This aquarium concept challenges your views on microbiology, lets collect and compare answers

[Gregg @ ADP]

yes - I wasn't clear - I meant the 'functioning nitrifying mass' (not including the dormant ones that aren't doing anything) would be the same if the level of ammonia is the same or am I misunderstanding?

Right.

So [NH3]initial gives us (K)initial. Decreasing NH3...say, by 50%...would give us [NH3]final = 1/2[NH3]initial. In theory, [NH3]final should yield (K)final = 1/2(K)initial.

The catch being, unlike most organisms, bacteria can exist in a dormant state, so even though [NH3]final = 1/2[NH3]initial, (K)final = (K)initial. However, 1/2(K)final is dormant.

Now, if we bump [NH3]final up to [NH3]initial, we have enough to support, in an active state, (K)initial.

The question becomes, do conditions and circumstances exist that would allow for an overall increase in biomass before the inactive bacteria become active?

Hypothetically, if such conditions existed, we could end up with a situation where [NH3]initial —> 1.5(K)initial, because reproduction would occur before activation. Dormant bacteria would stay dormant, but overall biomass could increase.

 

[Lasse]

A number of years back, the process of "cooking" live rock became popular. The process involved placing live rock, in a container, with a lid, in the dark, with water, and a pump. Over the course of roughly 6 months, people would do multiple large water changes and remove detritus, while providing no food to the system. Over the course of 6 months, the production of detritus would diminish, but virtually never cease. At least I never heard of a case where it stopped completely. At the end of those 6 months, the rock could be placed into an aquarium and be able to support a load without experiencing an ammonia or nitrite spike.

How was this possible?????? How could bacteria continue to produce detritus month after month after month, without the introduction of food, or a load?????? How on earth could there still be enough bacteria in those rocks after 6 months in such an environment, to support a load????

If this work - I doubt it did because I have seen such sets up - and they got problems in the start up. But if it works - it is because of the nitrification bacteria get dormant and form cysts or another inactive forms - that´s the reason why they can come through the air and through inorganic dust.

What I do not get is

1 - you say that the nitrification bacteria can survive and reproduce because other bacteria can form NH3/NH4 even if there is no input to the system. This "other" bacteria can´t be other than heterotrophic bacteria - normal decaying bacteria. It is the decaying of organic nitrogen that give the inorganic NH3/NH4.
2 On the same time - you say that you will most of all get away from those bacteria because the consume oxygen (tip - nitrifying bacteria consume oxygen too) - you want as low organic load as possible.

But - what in whole world will give the nitrifying bacteria their NH3/NH4 if there is a very limited fauna of decaying bacteria?
That´s I do not get.

And there will not be any dead bacteria in a system - because dead bacteria is organic waste and will be eaten by other bacteria. In our aquarium - it is the amount of available DOC is the limited factor for the growth of heterotrophic bacteria. If you do not believes me - just put an overdose of DOC (Vodka, ethanol, suger, vinegar or NNPOx) in your system and voilà - you got the fog of Lützen (as we say in Sweden) in your aquaria (The fog of Lützen was the thing that stop the Swedish sovereignty over northern Europe 16 November 1632 ) But in this case - the fog is bacteria

Why just not admit that these bacteria can get dormant - they get inactive and when once established - they can wake up again.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

Here is one question I do have (maybe @Lasse can answer this) based on our hypothetical scenario:

Let’s say a bacterial biomass/population (K)initial is established based on [NH3]initial. We then reduce influx of NH3 to below whatvis required to maintain (K)initial, and a % of the biomass goes dormant.

In the event of a new influx of NH3, is it possible for active bacteria to reproduce before dormant bacteria can activate?

My guess would be that the mechanisms to activate dormant bacteria act much quicker than nitrifying bacterial reproductive process (Lasse has cited the relatively slow growth and reproduction of nitrifying bacteria). But, if due to factors such as location and access to new NH3, I could see a possibility to build biomass if reproduction can occur before activation. That said, I wouldn’t put money on it happening.

