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

[MnFish1]

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

@brndon429 - here is the post that that link goes to: "A couple of questions...
How do you recommend using h2o2 on a newly cycling tank like mine? Wait till after its fully cycled? Dosing the entire tank at the first signs of algea? Or just spot trating when necessary?"

No one should be expected to go through 32 pages of comments questions to possibly get to your point.

your fallow test - I guarantee - doesnt answer the issues raised here. But - just for the sake of discussion would you be so kind as to summarize them?

 

[MnFish1]

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.

No one said it did - story creating false arguments and expecting people to defend them.

 

[brandon429]

What in the world

To talk about peroxide here is way off

I gave you the post number to save your read time, post 189.

You can tell he had rocks in his garage unfed for three years and still digested ammonia, don’t try to divert from that fact

That’s your starvation claim, shown as not occurring, and yes he asked about my opinion on peroxide. The worlds greatest reefing cheat.

We now see that a set-in cycle doesn’t undo, for three years at least, and we see in the unassisted cycle that only water and certain time is needed, bac secure the rest.


bringing up a tank formerly unable to support eight fish up to that ability by just letting tap water sit a month establishes the feed acquisition claim you’ve put big weight against as well.

The reason I don’t read all the side battles is because in the end I could make another tank cycle just by letting it sit, again, and there is nothing you can link that erases that fact. ten could be made, or as many tanks that fit in my home, the feed is limitless where water is involved.


what you write in good battle here seems piecemealed by web searches, it doesn’t line up with direct examples linked and people who work with bac for a living find problems in your descriptions.

Don’t y'all know anyone who does food safety inspection, hospital lab work, anything bacteria related? Ask them questions about your concepts of what bacteria require to thrive, post back what they say. A brewer already posted, not in favor of your claims.

So many industries are affected by hydrated bacteria you don’t have to look far for people who know how hard it is to manage them... you guys make it seem so easy> Just withhold some ammonia, and the whole chain of nature is stopped.

 

[Gregg @ ADP]

 

[Lasse]

From your link. My bolds

I've started my test on the sand that has sat dormant for over 3 years

A single dose of NH3/NH4 took longer than 48 hours in order to go down from 0.5 to 0.25 ppm. No measurement of NO2. Everyone that have started an aquaria and follows up what´s happen knows that the first step NH3/NH4 -> NO2 happens rather fast and are normally no problems in the cycle. The second step, however NO2->NO3 can take time to happens, when it is established the transformation NH3/NH4 -> NO2 - NO3 will go seamless. I started a saltwater aquarium back in 1976 after the knowledge of that time. Just put in water, salt, sand, filtration and wait and measure. Then NO2 become 0 - put in animals. I wait, I wait, I wait and it was more than 6 weeks in - still reading > 1 ppm NO2 (at that time the freshwater toxicity of NO2 was believed to cover saltwater too) After six weeks - a friend said to me - use the forest soil trick. Just dilute some forest soil - filter it and put some of the filtrate into your aquarium. I did that and during this day - I saw my NO2 level go down from above 1 ppm to zero in the evening. From that day to today - I do not wait for month to start an aquarium - I use my knowledge in order to cycle as soon as possible. You need the certain input of nitrification bacteria - dormant or active - in order to establish a steady transport of the produced NH3/NH4 to NO3 seamless. To reduce 0.5 ppm NH3/NH4 to zero in 48 hours - it is a slow rate - with proper population of ammonium oxidizers - I have seen this happen during less than half an hour - and from 3 ppm to 0! I have - in the same conditions seen 3 ppm NH3/NH4 - N be transformed to the same amount (concentration) NO3-N in half an hour. But the filter has been adapted for that load. I can feed 30 kg of dry food to a system of 5 cubic meters nitrification filters (kaldnes method) a day - and get low readings of NO3 in the evening (around 0.02 as NO2 - 0 as NH3/NH4) I can go down to zero load during some days - and when starting feeding again - the same low measurements. The nitrification bacteria - once established - goes dormant if the not get their energy input.

This is real documented investigations in the field done during more than 40 years of experiences, not any posts of the same few examples in a forum.

One straight question Brandon - do you use use the fridge for your groceries? And if - why?

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Elegance Coral]

Man..... People have become thin skinned.......

My first tank had an air driven under gravel filter, bleached coral skeletons, and fake decorations. Today, my system has little in common with that old system. I can keep animals that I couldn't even dream of keeping back then. My system changed because my understanding changed. Most of those changes came about because someone had a better understanding than I did, and was kind enough to share it with me. For this, I am thankful. With each new tidbit of knowledge, I had to face the fact that my original understanding was flawed. I hate this as much as anyone, but I'd rather learn from someone, ANYONE, than go through life ignorant. I'm still learning today and hope to continue learning. I would not have the understanding I do today, or any hopes of improving on that understanding in the future, if I got defensive every time someone showed me I was wrong.

