New Nitrifying Bacteria Experiment.

OP
MnFish1

MnFish1

10K Club member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
12,888
Reaction score
13,827
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
The result can be - the same as before in the aquarium that have no light in the first experiment - because as you say - it is not likely there is many photosynthetic organism there and it will be the same as no light exp 1 when you put the light exposed (in test1) into the dark. If this happens - I´ll think that the indications about that photosynthetic organisms was active in your first test is very strong

Sincerely Lasse
OK will post pictures soon
 
Maxout
OP
MnFish1

MnFish1

10K Club member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
12,888
Reaction score
13,827
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Experiment 2

Tank 1 Dry Sump Rock - Lit
Tank 2 Display tank Rock - Dark

4 gallons water, 5.2 lbs rock each tank. Parameters Before adding Ammonia:
pH 7.8. SG 1.026, Temp 78, Ammonia API 0 Yellow. Ammonia Seachem Alert 0. Nitrite 0 Nitrate 0
 

Attachments

  • Day 1.png
    Day 1.png
    78.5 KB · Views: 14
  • tempImageT9ZR5i.png
    tempImageT9ZR5i.png
    1.4 MB · Views: 14
  • tempImageS34rtU.png
    tempImageS34rtU.png
    1.7 MB · Views: 13
Tidal Gardens Black Friday Sale
OP
MnFish1

MnFish1

10K Club member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
12,888
Reaction score
13,827
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
No update tonight?
Its coming:). Sorry - holiday - I have the stuff done - but there is a tech issue here. leaving for dinner - for some reason - cant get pictures to upload
 

Lasse

7500 Club Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
8,935
Reaction score
25,988
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
Källarliden 14 D Bohus, Sweden
Misinterpreted what was said in other thread. Thinking that maybe surface area would be more necessary in higher flow.
This is not my experiences. This statement is based on the fact that lower flow get a thicker biofilm - may be so but it does not meant that the nitrification part of it will be more populated by nitrifiers. IME - it is only the most outerly part of the biofilm that is active in nitrification. This is probably more important in saltwater with its lower oxygen content compared with freshwater. In running tests - i have always get better nitrification rate in high flow compared with low flow (in the same filter). the explanation for this have always been that a thinner biofilm containing of younger nitrifiers with high access to oxygen will be created in such environment. The high flow flush away the thicker biofilm (most heterotrophs) an leave a thin active biofilm of mostly nitrifiers.

Sincerely Lasse
 
OP
MnFish1

MnFish1

10K Club member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
12,888
Reaction score
13,827
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Data from Experiment 2 Day 3 (48 Hours). (Sorry no pictures - Deleted)
Tank 1 (Lit formerly Dark Sump rock) is UNDERPERFORMING TANK 2 (Formerly Lit, now Dark)
Nearly all of the ammonia is processed in Tank 2 (the formerly lit NOW DARK)

THIS SUGGESTS? THAT IT WAS PERHAPS NOT PHOTOSYNTHESIS PLAYING A ROLE IN AMMONIA CONSUMPTION?

Screen Shot 2021-11-27 at 3.59.43 PM.png
 

Attachments

  • tempImage12wOsX.png
    tempImage12wOsX.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 5
Top Shelf Aquatics
OP
MnFish1

MnFish1

10K Club member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
12,888
Reaction score
13,827
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Interesting

However - I would suggest to do all coming tests either in dark or light - I would prefer dark

Sincerely Lasse
I'm happy to do that - I assume - its to show that photosynthesis is not playing a role?
 
OP
MnFish1

MnFish1

10K Club member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
12,888
Reaction score
13,827
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Interesting

However - I would suggest to do all coming tests either in dark or light - I would prefer dark

Sincerely Lasse
PS - would you have a concern that the tank rock that has been exposed to light for years that is now in the dark will have some die-off -which will - in that tank - artificially raise ammonia - and thus change the results?

Second - I'm ok (As I said previously) - with doing either one. Is your rationale that we are then leaving out 'one more variable'? Anyone else can 'weigh in' @Coxey81, @Dan_P, @sixty_reefer - I guess I can see more utility to doing both in the dark.