I can´t answer that question but as I describe in post 187 - the activation time from bad total nitrification rate to 100 % again when the organic load of the filter was removed is rather short - a matter of hours only. This indicate that the activation time is faster than reproduction rate. See below

I have run submerse biofilters there the organic load and hence the activity of heterotrophic bacteria was very high. The competition from degradation bacteria prevents a good function of the nitrification bacteria. - The filter goes from 100 % nitrification (ingoing load around 3 mg/l NH3 - N/NH4 - N and outgoing NO3-N of 3 mg/l) to around 20 % total nitrification - still ingoing of 3 mg/l NH3-N/NH4-N but now outgoing 2.4 mg NH3-N/NH4-N/NO2-N and o.6 mg/l NO3-N in a couple of days - caused of the high organic carbon content in the water. After total rinsing the filter from organic matter - the nitrification rate turn up to 100 % again and after 2 - 3 days it was time for backflush again. If the nitrification bacteria did not get dormant during the bad situation (high organic load) - the filter would not work well again after the cleaning of the thing that hinder the nitrification bacteria. And guess - the decomposers produce new NH3/NH4 but nitrification rate goes down in spite of that.

There is another well known thing about recirculated system in fish farming according to the pattern of nitrification. If you run a system with 12 hours feeding (and having only aerated filters - no anaerobic filters) - the amount of space must be calculated for the load during 24 hour. It looks like the amount of bacteria will adapt to 24 hour. It means that during feeding time - the NH3/NH4 concentration slowly rise - so do NO2 levels too. This I have measured 1000 of times - you must take this for true. When feeding time is over the levels of NH3/NH4 and NO2 decrease and if it zero just before next morning at the beginning of next feeding time - you have reach the feeding kapacity of the system. If it is not 0 at that time - it will slowly rise during days.

This have been a problem because there is filtration space that´s not will be used - best should be a constant feed of NH3/NH4 during 24 hours. One purposed is to have two line - same filtration system - line 1 - feeding 8:00-20:00 - the other feeding 20:00-8:00. as I know - none has tested this.

However - if you add anaerobic filtration including denitrification you will produce some DOC helping aerobic bacteria with the decaying process, hence you get a steady production of NH3/NH4. You need filter for anaerobic processes, filter for BOD removal and filter for nitrification - and a filtersystem that not is constructed in a straight line - instead constructed in smaller loops. Such a system was developed theoretically during the 90:ties at Chalmers in Gothenburg and I have had the opportunity to be a part of the construction crew - first in the pilot plant around 2003 and now in a new plant with start 2015. And yes it works - but the filtration volume is the same as the farming volume.

The things that elegance coral have state her - is not unknown for me - I have used it in my work but it does not exclude the fact that the nitrification bacteria are able to exist in an inactive (dormant) stage.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Gregg @ ADP]

I can´t answer that question but as I describe in post 187 - the activation time from bad total nitrification rate to 100 % again when the organic load of the filter was removed is rather short - a matter of hours only. This indicate that the activation time is faster than reproduction rate. See below



There is another well known thing about recirculated system in fish farming according to the pattern of nitrification. If you run a system with 12 hours feeding (and having only aerated filters - no anaerobic filters) - the amount of space must be calculated for the load during 24 hour. It looks like the amount of bacteria will adapt to 24 hour. It means that during feeding time - the NH3/NH4 concentration slowly rise - so do NO2 levels too. This I have measured 1000 of times - you must take this for true. When feeding time is over the levels of NH3/NH4 and NO2 decrease and if it zero just before next morning at the beginning of next feeding time - you have reach the feeding kapacity of the system. If it is not 0 at that time - it will slowly rise during days.

This have been a problem because there is filtration space that´s not will be used - best should be a constant feed of NH3/NH4 during 24 hours. One purposed is to have two line - same filtration system - line 1 - feeding 8:00-20:00 - the other feeding 20:00-8:00. as I know - none has tested this.

However - if you add anaerobic filtration including denitrification you will produce some DOC helping aerobic bacteria with the decaying process, hence you get a steady production of NH3/NH4. You need filter for anaerobic processes, filter for BOD removal and filter for nitrification - and a filtersystem that not is constructed in a straight line - instead constructed in smaller loops. Such a system was developed theoretically during the 90:ties at Chalmers in Gothenburg and I have had the opportunity to be a part of the construction crew - first in the pilot plant around 2003 and now in a new plant with start 2015. And yes it works - but the filtration volume is the same as the farming volume.

The things that elegance coral have state her - is not unknown for me - I have used it in my work but it does not exclude the fact that the nitrification bacteria are able to exist in an inactive (dormant) stage.

Sincerely Lasse

I figured that was the case.

