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

[Lousybreed]

Tell you what you show proof that nitrifiers can use something other then ammonia - until then you are at the disadvantage. Diabetes is not being reversed with probiotics. Yes. other heterotrophs consume ammonia - were not talking about that. we're talking about nitrifying bacteria. Who is in clinical trials? Just to be clear.

Whatever dude. You are right. We don’t have clinicals proving we are stopping diabetes in its tracks. I didn’t realize you are an expert at that. Do you work for DuPont or Christian Hansen? If not, just stop. If I told you everything we are doing with gut health and diseases traditionally treated with drugs, you really wouldn’t believe me. I have my opinion and you have yours. I am an expert in the industry, guessing you are not.

 

[TheHarold]

Stop posting links and start posting your points No one knows what you're talking about. I'm sure you do. but no one else does. Anyone watching that video has no clue what you're referring to...

This is why I gave up with debating/discussing with Brandon on several threads. He does not know how to support an argument, nor refute one. It grows tiresome; debating with a fanatic that "knows" they are right. He will never directly answer a question. Sorry. Its a waste of time. He will continue to push his "theories" despite being unable to explain them.

I promise you that he will use this thread as a reference somewhere to "explain" why he is right about something. He is smart for sure. But I question his thought-process and even whether he should be considered someone to take advice from. No insult intended, but from an external perspective his posts seem to suggest mild dementia. Typical symptoms are the lack of thought organization, reasoning skills, or ability to respond (accurately) to specific questions.

 

[MnFish1]

Whatever dude. You are right. We don’t have clinicals proving we are stopping diabetes in its tracks. I didn’t realize you are an expert at that. Do you work for DuPont or Christian Hansen? If not, just stop. If I told you everything we are doing with gut health and diseases traditionally treated with drugs, you really wouldn’t believe me. I have my opinion and you have yours. I am an expert in the industry, guessing you are not.

Actually 'Dude' - I have a fair bit of knowledge and experience in microbiology and medicine. I never said anything about probiotics not being beneficial - I also did'nt say there wasn't a lot of research going on in probiotics. I also didn't suggest that we know everything about gut health and the microbiome. There is some evidence that certain bacteria can cause lowering of blood sugar but that is not reversing diabetes. Not sure why you are trying to make me seem unreasonable when you used a mis-statement to prove another point.

This is why I gave up with debating/discussing him on several threads. He does not know how to support an argument, nor refute one. It grows tiresome; debating with a fanatic that "knows" they are right. He will never directly answer a question. Sorry. Its a waste of time. He will continue to push his "theories" despite being unable to explain them.

I promise you that he will use this thread as a reference somewhere to "explain" why he is right about something. He is smart for sure. But I question his thought-process and even whether he should be considered someone to take advice from. No insult intended- from just an external , but from the posts it seems to suggest mild dementia involved. Typical symptoms are the lack of thought organization or ability to respond (accurately) to specific questions.

Hopefully you aren't referring to me lol

 

[TheHarold]

Actually 'Dude' - I have a fair bit of knowledge and experience in microbiology and medicine. I never said anything about probiotics not being beneficial - I also did'nt say there wasn't a lot of research going on in probiotics. I also didn't suggest that we know everything about gut health and the microbiome. There is some evidence that certain bacteria can cause lowering of blood sugar but that is not reversing diabetes. Not sure why you are trying to make me seem unreasonable when you used a mis-statement to prove another point.

Hopefully you aren't referring to me lol

No, I clarified. My bad

 

[MnFish1]

This is why I gave up with debating/discussing with Brandon on several threads. He does not know how to support an argument, nor refute one. It grows tiresome; debating with a fanatic that "knows" they are right. He will never directly answer a question. Sorry. Its a waste of time. He will continue to push his "theories" despite being unable to explain them.

I promise you that he will use this thread as a reference somewhere to "explain" why he is right about something. He is smart for sure. But I question his thought-process and even whether he should be considered someone to take advice from. No insult intended, but from an external perspective his posts seem to suggest mild dementia. Typical symptoms are the lack of thought organization, reasoning skills, or ability to respond (accurately) to specific questions.

