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

Tidal Gardens January 29th YouTube Live Show
OP
Coxey81

Coxey81

Well-Known Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Aug 25, 2021
Messages
773
Reaction score
1,502
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
Huntsville
I think there’s a lot more action on the glass and plastic items, pumps, skimmers etc than folks realize. Good test.


I think since I had basically tripled the tanks processing ability in a week that alot of the bacteria may have formed on the glass and equipment.
 

Garf

Valuable Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
1,906
Reaction score
2,439
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
BEEFINGHAM
Looks like my superpowers are in good working order, lol
 

taricha

2500 Club Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
May 22, 2016
Messages
3,827
Reaction score
5,367
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
I think since I had basically tripled the tanks processing ability in a week that alot of the bacteria may have formed on the glass and equipment.
This would fit well with what @Dan_P has seen in growing nitrifiers on glass slides being pretty much similar to growing them on aragonite.
 

Lasse

7500 Club Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
9,061
Reaction score
26,334
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
Källarliden 14 D Bohus, Sweden
This could also indicate that your rocks had its max carrying capacity and all the capacity you build up was at glass and particles in the water. One plausible explanation is that your scrubbing of the rocks did nothing to the carrying capacity of the rocks, neither did your seed during the first days.

But it still do not explain that the process is/was nearly seamless - no NO2 build up at all. If all new biofilm was on particles, equipments and glass - IMO - you should see a small build up of NO2 with these high NH4/NH3 additions.

I do not think your NO2 test is wrong but if someone that redo this setup could use Hanna ULR marine nitrite checker - it could be good.

Sincerely Lasse
 
Orphek OR3 reef aquarium LED lighting

Dan_P

2500 Club Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
2,897
Reaction score
3,044
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
This could also indicate that your rocks had its max carrying capacity and all the capacity you build up was at glass and particles in the water. One plausible explanation is that your scrubbing of the rocks did nothing to the carrying capacity of the rocks, neither did your seed during the first days.

But it still do not explain that the process is/was nearly seamless - no NO2 build up at all. If all new biofilm was on particles, equipments and glass - IMO - you should see a small build up of NO2 with these high NH4/NH3 additions.

I do not think your NO2 test is wrong but if someone that redo this setup could use Hanna ULR marine nitrite checker - it could be good.

Sincerely Lasse
Is there a way to test when a surface becomes overcrowded and reaches a maximum capacity to oxidize ammonia?
 

Lasse

7500 Club Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
9,061
Reaction score
26,334
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
Källarliden 14 D Bohus, Sweden
@Dan_P This is the odd things with this experiment. IME all of my experiences with this - and they are in the order of more than three digits of 0 in freshwater - have shown a rise of NO2 when this happens. Not in this experiment however. It could be very interesting if @MnFish1 could repeat @Coxey81 test as close as possible and either confirm or show the opposite in his testruns. It is the seamless oxidation in Coxey81 test that surprise me a lot

it was not the case in @sixty_reefer ´s experiment - he get the expected increase in nitrite

Sincerely Lasse
 
Last edited:

Lasse

7500 Club Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
9,061
Reaction score
26,334
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
Källarliden 14 D Bohus, Sweden
Many years ago - I did two different tests (with different fish species) in two fish farms there the nitrification was adapted to the actual load. The feed was at the top of the nitrification capacity seen on a 24 hours cycle. We was feeding from 8:00 to 20:00. Half an hour after first feeding - the ammonium concentration was increase and had its peak around 20:00 (when feeding stop). In the first farm (grass carp) the nitrite start to rise 1/2 an hour after the ammonium start to rise and had its peak around 1 hour after the feed stops. On the other farm (eels) - followed the first pattern but the was 1 hour later - it means ammonium start to rise around 9:00 and start to decrease around 21:00 - the nitrite was still another 1/2 hour later.

The probably explanation for this is two different construction of the digestive track. the grass carp has it like a tube - continuous input and output - the eels construction is more of batch type. The intestine need to be more or less empty before it can process the content of the stomach.

But the interesting things is that the nitrite curve followed the total ammonia curve but delayed

At 8:00 in the morning both total ammonium and nitrite was close to zero. I did not use hobby grade equipments. In the first case - ion selective electrodes and in the second photospectrometer

Sincerely Lasse
 

Aqua Man

Valuable Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Jan 19, 2020
Messages
1,084
Reaction score
1,445
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Is there a way to test when a surface becomes overcrowded and reaches a maximum capacity to oxidize ammonia?
I’ve been wondering about this also. Is it even possible for surfaces to be overcrowded? We are told that bacteria just stack upon each other.

My hypothesis would be that something else would be the limiting factor. Maybe PO4 ? Carbon? Would off the charts Nitrate harm the bacteria?

