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

[MnFish1]

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.

I guess I try to refer your posts back to the OP in the thread. And put the responses in that context. As I said in both of my recent posts replying to you - I don't get where you are coming from with some of your responses - and I said maybe im misunderstanding you

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.

It is a simple question and point that @brandon429 has suggested: That being that nitrifying bacteria will keep expanding until surface limited - independent of any extraneous nutrient /ammonia addition. Do you agree or disagree with this position? Because at times you seem to agree with it and at others you seem to disagree with it.

But - as @Lasse, greg ADP and I have said - its a math problem. start with a square glass box called an aquarium. Add some sterile rock and sand. Add some fish feed them. The total amount of ammonia produced by all the ammonia producing organisms (fish, etc) and the food put in the tank will eventually result in a relatively steady state of 'ammonia production' each day. That includes food added, etc. At this point, the total amount of ammonia requiring bacteria will grow to the level at which that ammonia is instantaneously used and the level of ammonia in the tank is 0. (of course its not really 0 - its just being used immediately). This is ecology and microbiology - and there is no way it can be different than this. Again - the only point here is that the biomass of bacteria that require ammonia to reproduce and survive will be relatively steady.

Lets pretend that you start a tank with no 'total nitrogen'. You add rock, sand a couple fish, and light and feed the fish. Lets say you add an arbitrary 'total nitrogen' to a level of 100. This will result in some bacteria growth (some nitrifiers), fish growth, algae growth, some waste products - which are recycled. at the end of day 1 there will still be a total nitrogen 'level' of 100. It will just be spread out amongst all of the organisms produced. Lets say - for 5 days you dont feed the fish. At the end of that time - the total nitrogen 'level' will not be 150 - it will be at most 100 again spread out amongst whatever has used it up. Some of that N may have gone into algae that was eaten and turned into ammonia etc. But the total N will still be 100. Now assume that skimmers are in operation which will remove 'N'. Lets say there are some anaerobic areas forming N2 gas which leaves the aquarium. etc etc etc. The total N may be less than 100. Now you start feeding the fish again lets say you feed them a total N of 1 (arbitrary unit)/day. Depending on how much N is removed with nutrient export, etc, the total N may increase or decrease over time. But IMHO, there is no possbility for @brandon429 's point to be true concern ing specifically nitrifying bacteria especially given their slow reproduction rate.

I think we are partially discussing different things. You like to bring in things like the Sahara, the forest floor ecology, etc - all of which are interesting. But we're talking about nitrifying bacteria and cycling an aquarium. Of course no one completely understands whats happening in the microbiome in the aquarium. But - Since this 'theory' that @brandon429 has proposed has the possibility of changing the way people cycle tanks, its important to try to tease that part out - rather than what might (or might not) happen in a tank over years. Thats what most of us are trying to discuss here (I THINK LOL)

 

[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.

My guess is that if you had had coral at that time your fish would have died as well. as that would have greatly increased the bacteria load as the coral slowly died off. IM glad your fish survived...

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

I think we're discussing 2 different things sometimes... I dont think anyone is 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.

I understand what you're saying - firstly, though this is different than @brandon429 's theory. Secondly, you also have to maintain the bacteria that are already growing in the tank. If the mysis shrimp creates x amount of ammonia at the end of the day - and the nitrifying bacteria require x amount of ammonia per day to maintain their population - where are the nutrients coming from to colonize the rest of the 400 lbs of live rock. I think you will probably respond - other bacteria will be fed and grow with the carbon, and other chemicals that have not been turned into ammonia. But these bacteria will also require a certain amount of daily input to maintain their population. At some point there will be a steady state achieved. This is especially true considering that Nitrogen is constantly being removed (as gas, skimmer, fish/coral growth, etc). In any case - assuming no Nitrogen escape - the maximum rate that bacteria could reproduce still is based on the mysis shrimp entering the system. The total bacteria mass in the tank will never be higher than the mass of mysis shrimp added. By the way - I think all 400 lbs of rock may be 'colonized'. But the level of colonization will be far less than in a tank receiving 5 mysis shrimp cubes/day.

 

[MnFish1]

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.