@Sixty-Reefer and @Coxey81. Just a quick question - In your experiments - my recollection is that you never were Able to completely process 2 ppm Ammonia in 24 hours - is that correct - before you finally did 'the rinse'?

@brandon429 - a quick question. Since now in 5-6 different tank set up's - it SEEMS like that though ammonia is processed from day 1, that with each successive addition of ammonia that ammonia is processed more quickly over time - does this suggest to you that indeed, bacteria are increasing in number in response to 'more food' - remembering that these rocks were in water for 'years'? Just curious about your opinion.

I'm guessing that today (results coming- with pictures) the ammonia will be processed. Since the plan all along was to keep going until 2 ppm ammonia was processed by day 2 ie,24 hours - I will plan (unless others have comments) - to re-set up both tanks, add new water and 2 ppm ammonia - and run them both in the dark.

** Note - I have not been rinsing the glass, Filter, etc etc between changes - so - IT COULD also be happening that the rock is saturated with bacteria from the start - and the new 'nitrification ability' - is due to ore bacteria on these surfaces. After the tanks process 2 ppm ammonia - my next plan will be to wash the tank and glass etc - and repeat x 2 before trying any rinse/soaking protocols.

I know this is taking a while - but - people had lots of questions/.comments/issues the last time - and hopefully - some of these preliminary things will help take away some of that doubt. One thing I'm very interested in is the 'API kit' - which is supposedly 'notoriously inaccurate'. I have always processed ammonia to '0' as compared to '.25'.
 

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
21,825
Reaction score
17,861
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
tejas
MN I truly do not know, nice job on your experiment so sorry I don't have any helpful input Im watching your logs and Lasse's + DZ's + your evaluations ongoing to learn from it all. I was about to ask for a current summary of things based on how you see the data so far. Im not good enough at analyzing data to pick out details so far but experiments like this ran by multiple people are really really good for the hobby for sure.
 
Avast

Coxey81

Well-Known Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Aug 25, 2021
Messages
701
Reaction score
1,419
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
Huntsville
PS - would you have a concern that the tank rock that has been exposed to light for years that is now in the dark will have some die-off -which will - in that tank - artificially raise ammonia - and thus change the results?

Second - I'm ok (As I said previously) - with doing either one. Is your rationale that we are then leaving out 'one more variable'? Anyone else can 'weigh in' @Coxey81, @Dan_P, @sixty_reefer - I guess I can see more utility to doing both in the dark.

@Sixty-Reefer and @Coxey81. Just a quick question - In your experiments - my recollection is that you never were Able to completely process 2 ppm Ammonia in 24 hours - is that correct - before you finally did 'the rinse'?

@brandon429 - a quick question. Since now in 5-6 different tank set up's - it SEEMS like that though ammonia is processed from day 1, that with each successive addition of ammonia that ammonia is processed more quickly over time - does this suggest to you that indeed, bacteria are increasing in number in response to 'more food' - remembering that these rocks were in water for 'years'? Just curious about your opinion.

I'm guessing that today (results coming- with pictures) the ammonia will be processed. Since the plan all along was to keep going until 2 ppm ammonia was processed by day 2 ie,24 hours - I will plan (unless others have comments) - to re-set up both tanks, add new water and 2 ppm ammonia - and run them both in the dark.

** Note - I have not been rinsing the glass, Filter, etc etc between changes - so - IT COULD also be happening that the rock is saturated with bacteria from the start - and the new 'nitrification ability' - is due to ore bacteria on these surfaces. After the tanks process 2 ppm ammonia - my next plan will be to wash the tank and glass etc - and repeat x 2 before trying any rinse/soaking protocols.

I know this is taking a while - but - people had lots of questions/.comments/issues the last time - and hopefully - some of these preliminary things will help take away some of that doubt. One thing I'm very interested in is the 'API kit' - which is supposedly 'notoriously inaccurate'. I have always processed ammonia to '0' as compared to '.25'.


I was able to process 2ppm in 24. But was dosing 3ppm. I never was able to do that in 24 hours, got it down to 30ish hours.

