I think there’s a lot more action on the glass and plastic items, pumps, skimmers etc than folks realize. Good test.Scrubbed too
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think there’s a lot more action on the glass and plastic items, pumps, skimmers etc than folks realize. Good test.Scrubbed too
I think there’s a lot more action on the glass and plastic items, pumps, skimmers etc than folks realize. Good test.
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.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.
Is there a way to test when a surface becomes overcrowded and reaches a maximum capacity to oxidize ammonia?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
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.Is there a way to test when a surface becomes overcrowded and reaches a maximum capacity to oxidize ammonia?
I see it go both ways when I pull nitrifying media to test in a container.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 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.@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
The answer was ?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.
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.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.
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 confess - it was my fault 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.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 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 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
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.Lasse thought high nitrates might effect it and suggested the 100% water change.
@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'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).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 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.@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 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 thoughI 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.