Actually - I read several of the threads written by @brandon429 and I think he makes some really valid points when it comes to cycling tanks - i.e. when to add ammonia, etc etc. I also extremely like his reef in a bowl and some of his freshwater bio systems - and have liked several of them. I just dont always understand his answers. He has some beautiful tanks and bowls. I wish I had the patience to do it the way he does (still dont agree with his premise on this thread though lol

 

[brandon429]

100% admit to making up my own terminology at times it’s a shortcut

I like reading Lasses biochemistry info the truth is I go back and re read it it's important detail chemistry. very glad for all participation here

 

[Dr. Reef]

https://www.climate-policy-watcher....of-temperature-on-the-nitrification-rate.html

Interesting!!! thank you for sharing but did you know this study was done in riverwater?
i am not sure how much of these temps effect the seawater cousins.

 

[MnFish1]

100% admit to making up my own terminology at times it’s a shortcut

I like reading Lasses biochemistry info the truth is I go back and re read it it's important detail chemistry. very glad for all participation here

Yeah - its all about discussion - not criticism. Nothing personal here. . (but I still disagree

 

[Lasse]

I can´t resist - from my friends aquaria - not started yet

​

I´ll come back to the aquarium - waste water treatment allegory - its not as bad as some think.

According to temperature related nitrification rates - it goes down very much with lower temperatures. But remmenber - in the fresh water world - temperatures below 4 in deeper parts is non existing if there is bad turnover. My experiences say that the rate goes down when you lower the temperature but goes directly up again if the temperature rise. Once again - a prove for the capability of nitrification bacteria to go dormant.

The active organism in nitrification is more or less the same in fresh and saltwater - but salt water can go below 0 and still be a liquid.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

One important thing to stress is that when I and others say that nitrifying bacteria can go dormant - IMO it does not mean that the whole population goes dormant - only that part that does not get enough energy because the production/input of NH3/NH4 decreases. The size of the working population will stabilizing around a new level of reachable energy - the rest do not die - they goes dormant IMO.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

Another thing to have in head - I use the word dormant - I could use the word inhibited too. For me this two words is, in this context, the same. Another remark is that the whole population can be inhibited in words of nitrification rate or efficiency instead of total inhibition of part of the population and 100 efficiency in the rest. That´s the reason why I use dormant. I hope this clear things up. IMO - the population number will adapt because it is a question of energy and I think the scenario with the whole population efficiency decrease not likely to be true - but I do not know - it is IMO.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

Interesting!!! thank you for sharing but did you know this study was done in riverwater?
i am not sure how much of these temps effect the seawater cousins.

I´ll think it is a reality in seawater too. The organisms involved is nearly the same. The process that today accounts for most of the "denitrification" rate in the oceans and probably can have an important role in reef systems with unstirred deep sand beds was initially detected in sludge from a treatment plant. I´m talking about the anammox process. This a pathway for NH3/NH4 to N2 that i have not mentioned before because IMO if it has a role in an aquarium - it demands old aquarium and unstirred gravel - DSB of one or another form. It is not shown in aquaria yet - but I´m sure it exist and have importance in the N budget of an aquarium.

The first step in the nitrification NH3/NH4 -> NO2 can be done of more organisms than nitrosomonas/nitrospira but the second step NO2->NO3 have to be done by the genus nitrobacter as we know now. Among "first steppers" - there is some from the domain Archea and in certain circumstance a heterotrophic bacteria (Thiosphaera pantotropha ) can concur with nitrosomonas/nitrospira as ammonium oxidizers.

This type of discussions is always important because you have to update yourself with new information. The Aechea - I know about - but the Thiosphaera was for me unknown before now. However this article is interesting because it give some explanation for things that I have heard about - (and seen) that have been very difficult to explain. Comming back with that later on.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Elegance Coral]

Sorry for the delay.... I work a lot, and don't have much time to post. I do feel the need to catch up on a few things though.