Sixty was able to process around 4ppm in his first 24 hours, I believe.
 

Lasse

7500 Club Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
8,935
Reaction score
25,988
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
Källarliden 14 D Bohus, Sweden
PS - would you have a concern that the tank rock that has been exposed to light for years that is now in the dark will have some die-off -which will - in that tank - artificially raise ammonia - and thus change the results?

May - maybe not. Your "dark" stones can also have organic matter with them and it seems like there is not much photosynthetic organism extra on the "lighted" stones

@brandon429 - a quick question. Since now in 5-6 different tank set up's - it SEEMS like that though ammonia is processed from day 1, that with each successive addition of ammonia that ammonia is processed more quickly over time - does this suggest to you that indeed, bacteria are increasing in number in response to 'more food' - remembering that these rocks were in water for 'years'? Just curious about your opinion.

At least I think it is that way

I'm guessing that today (results coming- with pictures) the ammonia will be processed. Since the plan all along was to keep going until 2 ppm ammonia was processed by day 2 ie,24 hours - I will plan (unless others have comments) - to re-set up both tanks, add new water and 2 ppm ammonia - and run them both in the dark.

** Note - I have not been rinsing the glass, Filter, etc etc between changes - so - IT COULD also be happening that the rock is saturated with bacteria from the start - and the new 'nitrification ability' - is due to ore bacteria on these surfaces. After the tanks process 2 ppm ammonia - my next plan will be to wash the tank and glass etc - and repeat x 2 before trying any rinse/soaking protocols.

I know this is taking a while - but - people had lots of questions/.comments/issues the last time - and hopefully - some of these preliminary things will help take away some of that doubt. One thing I'm very interested in is the 'API kit' - which is supposedly 'notoriously inaccurate'. I have always processed ammonia to '0' as compared to '.25'.

Let it take the time that is needed

Sincerely Lasse
 
OP
MnFish1

MnFish1

10K Club member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
12,888
Reaction score
13,827
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
I was able to process 2ppm in 24. But was dosing 3ppm. I never was able to do that in 24 hours, got it down to 30ish hours.

Sixty was able to process around 4ppm in his first 24 hours, I believe.
I re-did some of your measurements - or perhaps mis-re-did them lol

I think I have been reading the ammonia kit a bit incorrectly - and I wonder if your original results were closer to 4 ppm than 3 - in any case. I believe that my initial results - because I was trying to follow yours - was '2 ppm' - in reality they were probably between 2 and 4. Starting with the next test - I am going to add 1 cc - and then keep adding .05 cc ammonia - until I reach 2 ppm - then use that volume for the rest of the tests.

In any case - in no circumstance the amount of ammonia an 'overdose'. It still shows that the rock process ammonia - and that the lit tank processes the rock that was lit - processed more amonnia - more quickly than the dark sump rock. (EVEN WHEN THE lights were turned off in the 'formerly lit' tank.
 

Dan_P

2500 Club Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
2,671
Reaction score
2,705
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Second - I'm ok (As I said previously) - with doing either one. Is your rationale that we are then leaving out 'one more variable'? Anyone else can 'weigh in' @Coxey81, @Dan_P, @sixty_reefer - I guess I can see more utility to doing both in the dark.
My thoughts go something like this.

The rock biofilm begins to change the minute you move the rock to a new environment. Some life forms die, some leave the rock, others grow to fill the new space. The effects I would wonder about include, chemical and biological.

Chemical. Will the rock chemical emissions effect my experiment measurements? Will NH3 be produced by the rock irrespective of what is added?

Biological. Is the rock ammonia consumption bacteria or algae dominated? How does an algae dominated biofilm behave in the dark?
 
Zoanthids

What would you buy RIGHT NOW if you found an AMAZING deal on it?

  • Equipment

    Votes: 434 51.2%
  • Dry Goods

    Votes: 24 2.8%
  • Fish

    Votes: 81 9.6%
  • Coral

    Votes: 227 26.8%
  • Other Livestock

    Votes: 9 1.1%
  • Nothing

    Votes: 62 7.3%
  • Other (please explain)

    Votes: 10 1.2%
Bulk Reef Supply
Top