What if a container with just a rock/stone was dosed with ammonia, daily? Increase the amount gradually as it’s been oxidized. Could we actually simulate a 10 gallon tank with a extremely high bio load?
 

taricha

2500 Club Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
May 22, 2016
Messages
3,827
Reaction score
5,367
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
IME all of my experiences with this - and they are in the order of more than three digits of 0 in freshwater - have shown a rise of NO2 when this happens. Not in this experiment however.
I see it go both ways when I pull nitrifying media to test in a container.
If the ammonia is high enough that the current bacterial load has to scale up in population, then NO2 shows up briefly until the nitrite oxidizers scale up too. But many times I can add a load of ammonia and see no NO2 bump because it was within what the current population could handle. The ammonia still shows up as NO3 at the end, I just measure essentially zero nitrite along the way.
 
AquaCave Logo Banner

sixty_reefer

2500 Club Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
2,855
Reaction score
4,928
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
The Reef
@Dan_P This is the odd things with this experiment. IME all of my experiences with this - and they are in the order of more than three digits of 0 in freshwater - have shown a rise of NO2 when this happens. Not in this experiment however. It could be very interesting if @MnFish1 could repeat @Coxey81 test as close as possible and either confirm or show the opposite in his testruns. It is the seamless oxidation in Coxey81 test that surprise me a lot

it was not the case in @sixty_reefer ´s experiment - he get the expected increase in nitrite

Sincerely Lasse
I just like to point out that my test was still considered successful at helping answering the main question that most of the members on this thread wanted to know. Regarding the way it was executed by me.
 

Rmckoy

2500 Club Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Mar 24, 2013
Messages
3,844
Reaction score
4,174
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
Ontario Canada
I just like to point out that my test was still considered successful at helping answering the main question that most of the members on this thread wanted to know. Regarding the way it was executed by me.
The answer was ?

yes freshwater does effect nitrifying bacteria ?
 

sixty_reefer

2500 Club Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
2,855
Reaction score
4,928
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
The Reef
The answer was ?

yes freshwater does effect nitrifying bacteria ?
I believe the answer so far is that chlorinated fresh water doesn’t appear to do anything to the bacteria itself, there is some anecdotal evidence that the scrubbing the surfaces of the glass and live rock do remove some, by being flushed away instead of killing it.

edit: the question you need to be asking is, how no one mentioned that this could happen wend the test was set up. Am sure this is nothing ground braking in the microbiology world.
 
Last edited:
OP
Coxey81

Coxey81

Well-Known Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Aug 25, 2021
Messages
773
Reaction score
1,502
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
Huntsville
I believe the answer so far is that chlorinated fresh water doesn’t appear to do anything to the bacteria itself, there is some anecdotal evidence that the scrubbing the surfaces of the glass and live rock do remove some, by being flushed away instead of killing it.

edit: the question you need to be asking is, how no one mentioned that this could happen wend the test was set up. Am sure this is nothing ground braking in the microbiology world.


The test was set up to mimmick Jedi's rip clean. In which he cleaned the tank and did a 100% water change.

It wasn't that the water change and cleaning the tank weren't considered as possible variables in the experiment, it was just that I had to choose one way to go. Clean or don't clean, water change or not.

MNfish thought I should stick to what Jedi did and clean the tank and do the 100 water change.

Lasse thought high nitrates might effect it and suggested the 100% water change. He also though the bacteria would stay on the rocks where they originated.

You thought the water change might stall it.

??? I had to choose something, lol.

I wanted to do a 50% water change and not clean the tank. Cause it's what I though I would do if I was actually cleaning my rocks.
 

Lasse

7500 Club Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
9,061
Reaction score
26,334
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
Källarliden 14 D Bohus, Sweden
I see it go both ways when I pull nitrifying media to test in a container.
If the ammonia is high enough that the current bacterial load has to scale up in population, then NO2 shows up briefly until the nitrite oxidizers scale up too. But many times I can add a load of ammonia and see no NO2 bump because it was within what the current population could handle. The ammonia still shows up as NO3 at the end, I just measure essentially zero nitrite along the way.

Yes I have seen this too - when carrying capacity is lower or just nearly the same as the addition of N load to the system but never when the system is just over the carrying capacity - as it for most of the time is in fish farms - more growth more money - or when the addition as in this case - is much over the carrying capacity

The test was set up to mimmick Jedi's rip clean. In which he cleaned the tank and did a 100% water change.

It wasn't that the water change and cleaning the tank weren't considered as possible variables in the experiment, it was just that I had to choose one way to go. Clean or don't clean, water change or not.