Curious - how much time? Secondly - we're not talking about rocks being covered with 'microbes' we're talking about nitrifying bacteria specifically.

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.

Asked this a while ago - didnt get an answer. Assuming you're correct what happens to a tank when all the surface area is covered? if what you say is true - and you keep adding food to the tank? The bacteria that are there cant increase further (except as a bloom perhaps)? I mean something has to happen - perhaps algae will grow? etc. Yet we see tanks that are years and years old with no problems occurring. If what you say is correct - how can this be the case? If you're going to say - it will take years and years for all of the surface area to be covered completely, I would suggest it makes the entire discussion a moot point...

 

[Elegance Coral]

I wrote........

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.

What I said is absolutely true and about as basic a concept as one could get.
If I put the change from my pocket into a jar every night, and my wife pulls change from that jar every morning to buy her coffee, I can see the relationship between coins entering the jar, and coins leaving the jar, by how many coins the jar holds. I don't need to know how many different methods the wife has to remove those coins. Left hand, right hand, dumps the jar in her purse....... It doesn't matter. If I see the level of coins getting deeper within the jar, I know I'm adding coins faster than the wife is removing them. Basic, basic, basic math.

If I start with a clean tank full of white limestone and white sand, then begin feeding nitrogen rich organics, like mysis shrimp, I don't need to know how that nitrogen is leaving the system, or how many different paths it has to leave the system, to see the relationship between nitrogen entering the system, and nitrogen leaving the system. If I see the build up of nitrogen containing stuff within the system, like detritus and algae, I know that nitrogen is building up within the system, and entering the system faster than it's leaving. basic, basic, basic math.

From reading your posts, it appears you have a very good understanding of the intricate details of the nitrogen cycle. However, when you try to put all those little pieces together, to form the big picture, it all falls apart on you.

As I explained to you earlier in the thread, "The fact that a food source is being consumed by an organism, is NOT evidence to show that the food source does not exist. In fact, the food source is typically much greater than the organisms that feed on it. There's more grass on the Serengeti than there are herbivores that feed on it. There's more herbivores than there are predators that feed on them. There's more leaf litter on the forest floor than there are organisms/decomposers that feed on it. Typically, as you move up the food chain, mass/quantities/populations, get smaller. Not larger. This fundamental truth about the way nature works will hold true virtually everywhere you look throughout nature. Including the microbial community. There will be more detritus/dead bacteria/organic waste, than there are detritivores, or organisms that feed on it. Organisms go extinct when the reverse is true. So, the presence of bacteria that feed on organic waste/dead bacteria, is evidence to show that there is an abundance of organic waste/dead bacteria fueling that population. Not the other way around."

You say that you have "lots of decaying bacteria". I'm not sure if you mean you have lots of bacteria that are decaying, or if you have lots of bacteria that are responsible for the decaying process. It really doesn't matter though because the two go hand in hand. Kinda hard to have one without the other.

If you have lots of decaying bacteria, you will have lots of decaying organic matter to support them. Lots of decaying organic matter will be producing lots of NH3/NH4. Describing the many paths nitrogen has to leave the system does not change this fact. The fact that nitrogen has multiple paths to exit the system does not mean that "Lesser and lesser N will circulate as NH3/NH4 - this is pure math." Your math is flawed. If, in your system, nitrogen leaving the system led to "lesser and lesser NH3/NH4 produced - lesser nitrification bacteria get the energy it demands", then you would have fewer decaying bacteria producing NH3/NH4, but you say you have "lots of decaying bacteria", which means you have lots of decaying organic matter providing NH3/NH4/energy to nitrifying bacteria, and lots of nitrogen cycling around in your tank. Lots of inorganic nitrogen to support algae growth, which leads to dead algae cells, which leads to decomposition, and more nitrogen trapped and recycling around in your tank. See the problem???? The pieces don't fit together like you believe they do.

Lets use our systems as an example because they are polar opposites.
You believe that my system traps and holds more nitrogen than yours, because I have "no corals, no algae, no sand, and few decaying bacteria and normally very high oxygen level".
You believe your system traps and holds less nitrogen because you have "a lot of decaying bacteria that´s is fast in producing NH3/NH4 in smaller and smaller cycles".
You have this completely backwards.

