How Often to Add Ammonia

[ReefGeezer]

From my understanding, these species that are able to "cycle" a tank are not felixble enough for live in both marine and fresh environments. I do agree that freshwater systems can obtain this bacteria very easily, but marine nitrifyers should not be found in the environment inland. I can see this being very possible in coastal areas if they do infact have the ability to travel via aerosols or via other air travel, but the course these bacteria would need to take to get to a marine aquarium seems rather troublesome even in these cases. It also wouldn't make sense for any of these bacteria far from the coast to have the ability to tolerate high salinity given that they have not evolved in an environment that would select for that trait. Again, I am basing this off of how reasonable it would seem for these marine bacteria to make it to a tank. If there is some paper that anyone could link here, I'd be very happy to read it.


Ps if anyone wants to move this conversation to its own thread, I'd be happy to continue there

Since the op wants to not drift this too far off topic I figured if mention that

I answered the OP's question directly a few posts back then sought to discuss some assertions made for the benefit of others who might read them. I'll shut up now, but not before completely disagreeing with the whole saltwater vs. freshwater bacteria argument. I cycled marine tanks in Kansas, Ohio, Kentucky, South Dakota and other land locked states long before retailers came up with bacteria in a bottle marketing campaign, and without adding anything that had ever been anywhere near saltwater. Happy reefing & good luck.

 

[radfly]

Sounds like he knows it all, so why this thread?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

FWIW, aerosols of all sorts are known to contain bacteria. Salt water spray off the ocean is a big source of atmospheric bacteria, but in a home that are lots of other aerosols from people, pets, showers, dishwashing, food prep, etc.

 

[Lavey29]

FWIW, aerosols of all sorts are known to contain bacteria. Salt water spray off the ocean is a big source of atmospheric bacteria, but in a home that are lots of other aerosols from people, pets, showers, dishwashing, food prep, etc.

Oh boy that just threw a monkey wrench into someone's theory they were sure about.

 

[vetteguy53081]

How often should you dose ammonia to a new tank (after its been cycled) to keep the denitrifying bacteria alive, if you don't plan to immediately add any livestock? If it's worth noting, this tank was started using the Dr. Tims method, dumping a whole bottle of bacteria on day one and dosing ammonium chloride on days 1, 3, and 6, with a 25% water change on day 14. Fish are SUPPOSED to be added on day 9; but we plan to wait longer. So the question is, after day 6, how often should the ammonium chloride continue to be dosed?

Denitrifying bacteria does what you need. Ammonia added is initial but then the bacteria will act therafter

 

[melonheadorion]

if bacteria doesnt come out of thin air, not sure how my first tank cycled. immaculate conception it seems. i didnt add a source of ammonia, and it cycled itself. i had to wait a couple months, but i did not add a thing to create ammonia. also, if things dont come out of thin air; youre going to come to a realization at some point in saltwater aquariums that things come out of nowhere. for example things ive seen- sponges, different types of copepods, snails, tiny jelly fish (cant remember what they are called), etc.

at this point, if youre cycled, if youre worried about losing bacteria, you can simply ghost feed a small pinch of food. wont take much. also, because many people dont realize this, that fish list you have, dont add them all at once. unless you plan to add bottled bacteria, adding that many fish all at once, you could overload the bioload, and it wont be able to catch up. i personally do no more than 2 fish at a time. once you have fish added, there wont be a need to continually add ammonia, so the sooner you do that, the less you have to do manually
with your list having mostly wrasse, if you havent already, make sure you research the fish first. wrasse could have issues with certain tank mates, have specific dietary needs, etc. so, just somethign to think about with that list, if you havent already

 

[brandon429]

Retail case in point: tetra bottle bac for cycling from wal mart is good for both freshwater and saltwater


all we care about is the two clownfish we add without any disease preps at least dont die in the first month from ammonia and its easy for retailers to sell us water bac in water to pull that off.


all the things we don’t know vs all the things retailers do know about cycling = the sales gradient and no matter how hard we try, we cannot escape the dreaded stall


something about forums has perpetuated a constant doubt in ability of these microorganisms

 

[brandon429]

This thread is a good discussion on cycling takes. Good posts.



