Effects of tap water on Nitrifying during Rip-Clean method: Experiment

[Rmckoy]

This is rediculous. You claim your way is the way but can't answer a simple question as to why 4 lbs in 4 gallons is not enough nor can you tell me how much should be there. I can't learn if your response is satire. I've never claimed to know the process nor acted like you were wrong. I am genuinely asking for perspective on your point of view.

I always thought the general rule right from the start was 1.5 lbs per gallon of volume .
but that was years ago when Berlin method was a thing .
extra rocks , flow and a good skimmer .
Recent years I believed it was found that 1lb per gallon was good and didn’t take from swimming volume .

 

[Rmckoy]

Now somebody will set their porridge in the wrong throat or fall down from the chair. I think then OP do the second test after cleaning with tap water - it will be exactly the same result (or better) as he get with the first test - at least if he does not use hot water. i´ll think that Brandon have nothing to fear in this case. I´m not sure with the heat - therefore a suggestion - @Coxey81 do the second test with normal tap water and a third with hot tap water

What I think of the first result - let us see tomorrow after OP done its test - Garf have my forecast,

does freshwater kill nitrifying bacteria ?

I will bet yes .
if some is left untouched and not scrubbed will it still have enough nitrifying bacteria to bounce to a instant cycle . Possible … depends how much is cleaned away .

take a live rock and dip it in fw .
does it smell ?
Does it turn colour , die ,
Generally as soon as exposed to fw it will turn a reddish orange colour and have a foul smell .

 

[Little c big D]

I always thought the general rule right from the start was 1.5 lbs per gallon of volume .
but that was years ago when Berlin method was a thing .
extra rocks , flow and a good skimmer .
Recent years I believed it was found that 1lb per gallon was good and didn’t take from swimming volume .

That was my understanding of a current standard. Now with NSA even less may be ok. But I feel like for this experiment 4lbs for 4galons should have the surface area required.

 

[Rmckoy]

That was my understanding of a current standard. Now with NSA even less may be ok. But I feel like for this experiment 4lbs for 4galons should have the surface area required.

4 lbs for 4 gallons ?
Is that not equal to 1lb to gallon ?

 

[Little c big D]

4 lbs for 4 gallons ?
Is that not equal to 1lb to gallon ?

Yes! OP was told that it wasn't enough surface area. Actually told they were at 10% of what they needed. I'm just trying to understand why they were told it wasnt enough

 

[Rmckoy]

Naturally ..
someone will challenge something if it’s not the way etched in stone .

 

[Rmckoy]

Yes! OP was told that it wasn't enough surface area. Actually told they were at 10% of what they needed. I'm just trying to understand why they were told it wasnt enough

Again
Because they might be worried this test will contradict and evolve into false claims .
someone has to twist and challenge every aspect of a test

 

[Lasse]

does freshwater kill nitrifying bacteria ?

The answer is no - it is nearly the same type or species of bacteria and archaea - you can take a filter from freshwater and use in saltwater with direct effect. I have done it many times. There is a few specialized NOB species I know of but there is a lot of opportunists among both AOP (ammonia Oxidizing Bacteria), AOA (ammonia oxidizing archaea) and NOB (Nitrite Oxidizing Bacteria) I have start a lot of saltwater aquarium using a filtrate of common unfertilized forest soil from the upper soil horizont

Edit 1/11 21; In this study they have shown in their experiment that freshwater nitrifying bacteria will not work well if transferred into saltwater abrupt. As I say before it is not my experiences and I do not know why it has work for me but not in this study. However they use a load of N that was around 10000 higher than I have used - it can be an explanation.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[MnFish1]

@Lasse asked my opinion on the 'study'.

I don't see any problem with the study, as far as it goes. And I appreciate the OP's efforts to do this for multiple reasons.

There are a couple comments I thought of - I'm not sure 'what the hypothesis actually is - or exactly whats being tested. @brandon429 is complaining that it doesn't test a 'real' 'rip clean'. I think thats true - but ONLY because that term is only defined in a couple people's heads - and I don't believe there is a firm protocol. So - I think this test is just as good as some of the posts I've read 'proving' that a 'rip clean' works.

I'm assuming the hypothesis is "You can take rock that should have nitrifying bacteria on them, take them from a tank, and put them in another tank they will process ammonia at 2 ppm" - I think thats true - probably. If the secondary hypothesis is "I can take those rocks that have been proven to process ammonia, etc, rinse them in hot tap water, and they will still process ammonia", I'm not sure what conclusion can be drawn if it can or can't process ammonia.

