A couple things to consider.Nice post. That is the going way forums think about filtration biology, that is the best summary of how forums see filters in action agreed, in any survey respondents would agree w that
To show my position tell me what you think of this set of posts by MSteven1
Just for starters look at these details:
He creates a functioning filter and proves it by specifically adding zero feed, zero bottle bac
His sole two factors in creating the filter were water and time
If this isn't a perfect caption of the hidden truths in filtration not given to forums, truly if it's not total context for the discussion let me know and I'll find a better example:
Did the online calc indicate to use one mil in the tank for your gallonagewww.reef2reef.com
We didn't have to provide anything beyond water for bacterial mass to bloom itself and grow. Bottle bac sellers tricked us into forgetting this rule so we centralize our offerings (purchases from them) as the sole method of helping bacteria
They don't want us to know how filtration really works, it lessens clicks on their products and surrounding supports
Withholding feed never strips away or starves a biofilter. We can see positive mass earned there with only water, having feed offered by hand isn't required. It's impossible to starve out a biofilter in a non sealed system.
They self feed forever if kept wet
First, we know definitively that marine species of algae can reach thousands of miles inland from the wind. Sea birds get algae and cyano bacteria spores in their feathers, which then dry in flight and are then air born and carried by the wind, so it can also be assumed that all sorts of marine bacteria including nitrifying bacteria are airborne thousands of miles inland
I have noticed that during construction of highways, water get accumulated at the construction sites. In these standing water, after sometime, algae can be observed. I want to know from where it...
-scroll down for the relevant citation
Second, in an unsealed system, and especially an open top/rimless system, in a human home, the amount of organic dust, human skin, and dust mites that that would decompose and provide a source of ammonia is not zero. Even in the cleanest homes, an open topped aquarium is essentially an uncleaned surface (ie if you had an open-topped aquarium and an equal sized surface side by side and you left each for a year, the amount of dust on the non-aquarium surface would be significant, certainly enough to keep a bacterial population alive in an aquarium.
Third, in the example you linked (and we’ll ignore the problem with taking a single, unrepeated, uncontrolled, completely anecdotal example and using it as definitive proof of a theory), if bacteria are always at their full capacity, and they spontaneously appear in aquariums, why did it take sixty days to be able to process a small amount of Ammonia? We know definitively that these bacteria reproduce very quickly, so if their existence and reproduction isn’t dependent on a food source, shouldn’t the bacteria have fully colonized the aquarium within a few days? And if the bacteria was at full capacity for the tank, it they don’t require a food source to reproduce, shouldn’t the tank have been able to process more than 1ml of ammonia in 24hours (and even at 48 hours it was still non-zero)? I would suggest that there was a small amount of bacteria that was surviving on the small amount of dust/organic material that had gotten into the tank, and upon adding 1ml of ammonia, they quickly reproduced to be able to consume the Ammonia (and also the test 24hours after showed a non-zero amount of ammonia).
Fourth, isn’t it inconsistent to claim that so many people who use API ammonia tests and are showing small amounts of ammonia in their tanks a few days after adding bottled back are getting false positives, but in this case an API ammonia test also showing the lowest amount of Ammonia per the tests resolution also be called into question? Or is it that the ‘false positives’ maybe aren’t always false? I guess my point is that constantly claiming that API is inaccurate and the using an API test as proof of your theory is problematic. I want to be very clear that I’m not claiming dishonesty, but perhaps it shows some bias in that it you’re willing to accept API results when they reinforce your preconceived theory, and disregard them as false positives when they don’t.
Lastly, As great a resource information as R2R is, and as much as we can learn from each other and use that information to develop theories, using uncontrolled anecdotal accounts from users is not definitive proof of a theory.