MasterBacon
Well-Known Member
I'm not saying that it is already there but.....
This aquarium concept challenges your views on microbiology, lets collect and compare answers
- Thread starter brandon429
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Dr. Dendrostein
Marine fish monthly
You mention
Where did those bac come from if they weren't added by bottle, and how did they feed during the thirty days
First FW tank cycles faster, known fact. Why? Google that
Second only cycle to take 30 days is SW with fish only. With shrimp? Who knows. With fish approx. 30 days.
If starting sterile like you mention , I've never done it that way, how long can't say. Have you done it sterile cycle?
Where did those bac come from if they weren't added by bottle, and how did they feed during the thirty days
First FW tank cycles faster, known fact. Why? Google that
Second only cycle to take 30 days is SW with fish only. With shrimp? Who knows. With fish approx. 30 days.
If starting sterile like you mention , I've never done it that way, how long can't say. Have you done it sterile cycle?
Last edited:
Dr. Dendrostein
Marine fish monthly
I'm not saying that it is already there but.....
There you go, that's why he's MasterB, and I'm wanna Be
OP
OP
Master B
I combed Google scholar a long time to find something that direct, that clear, and never did
My goodness man that's a direct hit
I'm not even totally sure of all the feed sources that bac have outside of things we might add intentionally, but there are many. because clinicians, microbiologists, and food production scientists are constantly being reminded they didn't kill all the bacteria even when they wanted to... That hard to kill, even when we try.
* Those professions aren't likely working with nitrifers per se, but they are working with / against general aerobic bacteria, which always includes nitrifer species mixed in because the only time we'll find a hydrated solution of -only- nitrifers, is if we buy that as bottle bac. In an aquarium, nitrifers -never- exist independently of other contamination bacteria + fungi + skin cells we wafted into the tank + gnats that land in it, on and on. When those proteins break down by non nitrifiers, their amino acid digestion ultimately produces feed for the nitrifers mixed in side by side
One of the sources of feed that we never account for is simple contamination. A source for bacteria we never account for is any water we use to prep that wasn't boiled for ten minutes beforehand.
Since aquarium filters are never monocultures (Lasse) the mini ecosystem that constitutes the filtration layer always has means of gaining feed. When we feed them our ammonia, then that's big-time feed which speeds things up. Even without that feed, things progress using the time line of the unassisted cycle.
Have I ever done a sterile cycle? All my freshwater years as described above were fill n wait, unassisted. All Google cycle charts show completion by day 30-40 as well.
You mentioned speed timing between fw and marine/am following you there/agreed. Fw makes a nice example so we aren't waiting as long for the cycle to complete, marine bacteria are still globally transmitted and will complete an unassisted cycle it just takes longer. 90 days to digest one or two ppm, someone test that please please and post
I combed Google scholar a long time to find something that direct, that clear, and never did
My goodness man that's a direct hit
I'm not even totally sure of all the feed sources that bac have outside of things we might add intentionally, but there are many. because clinicians, microbiologists, and food production scientists are constantly being reminded they didn't kill all the bacteria even when they wanted to... That hard to kill, even when we try.
* Those professions aren't likely working with nitrifers per se, but they are working with / against general aerobic bacteria, which always includes nitrifer species mixed in because the only time we'll find a hydrated solution of -only- nitrifers, is if we buy that as bottle bac. In an aquarium, nitrifers -never- exist independently of other contamination bacteria + fungi + skin cells we wafted into the tank + gnats that land in it, on and on. When those proteins break down by non nitrifiers, their amino acid digestion ultimately produces feed for the nitrifers mixed in side by side
One of the sources of feed that we never account for is simple contamination. A source for bacteria we never account for is any water we use to prep that wasn't boiled for ten minutes beforehand.
Since aquarium filters are never monocultures (Lasse) the mini ecosystem that constitutes the filtration layer always has means of gaining feed. When we feed them our ammonia, then that's big-time feed which speeds things up. Even without that feed, things progress using the time line of the unassisted cycle.
Have I ever done a sterile cycle? All my freshwater years as described above were fill n wait, unassisted. All Google cycle charts show completion by day 30-40 as well.
You mentioned speed timing between fw and marine/am following you there/agreed. Fw makes a nice example so we aren't waiting as long for the cycle to complete, marine bacteria are still globally transmitted and will complete an unassisted cycle it just takes longer. 90 days to digest one or two ppm, someone test that please please and post
Last edited:
Dr. Dendrostein
Marine fish monthly
One more thing LR not dry rock, cycles SW in apprx 24hrs. And I've used Hiatt filtration products. 24hrs too
OP
OP
Agreed.
