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

[sixty_reefer]

Lol. At least it was only a few spare rocks. Could have been worse. Good work @Coxey81

I wonder if the scrubbing had more to do with the bacterial devastation your finding, rather than the freshwater. @Sixty showed a 50% drop, but didn’t get back to substrate and he showed a rapid bounce back. Your rocks were all substrate to start with.

Hope your up for a “grow back and scrub in saltwater test”

I’ve probably only scrubbed 55% of surface bacteria. Please note that I’ve keep 16% of old tank water. Also note that even though my tank wasn’t cycled, as pointed out by a few member. I had the full nitrogen cycle going in both test. I had increased readings of no2 and no3 every time ammonia was added. This means that both times I’ve skipped the spike. This two readings are probably more important than the ppm that a tank can filter in 24h

now we can argue what’s a cycled tank but as soon as a tank skips a spike imo is safe for fish. And if we need to keep the lights on for that to happen, I can’t see any issues whith that to.

 

[Lasse]

I had a funny feeling that the 100% water change may be causing a bigger impact than the rinse. I think I’ve mentioned that earlier in the discussion. Did you rinse the rock on day zero or was just a straight transfer from the sump?

If it was that - the water and especially the particles in the water have higher importance than the rocks for the nitrification process. Please let the test be and test for NH4/NH3, NO2 and NO3. I´m very interesting to see if you get another pattern according NO2 compared with before

Right now it looks like over 80 percent of my bacteria died.

This result surprise me and goes against the theories that Brandon have which I did NOT expect. I thought that Brandon was right here

This is also the reason behind the furious attacks from Brandon/LRT that have been up the last pages. Please all - just lets their post be - do not answer them - do not go into a defense position - just report the result and discuss around that. The reason for LRT:s attacks is to close the thread and he works like a twin with Brandon in this issue. Let them not succeed with this. Just let them be - whatever they write. Do not answer them. Just report them if you feel insulted.

I would use the therm 80% lost of filtration capacity, at this point as we don’t know yet if any bacteria actually died.

Yes - it seems like that 80 % of the carrying capacity was blown away according to nitrification. The bacteria film could have die or washed away - which - we can´t know. Interesting to see the following days.

@MnFish1 If you do your experiment - have with a test there you just let the rocks be in freshwater for x minutes - not scrubb them.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

no2 and no3 every time ammonia was added

The NO3 rise could be due to the rise in NO2 because of NO2 known interaction with NO3 readings. I does not need to be a real rise of NO3. First than NO2 is going down and NO3 rise - you can be sure that some of the NO3 readings are true.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Coxey81]

Taken 31 hours after rinse and .75ml (3ppm) dose.

NH4+NH3 = off scale. Still above 2.5ppm

NO2 = zero ppm

NO3 = 3ppm

End result from 31 hour test.

Over 83% loss of NH4+NH3 processing ability.

Whether the bacteria died, was washed away, etc. I won't be doing any tapwater rinses myself.

 

[Coxey81]

Lol. At least it was only a few spare rocks. Could have been worse. Good work @Coxey81

I wonder if the scrubbing had more to do with the bacterial devastation your finding, rather than the freshwater. @Sixty showed a 50% drop, but didn’t get back to substrate and he showed a rapid bounce back. Your rocks were all substrate to start with.

Hope your up for a “grow back and scrub in saltwater test”

I won't be performing another.

 

[brandon429]

You added sixteen times too much ammonia at the start, that was mentioned quickly then after twenty pages you decided Dr Tims is causing everyone’s overdose, made a new thread on your 2021 findings, we knew this in 2015 and I was trying to tell you it over powers non digital kits.

your results don’t show the whole pie stand alone, my take on your results and the impression that bacteria are strong, not weak, comes from factoring your results along with three rip cleaned nanos that did tap rinsing and proceeded to carry an entire tanks bioload just after


your experiment as a stand alone means less than those three tanks outcome on file, still carrying life today, they use more surface area which handles tank loading in deficit until the filters quickly rebound a few hours after their non hot water scrubs and in Jedi’s case, immediately after a hot water scrub.


those three example reefs/ big picture views/ can’t live if the tank was 80% killed off. You arrived at exactly the expected results I figured youd attribute to this test.