I have a very steady nitrification rate in my system, but in comparison to the average system out there, I do not have an abundance of decaying bacteria. If I could eliminate all dead bacteria from my system, before they decay, I would. This would still leave me with a very steady nitrification rate. I've designed my system to be as efficient at this task as I could.

Last year, the eye of a hurricane came right over my home. It left me, and most people in my area, without power for about a week and a half. I listened to story, after story, after story, from friends and coworkers, about sitting in the dark with a flashlight, watching their fish die, one by one. I didn't lose a single fish. My fish never even started breathing heavy. Even my 12" vlamingi tang. What sets my system apart from theirs is the microbial population. In comparison, I have very very few microbes living in my system. This low microbial count drastically reduces the oxygen demand of my system. This cleanliness is what enabled my pets to survive while others perished.
Peace
EC

You have no way to know this. Or? Ie how do you know you have a steady nitrification rate?

I know this because I have a relatively steady introduction of nitrogen into the system. (I feed roughly the same amount every day.) I run the same filtration every day. I have the same flow every day. My temperature doesn't fluctuate very much. My system doesn't experience a significant and measurable fluctuation in the nitrification process. All of this indicates that I have a steady nitrification rate. Not that my system is unique. Just that it's steady.

What is the 'average system out there'?

I don't need to come up with a strict definition of what the average system is, in order for my statements to be true. I merely need to show how most systems compare to mine. Most systems contain much more rock than mine. I have roughly 50/60 pounds in a 400 gallon system. Most systems contain sand. Mine does not. Most systems do not have the amount of flow pushing across the bottom that mine does. I have a gold series dart discharging across the bottom. I run 100 micron socks that are changed out often. Most systems don't. All of these factors, along with others, indicates that my system harbors fewer decaying bacteria than most.

You may be removing detritus from your tank - and that may lead to less living bacteria. You have no way to know firstly what an 'abundance of decaying bacteria is' or secondly how many decaying bacteria are in your tank - unless you are removing detritus every hour.

I don't need to know the how many bacteria are living on a sidewalk through a park, or how many are living in the grass along side it, to know, that in comparison to the sidewalk, the grass has an abundance of decaying bacteria. I don't need to know the microbial count of my system, or the typical system with sand and an abundance of rock, to know that in comparison, my system will contain much fewer decomposing microbes.

This is my system a few years back, before the bottom pane of glass broke in the middle of the night. I run it basically the same way now. Just without the corals, inverts, and most of the rock.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This is the 12" vlamingi I spoke of.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

What other 'life support system' was active in your tank? You're implying that you left your tank with no power on for a week and a half. I doubt that this was the case. No heater? No flow? I guess it depends on what was in your tank - but something seems incorrect here. Would be interested to hear what was in your tank

I am relatively well known in the hobby, and especially locally. My reputation is much more important to me than any thread online. Many of the people I know read these threads, and know about my system. I would not come on here and lie.

I live in Florida. I run a heater about 2 or 3 days a year. Those days don't typically fall during hurricane season. With no power, and no AC, keeping the tank warm enough is not an issue.

The only "other life support system" that was active in my system, was me moving the water with my arm, once or twice a day.

Yes. My system was without power, as most were in my area. Several factors played a roll in my fish surviving while others did not. The number one killer in these situations is oxygen deprivation. Typically, the larger fish, with the highest BOD will die first. The microbes we're talking about in this thread are oxygen hogs. They can easily be the number one consumer of O2 in a mature system. I set up and maintain my system to limit the number of these bacteria the best I can. This leads to a much smaller demand for oxygen. This is why my fish survived. If I would have had a DSB with 400 pounds of live rock and all the microbes that come along with it, in the system, my fish would have surely perished.

Peace
EC

 

[MnFish1]

Yes. My system was without power, as most were in my area. Several factors played a roll in my fish surviving while others did not. The number one killer in these situations is oxygen deprivation. Typically, the larger fish, with the highest BOD will die first. The microbes we're talking about in this thread are oxygen hogs. They can easily be the number one consumer of O2 in a mature system. I set up and maintain my system to limit the number of these bacteria the best I can. This leads to a much smaller demand for oxygen. This is why my fish survived. If I would have had a DSB with 400 pounds of live rock and all the microbes that come along with it, in the system, my fish would have surely perished.