Nitrogen enters my system through the food I feed. From there, it's rapidly removed. When Vlamingi or any of my fish, carpet bombs my tank, their droppings, and the nitrogen it contains, is quickly pushed into the filters and removed from the system before it breaks down into NH3/NH4. My system has very few places where that nitrogen rich organic matter can become trapped and rot within my system. This leads to little nitrogen rich, decomposing organic matter trapped within my tank, which in turn, leads to few decaying bacteria. I have little in the way of surface area for microbes to colonize, leading to small microbial communities that harbor small amounts of nitrogen. My system doesn't really grow much algae, at all, so I don't have algae trapping and holding much nitrogen within my system. All of this leads to very little nitrogen building up within my system, and an overall low nitrogen level in my glass box. I started my tank over, about a year and a half ago. If you look at the rocks behind vlamingi in that video I posted, which was taken just a few weeks ago, you'll see that they're still clean white calcium carbonate. You can also see some granules on the glass below him. These grains are also visible in the other video I posted. Most tanks produce detritus/rotting organic matter. It's often varying shades of gray, and accumulates on the bottom like this. If you look close, you'll see that mine is white. It's calcium carbonate. Not rotting organic matter/typical detritus. The darker, lighter weight, organic matter is quickly washed away into the filters and removed before the nutrients it holds can be released to fuel further microbial growth, trapping nutrients in my system.

In comparison, your system is much more biologically active. You have an undergravel filter/plenum with a huge bed of material on top of it. We got away from these filters, in part, due to their ability to trap and hold massive quantities of rotting organic matter, that turned many tanks into nutrient rich death zones for higher forms of life like fish and coral. You have lots of rock, with plenty of space for life, rot, decay, and decomposition to take place. You even have a compartment in the back of your tank stuffed full of sand and surface area for microbial colonization and organic build up. I've scanned through your build thread. Your tank is the perfect example to show that what I'm saying is true and accurate. In the beginning, you added rock. Much of this rock was clean white limestone, nutrient poor, and pretty much void of life or decomposition. If you pay attention to those rocks, as you scan page after page of your build thread, you can see a time laps of the process I described taking place. Cell by living cell, those rocks slowly became colonized by nitrogen rich life. Much of that life is short lived, meaning they produce lots of nitrogen rich rotting corpses. Which in turn supports lots of nitrifying bacteria. Page after page you can watch those rocks slowly become darker and darker as nitrogen rich life and its waste takes over those rocks. All of the nitrogen that is now in/on those rocks is nitrogen that entered the system, but has not left. It doesn't matter how many methods you employ, or how many paths, nitrogen has to leave the system. Your system is much more nutrient/nitrogen rich today than it was when you started. This is due, in great part, to life's ability to grab the nitrogen you add as food, hold onto it, recycle it, and fuel its growth, and expansion into new territory. From day one, until today, nitrogen has entered your system faster than it has left. You don't need testing equipment, or a degree in microbiology to understand this. Mother nature doesn't lie. The transformation took place right before your eyes, it's clear to see, and documented in your build thread.

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

The fish will release some NH3, lots of NH4, and organically bound nitrogen. Some fish, like sharks, are able to produce urea like us. I don't understand why this makes much of a difference though, as there's only two options for this nitrogen. It's either removed quickly, or it becomes part of the nitrogen that hangs out and cycles through the system.

Peace
EC

 

[Elegance Coral]

Curious - how much time? Secondly - we're not talking about rocks being covered with 'microbes' we're talking about nitrifying bacteria specifically.

You can not view it like that. You'll never be able to understand how any of this works if you try to view nitrifying bacteria as if they live in isolation. This only happens in labs, under very controlled conditions. In our tanks, as in nature, nitrifying bacteria live in communities. Without understanding the very basic concepts of how these communities work, you'll never understand nitrifying bacteria.

Asked this a while ago - didnt get an answer. Assuming you're correct what happens to a tank when all the surface area is covered? if what you say is true - and you keep adding food to the tank? The bacteria that are there cant increase further (except as a bloom perhaps)? I mean something has to happen - perhaps algae will grow? etc. Yet we see tanks that are years and years old with no problems occurring. If what you say is correct - how can this be the case? If you're going to say - it will take years and years for all of the surface area to be covered completely, I would suggest it makes the entire discussion a moot point...