Correct a wise man, and he'll be thankful.
Correct a fool, and he'll hate you.

Peace out.......
EC

 

[brandon429]

Lasse you wrote a detailed response to the starvation claim I did understand your quick resurgence/ out of dormancy description. It could be occurring. The only threads i have to support that it may take longer time is dr reefs bottle bac thread, where truly dormant strains are being accurately tested, not rebounding in 48 even when dosed by bottle overload.

Agreed your experience is helpful counter balance=invite

In the end the larger picture is that these bacteria aren't weak, and I've fought hard to show they're not. I think some folks here have had their take on bacteria at least challenged by the good debate. We should keep researching and posting microbiology items as it pertains to reefing.

Even if they're dormant, agreed could have been, all I care about is the utility of it all. An uncycled aquarium takes longer than two days to re cycle, so cycles can't be starved. It could be claimed that in the quick ramp up, an emergency fish loading for example couldn't be contained successfully, so the debate proceeds

Any normal fish loading would've been fine, no free ammonia would have resulted. Since nobody will test this stuff, and journal links on Google aren't aquarium bacteria specific regarding starvation, I guess we're left making our own documentation the peers can read up on. They certainly didn't help much with peroxide work in the reef, aquarium science has shockingly little peer reviewed support.

Peer reviewing required to be legitimate is an inventors buzz kill. The best peer reviewed info of the nineties said no pico reef could live due to allelopathy.

As aquarists we should be able to model our claims in linkable threads as the emerging way of competing for information validity. You want five thousand people testing any claim you make and then feeding back... free self learning is amazing.

I gave some easy scenarios anyone curious can test. When results from work specific to this thread is posted I'll be fully engaged.

 

[Gregg @ ADP]

Brandon, you keep referring to this as a microbiology issue. But it’s not. It’s an ecology issue.

As such, it is beholden to the same laws that govern all populations; namely Liebig’s Law.

You have stated that nitrifying bacterial populations are limited not by NH3/4, but by available surface area. You have stated the bacterial population will continue to grow w/o additional NH3/4 inputs...’forever’ was the word you used.

I’ve brought up before that NH3/4 availability and surface area are both limiting factors. Liebig’s Law states that population growth will be limited by whatever resource is in shortest supply.

If you continue to add surface area without adding NH3/4, that’s it. You’re done building your population. That’s how it works with literally every single organismal population on Earth.

Now, it’s conceivable in your system that there is recruitment of ‘new’ bacteria from external inputs and those bacteria get into the system and go dormant. I’ll buy that. Without truly having a closed system, you open the door (if you will) to bacterial import.

But you aren’t going to continue to build your population from your existing population without providing an energy source.

 

[MnFish1]

What in the world

To talk about peroxide here is way off

I gave you the post number to save your read time, post 189.

You can tell he had rocks in his garage unfed for three years and still digested ammonia, don’t try to divert from that fact

That’s your starvation claim, shown as not occurring, and yes he asked about my opinion on peroxide. The worlds greatest reefing cheat.

We now see that a set-in cycle doesn’t undo, for three years at least, and we see in the unassisted cycle that only water and certain time is needed, bac secure the rest.


bringing up a tank formerly unable to support eight fish up to that ability by just letting tap water sit a month establishes the feed acquisition claim you’ve put big weight against as well.

The reason I don’t read all the side battles is because in the end I could make another tank cycle just by letting it sit, again, and there is nothing you can link that erases that fact. ten could be made, or as many tanks that fit in my home, the feed is limitless where water is involved.


what you write in good battle here seems piecemealed by web searches, it doesn’t line up with direct examples linked and people who work with bac for a living find problems in your descriptions.

Don’t y'all know anyone who does food safety inspection, hospital lab work, anything bacteria related? Ask them questions about your concepts of what bacteria require to thrive, post back what they say. A brewer already posted, not in favor of your claims.

So many industries are affected by hydrated bacteria you don’t have to look far for people who know how hard it is to manage them... you guys make it seem so easy> Just withhold some ammonia, and the whole chain of nature is stopped.

I disagree. The way you described the fallow test does not prove or disprove anything. There is no way to know whether existing bacteria were just dormant. There is no way to quantify the number of bacteria on those rocks relative to the bioload. There is no way to show that existing bacteria on the rocks didn’t multiply in response to the ammonia from the fish present. It wasn’t a controlled experiment. It was one experiment

 

[Scott Campbell]

Man..... People have become thin skinned.......