Thanks for answering the questions. FWIW - I wasn't accusing you of lying. I only meant that I have not heard of a 'reef tank' with live rock, coral, etc surviving without flow or heat for more than a week (especially the corals). Clearly, a large tank with a low bio load will do better than a small tank with a high bio load in a power failure. I apologize if I am not understanding your point above - @Lasse tried to point this out to you a while back as well. On one hand you're supporting Brandon's assertion in his OP (I thought) - and you yourself imply that bacteria grow even beyond nutrient input (somehow) - but on the other hand you say you are somehow limiting bacteria by limiting nutrients... I don't see how both concepts 'work'. But - assuming your paragraph above is correct, you just proved what several of us have been trying to say for 13 pages lol. But again - perhaps i'm misunderstanding.

 

[MnFish1]

I don't need to come up with a strict definition of what the average system is, in order for my statements to be true. I merely need to show how most systems compare to mine. Most systems contain much more rock than mine. I have roughly 50/60 pounds in a 400 gallon system. Most systems contain sand. Mine does not. Most systems do not have the amount of flow pushing across the bottom that mine does. I have a gold series dart discharging across the bottom. I run 100 micron socks that are changed out often. Most systems don't. All of these factors, along with others, indicates that my system harbors fewer decaying bacteria than most.

I am perhaps dense and Im not trying to be critical - but only understand your point. As I said in the prior post- you're removing detritus from your tank, so there is less fuel for bacteria. But, the amount of bacteria in a tank relates ONLY to the amount of fuel that is put into the tank, not how much rock or sand there is. I think that is the key point to this whole thread. I mean - clearly lets say you have a 10,000 gallon tank with a 6 inch tang in it - that tank will be much more 'stable' in a power outage than a 6 inch tang in a 5 gallon aquarium. By having less rock and sand in your tank - you by definition have much more water compared to the 'average system'. Im only saying - I don't understand how the fact that your tank survived the power outage relates to this thread?

 

[Elegance Coral]

Thanks for answering the questions. FWIW - I wasn't accusing you of lying. I only meant that I have not heard of a 'reef tank' with live rock, coral, etc surviving without flow or heat for more than a week (especially the corals). Clearly, a large tank with a low bio load will do better than a small tank with a high bio load in a power failure. I apologize if I am not understanding your point above - @Lasse tried to point this out to you a while back as well. On one hand you're supporting Brandon's assertion in his OP (I thought) - and you yourself imply that bacteria grow even beyond nutrient input (somehow) - but on the other hand you say you are somehow limiting bacteria by limiting nutrients... I don't see how both concepts 'work'. But - assuming your paragraph above is correct, you just proved what several of us have been trying to say for 13 pages lol. But again - perhaps i'm misunderstanding.

If I would have had coral at the time, they would have likely died, due to not having light. Luckily, all I had at the time was fish.

I think there are some communication errors taking place in this thread. Maybe I'm partly to blame???????

I'm not saying that bacteria can reproduce beyond what the nutrients available to them would allow. What I'm saying is that the subject is much more complicated than saying, one cube of mysis a day supports X amount of bacteria. Nutrient availability to microbial communities increases as real estate increases. Let me explain..... LOL This is true even if the feeding/introduction of food remains at one cube of mysis a day. If I had 400 pounds of LR in my system, all 400 pounds would be colonized by bacteria. These bacterial colonies would obtain a portion of the food being added, to reproduce and spread. Once the colonies are established, they recycle much of the nutrients they obtain. Nutrients are passed from microbe to microbe. Some die, some reproduce, and much of the nutrients involved remain on the rock. Which means, in time, one cube of mysis a day, could produce 400 pounds of nutrient rich rock, covered in microbes. This happens because the nutritional demand of one microbe in the colony can be more dependent on recycled nutrients within the colony than on nutrients being added with the cube of mysis. As microbial communities spread across these surfaces they bring nutrients with them, and the rock becomes more nutrient rich. While these nutrients are trapped within the microbial communities on the rock, the nutrients are not available for filtration, water changes, or natural processes to remove. All of this increases the total nutrient content of the system as a whole. If you add sand, along with all the bacteria and rotting organic matter that can accumulate within it, the system becomes even more nutrient rich. All of this can take place while adding one cube of mysis a day.