I was just trying to construct a hypothetical circumstance where:
[NH3]final = [NH3]initial -> (K)final > (K)initial

I wondered if somehow a portion of dormant bacteria could be colonized over in the biofilm by other heterotrophic bacteria, algae, etc blocking the nitrifying bacteria from exposure/access to NH3.

To me, that would be the only way possible to grow biomass beyond (K) without additional inputs.

 

[brandon429]

MN


Dr Reefs testing doesn’t apply here, and for you to cite that example means you didn’t see/read where Dr Tim answered your tap water questions in that thread. We covered tap water years before that thread...the only portion of Dr Reefs thread that applies here other than tap water proofing is his fallow vase experiment. Dr Reefs sole thread intent is about testing suspension cycling, I’m only interested in surface cycling.

our work threads on the various subjects always includes plenty of real time tests and other peoples tank outcomes on the matters...I need to see that in your citations to be swayed
Make a cycling thread already and roust some examples for your claim


Post # 189 proof of no dormancy, case closed. I have more examples, a two year fallow, but this one is best
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/the-microbiology-of-reef-tank-cycling.214618/page-10

How do the university studies apply here again? How does anything Lasse typed account for that test? Nitrifers will not go dormant in any home setting.

Before anyone chimes in about these being dormant and resurrected by the actual test, see dr reefs thread MN mentioned for the delay times to rebound from actual nitrifier isolates. Thanks for mentioning his thread MN, it is handy. You cannot have dormancy cake and eat it too heh admit that's moderately funny.

 

[brandon429]

https://www.nano-reef.com/forums/topic/383510-ammonia-processing-rate-of-established-tank/?page=2

More fallow proof, those are so hard to find bc people usually don't have a need to test fallow physiology


How long it takes -truly- dormant isolate strains to be able to oxidize:
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/bacteria-in-a-bottle-myth-or-fact.403226/page-57#post-5270947

 

[Gregg @ ADP]

Brandon, the dormancy stuff is mainly in response to your position that NH3/4 is not the limiting factor for bacterial growth.

Can [NH3]final = 1/2[NH3]initial —> (K)final = (K)initial? If yes, how? Under what conditions?

Start there. Work your way up.

You have to build a foundation and a first floor before you start building the upstairs bedrooms.

 

[Elegance Coral]

You still didn't answer the question. If the nitrifying bacteria fill up all the surface area available in a tank (and by your own comments - they can only do this with a certain amount of ammonia) - whether its produced by bacteria, fish waste, dust or whatever. What would happen if you added several fish to this tank? The bacteria have no more surface area on which to reproduce. They are already 'using' the steady state of ammonia produced in the system. What would happen?

This has been answered, but I'll do it again.
Nitrifying bacteria do not, "fill up all the surface area available in a tank". Nitrifying bacteria live in very diverse communities. These communities spread throughout the system. The population of individual species within the community will change as conditions and resources change. If the system begins to produce more ammonia, as in the case of several fish being added to the system, the population of nitrifying bacteria within the community can grow.
Naturally, we can reach a point where real estate limits the population of nitrifying bacteria, and microbial communities. This can lead to a load that is to large for the real estate to handle, and we can experience elevated ammonia and/or nitrite levels. This is rare because most aquarium literature suggests far more real estate than is necessary to support the average load.

I think your example about cooking rock is off the mark. You take live rock from the ocean - its obviously colonized with many types of bacteria and living things. You put it in the dark - The critters die, the nitrifying bacteria and others clean up the dead material. As the dead material is used up - and the waste removed (with the multiple water changes you talk about) - the nitrifying bacteria go dormant. When you put the rock into a tank it already has a large component of nitrifying bacteria. None of this process has anything to do with what we're discussing here

You're talking about "curing" live rock. Not "cooking" it.
As you correctly stated, rock pulled from the ocean will often have many organisms in/on it that are dead or dying. It may not be safe to add such rock to systems containing livestock. These rocks must be "cured" first. The process involves placing rock in isolation, in flooded containers, to give those dead organisms time to decompose. This process typically only takes a couple of weeks.