My first tank had an air driven under gravel filter, bleached coral skeletons, and fake decorations. Today, my system has little in common with that old system. I can keep animals that I couldn't even dream of keeping back then. My system changed because my understanding changed. Most of those changes came about because someone had a better understanding than I did, and was kind enough to share it with me. For this, I am thankful. With each new tidbit of knowledge, I had to face the fact that my original understanding was flawed. I hate this as much as anyone, but I'd rather learn from someone, ANYONE, than go through life ignorant. I'm still learning today and hope to continue learning. I would not have the understanding I do today, or any hopes of improving on that understanding in the future, if I got defensive every time someone showed me I was wrong.

Correct a wise man, and he'll be thankful.
Correct a fool, and he'll hate you.

Peace out.......
EC

In the spirit of your response - what I have learned from this thread:

Posts by Lasse, Gregg & MnFish are among the most informative, patient, rational and interesting posts I have encountered on this forum.

Posts by Brandon are largely sensationalistic; very difficult to read and make sense of; consistently confuse correlation and causation; and rarely address or answer specific questions.

Your posts are largely off-topic, frequently condescending in tone, and deal in more generalized analogies than actual science.

And for what it is worth - my posts are often unhelpful and overly sarcastic. Just to save you the trouble of noting that.


Scott

 

[MnFish1]

In the sense of fairness - I went and re-read the 'fallow example' in the thread you posted. I did not see that you referred to page 10 and post 189 - I merely clicked the link. Here is what I think about that experiment:

1. My understanding is that nitrifying bacteria require highly oxygenated water to grow and metabolize ammonia. I do not see how this could happen in a tank with no flow or filtration for 3 years (unless the bacteria went dormant)
2. There was no control - ie there was no tank that was set up to which .5 ppm ammonia was added and then checked at the same time the first tank was (i.e. with 'sterile rock'.
3. There is still Coraline algae in the tank - I dont know from what part of the country the OP is from (i.e. if he/she lives in San Diego I can see a constant temp over 3 years. but if not and as you said the tank was 'in his garage' (I didnt see that in his post) im surprised that Coraline algae survived with no light or flow.
4. I don't think this information proves or disproves your theory. It certainly doesnt prove that nitrifying bacteria continue to grow with 'no input of ammonia'. In fact, there was probably lots of 'dead and dying' 'stuff' on the rocks when he turned off the tank.

Again - your thesis (unless im incorrect - and please correct me) - is that with no additional ammonia input, nitrifying bacteria will continue to multiply until all available surface area is covered. In your fallow test there was certainly ammonia input when a tank is merely 'turned off'.

I still would like a concise answer to the question that I've asked several times: Assuming the theory is correct what will happen once all of the surface area is covered - and extraneous ammonia is added.

@brandon429 You have made several comments about people failing microbiology 1301, etc etc. Before you know peoples backgrounds, I dont think its really a fair way to argue a point in that manner. JMHO

 

[MnFish1]

I gave you the post number to save your read time, post 189.

Yes - thanks - I merely clicked the link - I didn't read the whole thing. Maybe its easier to copy the link to the page youre referring to rather than the first post in the thread.

That’s your starvation claim, shown as not occurring, and yes he asked about my opinion on peroxide. The worlds greatest reefing cheat.

I dont have a starvation claim - I dont know what youre talking about. I merely claim that nitrifying bacteria are limited in number by the amount of ammonia in the water. Never said they 'starved'. They just dont grow - and are dormant or as @Lasse says 'inhibited'

bringing up a tank formerly unable to support eight fish up to that ability by just letting tap water sit a month establishes the feed acquisition claim you’ve put big weight against as well.

I don't know what this refers to.

what you write in good battle here seems piecemealed by web searches, it doesn’t line up with direct examples linked and people who work with bac for a living find problems in your descriptions.

Most of it relates to my degree in microbiology, more than 10 years doing microbiological research both clinically and lab based. The web searches I quoted merely point out commonly accepted 'fact' about nitrifying bacteria - namely that they require highly oxygenated water and ammonia.

Don’t y'all know anyone who does food safety inspection, hospital lab work, anything bacteria related? Ask them questions about your concepts of what bacteria require to thrive, post back what they say. A brewer already posted, not in favor of your claims.

See the answer above.

So many industries are affected by hydrated bacteria you don’t have to look far for people who know how hard it is to manage them... you guys make it seem so easy> Just withhold some ammonia, and the whole chain of nature is stopped.

No one ever said anything about the chain of nature being stopped. @Lasse has mentioned data and information from many of the industries using 'hydrated bacteria' - i.e. fish farming and waste treatment. Yet you continue to deny he is correct.

Peer reviewing required to be legitimate is an inventors buzz kill. The best peer reviewed info of the nineties said no pico reef could live due to allelopathy.

Let's say that's true - that doesn't mean that peer reviewed information is a 'buzz kill' - it means that whoever said that was 'wrong'. By the way there is no doubt that allelopathy exists. Even in large tanks. Just because you got several corals to live together in a pico reef doesnt mean you could do it with 'any coral'. If you take any reef and add corals that normally 'kill each other' they will not survive in a pico reef. I have many corals in my tank that live quite nicely next to eachother with no problems - they could live in a pico reef. Dont get the point.