I might add a couple steps. Note these are just comments - not meant to criticise the effort - merely to point out a couple things that could confound the results depending on what they are.

1. If the rock processes 2 ppm ammonia up front great - if it does not and you decide to wait until there is 0 ammonia - I would repeat that test again - to be sure it can be processed in a day (if one day is the goal).

2. There could be more controls - but that would be difficult - Examples - 1 - there should be rock thats not rinsed tested with ammonia in a separate tank (it should still process ammonia - if it didn't it would point out another problem) 2. There could be rock thats rinsed in hot saltwater. 3. There could be rock rinsed in cold tap water. 4. There could be rock rinsed in cold saltwater. 5. The arbitrary time of 10 minutes is a little unclear to me - again though this would be hard, it would best to test rock with 0 rinsing, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 20 minutes, etc. etc. To see if there is any time that is limiting to the process.

3. If possible it should be replicated

4. There could be a couple separate ammonia tests done (different test kits) to verify the results.

5. It should be documented that the ammonia test is reading 'correctly' - i.e. with a measured amount of ammonia.

My guess is that @brandon429 thinks it would be a better representative experiment to either merely add fish (and no ammonia) to the tank. OR - use ammonia levels that would be more similar to what (I believe) is done with a 'rip clean' - which would be to add ammonia slowly over days in small amounts as compared to the 2 ppm big dose - which would be similar to adding fish back to 'clean' tank.

EDIT - I THINK THE RESULTS WILL BE INTERESTING - and overall the study is very good.

 

[kittenbritches]

I have to click show hidden content to read 9/10 posts on this thread

To be clear, I was laughing at this, not at you.

 

[Coxey81]

@Lasse asked my opinion on the 'study'.

I don't see any problem with the study, as far as it goes. And I appreciate the OP's efforts to do this for multiple reasons.

There are a couple comments I thought of - I'm not sure 'what the hypothesis actually is - or exactly whats being tested. @brandon429 is complaining that it doesn't test a 'real' 'rip clean'. I think thats true - but ONLY because that term is only defined in a couple people's heads - and I don't believe there is a firm protocol. So - I think this test is just as good as some of the posts I've read 'proving' that a 'rip clean' works.

I'm assuming the hypothesis is "You can take rock that should have nitrifying bacteria on them, take them from a tank, and put them in another tank they will process ammonia at 2 ppm" - I think thats true - probably. If the secondary hypothesis is "I can take those rocks that have been proven to process ammonia, etc, rinse them in hot tap water, and they will still process ammonia", I'm not sure what conclusion can be drawn if it can or can't process ammonia.

I might add a couple steps. Note these are just comments - not meant to criticise the effort - merely to point out a couple things that could confound the results depending on what they are.

1. If the rock processes 2 ppm ammonia up front great - if it does not and you decide to wait until there is 0 ammonia - I would repeat that test again - to be sure it can be processed in a day (if one day is the goal).

2. There could be more controls - but that would be difficult - Examples - 1 - there should be rock thats not rinsed tested with ammonia in a separate tank (it should still process ammonia - if it didn't it would point out another problem) 2. There could be rock thats rinsed in hot saltwater. 3. There could be rock rinsed in cold tap water. 4. There could be rock rinsed in cold saltwater. 5. The arbitrary time of 10 minutes is a little unclear to me - again though this would be hard, it would best to test rock with 0 rinsing, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 20 minutes, etc. etc. To see if there is any time that is limiting to the process.

3. If possible it should be replicated

4. There could be a couple separate ammonia tests done (different test kits) to verify the results.

5. It should be documented that the ammonia test is reading 'correctly' - i.e. with a measured amount of ammonia.

My guess is that @brandon429 thinks it would be a better representative experiment to either merely add fish (and no ammonia) to the tank. OR - use ammonia levels that would be more similar to what (I believe) is done with a 'rip clean' - which would be to add ammonia slowly over days in small amounts as compared to the 2 ppm big dose - which would be similar to adding fish back to 'clean' tank.

I agree with everything you said. And I do plan to make sure the tank can fully process a full dose of ammonia according to Dr. Tim's instructions before moving forward with the rinse step.

I would love to perform everything you recommend and maybe someone else has the time and means to do so... but this is what I had the time to and was willing to try.