People "cooked" rock, not because it was freshly harvested from the ocean and full of dead organisms, but because it had been in a poorly set up, or maintained system, and the rock became overly nutrient rich. This nutrient enrichment typically led to algae problems and dead corals. The "cooking" process removed this overly abundant nutrient content. It was through the control of the microbial communities, living on the rock, that enabled hobbyists to reduce the nutrient content of the rocks. By drastically limiting the nutritional input to the rocks, the microbes were forced to sustain themselves almost exclusively on the nutrients the rock contained. Through the removal of detritus, and water changes, the recycling of those nutrients was interrupted, and nutrients were removed. Naturally, nothing is 100% efficient. While detritus production would decrease with time, many hobbyists still reported detritus production months into the process. (this process has largely been abandoned as hobbyists turn to acid dipping which takes far less time.)

 

[MnFish1]

This has been answered, but I'll do it again.
Nitrifying bacteria do not, "fill up all the surface area available in a tank". Nitrifying bacteria live in very diverse communities. These communities spread throughout the system. The population of individual species within the community will change as conditions and resources change. If the system begins to produce more ammonia, as in the case of several fish being added to the system, the population of nitrifying bacteria within the community can grow.
Naturally, we can reach a point where real estate limits the population of nitrifying bacteria, and microbial communities. This can lead to a load that is to large for the real estate to handle, and we can experience elevated ammonia and/or nitrite levels. This is rare because most aquarium literature suggests far more real estate than is necessary to support the average load.

Except this directly contradicts the comment of @brandon429 and his theory. Of course, I wasn't implying that ONLY nitrifying bacteria were present on rocks or sand. I was stating exactly what you did - that once ammonia increases - nitrifiers increase Unless ammonia increases nitrifiers will not. According to @brandon429 's experiments - nitrifying bacteria even without any 'nutrient input' will continue to grow and multiply.

This nutrient enrichment typically led to algae problems and dead corals. The "cooking" process removed this overly abundant nutrient content. It was through the control of the microbial communities, living on the rock, that enabled hobbyists to reduce the nutrient content of the rocks. By drastically limiting the nutritional input to the rocks, the microbes were forced to sustain themselves almost exclusively on the nutrients the rock contained. Through the removal of detritus, and water changes, the recycling of those nutrients was interrupted, and nutrients were removed. Naturally, nothing is 100% efficient. While detritus production would decrease with time, many hobbyists still reported detritus production months into the process. (this process has largely been abandoned as hobbyists turn to acid dipping which takes far less time.)

Its the same process - there are organisms algae, etc on the rock that was 'cooked'. You asked 'how it would work'. I explained it - but Ill try again - There were also bacteria, algae and other living things on those rocks- and certainly they would have plenty of nutrients with the rock you're describing.. As has been written several times nitrifying bacteria can be dormant for quite a bit of time. That explains how that method could 'work'. Your suggestion that they are recycling 'nutrients' that they have stored far in excess of any nutrient input continues to make no sense (IMHO)

 

[MnFish1]

Dr Reefs testing doesn’t apply here, and for you to cite that example means you didn’t see/read where Dr Tim answered your tap water questions in that thread.

Well - since this is from Dr Tim's literature - I think you're incorrect: Using Dr.Tim's One & Only is very simple. You should first make sure that your tank is dechlorinated which is critical. If you do find the presence of chlorine, you will need to use a dechlorinator that does not contain aldehydes which can be harmful to the bacteria you will be adding.

Dr Reefs sole thread intent is about testing suspension cycling, I’m only interested in surface cycling.

Dr Reefs thread involves sand and a HOB filter with ceramic pieces - which are designed specifically to allow surface area for bacteria adhesion - which according to the literature I provided is quite rapid and not dependent on 'slime'.

our work threads on the various subjects always includes plenty of real time tests and other peoples tank outcomes on the matters...I need to see that in your citations to be swayed
Make a cycling thread already and roust some examples for your claim

I have neither the time nor inclination to perform cycling tests. You're the one with the theory - Its up to you to defend it. You still haven't answered the question - were your fallow tests done on marine or freshwater? If a person lives inland - what is the source of 'marine' nitrifiers from tapwater? Which according to several of the manufacturers of bacteria solutions are different from those from freshwater.

How do the university studies apply here again? How does anything Lasse typed account for that test? Nitrifers will not go dormant in any home setting.

@Lasse has typed a lot of things - so I dont know to what you're referring. The university studies are based in fish farms and nitrifying reactors not Petri dishes. I apologize - its is extremely difficult to go and read page after page written in some of your threads. I dont have the time. Wouldn't it be easier for you to just state your facts? How have you proven that nitrifiers will not go dormant in any home setting?