There are many variables that can play a roll in this process. Especially in the speed at which it takes place.
Yes, algae can grow, providing more surface area for microbial colonization. Detritus can accumulate to large quantities in systems with large surface area, like DSB's and massive amounts of rock. This detritus also provides surface area, along with nutrients, for microbial colonization. This process has moved quite fast in many tanks, causing the death of many hobbyist pets.

You can see an example of it going to far here.
http://archive.reefcentral.com/foru...daughters+inharitance+700gal+build+by+reefski

Peace
EC

 

[brandon429]

I support all that statement fully.

 

[Gregg @ ADP]

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

While this is true in a purely ecological context, for the purposes of establishing which factors limit growth/reproduction, we can (and really, have to).

I’ve decsribed an experimental design whereby we could easily determine if a nitrifying bacterial biomass can exceed (K) w/o input of energy.

Of course, nature is far more complicated than that. But to make sense of that complex web of relationships and interactions, it helps to understand the requirements of the players independently of the whole system.

Also, linked R2R threads are great, but they aren’t equivalent to peer reviewed research.

 

[brandon429]

Disagreed.

You can't imagine the challenge in creating, testing or working with pure cultures. Even trained lab techs will fail at it, it never applies in any of our scenarios.

No situationally specific peer research refutes the claims here, or it means I didn't up cycle all my old tanks using only tap.

Do you know of any aquarium specific bacteria publishings? I know of bottle bac ones, peer reviewed are very hard to find about aquariums. It is easy to locate bacterial works randomly off scholar, however.

The settings I've described, the unlimited ability for systems to self cycle in a home, are never part of a pure culture which is why the outcomes if you guys tried to test them are so predictable. To the date.

 

[Lasse]

What I said is absolutely true and about as basic a concept as one could get.
If I put the change from my pocket into a jar every night, and my wife pulls change from that jar every morning to buy her coffee, I can see the relationship between coins entering the jar, and coins leaving the jar, by how many coins the jar holds. I don't need to know how many different methods the wife has to remove those coins. Left hand, right hand, dumps the jar in her purse....... It doesn't matter. If I see the level of coins getting deeper within the jar, I know I'm adding coins faster than the wife is removing them. Basic, basic, basic math.

If I start with a clean tank full of white limestone and white sand, then begin feeding nitrogen rich organics, like mysis shrimp, I don't need to know how that nitrogen is leaving the system, or how many different paths it has to leave the system, to see the relationship between nitrogen entering the system, and nitrogen leaving the system. If I see the build up of nitrogen containing stuff within the system, like detritus and algae, I know that nitrogen is building up within the system, and entering the system faster than it's leaving. basic, basic, basic math.

From reading your posts, it appears you have a very good understanding of the intricate details of the nitrogen cycle. However, when you try to put all those little pieces together, to form the big picture, it all falls apart on you.

What you do not understand is that what we are argue against is if you stop to enter any coins in the jar. That´s basically what brandon says if you do not add anything - it will go for ever - you do not need to add anything - the nitrogen cycle will continue at the same pace. That´s the basic from the first post - Brandon says it will go for ever and we say´s that it will not - if you stop the input - it will sooner or later stop. There is enough of free NH3/NH4 to support the same population of nitrifyer - they have to die or to go dormant if you stop the input.


You talk about a system with a stable input of new N - Brandon talk about system that have been fallow for the years and state that the nitrification is still as strong as it was before the input stop. We argue against Brandon and explain what´s happen is that the first population of nitrifyers that was feed every day with new NH3/NH4 (trough the food) get dormant and could be activated faster than the normal slow growth rate. We are argue against what Brandon state - what you state? - it looks like you do not really know that by your self