Now, if we remove the sand, and 350 pounds of rock, leaving only 50 pounds of rock, there are far fewer sites for bacteria to colonize, and far fewer sites to trap and hold nutrients. We can keep feeding the one cube a day, but we can not support the number of microbes the system supported with greater surface area. Fewer microbial colonies = fewer nutrients trapped within the system.

That's why this statement, "But, the amount of bacteria in a tank relates ONLY to the amount of fuel that is put into the tank, not how much rock or sand there is.", isn't true.

Time controls all things. If we add a cube of mysis, a bacteria can grab an atom of nitrogen from that cube. If there is a place for that microbe to live, Like LR, that atom of nitrogen is now stuck within the system, and can be passed around for quite some time. Nitrogen is constantly leaving the system, but it can not leave while it's bound in that microbe or the next organism that may capture it. This means there is now a lower quantity of nitrogen from that cube that can leave the system. This means that nitrogen is building up within the system, as it's entering the system faster than it can leave. We can talk about all the possible ways there are for nitrogen to leave the system, but as long as this fundamental truth is there, nitrogen, and other life sustaining nutrients, can build up within the system, making the system more nutrient rich, and supporting more microbial communities. They just need a place to live.

We can somewhat break the chain of nutrient recycling by removing detritus before it breaks down. This robs nutrients form the microbes even though these nutrients didn't just get added in with the cube of mysis. These are nutrients that have already been in the system for some time.

Hope that made since.
Peace
EC

 

[MnFish1]

If I would have had coral at the time, they would have likely died, due to not having light. Luckily, all I had at the time was fish.

I think there are some communication errors taking place in this thread. Maybe I'm partly to blame???????

I'm not saying that bacteria can reproduce beyond what the nutrients available to them would allow. What I'm saying is that the subject is much more complicated than saying, one cube of mysis a day supports X amount of bacteria. Nutrient availability to microbial communities increases as real estate increases. Let me explain..... LOL This is true even if the feeding/introduction of food remains at one cube of mysis a day. If I had 400 pounds of LR in my system, all 400 pounds would be colonized by bacteria. These bacterial colonies would obtain a portion of the food being added, to reproduce and spread. Once the colonies are established, they recycle much of the nutrients they obtain. Nutrients are passed from microbe to microbe. Some die, some reproduce, and much of the nutrients involved remain on the rock. Which means, in time, one cube of mysis a day, could produce 400 pounds of nutrient rich rock, covered in microbes. This happens because the nutritional demand of one microbe in the colony can be more dependent on recycled nutrients within the colony than on nutrients being added with the cube of mysis. As microbial communities spread across these surfaces they bring nutrients with them, and the rock becomes more nutrient rich. While these nutrients are trapped within the microbial communities on the rock, the nutrients are not available for filtration, water changes, or natural processes to remove. All of this increases the total nutrient content of the system as a whole. If you add sand, along with all the bacteria and rotting organic matter that can accumulate within it, the system becomes even more nutrient rich. All of this can take place while adding one cube of mysis a day.

Now, if we remove the sand, and 350 pounds of rock, leaving only 50 pounds of rock, there are far fewer sites for bacteria to colonize, and far fewer sites to trap and hold nutrients. We can keep feeding the one cube a day, but we can not support the number of microbes the system supported with greater surface area. Fewer microbial colonies = fewer nutrients trapped within the system.

That's why this statement, "But, the amount of bacteria in a tank relates ONLY to the amount of fuel that is put into the tank, not how much rock or sand there is.", isn't true.