I remain impressed your biofilter wasn’t 100% killed, and 80% killed is merely your guess by not owning a seneye. Truth? You probably killed half the biofilter and then in 24 hours back in normal water it’s fixed.

 

[brandon429]

Here’s the three threads that counter balance your upscaled claims from one loose 59 page assessment on a single tank:

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/amalee’s-75g-build.700029/page-4

cut and paste that one I can never get it to link

What is wrong with my tank??

Cancelled the order for chemiclean, I’m going to do the RIP clean for my tank. Just looking at my tank rn makes me mad for how bad it looks

www.reef2reef.com

32g rework...

My 32g tank has been a real problem for quite a while now. I just cant seem to get the algae under control. Today I decided it's time to do a full rework on this tank. Pried off all the coral frags and removed all of the rock. Scraping all of the algae off the back as possible and scrub the...

www.reef2reef.com

do those bio filters look harmed? A complete reef can be reset on only 20% of its biofilter and still carry all daily feed and corals and fish like the pre rinse tank? Helps to have sufficient backup surface area as the cushion for sure. They used more than four rocks we see



Coxey where your experiment did well was showing truly the outer bands of the work boundaries, I truly agree tap rinsing is a huge insult (then again so was pages 1-9 of uncurable dinos for Chris Noles) and the extended bath + hot water settings is something we’d have never used anyway in my posts. Now that it’s been studied and confirmed harmful to a large degree, we still won’t be recommending the practice.

 

[Coxey81]

Taken 31 hours after rinse and .75ml (3ppm) dose.

NH4+NH3 = off scale. Still above 2.5ppm

NO2 = zero ppm

NO3 = 3ppm

End result from 31 hour test.

Over 83% loss of NH4+NH3 processing ability.

Whether the bacteria died, was washed away, etc. I won't be doing any tapwater rinses myself.

The only other factor I would consider a possibility of my loss was due to the current. The current is extremely strong in the tank. 660 gph in a 4 gallon tank. That means it's cycling the whole tank almost three times a minute.

Since the majority of the bacteria was produced in this tank and not brought over with the rocks. It's seems possible they were never able to settle on surfaces.

 

[Lasse]

The only other factor I would consider a possibility of my loss was due to the current. The current is extremely strong in the tank. 660 gph in a 4 gallon tank. That means it's cycling the whole tank almost three times a minute.

Since the majority of the bacteria was produced in this tank and not brought over with the rocks. It's seems possible the were never able to settle on surfaces.

IMO - stronger current more thin (and oxidized biofilm) and active film of nitrifier. Nitrification have always been better if all loose (heterotrophic) biofilm is washed away. Because of low oxygen tension in salt water and fast depletion of oxygen - it is only a minor part that will be active in nitrification. all my experiences says - faste flow - better nitrification. I´ll think that this is not a matter of your flow - in the first test - the same flow - as I understand.

I won't be performing another.

I understand you - but in my eyes - you have done a very good job and your result says - if you do a total cleaning of your system of any sort - you need to lower your daily input of food down to around 20 % of the earlier amount and slowly rise it again. Exactly the way you did in the first test - before rinsing. What is total new in your experiment - at least for me - is the close following of the nitrite oxidizing capacity - and it seems the same after the rinsing

Please - if you can stand in the spotlight for a few more days - follow up your rinse test with measurements until its near zero in ammonium. I would appreciate this very much and I am convinced - many with me. You have done a great job - thank you.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Coxey81]

IMO - stronger current more thin (and oxidized biofilm) and active film of nitrifier. Nitrification have always been better if all loose (heterotrophic) biofilm is washed away. Because of low oxygen tension in salt water and fast depletion of oxygen - it is only a minor part that will be active in nitrification. all my experiences says - faste flow - better nitrification. I´ll think that this is not a matter of your flow - in the first test - the same flow - as I understand.


