we'll have 70% of tanks under constant invasion and none of them completed by day 30 in cycling (which we know to be the active date, depending on how one chooses to actually measure the closed cycle)

with enough work threads its possible to change reefing as a whole.
 
Last edited:
https://www.omegasea.net/

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
11,192
Reaction score
8,780
Location
tejas
Do you guys recall any posts where a full running reef tank registers zero nitrate even though the aquarist hasn't arranged for that condition (I'm leading into something, if trouble finding the threads I have links they're from our board here several places key term searches show. its why people add stump remover to the water)

as we research zero nitrate full running reefs, see if any of them are new tanks. or old. or all ages in between, search out to see if nitrate simply varies based on conditions including test accuracy

If your nitrate readings were zero, it would still be cycled. that's an important takeaway... fundamentally we do not need to test to call a cycle, that's the final deal. Lapin confirmed in one sentence what we all took two pages and a few scratches to arrive at.

we all know api varies, lots of testers vary. I have threads that show zero nitrate red sea and some nitrate Salifert. What if they started a thread off the red sea results?

then your cycle isn't ready.

but if they post the salifert results, then your tank is ready/unacceptable test drift we need a better way. Lapin knew that when the first call was made.

When someone calls a cycle done solely off test kits, not inquiring about submersion time, they're making a call missing core information.

at a given point, same for each aquarium, submersion time overrules testers regarding a closed cycle or not. Chemists know that the chemistry never really changes...only the interpretation.
 
Last edited:

Hair Algae in your aquarium. Choose all that apply!

  • I've never had hair algae

    Votes: 48 8.6%
  • I Have had a little but nothing major

    Votes: 139 25.0%
  • I Have had several tough outbreaks

    Votes: 72 12.9%
  • I Have had a major outbreak that I won

    Votes: 170 30.6%
  • Have had a major outbreak that caused me to tear the tank down

    Votes: 22 4.0%
  • I am battling a little hair algae now

    Votes: 143 25.7%
  • I am battling a major outbreak right now

    Votes: 56 10.1%
  • Other (please explain)

    Votes: 7 1.3%

Online statistics

Members online
832
Guests online
3,256
Total visitors
4,088
Top