They can uptake ammonia directly. I never used to cycle my phyto cultures, lol
Cycle not lowering ammonia levels.
- Thread starter Wuffletoast
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ammonia cycle aquarium
- Tagged users None
Lavey29
10K Club member
You are probably correct in your interpretation however, if a tank shows limited ammonia on one end and nitrates on the other then the cycling process is working. Now perhaps nitrifying bacteria need additional time to process that ammonia to almost an instant zero as it is introduced to the tank but the cycle is operating as intended. I'm sure you remember getting your ammonia number and then checking nitrates and see 0. Then later you see ammonia number going down and then nitrates going up so you know the tank is cycling. Now if OP had ammonia levels that were hazardous and 0 nitrates of course that is cause for concern. Not really the situation here.
I belive all your posts are spot on.
Lavey29
10K Club member
Ok but what about the other required nutrients to establish growth?
Lavey29
10K Club member
Do you think his small live rocks had some die off resulting in small ammonia level similar to when a fish goes missing in the tank?
brandon429
what, exactly, are you doing in your avatar
No
there’s no advanced coverage to be dying off they’re barren, but pigmented as submerged rocks would be.
live rocks moved among tanks dont dieoff that’s been made up twenty years no joke
lastly, threads like this one show -all- reef tanks can take direct massive bumps of liquid ammonia and the ammonia is resolved in five minutes or so
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/does-anyone-dose-ammonia-and-or-how-would-one-try.770535/
on these non digital kits, I’ve seen days long lag times.
even if he had a big fat worm die the ammonia doesn’t hover slightly out of control a while, they can’t even get ammonia control to take longer than 5-10 mins after huge liquid doses. That above shows the shock absorbing system all cycled reefs have, including this one here.
because: on a cycling chart the ammonia line never goes back up after it goes down, this is the rule for all display reef tanks post-cycle. They all have enough surface area even with a few rocks, don’t forget a thousand nano reefs have made absolute gem tanks off that much rock/ all over the web.
there’s no advanced coverage to be dying off they’re barren, but pigmented as submerged rocks would be.
live rocks moved among tanks dont dieoff that’s been made up twenty years no joke
lastly, threads like this one show -all- reef tanks can take direct massive bumps of liquid ammonia and the ammonia is resolved in five minutes or so
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/does-anyone-dose-ammonia-and-or-how-would-one-try.770535/
on these non digital kits, I’ve seen days long lag times.
even if he had a big fat worm die the ammonia doesn’t hover slightly out of control a while, they can’t even get ammonia control to take longer than 5-10 mins after huge liquid doses. That above shows the shock absorbing system all cycled reefs have, including this one here.
because: on a cycling chart the ammonia line never goes back up after it goes down, this is the rule for all display reef tanks post-cycle. They all have enough surface area even with a few rocks, don’t forget a thousand nano reefs have made absolute gem tanks off that much rock/ all over the web.
brandon429
what, exactly, are you doing in your avatar
It is very very hard to just immediately dispense with cycling doubt in a thread like we've done and not allow for potential to be not cycled
The inability to find any recent possible examples of a failed cycle on any reef site, meaning a tank that cannot carry fish, should give good backup in the matter. We aren't on a continuance of loss during cycling using all these various ways folks cycle
A cycling chart covers them all
And by day ten, the inherent ammonia control date, we dispense with cycling concerns where live rocks go, or bottle bac cycles. All searchable examples for those in recent reefing are full passes, only non digital test kits cause cycling panic. No seneye owner is cycle panicked after they learn slide prep rules.
An aberrant display reef tank cycle at day sixty has never been documented with digital nh3 tracking in reefing. An article entry does not exist for the claim, it's made up solely on web forums
This whole thread matches every stalled cycle post ever made
The inability to find any recent possible examples of a failed cycle on any reef site, meaning a tank that cannot carry fish, should give good backup in the matter. We aren't on a continuance of loss during cycling using all these various ways folks cycle
A cycling chart covers them all
And by day ten, the inherent ammonia control date, we dispense with cycling concerns where live rocks go, or bottle bac cycles. All searchable examples for those in recent reefing are full passes, only non digital test kits cause cycling panic. No seneye owner is cycle panicked after they learn slide prep rules.
An aberrant display reef tank cycle at day sixty has never been documented with digital nh3 tracking in reefing. An article entry does not exist for the claim, it's made up solely on web forums
This whole thread matches every stalled cycle post ever made
It could account for a small input of ammonia. In the pictures, they look more like base rock. There are less things on it to die and decay. However, in many cases, that little bit of ammonia only serves to feed bacterial growth that occurs quickly, and is seldom noticed. More likely, the OP's misunderstanding of his test kit caused the problem. The readings he posted were really a safe .2 or .3 ppm and likely closer to 0 if you take kit accuracy into account... kind of like the API kit that always seems to report .25 ppm.
brandon429
what, exactly, are you doing in your avatar
I have never seen one single digital nh3 measured cycle take longer than one day; ten is a steal
I'm agreeing with RGeezer above, being at day sixty evened out any worst case scenarios
That extra time covers weak bottle bac, a big eunice worm dying inside live rock, all the common variables. I have never seen a true stalled cycle by day ten, nor by day one, stalled cycles don't exist in seneye threads.