Time controls all things. If we add a cube of mysis, a bacteria can grab an atom of nitrogen from that cube. If there is a place for that microbe to live, Like LR, that atom of nitrogen is now stuck within the system, and can be passed around for quite some time. Nitrogen is constantly leaving the system, but it can not leave while it's bound in that microbe or the next organism that may capture it. This means there is now a lower quantity of nitrogen from that cube that can leave the system. This means that nitrogen is building up within the system, as it's entering the system faster than it can leave. We can talk about all the possible ways there are for nitrogen to leave the system, but as long as this fundamental truth is there, nitrogen, and other life sustaining nutrients, can build up within the system, making the system more nutrient rich, and supporting more microbial communities. They just need a place to live.

We can somewhat break the chain of nutrient recycling by removing detritus before it breaks down. This robs nutrients form the microbes even though these nutrients didn't just get added in with the cube of mysis. These are nutrients that have already been in the system for some time.

Hope that made since.
Peace
EC

Yes - as I said pages ago - I can forsee or imagine a scenario whereby a tank of water that sits for months/years can eventually have every surface colonized with 'something'. We're specifically talking about nitrifying bacteria here. They require ammonia (and a surface - though they are also free-swimming) and oxygen... They don't just require 'nitrogen'. They require ammonia. at least some of them. And - yeah it is somewhat confusing that you came here to defend the thesis in the OP - when you have contradicted it several times.

The quote below - I dont think you can defend. Its a 'theory' but there is no way for you to know it. What those of us who are discussing this want to know is - what is the evidence that this is 'true'. I mean Greg has posted several reasons why its impossible so has @Lasse. I mean - read what you wrote below - there is no way to quantitate whats leaving vs whats coming in vs whats being utilized by the fish, coral, etc. And again - the N used by non-nitrifies doesnt interest this thread.

Nitrogen is constantly leaving the system, but it can not leave while it's bound in that microbe or the next organism that may capture it. This means there is now a lower quantity of nitrogen from that cube that can leave the system. This means that nitrogen is building up within the system, as it's entering the system faster than it can leave.

 

[MnFish1]

I'm not saying that bacteria can reproduce beyond what the nutrients available to them would allow. What I'm saying is that the subject is much more complicated than saying, one cube of mysis a day supports X amount of bacteria. Nutrient availability to microbial communities increases as real estate increases.

No one said it was based on 'food alone' ie one cube of mysis. But at some point there is a steady state - fish waste, food, etc etc. at that point there will be no more growth - only exchanging of resources between various 'stuff'. Whether its algae, bacteria, etc. And the nitrifying bacteria, algae, cyanobacteria, etc etc etc will balance out. It will not continue infinitely. Again - read the OP - thats what we're discussing...

 

[Elegance Coral]

Yes - as I said pages ago - I can forsee or imagine a scenario whereby a tank of water that sits for months/years can eventually have every surface colonized with 'something'. We're specifically talking about nitrifying bacteria here.

Nitrifying bacteria will make up a portion of that "something".

They require ammonia (and a surface - though they are also free-swimming) and oxygen... They don't just require 'nitrogen'. They require ammonia.

Name a community of living organisms where ammonia is not produced.......

And - yeah it is somewhat confusing that you came here to defend the thesis in the OP - when you have contradicted it several times.

I guess that would be confusing given the fact that I'm not here to defend anyone's thesis. Perhaps we could communicate better if you simply read the black and white of what I actually type, and not apply some preconceived notion of what you think I really mean.

The quote below - I dont think you can defend. Its a 'theory' but there is no way for you to know it. What those of us who are discussing this want to know is - what is the evidence that this is 'true'. I mean Greg has posted several reasons why its impossible so has @Lasse. I mean - read what you wrote below - there is no way to quantitate whats leaving vs whats coming in vs whats being utilized by the fish, coral, etc.

Nitrogen is constantly leaving the system, but it can not leave while it's bound in that microbe or the next organism that may capture it. This means there is now a lower quantity of nitrogen from that cube that can leave the system. This means that nitrogen is building up within the system, as it's entering the system faster than it can leave.

