10K Club memberView Badges
R2R Excellence Award
Reef Spotlight Award
Reef Tank 365
- Nov 3, 2010
- Reaction score
- Long Island NY
Focus on older techniques of removal e.g. socks, skimmers, water changes, lower lighting if possible and use high protein frozen foods. Maybe use a cryptic refugium as well to help remove excess DOC?? There is also that reverse undergravel filter idea out there. I assume that would keep oxygenation up throughout the bed.
This is one of those times where the data doesn't seem to support the realities. Basically something seems off. A small 20 gallon low light, minimal algae system with 12 sloppy heterotrophs suggests highly efficient nitrification. I'm not sure two small rocks would cut it so did it have a filter? e.g. a cascading HOB? If so that may be where the nitrifiers are at.
yeah, I think there are a couple of likely options.
1 - there was a HOB with a filter pad, which could be doing the bulk of the nitrification
2 - maybe the sand was new, and that's why it was so white. Other tanks had brown film or red cyano. I'll peek back in on the tank in a week.
3 - (along the lines of 2) maybe it's not keeping up with the bioload (kicking myself for not testing the water in the bag from the LFS to look for NH3+4, NO2, NO3.) and the shop is using water changes, prime etc to deal with it.
4 - Or like you say, maybe the sand can nitrify way more than what my protocol is showing.
Wanted to revisit this and my possible explanations below, so I went back to check on this tank at the LFS and inspect it more closely.
regarding 2&3 the sand was essentially unchanged in appearance, same tiny diatom dusting in a small patch on the sand. No big spread that might indicate it was a new sandbed not yet keeping up with the bioload.
And when I peeked closer behind the curtain, each ~20 gal was being run through a separate one of these big boys
which is to say, I found the nitrification.
(and I no longer think it's weird that it wasn't in the sand)
Well, here I am, a little late, I have to admit, but I thought this could be an interesting thread.It would be great if Mr Lou or Mr Balling or some one from TMC could join this conversation & really expand on there carbon dosing products & why they are different.
No, it is not. To be totally correct there is some overlap between Tropic Marin Reef Actif and NP-Bacto-Pellets, but there are also big differences although we tried to address diverse and similar organisms with both products and have tried to include some important similarities.Probably poly(hydroxybutyrate) is that so called seaweed polymer that Mr Ekus was referring to.
I am sorry but I have to say alginate is not a protein. In fact alginate is one of the marine biopolymers included in Reef Actif but only to a small proportion. Alginate in not a protein and it does not contain nitrogen and I think it is not an ingredient of normal fish feeds. Alginate is a polysaccharide with charged groups that can bind calcium and other metals and give it quite unique properties.The main seaweed polymer that folks use (like as a food thickener in milk shakes) is the protein alginate. It's already in many fish foods. I've not heard of folks making biopellets from it, but they might.
I totally agree, PHA/PHB are forms of organic carbon that, like other organic carbon compounds, contain some usable energy that can be used by different bacteria and even some fungi.While those species of bacteria obviously have the correct enzymes to break it down, they are not the only ones. Many species can break down poly(hydroxybutyrate) and use it for their own purposes, presumably because they have evolved to naturally find it in their environment after other bacteria that made it have died.
Who knows. I think the usual image of corals is still a bit under-complex. The holobiont also consists of bacteria and other microorganisms, and I think it still has to be tested whether some can make use of PHAs. It would be a nice trial to keep corals in a sterile tank with sterile water and feed it with PHA. Will the PHA be degraded?I've never seen it reported that corals can use PHB, and I'd be surprised if they could since it is insoluble and is generally degraded by biofilms of bacteria that coat the surface and release enzymes to break it down.
Pulling your quote from another thread, sorry!Personally, I prefer that ammonia oxidation rate is 2ppm a day. And that ammonia is oxidized completely to nitrate each day. So to me, it is not cycled. I would dose 2ppm each time ammonia and nitrite drops to 0, until ammonia and nitrite reads 0 within 24 hours of dosing 2ppm ammonia.