I understand you - but in my eyes - you have done a very good job and your result says - if you do a total cleaning of your system of any sort - you need to lower your daily input of food down to around 20 % of the earlier amount and slowly rise it again. Exactly the way you did in the first test - before rinsing. What is total new in your experiment - at least for me - is the close following of the nitrite oxidizing capacity - and it seems the same after the rinsing

Please - if you can stand in the spotlight for a few more days - follow up your rinse test with measurements until its near zero in ammonium. I would appreciate this very much and I am convinced - many with me. You have done a great job - thank you.

Sincerely Lasse

I could see how the current would help with nitrification, but if the bacteria weren't able to settle... or settle on the rocks in particular after being produced in the tank. Many of them could have been washed away with the tank clean and water change.

From Fritz-zyme turbostart bottle bacteria website.

• What the reason to turn off the protein skimmers when using TurboStart 900?
  The nitrifying bacteria will be in the water column for several days, depending on temperature and flow, so the skimmer could remove some of the bacteria before it has time to settle and begin colonizing the media and surfaces.

 

[Coxey81]

Here’s the three threads that counter balance your upscaled claims from one loose 59 page assessment on a single tank:

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/amalee’s-75g-build.700029/page-4

cut and paste that one I can never get it to link

What is wrong with my tank??

Cancelled the order for chemiclean, I’m going to do the RIP clean for my tank. Just looking at my tank rn makes me mad for how bad it looks

www.reef2reef.com

32g rework...

My 32g tank has been a real problem for quite a while now. I just cant seem to get the algae under control. Today I decided it's time to do a full rework on this tank. Pried off all the coral frags and removed all of the rock. Scraping all of the algae off the back as possible and scrub the...

www.reef2reef.com

do those bio filters look harmed? A complete reef can be reset on only 20% of its biofilter and still carry all daily feed and corals and fish like the pre rinse tank? Helps to have sufficient backup surface area as the cushion for sure. They used more than four rocks we see



Coxey where your experiment did well was showing truly the outer bands of the work boundaries, I truly agree tap rinsing is a huge insult (then again so was pages 1-9 of uncurable dinos for Chris Noles) and the extended bath + hot water settings is something we’d have never used anyway in my posts. Now that it’s been studied and confirmed harmful to a large degree, we still won’t be recommending the practice.

We didn't use hot water.

I bet no one gets a word in edge wise during a conversation with you. You just talk, and never listen.

 

[Coxey81]

You added sixteen times too much ammonia at the start, that was mentioned quickly then after twenty pages you decided Dr Tims is causing everyone’s overdose, made a new thread on your 2021 findings, we knew this in 2015 and I was trying to tell you it over powers non digital kits.

your results don’t show the whole pie stand alone, my take on your results and the impression that bacteria are strong, not weak, comes from factoring your results along with three rip cleaned nanos that did tap rinsing and proceeded to carry an entire tanks bioload just after


your experiment as a stand alone means less than those three tanks outcome on file, still carrying life today, they use more surface area which handles tank loading in deficit until the filters quickly rebound a few hours after their non hot water scrubs and in Jedi’s case, immediately after a hot water scrub.


those three example reefs/ big picture views/ can’t live if the tank was 80% killed off. You arrived at exactly the expected results I figured youd attribute to this test.


I remain impressed your biofilter wasn’t 100% killed, and 80% killed is merely your guess by not owning a seneye. Truth? You probably killed half the biofilter and then in 24 hours back in normal water it’s fixed.

It's over an 80% loss, it's not a guess.. I don't need seneye to see that. I'm not blind, and the red sea worked perfectly fine. What caused the loss besides tap water is up for debate.

 

[Lasse]

I could see how the current would help with nitrification, but if the bacteria weren't able to settle... or settle on the rocks in particular after being produced in the tank. Many of them could have been washed away with the tank clean and water change.

From Fritz-zyme turbostart bottle bacteria website.

• What the reason to turn off the protein skimmers when using TurboStart 900?
  The nitrifying bacteria will be in the water column for several days, depending on temperature and flow, so the skimmer could remove some of the bacteria before it has time to settle and begin colonizing the media and surfaces.