If you do not understand how the nitrogen enter a system with fish trough food - there is not more to discuss. Most of the nitrogen content in the food will be converted to NH3/NH4 trough the gills of the fish. Around 20 % of it will be bound in fish biomass if it is a young fish - in an older lesser. Between 15 - 20 will leave the body as organic N in the pop. The rest 60 - 65 % will go out into the water as NH3/NH4 in a couple of hours. This is no theories - I have measured up this in system with a high load of daily feeding more than once. In order to be effective - your nitrification system must handle the internal load (recycling N) and the daily input. If you stop the daily input - much new NH3/NH4 will not be into the system and there will be lower nitrogen. It looks like you believe that the surplus nitrogen from the food enter the system as organic nitrogen and that it is other bacteria that is responsible for the production of NH3/NH4. It is not true - the majority of the surplus will be converted to NH3/NH4 by the fishes metabolism and excreted in hours after the feeding. And I do not really understand the link to sharks and rays. It is true that the convert nitrogen to urea - but not in order to pee it out - they convert it to urea as an help in the osmos regulation process - they keep it in the body.

Your system is much more nutrient/nitrogen rich today than it was when you started. This is due, in great part, to life's ability to grab the nitrogen you add as food, hold onto it, recycle it, and fuel its growth, and expansion into new territory. From day one, until today, nitrogen has entered your system faster than it has left. You don't need testing equipment, or a degree in microbiology to understand this. Mother nature doesn't lie. The transformation took place right before your eyes, it's clear to see, and documented in your build thread.

I do not know what you mean - I loss nitrogen all the time - since 1.5 years back I have been dosing in NO3 every day - 1 - 2 ppm - otherwise I go to zero in NO3. My daily feed for my 40 fishes (in a 80 gallon system) is not enough in order to maintain a NO3 level above 0. I do not even pick up any skimmate - it goes back to the system. For the moment I do not need that because feeding of jomama juice - but I am at the NO3 concentration that I want. You get surplus NO3 in the water in your clean system - I get zero NO3 in my dirty system - never ever had been cleaned for detritus. That´s fact.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Mortie31]

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

I experience this every winter in my koi ponds, temperatures drop as low as 2c, no food is introduced for 4-5 months, granted these ponds do have detritus, leaves etc, which could feed some of the the bacteria, but nothing like the 1kg I feed a day during the summer months. As soon as the temps increase and I start feeding again I get very quick nitrifiction. This is freshwater granted but would suggest some dormancy of bacteria.

 

[MnFish1]

This frankly has become a ridiculous thread. @braondon429 doesn't defend his thesis. @Elegance Coral keeps posting long posts that don't answer questions. The bottom line is that @brandon429 's original post claiming a new microbiological theme in the reef tank has been debunked. Nothing that anyone else has posted has suggested he is correct. Time to end this thread. Im frankly tired of posting things and having the people that disagree ignore that and post something else. It's debunked. IMHO.

 

[brandon429]

But I have tons of application threads on the matter where we do everything under the sun with cycles, without testing. We use this science, not just bait you with it. Those threads are real work, with people's money on the line, it's easy for the link less to discount.


You missed forest for the trees, and microbiology 1301. Nothing is debunked, this is your claim running out of steam~

We worked with bacteria for a living. I made pure cultures for a living.

Do you really think we're trying to lie to you guys? You are being challenged to reveal gaps in how the hobby at large thinks bacteria work. It's a massive gap, massive.

 

[MnFish1]

@Elegance Coral. I suggest you go to the OP - and see about what we are arguing. I dont care about the forest floor, the Serengeti, the Sahara or any of the other examples you gave we are discussing the OP... No offense

 

[brandon429]

If you are done, then back out and let others post don't request a close. That's taking the bat home too when you leave for dinner.

 

[MnFish1]

You can not view it like that. You'll never be able to understand how any of this works if you try to view nitrifying bacteria as if they live in isolation. This only happens in labs, under very controlled conditions. In our tanks, as in nature, nitrifying bacteria live in communities. Without understanding the very basic concepts of how these communities work, you'll never understand nitrifying bacteria.
There are many variables that can play a roll in this process. Especially in the speed at which it takes place.
Yes, algae can grow, providing more surface area for microbial colonization. Detritus can accumulate to large quantities in systems with large surface area, like DSB's and massive amounts of rock. This detritus also provides surface area, along with nutrients, for microbial colonization. This process has moved quite fast in many tanks, causing the death of many hobbyist pets.