No one, has posted anything, to show that my statement above is impossible. (a quote from those posts would be helpful)

It's not a theory. It's simply how nature works. Place a clean white piece of limestone in your aquarium and observe it over the next year. A year later, the limestone/calcium carbonate will still be white, but the rock is likely to have color on it. Those colors are largely produced by organics (living and dead organisms) on the rock. Those organics have nitrogen in them. If mother nature behaved the way many in this thread believes she does, (ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, nitrogen gas, exit the system) there would be no nitrogen to build those organics and the rock would likely still appear white like it did on day one. Those organics on that rock stole nitrogen from the cycle of nitrogen into the system and nitrogen out of the system. This means there's less nitrogen leaving the system than entered the system because some of that nitrogen is now stuck to the rock inside the system. You can see it with the naked eye. This makes the system as a whole more nitrogen rich. We can easily reach a point where there is far more nitrogen being passed around from organism to organism, and from organic to inorganic, and back again, than there is entering the system in a given time frame. This can support a population of living organisms that far exceeds a population that's dependent solely and directly on nutritional input to the system. This is how virtually every biologically active environment on the plant works. Rain forests, lush grass planes, swamps, and even coral reefs. Without this process, none of those places could exist.

And again - the N used by non-nitrifies doesnt interest this thread.

Where do you think nitrifying bacteria get their ammonia from??? We typically don't add ammonia to our tanks. We add organically bound nitrogen.
We can not have a meaningful conversation about, or have any hopes of understanding, nitrifying bacteria, without talking about the organisms they live with that produce the ammonia, and fuel their growth.

Peace
EC

 

[Lasse]

Nitrogen is constantly leaving the system, but it can not leave while it's bound in that microbe or the next organism that may capture it. This means there is now a lower quantity of nitrogen from that cube that can leave the system. This means that nitrogen is building up within the system, as it's entering the system faster than it can leave.

As MnFish1 point out - this is really not true in most systems. It can partly be true in your system with no corals, no algae, no sand and few decaying bacteria and normally very high oxygen level. It is definitely not true in my aquaria with a lot of decaying bacteria that´s is fast in producing NH3/NH4 in smaller and smaller cycles. This NH3/NH4 will be converted to NO3 (nitrification process), taken up by photosynthesis (algae, zooxanthella), will leave the system as NH3 (aeration, skimmer), will leave as denatured proteins/amino acids (skimmate), will leave as exported living matter as macro algae and corals, will leave as N2 from the different denitrifying processes. Lesser and lesser N will circulate as NH3/NH4 - this is pure math. It is pure math to that you have x amount of nitrify. Of these pathways - the NO3 can be used by photosynthetic organism - hence be bounded in new algae or corals but N bound in NO3 in the water column will be out of reach for most bacteria - especially if you do not have any areas with anaerobic environment - there is some NH3/NH4 producers that can use NO3 - but they need anaerobic circumstances in order to work. With lesser and lesser NH3/NH4 produced - lesser nitrification bacteria get the energy it demands.

But I do not know if there is communication problems in this issue so I will put in some question to @Elegance Coral
We have a new system with x microbes living in perfect circumstances - both heterotrophs and autotrophs - low organic load, some dead algae that will be breaken down - some NH3/NH4 as energy to the nitrifying bacteria. They are x individuals that manage to use the produced NH3/NH4 from the heterotrophs - the system is in perfect balance. There is a low organic load in the system (this means the whole system contain a low level of organic compounds)

We add some fishes and start to feed - the fish eat all food - no spill at all. My question is now - what´s happens with the surplus N (the N that´s not in use for building fish biomass) and in which form will most of it enter the ecological system (read the water)?

The question is linked to this statement below because I think that it is here that the whole thing going in wrong direction.

Where do you think nitrifying bacteria get their ammonia from??? We typically don't add ammonia to our tanks. We add organically bound nitrogen.
We can not have a meaningful conversation about, or have any hopes of understanding, nitrifying bacteria, without talking about the organisms they live with that produce the ammonia, and fuel their growth.

Sincerely Lasse