 

[Lasse]

Man..... People have become thin skinned.......

My first tank had an air driven under gravel filter, bleached coral skeletons, and fake decorations. Today, my system has little in common with that old system. I can keep animals that I couldn't even dream of keeping back then. My system changed because my understanding changed. Most of those changes came about because someone had a better understanding than I did, and was kind enough to share it with me. For this, I am thankful. With each new tidbit of knowledge, I had to face the fact that my original understanding was flawed. I hate this as much as anyone, but I'd rather learn from someone, ANYONE, than go through life ignorant. I'm still learning today and hope to continue learning. I would not have the understanding I do today, or any hopes of improving on that understanding in the future, if I got defensive every time someone showed me I was wrong.

Correct a wise man, and he'll be thankful.
Correct a fool, and he'll hate you.

Peace out.......
EC

You nail it - direct on topic according to first post in this thread

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

I visit a very interesting Licentiate lecture at Chalmers University of Technology today. The titel was Simulation and Optimization of Recirculating Aquaculture Systems

After the lecture I was able to ask two of the most well known expert on nitrification in Sweden why it is always a NO2 build up in the start of a new system - in spite of the fact that nitrobacter and nitrospira is more fast growers than nitrosomonas in pure media. They could not directly answer this question but after some discussion - we agreed that firstly - a production of NO2 must be done - but the fact that it may take a long time with a steady concentration of No2 before NO2-> NO3 happens may be due to the fact that there are usually very few of these bacteria at a new start of a system. It takes time to get up the population. That is why the inoculation of Nitrobacter / nitrospira speed up the process. Another theory is that free NH3/NH4 can inhibit the nitrobacter/nitrospira populations. - The truth can be both.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[MnFish1]

I visit a very interesting Licentiate lecture at Chalmers University of Technology today. The titel was Simulation and Optimization of Recirculating Aquaculture Systems

After the lecture I was able to ask two of the most well known expert on nitrification in Sweden why it is always a NO2 build up in the start of a new system - in spite of the fact that nitrobacter and nitrospira is more fast growers than nitrosomonas in pure media. They could not directly answer this question but after some discussion - we agreed that firstly - a production of NO2 must be done - but the fact that it may take a long time with a steady concentration of No2 before NO2-> NO3 happens may be due to the fact that there are usually very few of these bacteria at a new start of a system. It takes time to get up the population. That is why the inoculation of Nitrobacter / nitrospira speed up the process. Another theory is that free NH3/NH4 can inhibit the nitrobacter/nitrospira populations. - The truth can be both.

Sincerely Lasse

Did you ask them if nitrifying bacteria can keep growing without ammonia??

 

[Lasse]

Did you ask them if nitrifying bacteria can keep growing without ammonia??

Dam - I forgot that

Sincerely Lasse

 

[brandon429]

Did you ask them if ammonia that we purchase and then meter out is the only source

 

[brandon429]

MN I must deduce from your writing that you have not worked with environmental surface testing microbiology. Or any kind of air sampling / colony counts/ enumeration
Perhaps another kind, anaerobes strictly, pathogens, research isolates? Strictly CAD models where no other forms of food webs exist to glean from?

just joking I know you're science due to the way you analyze experiments. You have to admit, Lasse couldn't really get those guys to commit to the boxed answer and he's a scholarly gentleman to post such an accurate recount. Invaluable feedback still, I want to know anything those guys have to say. The fact Lasse can meet them, see these lectures in person, that's amazing. Wish I could attend~

foundational microbiology in web forums flexes a little bit if you mash on the frame just right. Hard to find the real boundary lines for tolerance of bacterial communities
Stuff like chemistry/rock solid through the ages. Never battle chemistry with a chemist, theyll win.

But other forms of science...open to new rules. Those top guys didn't want to be pinpointed into a firm answer, they know boundaries being tested -fast-
You have not seen the array of corals we now keep long term in picos... large array. You didn't see pongpits article in front page, his sps pushes again the limits you try and set.


We aren't going to agree on bacteria but it's still good science battling here I say press on.

 

[brandon429]

We are getting off course I just want to remind the readers that you have some simple testing I've set forth and you can report back within 40 days some new input for us. A bucket of bricks could change the course of this thread.

 

[MnFish1]

We are getting off course I just want to remind the readers that you have some simple testing I've set forth and you can report back within 40 days some new input for us. A bucket of bricks could change the course of this thread.

OK - name the test. You saw on Dr. Reef's experiments - that the ammonia did not move at all in 7 days in the control tank. I assume you are suggesting a longer period.

Did you ask them if ammonia that we purchase and then meter out is the only source

@brandon429 - no one said that. In fact @Lasse said the opposite - he said use fish???