This is two total different situations - The first - your application - it was already a biofilm at your rocks and the growt during the "mature" period was probably most in the biofilm already attached to your rocks-

The second situation - individual bacteria not attached to an surface will be as microparticles in the water prior settling on the rock and build a biofilm

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Coxey81]

This is two total different situations - The first - your application - it was already a biofilm at your rocks and the growt during the "mature" period was probably most in the biofilm already attached to your rocks-

The second situation - individual bacteria not attached to an surface will be as microparticles in the water prior settling on the rock and build a biofilm

Sincerely Lasse

Got cha, well, that was the only thing that I could come up with as an explanation besides the tap water and the brushing..

But since this was about cleaning the rocks... the brushing is part of that as well.

 

[Coxey81]

You added sixteen times too much ammonia at the start, that was mentioned quickly then after twenty pages you decided Dr Tims is causing everyone’s overdose, made a new thread on your 2021 findings, we knew this in 2015 and I was trying to tell you it over powers non digital kits.

your results don’t show the whole pie stand alone, my take on your results and the impression that bacteria are strong, not weak, comes from factoring your results along with three rip cleaned nanos that did tap rinsing and proceeded to carry an entire tanks bioload just after


your experiment as a stand alone means less than those three tanks outcome on file, still carrying life today, they use more surface area which handles tank loading in deficit until the filters quickly rebound a few hours after their non hot water scrubs and in Jedi’s case, immediately after a hot water scrub.


those three example reefs/ big picture views/ can’t live if the tank was 80% killed off. You arrived at exactly the expected results I figured youd attribute to this test.


I remain impressed your biofilter wasn’t 100% killed, and 80% killed is merely your guess by not owning a seneye. Truth? You probably killed half the biofilter and then in 24 hours back in normal water it’s fixed.

You didn't know Dr. Tim's was an overdose due to discrepancies in drop size and solution %. You just tell everyone their kits are reading too high.

You really should stop doing that. It's not wise.

And stop taking credit for things I discovered and confirmed with sixty along with the help of some others suggestions (not yours) in this thread.

 

[sixty_reefer]

So could we assume that a 100% water change could be an issue in a tank cleaning perspective? As from where am standing the bacteria can take up to 16hours to multiply. On a 32hour test run they may be just about to start multiplying in the rock and start to re colonise the water column.

 

[Lasse]

So could we assume that a 100% water change could be an issue in a tank cleaning perspective?

It depends on.

if the water have a lot of inorganic particles in it and/or seedlings from a bottle - it can be an issue -

if not carrying much particles and the seeding was from a already existing biofilm on rocks - ni issue - IMO

And @Coxey81 according to other posts you answer to - I think it is time for a little advise in Latin

neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos

We use that sentence here in Sweden when it is useless to wasting intellectual effort on people who still do not understand or appreciate it.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Rmckoy]

So the conclusion ??

as per the tests Intentions ?
Does freshwater effect nitrifying bacteria ?

 

[Coxey81]

So the conclusion ??

as per the tests Intentions ?
Does freshwater effect nitrifying bacteria ?

IMO, if doing so doing so in combination with a brushing, tank clean, and 100% water change.

You are looking at a 55 to 90% loss in nitrification ability in the following 24 hours for sure.

 

[Lasse]

So the conclusion ??

as per the tests Intentions ?
Does freshwater effect nitrifying bacteria ?

IMO - not a clear yes or no answer - it could be both yes, no and the combination of brushing and fresh water. I hope that @MnFish1 design his trial in a way that we can sort this out.

Step 1 - make sure that you have a certain carrying capacity - like @Coxey81 did in the first step. After this do at least 4 different scenario.
a) soak in freshwater fo some minutes or just rinse it of in water from the tap
b) soak in freshwater fo some minutes or just rinse it of in water from the tap and the samet time - brusch the stones
c) as a but in newly mixed saltwater
d) C + brushing

Sincerely Lasse