You can see an example of it going to far here.
http://archive.reefcentral.com/foru...daughters+inharitance+700gal+build+by+reefski

Peace
EC

Actually - I can view it any way it want - just like you can lol.... Its not like you have some insight as compared to anyone else as to what nitrifying bacteria do. In fact if you actually read what I have written I said no-one can understand what's happening in the reef tank biome. Unfortunately that includes you. - I have agreed with you several times on the issue that nitrifying bacteria require ammonia - again refer your posts to the OP theory - which is what I try to do

 

[MnFish1]

But I have tons of application threads on the matter where we do everything under the sun with cycles, without testing. We use this science, not just bait you with it. Those threads are real work, with people's money on the line, it's easy for the link less to discount.


You missed forest for the trees, and microbiology 1301. Nothing is debunked, this is your claim running out of steam~

We worked with bacteria for a living. I made pure cultures for a living.

Do you really think we're trying to lie to you guys? You are being challenged to reveal gaps in how the hobby at large thinks bacteria work. It's a massive gap, massive.

NO I dont think you are lying. But - @Elegance Coral has already said your thesis was wrong (i.e. nitrifying bacteria require ammonia - without that they will not grow beyond. I was a microbiologist as well. So what? I have a bachelors degree in microbiology. I dont think I've missed anything. You haven't commented for post after post - waiting for others to defend you - yet they don't. They agree with the rest of us. Its all good its not a fight or anything - but to say you've proven anything - no sorry

 

[MnFish1]

If you are done, then back out and let others post don't request a close. That's taking the bat home too when you leave for dinner.

Its just that im not going to keep hitting the bat at arguments that don't support the original thesis. Nothing has suggested what you said in your OP is correct. by anyone. If you want to correct me go ahead - because I cant remember whats happened in the last 13+ pages exactly. You have been notably absent.

 

[brandon429]

I've been watching y'all mosh

And trying to convince people in chat to set up an unassisted cycle test mine take time to work out. EC endurance, your endurance, very nice. Lasse. I was over over volumized there for a sec which is ironic

 

[Scott Campbell]

Before this thread completely implodes, I'd like to follow up on Lasse's last post. The reason the Serengeti analogy fails is because, as reefers, we have the capacity to manipulate each level of the food chain. It is not the case that there must be more prey than predators in our tank. I keep algae in check precisely by maintaining more herbivores in my display tank than can subsist on the algae that grows in the tank. I maintain this imbalance by supplemental feeding of seaweed. I keep detritus in check by similarly maintaining more detrivores than available detritus. Daily additions of phyto keep the detrivore populations higher than would be normally sustainable. And I can also simply just add more detrivores (amphipods, copepods, etc.) at regular intervals. The offset to the supplemental feedings (and the supplemental detrivores) is to remove excess nitrate and phosphate through carbon dosing and harvesting macroalgae. And I have the ability to control that export process as well. Because the nutrients in my tank are mostly looping, the supplemental feedings are much, much smaller than if I had to add enough food each day to fully feed all the corals and fish. Which greatly helps reduce the scope of the export process.

So it is very easily the case that a tank might be artificially top heavy with corals / predators and run a nitrogen shortfall - which is the case with Lasse's tank. Which will require supplemental feedings or additions of stump remover or whatever. Many, many people find themselves in that situation.

You could quite easily argue that simply flushing the system of waste from the get go is much less complicated and I would agree. But you can't argue that it is impossible to manage detritus and waste in a tank with detrivores (as Brandon seems to argue on a regular basis) because you believe the detritus volume must always exceed the capacity of detrivores to process. I can artificially increase the detrivore capacity any time I need to. Access to detritus by the detrivores can of course be a problem - but that is a whole other issue which can be addressed by going bare bottom or by using more detrivore friendly substrates.

None of this has anything to do with the nonsense about bacteria frolicking around in a non-dormant state without food for years on end. That just seems silly.

 

[brandon429]

links are posted of fallow details occurring. Here's a three year fallow test: post 189#
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/the-microbiology-of-reef-tank-cycling.214618/page-10

DJ city did really good testing.

Well said on tank arrangement I can see how that helps you export less and still meet feeding demands, better harnessing of micro animals, things refugiums support