Before anyone chimes in about these being dormant and resurrected by the actual test, see dr reefs thread MN mentioned for the delay times to rebound from actual nitrifier isolates. Thanks for mentioning his thread MN, it is handy. You cannot have dormancy cake and eat it too heh admit that's moderately funny.

Again - I have no clue where in the 57 pages of posts on that thread that you are talking about. There is a difference in 'bacteria in a bottle' as compared to bacteria on a rock in oxygenated water. By the way - in your tests - how do you 'prove' that its nitrifying bacteria remaining in the rock or tank that are removing ammonia? @Lasse is completely correct that your tests do not prove causation only correlation. For example for your fallow study - what was your control? For your empty tank that cycled on its own with no ammonia - what was your control?

 

[Gregg @ ADP]

I have a favor to ask:

This claim that an autotrophic population and heterotrophic population can simply sit there and play this game of convert and swap in perpetuity, without continually adding an energy source, needs some serious explanation (which we’re not getting).

Specifically, how?

That’s just not how trophic systems work. In every metabolic transaction, energy is lost or stored somewhere. You can’t just add a fixed amount of NH3 and a fixed amount of ____ organic waste to a system of both auto and heterotrophic bacteria and then just have them sit there and trade it back and forth.

Each time they do, some of the available energy is lost. A loop can be made, but the available energy is less and less each time. It’s possible that populations can grow during that process, but it eventually ends if there is no further input. That’s what a limiting factor is.

If you are taking the position that what I said isn’t the the case, please provide some calculations, or diagram stoichiometrically correct pathways that lets these compounds move back and forth equally in perpetuity.

Thanks.

 

[MnFish1]

How long it takes -truly- dormant isolate strains to be able to oxidize:
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/bacteria-in-a-bottle-myth-or-fact.403226/page-57#post-5270947

There is no post 5270947 - I clicked the link - there was nothing about dormant bacteria on that page that I could see - it went merely to the last post in the thread

https://www.nano-reef.com/forums/topic/383510-ammonia-processing-rate-of-established-tank/?page=2

More fallow proof, those are so hard to find bc people usually don't have a need to test fallow physiology

I dont understand how the posts in that thread have anything to do with 'fallow proof' but I may be misunderstanding your last sentence. I did read the first couple posts in that thread. It would be really nice if your would just summarize what you're trying to say with your 'fallow tests'. and how those tests support the theory in this post - rather than linking back to other threads. Thanks - that's just my opinion.

 

[MnFish1]

@brandon429. I think part of the problem here is that you know exactly what you're trying to say because you have written a lot on the subject and many threads. No offense meant - but some of your posts here use terms and words that have no meaning to the 'rest of us' who haven't read these threads for months or years. For example when you say 'more fallow proof' - Which of the topics we're discussing are you trying to prove with that link? Its impossible to completely understand what you mean with some of these posts - this leads the discussion in different areas. Im not sure for example what @Elegance Coral is arguing - since he seems to agree with the rest of us that ammonia availability limits nitrifiers.

For example it would be nice if you could make just a short sentence like : I disagree with your comment xxx because in 1997 I took a tank and did yyyy and zzzz happened. This proves that xxx is incorrect. Then we can have a reasonable discussion. Just linking to threads with 10-100 pages is just too difficult IMHO

 

[Lousybreed]

I work in the fermentation world....not apples to apples but it is still bacteria and some interesting things to note. We grow alot of acidophilus bacteria. They are designed to "eat" milk (primarily lactose from milk, but that is not all). They produce acids (lactic acid) once they metabolize the lactose. Here is the thing....in today's world of gluten free, vegan, kosher, etc.....you cannot use milk products. So we ferment these bacteria with media that doesn't represent their target food at all. And we have proven that they have secondary and even tertiary fermentation processes that they utilize when stressed. So my main point is that I am assuming that probiotic bacteria are nothing special. We grow other bacteria that are quite different and not related and in these we have found multiple metabolism methods too..... We have proof that probiotic bacteria can use aqueous ammonia as food............sooooooo....Bacteria are very resilient, they survive, and they will always find a way to do so. In each of our tanks we have a unique and adapted bacteria population that has evolved to the conditions present. We call this generational drift.....it is real, it is fast (20 generations only!), and you cannot underestimate it. ok back to work!

 

[Lasse]

How long it takes -truly- dormant isolate strains to be able to oxidize:
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/bacteria-in-a-bottle-myth-or-fact.403226/page-57#post-5270947

The text of that link is

From what I have gathered locally and few online vendors by simply calling them, it's shipped in cold pack.