It is essentially like other systems but with more peace of mind when it comes to ammonia and nitrite. Presuming the 2ppm ammonia is the amount expected to be produced by a fully stocked tank each day, then once the tank is cycled this way, one can just fully stock the tank from the get go.Pulling your quote from another thread, sorry!
So Azedenkae, what happens to these "super-cycled" systems that have ~10x the nitrification rate of "minimally cycled" systems when the lights come on and the livestock goes in?
Any observations on if they progress differently? do ugly phases appear in the same way, or lesser and shorter? Do corals seem to need more feeding?
Or are they basically like other systems but with more peace of mind?
It was able to handle 8ppm ammonia over two days when I added FritzZyme, but then the capacity slowed down greatly after a few days to being non-existent. The tank is a bit of an experiment - it had nothing except 72 MarinePure gems at the bottom of the tank. So far I think I have figured it out - nitrification can be inhibited by light, and given that the gems are relatively small, light probably penetrates into the nooks and crannies better.
Regarding bare bottom vs. sandbed again phosphate plays a role. Coral sand is full of phosphate that slowly dissolves and increases phosphate concentration in the water, just as life rock does. Also the calcarous material "buffers" the phosphate concentration. It takes up phosphate when concentration in water is high and releases phosphate when phosphate concentration in the water drops.
Sand has a large surface anyways, but the porous coral sand even more so. These two facts of a "mild" and quite continuous phosphate supply and the phosphate buffering makes sandbed tanks much more stable and easier to cycle than bare bottom tanks. Without sand bed and life rock most tanks suffer phosphate deficiency in the initial phase which inhibits good cycling and just as much good coral growth.
I disagree with your cycling approach. For two years we’ve been amassing hundreds of work threads linkable right now that show cycles complete on their due dates on the bottles used, no extra purchases needed, nitrite not factored, solidarity and consistency and now with your recent press of posts telling everyone we must process 2 ppm on api, and get hard zero on nitrite, never allowing for misreads or the common test issues new keepers have, it’s setting them back into doubt and redundant retail purchases. we have posters waiting for your clearance weeks and weeks after cycling would be completed.
Too bad for my curiosity, he didn't post the NO2/NO3 test showing whether it created a couple of ppm NO2/NO3 (nitrification) or zero (consumption) or something in between.if we used 2 ppm it may not have cleared as fast (if Mother Nature can’t pack in nitrifiers in sixty days to the degree directly dosing ten million of them can, thats ok, his reef will carry any bioload he adds due to surface area and common starting dilutions)
Perhaps ambient room light gets in and helps the cheat...either way he can start.
I tested a new bottle of One and Only and it was dead on arrival, but the Biospira and Turbostart 900 received at the same time soaked up ammonia rapidly. Was One and Only abused during delivery in cold weather but the other two were not?Tiny quibble brandon,
I got two different bottles (purchased separately over a couple of months) of One and Only that didn't nitrify anything (<0.1 ammonia) over a time frame of a week, one was in my data in the first post of this thread. And I can measure quite accurately. If a bottle got frozen at any point in transit, then it will not nitrify - regardless of the dates on the bottle or the adherence to instructions.
Biospira is very fast, yet some people run into bottles of it that do nothing. Dud bottles are real, I've gotten two of them.
You are correct of course that after a bottle (even if it's a dud), a food source, lights go on, and something photosynthetic goes in, a system can easily handle the ammonia input of the starter fish within 10-14 days. To be clear this is really not an issue of ammonia control for fish safety.
I am making the distinction between eating ammonia (everything) and true nitrification of ammonia to NO2 / NO3 (nitrifiers), which I'm finding out that there are a million reasons why tanks may have minimal actual Nitrification, but still plenty of ammonia consumption. Some people use "starter" bacteria bottles that aren't even true chemoautotroph nitrifiers.
Yet, there are a few people around that want to see their system do 2 or 3 ppm of ammonia nitrification in under 24 hours - which means they are growing a nitrifier population that is ~10x larger than most systems. I'd love to know what happens to those systems when lights and livestock go in place. Is it anything different than the rest of the systems in the hobby?