 

[Jedi1199]

He is using tap water on purpose - because in another thread thats what the poster did. (He cleaned his rock in hot tap water - then let it dry overnight and cleaned his sand - then replaced everything - and lo and behold, his fish were fine).

Just a slight correction here... I did NOT let the rocks dry overnight. They dried on the counter either waiting to be cleaned or waiting for the rest of them to be cleaned. They were then submerged in fresh new SW. Perhaps the longest any of them were out of the water is 3 hours or so.

The sand got about 70 or 80 rinses with hose water and then sat in a bucket of hose water for 2 weeks before I finished cleaning it and replaced it in the tank.

 

[brandon429]

KB
If I were they, I'd push my cycling buttons too for reaction studies we've all been locked inside a very, very long time.

I try and spend my online time getting jobs to predict and inspect, I'm less into totally offending my peers than they think.

all I care about is: you want X? here's how to get X by Y date with no animal losses. then all the follow ups that happen after-- that's my currency in all this craziness. work threads are the anchor among all the guessing, all the pointing fingers etc.

they're the one thing we can log and inspect say in 2026 once all these terrible test kits are all replaced by digital ones, from more than one company not just seneye.

all these cycling predictions/ battles will be able to be retro inspected one day not too far off, using different goggles than we use today.

 

[kittenbritches]

This is some Hatfields and McCoys schtuff right here.

I find it fascinating, if not a bit baffling, at how defensive everyone gets about this on both sides.

Following along.

 

[Rmckoy]

The answer is no - it is nearly the same type or species of bacteria and archaea - you can take a filter from freshwater and use in saltwater with direct effect. I have done it many times. There is a few specialized NOB species I know of but there is a lot of opportunists among both AOP (ammonia Oxidizing Bacteria), AOA (ammonia oxidizing archaea) and NOB (Nitrite Oxidizing Bacteria) I have start a lot of saltwater aquarium using a filtrate of common unfertilized forest soil from the upper soil horizont

Sincerely Lasse

Completely different bacteria from freshwater to saltwater .

so by your theory .
someone with a freshwater tank only has to remove their fish and add salt . Their tank is already cycled

No because the bacteria in freshwater tanks is not the same or comparable to that In saltwater tanks .

if I had a fw tank I would dump a bag of salt in .
I would want to use sacrificial fish but by suggesting the bacteria is the same .
I could in theory add any fish expecting the tank to already be cycled and ready for livestock ?

 

[Coxey81]

Now somebody will set their porridge in the wrong throat or fall down from the chair. I think then OP do the second test after cleaning with tap water - it will be exactly the same result (or better) as he get with the first test - at least if he does not use hot water. i´ll think that Brandon have nothing to fear in this case. I´m not sure with the heat - therefore a suggestion - @Coxey81 do the second test with normal tap water and a third with hot tap water

I really just don't want to do another round. I have a job, wife, and kids. I'm not a scientist. If others would like to perform more I would love to see the results. I thought about doing it with fresh rodi and then with tap water.

If the majority would rather see me do it with room temp water or rodi, etc. I'll go that route instead. The hot tap water was chosen because it's what @jedi119 did when rip cleaned his tank I was told.

 

[MnFish1]

Yes! OP was told that it wasn't enough surface area. Actually told they were at 10% of what they needed. I'm just trying to understand why they were told it wasnt enough

The OP was smart either way in this regard. The question here is does rinsing rock affect nitrification right? Well - the first part of the study will prove whether he has enough surface area or not. If in the first part - that rock processes ammonia - there is enough surface area - if it does not - then there is not.

The comments about needing 5 x the surface area to do a 'rip clean' to me do not make sense.

 

[Lasse]

The sand got about 70 or 80 rinses with hose water and then sat in a bucket of hose water for 2 weeks before I finished cleaning it and replaced it in the tank.

When I move saltwater tanks - I always clean with tap water but i also leave a little mulm in the sand.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[kittenbritches]

Post the pounds

This made me choke on my Coke Zero!

 

[MnFish1]

Just a slight correction here... I did NOT let the rocks dry overnight. They dried on the counter either waiting to be cleaned or waiting for the rest of them to be cleaned. They were then submerged in fresh new SW. Perhaps the longest any of them were out of the water is 3 hours or so.

The sand got about 70 or 80 rinses with hose water and then sat in a bucket of hose water for 2 weeks before I finished cleaning it and replaced it in the tank.

Thanks - I misremembered - or confused it with another post. Apologies. Just to make it clear - I was not criticizing what you did - nor questioning the results you had.