What have that to do with the time you talk about.

All of my texts is from the real world with working biofilter in real applications with load possible to measure and analyse. I have set up 1000 of fresh and saltwater aquaria - I have seen 1000 of cases of nitrificators going dormant. You say that my text refer to university studies - please mention where I have cited university studies?

If you say they do not goes dormant - you must tell us how you can vary your daily input of nitrogen (of this - around 20 % will transfer direct into NH3/NH4 by the fish gills) in up and down without they starving to death. When the aquaria get food again after 3 years - how could the population that has been in the aquaria living on no input of new NH4/NH3 cycle the aquaria in 2 days - if there was no dormant nitrification bacteria.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

I work in the fermentation world....not apples to apples but it is still bacteria and some interesting things to note. We grow alot of acidophilus bacteria. They are designed to "eat" milk (primarily lactose from milk, but that is not all). They produce acids (lactic acid) once they metabolize the lactose. Here is the thing....in today's world of gluten free, vegan, kosher, etc.....you cannot use milk products. So we ferment these bacteria with media that doesn't represent their target food at all. And we have proven that they have secondary and even tertiary fermentation processes that they utilize when stressed. So my main point is that I am assuming that probiotic bacteria are nothing special. We grow other bacteria that are quite different and not related and in these we have found multiple metabolism methods too..... We have proof that probiotic bacteria can use aqueous ammonia as food............sooooooo....Bacteria are very resilient, they survive, and they will always find a way to do so. In each of our tanks we have a unique and adapted bacteria population that has evolved to the conditions present. We call this generational drift.....it is real, it is fast (20 generations only!), and you cannot underestimate it. ok back to work!

There is a large difference between heterotrophic and autotrophic bacteria - and all known nitrification bacteria is true autotrophic. If they should change trophic level - they will not be nitrification bacteria any longer. There is some evidence that heterotrophic bacteria can use inorganic stuff - but as long as I know - not the opposite

And it is a rather large difference between obligate aerobs and obligate anaerobs......

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

Nitrification bacteria in a bottle with long lifetime would be total impossible if the nitrification bacteria can´t go dormant.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[MnFish1]

I work in the fermentation world....not apples to apples but it is still bacteria and some interesting things to note. We grow alot of acidophilus bacteria. They are designed to "eat" milk (primarily lactose from milk, but that is not all). They produce acids (lactic acid) once they metabolize the lactose. Here is the thing....in today's world of gluten free, vegan, kosher, etc.....you cannot use milk products. So we ferment these bacteria with media that doesn't represent their target food at all. And we have proven that they have secondary and even tertiary fermentation processes that they utilize when stressed. So my main point is that I am assuming that probiotic bacteria are nothing special. We grow other bacteria that are quite different and not related and in these we have found multiple metabolism methods too..... We have proof that probiotic bacteria can use aqueous ammonia as food............sooooooo....Bacteria are very resilient, they survive, and they will always find a way to do so. In each of our tanks we have a unique and adapted bacteria population that has evolved to the conditions present. We call this generational drift.....it is real, it is fast (20 generations only!), and you cannot underestimate it. ok back to work!

True. But nitrifying bacteria that use ammonia use it obligatory

 

[brandon429]

Lousybreed

Correct

 

[Lasse]

Naturally, we can reach a point where real estate limits the population of nitrifying bacteria, and microbial communities. This can lead to a load that is to large for the real estate to handle, and we can experience elevated ammonia and/or nitrite levels. This is rare because most aquarium literature suggests far more real estate than is necessary to support the average load.

Exactly what´s happen in a start with a complete new system. You need to populate the space with bacteria and you need NH3/NH4 for the nitrifying bacteria. My experience is when yo have going up to a load of x mg/l produced or added NH3/NH4 a day - you can this down to zero for a prolonged period - rise it to x again and no need of adaption time. It should be impossible if the nitrification bacteria not could go dormant and cyst them self. The same - if you have a steady load of x ppm NH3/NH4 in a system and suddenly rise the load very much - you will have a new adaption time before a 100 % nitrification rate but after that you can go up and down to this new max load without any problems. This also because of the nitrification bacteria´s ability to go dormant. I have done this in aquaria, fish farms and wastewater treatments plant thousand of times - I know it works that way - I have not read it - I have done it!!!!

Sincerely Lasse​