I believe uncured ocean rocks lined in ocean animals can legit dieoff possibly days out of ammonia compliance, due to mass rot of the curing items.
I'm agreeing with RGeezer above, being at day sixty evened out any worst case scenarios
That extra time covers weak bottle bac, a big eunice worm dying inside live rock, all the common variables. I have never seen a true stalled cycle by day ten, nor by day one, stalled cycles don't exist in seneye threads.
I believe uncured ocean rocks lined in ocean animals can legit dieoff possibly days out of ammonia compliance, due to mass rot of the curing items.
Spare time
10K Club member
Ammonia and nitrite are forms of nitrogen that algae and plants can use. They can also store it.
https://www.britannica.com/science/algae/Nutrient-storage
https://www.frontiersin.org/article...ae can store excess phosphorus,et al., 2018).
Lavey29
10K Club member
No it can not store it. Multiple studies for this. Plants can store, algae cant.
EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal
Just another girl who likes fish
Lavey29
10K Club member
You like me to much to keep me on ignore huh or are you a crazy stalker?
https://www.algone.com/lowering-nitrates-leads-to-effective-aquarium-algae-control
He’s been feeding a fish for one. I’m not even sure the OP has been asked on this thread about what fresh Australian live rock actually means to him. So is this a liverock transfer, uncured rock, cured rock, whatever. Without knowing that it’s not wise to say the tank is safe. Was it shot over to his tank from Australia by a massive canon? I posed this very question (in a round about manner) on his other thread about the same thing;
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/what-to-monitor-during-tank-cycling.942172/#post-10682124
brandon429
what, exactly, are you doing in your avatar
Garf, fair question but that creates fear with no precedence
you're hinting at a worst case outcome nobody can provide...link from any recent post where the crash happened?
Spare time
-plants that uptake ammonia:
agreed, that's why I don't buy the guys post on a nine month display tank that went uncycled, he had fifteen pounds of macro right in the display greening up everything. with zero rock he wouldnt have had the stated ammonia issue
you're hinting at a worst case outcome nobody can provide...link from any recent post where the crash happened?
Spare time
-plants that uptake ammonia:
agreed, that's why I don't buy the guys post on a nine month display tank that went uncycled, he had fifteen pounds of macro right in the display greening up everything. with zero rock he wouldnt have had the stated ammonia issue
brandon429
what, exactly, are you doing in your avatar
Precedence, ie any thread any of us can search for proof shows any way we want to cycle works out fine
we aren't on a continuum of fails, or able to find even sporadic cycling fails
all we can find is wins (tanks that carry fish fine but api or red sea disagrees) and some poor acclimation threads from 2004 at best. or potentially those reefers we see occasionally who don't know you put rocks in the tank while cycling/some cycle water only having not researched
given any semblance of normalcy, any cycling approach is fine by day ten the landslide of evidence shows.
we aren't on a continuum of fails, or able to find even sporadic cycling fails
all we can find is wins (tanks that carry fish fine but api or red sea disagrees) and some poor acclimation threads from 2004 at best. or potentially those reefers we see occasionally who don't know you put rocks in the tank while cycling/some cycle water only having not researched
given any semblance of normalcy, any cycling approach is fine by day ten the landslide of evidence shows.
Liverock comes in many forms from pristine with great fish carrying capability to downright toxic, of that there is no question. Dying macros turn from an ammonia sink to an ammonia producer, fact. The “liverock = skip cycle (liverock transfer)” is false, fact.
Spare time
10K Club member
Spare time
10K Club member
Lavey29
10K Club member
There are a variety or resources to look at. Just randomly choosing this one states that algae growth is limited by the availability of nitrate and phosphate. So they need nutrients in the water column not storing them for a rainy day. Algae can store energy and stuff like carbs but not primary nutrients from the sites I have looked at.
https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/science/nutrients-and-eutrophication
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Phytoplankton
Last edited:
Spare time
10K Club member
Limited doesn't mean it can't store it. Can you find the exact line? There isn't a species on earth that has no environmental/dietary limits to population growth. That has nothing to do with energy storage. Its also evolutionarily not something that would make sense.
Also, "Algae can store excess phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N) inside their cells resulting in high amounts of P and N that can be stored in vacuoles or the cytosol (Ismagulova et al., 2018). Excess supply of phosphate, or similar P sources, can be stored as polyphosphate granules in storage bodies (Miyachi et al., 1964). Additional nitrogen is stored in form of crystalline guanine rich inclusions (Moudříková et al., 2017)."
https://www.frontiersin.org/article...ae can store excess phosphorus,et al., 2018).
This paper also discuses the storage of phosphorus in phytoplankton to handle environmental instability h"
Phosphorus physiological ecology and molecular mechanisms in marine phytoplankton"
Last edited:
Similar threads