**any readers with a seneye want to set up an unassisted cycle test?

a cheap bucket of common dry reef rocks and saltwater kept reasonably topped off, and open topped but otherwise unsupported until December could be cycling article gold.
let the bucket system just exist four months circulated, heated when needed and we can see how much ability is really there with digital means


Ive never seen any digital assessments of unassisted cycling in marine tanks, a cycling chart doesn’t exist for that. We should make the first

 

[DocRose]

This thread is a good discussion on cycling takes. Good posts.



**any readers with a seneye want to set up an unassisted cycle test?

a cheap bucket of common dry reef rocks and saltwater kept reasonably topped off, and open topped but otherwise unsupported until December could be cycling article gold.
let the bucket system just exist four months circulated, heated when needed and we can see how much ability is really there with digital means


Ive never seen any digital assessments of unassisted cycling in marine tanks, a cycling chart doesn’t exist for that. We should make the first

This wouldn't constitute a scientific test. There's no control... (Honestly I'm not sure if it's even possible to have a controlled test for this.) You'd have to have a 100% sterile tank (or bucket), and (since it's not possible to have 100% sterile rock), have nothing in it but saltwater. You'd then also need to put a (sterile) lid on it to ensure it remained uncontaminated.

If the test also included that type of control, I'd DEFINITELY be on board to see the results!

 

[melonheadorion]

This wouldn't constitute a scientific test. There's no control... (Honestly I'm not sure if it's even possible to have a controlled test for this.) You'd have to have a 100% sterile tank (or bucket), and (since it's not possible to have 100% sterile rock), have nothing in it but saltwater. You'd then also need to put a (sterile) lid on it to ensure it remained uncontaminated.

If the test also included that type of control, I'd DEFINITELY be on board to see the results!

well, since home aquariums arent dont in a sterile environment, why would you want to test in a sterile environment? it would go against the reason why a person would want to test. most you would want to do for that test is to do what you would do if you were setting it up for your home aquarium. doing anything more than that would be adding variables that arent natural. now, if you wanted to test if you could create a bacteria for an aquarium, via a sterile environment, then yes, but thats not what any aquarist tries to do

 

[DocRose]

well, since home aquariums arent dont in a sterile environment, why would you want to test in a sterile environment? it would go against the reason why a person would want to test. most you would want to do for that test is to do what you would do if you were setting it up for your home aquarium. doing anything more than that would be adding variables that arent natural. now, if you wanted to test if you could create a bacteria for an aquarium, via a sterile environment, then yes, but thats not what any aquarist tries to do

Then what would be the point of the test? At least as far as this thread goes. The only thing up in the air (from this thread) for debate is whether the bacteria "appears out of nowhere". I've said numerous times, that it's not showing up out of nowhere. It's showing up in response to the ammonia that enters the water via decaying matter (whether from the rocks or any other source). Select individuals have decided to "debate" with me about this. I'm not sure if it's just that they can't read or what... However, if they have completely read and comprehended what I stated, then the only way to truly test that, would be to do so in a sterile environment.

Now, in terms of what I assumed @brandon429 was trying to say with his test. Yes, you would still need a controlled test to compare your results against. Especially IF the bacteria can still magically show up in a sterile environment. You'd want to compare the growth rate in the "normal" tank, against the controlled (sterile) tank.

 

[melonheadorion]

Then what would be the point of the test? At least as far as this thread goes. The only thing up in the air (from this thread) for debate is whether the bacteria "appears out of nowhere". I've said numerous times, that it's not showing up out of nowhere. It's showing up in response to the ammonia that enters the water via decaying matter (whether from the rocks or any other source). Select individuals have decided to "debate" with me about this. I'm not sure if it's just that they can't read or what... However, if they have completely read and comprehended what I stated, then the only way to truly test that, would be to do so in a sterile environment.