MNfish thought I should stick to what Jedi did and clean the tank and do the 100 water change.

Lasse thought high nitrates might effect it and suggested the 100% water change. He also though the bacteria would stay on the rocks where they originated.

You thought the water change might stall it.

??? I had to choose something, lol.

I wanted to do a 50% water change and not clean the tank. Cause it's what I though I would do if I was actually cleaning my rocks.
Yes - I confess - it was my fault :p But i think that it was a good choice - we get some ideas wats happen. not the the expected (from me) but something. If your recent test show better or the same after rinse (no cleaning of widows or WC) as before the rinse - most of your rise in carrying capacity in the original test was possible due to nitrification on the glass and on particles in the water.

Sincerely Lasse
 
REEFTIDE
OP
Coxey81

Coxey81

Well-Known Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Aug 25, 2021
Messages
773
Reaction score
1,502
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
Huntsville
Yes I have seen this too - when carrying capacity is lower or just nearly the same as the addition of N load to the system but never when the system is just over the carrying capacity - as it for most of the time is in fish farms - more growth more money - or when the addition as in this case - is much over the carrying capacity


Yes - I confess - it was my fault :p But i think that it was a good choice - we get some ideas wats happen. not the the expected (from me) but something. If your recent test show better or the same after rinse (no cleaning of widows or WC) as before the rinse - most of your rise in carrying capacity in the original test was possible due to nitrification on the glass and on particles in the water.

Sincerely Lasse

Lol, nobody's fault. Just think everyone had different thoughts and opinions and nobody knew what was the right choice.
 

Lasse

7500 Club Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
9,061
Reaction score
26,334
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
Källarliden 14 D Bohus, Sweden
Lasse thought high nitrates might effect it and suggested the 100% water change.
100 % WC is often recommended after "quick starts" of some people here on R2R. Near to the subject discussed here. Because I thought that most of the new biofilm was formed from the old (on the rocks) because there was no nitrite peak - i did not consider new occupied space on the glass. And I still can´t understand the lack of a nitrite peak in this case. But we have a rather clear result hear - you should not clean everything and not do 100% WC when you clean your rocks and will rise the load afterward.

Sincerely Lasse
 

MnFish1

10K Club member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
13,720
Reaction score
14,611
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
@Dan_P This is the odd things with this experiment. IME all of my experiences with this - and they are in the order of more than three digits of 0 in freshwater - have shown a rise of NO2 when this happens. Not in this experiment however. It could be very interesting if @MnFish1 could repeat @Coxey81 test as close as possible and either confirm or show the opposite in his testruns. It is the seamless oxidation in Coxey81 test that surprise me a lot

it was not the case in @sixty_reefer ´s experiment - he get the expected increase in nitrite

Sincerely Lasse
 

MnFish1

10K Club member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
13,720
Reaction score
14,611
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
So... it's looking like it was the water change and the tank clean that washed away my bacteria the first time. Not so much the tap rinse of the rocks.
I'm not sure that thats 'for sure'. For example - the bacteria that you scrubbed - may have just been easier to scrub off - (i.e. the new bacteria that built up over a couple days) - than bacteria that was firmly anchored to the rock (i.e. for years).
@Dan_P This is the odd things with this experiment. IME all of my experiences with this - and they are in the order of more than three digits of 0 in freshwater - have shown a rise of NO2 when this happens. Not in this experiment however. It could be very interesting if @MnFish1 could repeat @Coxey81 test as close as possible and either confirm or show the opposite in his testruns. It is the seamless oxidation in Coxey81 test that surprise me a lot

it was not the case in @sixty_reefer ´s experiment - he get the expected increase in nitrite

Sincerely Lasse
I plan to completely rinse the tank between each experiment. If desired - can always repeat everything with non-washed tank and equipment. I do not think based on transferring old tanks to completely new tanks suggest that a significant amount of nitrification occurs on glass vs rock (i.e. much more activity on rock/porous surfaces than glass/plastic). Reading the instructions for Dr. Tim's he specifically mentions the poor adherence of bacteria to glass/plastic (i.e. use sand - dry - and rock) - and avoid bare-bottom tanks.
I believe the answer so far is that chlorinated fresh water doesn’t appear to do anything to the bacteria itself, there is some anecdotal evidence that the scrubbing the surfaces of the glass and live rock do remove some, by being flushed away instead of killing it.
I do not think you can completely conclude this either. Your tank MAY have reduced ammonia based on heterotrophs - as evidenced by your large bacterial bloom - as well as potentially other things on your rock. Unfortunately we don't have a way to measure 'nitrifying bacteria' vs 'heterotrophs/algae, etc'. You might be right though
 
AS
Don't Over Pay
Top