Now, in terms of what I assumed @brandon429 was trying to say with his test. Yes, you would still need a controlled test to compare your results against. Especially IF the bacteria can still magically show up in a sterile environment. You'd want to compare the growth rate in the "normal" tank, against the controlled (sterile) tank.

the point of the test would be to see if you can do a standard aquarium setup, nothing special, without adding ammonia to do the process. there have been a couple people within this, that have already said that they setup a new setup, didnt add any kind of ammonia source, and was able to cycle a tank. myself being one of them.
so, if you want to do it in a sterile environment, thats fine, but a sterile environment is not real circumstances. not a single person here, including my first setup, was created in a sterile environment, but the fact can still remain that you can cycel a tank without adding an actual source. i have a tank thats been up a year that is proof to that.
not sure why you would want to compare a growth rate though, unless you just want to know. but i can also tell you that answer too. my second tank, which is also up and running, was ready in half the time, my second tank, i used a piece of shrimp in the tank.
so, i know that no source works, and we all should know an ammonia source works.

the whole debate on this is adding a food source versus not adding a food source. IE - manually adding something to a tank, so a sterile environment isnt needed. now, if it was a source that is introduced indirectly (not added manually), then yes, we would test in a sterile environment, but thats not what this comes down to, and not what is in debate

 

[DocRose]

there have been a couple people within this, that have already said that they setup a new setup, didnt add any kind of ammonia source,

This... This right here is what I mean. You ARE adding a source of ammonia. It's the dead matter on the rocks (and even in the sand) that is broken down thanks to the water and the heat. This matter breaks down into ammonia. That's a fact...that's not opinion.

The only way to "disprove" this, would be to set up a tank in a sterile environment, and see if the bacteria still shows up.

 

[melonheadorion]

This... This right here is what I mean. You ARE adding a source of ammonia. It's the dead matter on the rocks (and even in the sand) that is broken down thanks to the water and the heat. This matter breaks down into ammonia. That's a fact...that's not opinion.

The only way to "disprove" this, would be to set up a tank in a sterile environment, and see if the bacteria still shows up.

you are assuming that i used rocks that were previously in a tank or elsewhere. i didnt do that. the rocks and sand were all new. but again, this was not the debate. youre moving the goalpost now. i would venture to say that everyone previously was referring to a new setup, with clean rock and clean sand (out of the package).

dead matter would refer to rock that was previously used, and had some sort of decaying matter on it. thats not what my first setup was. so, if you want to test in a sterile environment, go ahead. but that isnt reality. a person doesnt setup a tank in a sterile environment, nor does it stay in a sterile environment. people go to the store, buy their tank, sand, rock, put it in a tank, and then add, or dont add an ammonia source. you have mistaken what everyone has been saying this whole time, and then jumping down their throats.

it is a fact that i can go buy a new tank, new sand, new (never used) rock, put water in it, and have it grow bacteria. that is not opinion. that is fact, as seen by people, including myself, in real time.

 

[DocRose]

you are assuming that i used rocks that were previously in a tank or elsewhere. i didnt do that. the rocks and sand were all new. but again, this was not the debate. youre moving the goalpost now. i would venture to say that everyone previously was referring to a new setup, with clean rock and clean sand (out of the package).

There is no such thing as "clean" rock or sand. That's what I said several posts ago. Just sitting out in the air for a few seconds allows dust to settle on the rock. Almost 50% of household dust is made up of human skin. Organic matter. Even the percentage that is not human skin is still greatly organic matter. Which...breaks...down...into...ammonia. I don't know what's so hard about this to understand.

Even @Randy Holmes-Farley said it

...but in a home that are lots of other aerosols from people, pets, showers, dishwashing, food prep, etc.

So even if you had nothing in your tank at home, but water, and the top was open, you'd still have organic matter getting into the tank... Organic matter which breaks down into... Look... I'm not going to keep going in circles.

And no... I'm not moving the goal post. I've been saying the same thing...LITERALLY...the exact same thing...for the past two pages. I have mistaken nothing...I read, and re-read, posts thoroughly before I even consider (whether or not its worth) responding.

 

[melonheadorion]

There is no such thing as "clean" rock or sand. That's what I said several posts ago. Just sitting out in the air for a few seconds allows dust to settle on the rock. Almost 50% of household dust is made up of human skin. Organic matter. Even the percentage that is not human skin is still greatly organic matter. Which...breaks...down...into...ammonia. I don't know what's so hard about this to understand. And no... I'm not moving the goal post. I've been saying the same thing...LITERALLY...the exact same thing...for the past two pages. I have mistaken nothing...I read, and re-read, posts thoroughly before I even consider (whether or not its worth) responding.

again, you took everyones response out of context. everything you just said. EVERYONE knows. but, that was never in contention. perhaps i wont speak for everyone, but anything i said, i never contested that. EVER. but "adding an ammonia source" doesnt mean anything other than manually dosing ammonia, ghost feeding, shrimp decay, etc. "adding an ammonia source", by probably everyone that has responded, means that you are physically adding a food, or chemical to the tank to create ammonia.

in fact, if air carries bacteria, having a tank sterilized, in a sterile environment to test this, would be impossible. unless that sterile environment was also a vaccuum. but again, thats not reality, nor was it the debate by anyone. physically adding a food source to the tank by shrimp, food, or chemical, was the debate

 

[DocRose]

again, you took everyones response out of context. everything you just said. EVERYONE knows. but, that was never in contention. perhaps i wont speak for everyone, but anything i said, i never contested that. EVER. but "adding an ammonia source" doesnt mean anything other than manually dosing ammonia, ghost feeding, shrimp decay, etc. "adding an ammonia source", by probably everyone that has responded, means that you are physically adding a food, or chemical to the tank to create ammonia.

Then that would be on everyone (the two people that did contest) not understanding what I was saying. I did mention a few posts ago that it was likely that they didn't read carefully. You'd have to go back to page 1 and see what I mean. I clearly said that bacteria doesn't appear out of nowhere. It grows in response to the ammonia in the tank caused by the decaying matter from the rocks (dry or otherwise) we put in the tank.

 

[melonheadorion]

this was your quote "That's not true... The denitrifying bacteria won't just appear out of nowhere. It has to be added somehow. Whether it's by adding live rock/sand, or bottled bacteria."

so, when its new, never used rock, its not liverock or live sand, and is definately not bottled bacteria. so, this statement doesnt mean what youre referring to.

 

[melonheadorion]

now that you have explained what you really mean, i suspect that everyone, including myself, now understands what you actually mean.
on the other hand, even water that you put in the tank, without having sand or rock, has bacteria in it, so even if we ignore the rock and sand, bacteria in water would be teh start to what you need. heck, i would venture to say that the salt probably does too

 

[DocRose]

this was your quote "That's not true... The denitrifying bacteria won't just appear out of nowhere. It has to be added somehow. Whether it's by adding live rock/sand, or bottled bacteria."

This is the post I'm referring to from page one...

Let me be MORE SPECIFIC. Nothing JUST HAPPENS...

Algae just doesn't grow in water. It needs light to have a platform to jump from. That's why water in a blacked out container will stay clean. Whereas water in a translucent/transparent container, in direct lighting, will eventually grow algae.

A tank full of saltwater will not just grow bacteria. It needs something in it to make that bacteria grow. That SOMETHING...is ammonia. The easiest way (today) to introduce that ammonia, is via ammonium chloride. The other ways are by introducing fish...or having die-off. The sort of die-off that comes from rocks being placed into the water that have dead (or dying) matter on them. That matter breaks down into ammonia, which sets off the bacterial growth.

So no...my original statement is correct. "Denitrifying bacteria won't just appear out of nowhere." Something happens in our tanks to make it grow. Whether it's by pouring in a bottle of it. Or creating the proper environment for it to grow.