I see lots of lurkers, anyone reading under the impression that our filter bacteria cannot grow/multiply unless we are dosing ammonia, or rotting shrimp, or fish food? Sure they will, aeons of adaptation in place...we are the newcomers.
Couple answers from page one--->all added filters take on the same general amount of bacteria they'd take on, in the same time frame, as if they were single canister filters on any other system. it does not take longer to reach a cycle with each new new canister, they all take the same time frame to be able to digest ammonia if tested individually and the same bioload is constant...every hydrated surface in the loop has its max bac complement.
The ten, or ten thousand, aren't just sharing three fish worth of ammonia...that was my trick framing
Every new unit of water added by the new canister filter brings in its own bac, and the overall system still takes on feed from the environment -around- the tank to support each new gallon of water linked in. We weren't diluting feed, we were increasing it by adding mere water which is all that our bac require. Our homes constantly feed filter bac, our tanks transfer filter bac via aerosols and cross contamination to our homes...sharing takes place, full exchange.
only a lab can create the conditions it takes to starve filter bac even when hydrated.
Extreme testing:
*take all fish out with ten cycled filters in place, and the filters still self feed and self maintain as long as water remains even if we keep adding more filters, the three fish never were needed, the new canisters cycle a bit slower but they still populate ALL internal surface area because NO vital space goes unused in an aquatic system. If it's wet, it's 101% covered in various bac because house water conveys and captures all the food they need
We cannot starve an aquarium filter *using normal excesses of surface area* once it's cycled if it's kept wet.
Quit feeding it for twenty months, it resumes at month twenty the original bioload it hasn't seen for twenty months, I have fallow test threads showing just that
even without the original three fish, any new canisters added still take on filter bac given some time in the loop, this is an amazing concept which should make readers question their tank cycling paradigms. It allows one to do neat things with a tank once the keeper knows set bacteria aren't going anywhere.
Colonization of added filters-
The bacteria from the display *multiply* since they're fed and hydrated and send more bac down the flow channels to other new media for total colonization. The display keeps it's own bac, and casts more to the new filters as growth from the original tank sloughs off and is literally channeled down to the next.
Since the starting arrangement was sufficient surface area to handle 3 fish, instantly removing all filters still leaves the main tank with sufficient original surface area...the display tank did not need a ramp down phase, it was always sufficient. What we took away offline was just extra water volume, extra bac but we never removed from the main tank.
Uses:
So...when we remove sandbeds in tanks that already use plenty of live rock (every reef tank here) do we need a ramp down phase to allow the live rocks to build up more bac? Did having sand in the tank take away from the full complement the rocks could carry? (Asking the crowd or anyone--trying to tie in this testing thread to actual applications)
I see lots of lurkers, anyone reading under the impression that our filter bacteria cannot grow/multiply unless we are dosing ammonia, or rotting shrimp, or fish food? Sure they will, aeons of adaptation in place...we are the newcomers.
Couple answers from page one--->all added filters take on the same general amount of bacteria they'd take on, in the same time frame, as if they were single canister filters on any other system. it does not take longer to reach a cycle with each new new canister, they all take the same time frame to be able to digest ammonia if tested individually and the same bioload is constant...every hydrated surface in the loop has its max bac complement.
The ten, or ten thousand, aren't just sharing three fish worth of ammonia...that was my trick framing
Every new unit of water added by the new canister filter brings in its own bac, and the overall system still takes on feed from the environment -around- the tank to support each new gallon of water linked in. We weren't diluting feed, we were increasing it by adding mere water which is all that our bac require. Our homes constantly feed filter bac, our tanks transfer filter bac via aerosols and cross contamination to our homes...sharing takes place, full exchange.
only a lab can create the conditions it takes to starve filter bac even when hydrated.
Extreme testing:
*take all fish out with ten cycled filters in place, and the filters still self feed and self maintain as long as water remains even if we keep adding more filters, the three fish never were needed, the new canisters cycle a bit slower but they still populate ALL internal surface area because NO vital space goes unused in an aquatic system. If it's wet, it's 101% covered in various bac because house water conveys and captures all the food they need
We cannot starve an aquarium filter *using normal excesses of surface area* once it's cycled if it's kept wet.
Quit feeding it for twenty months, it resumes at month twenty the original bioload it hasn't seen for twenty months, I have fallow test threads showing just that
even without the original three fish, any new canisters added still take on filter bac given some time in the loop, this is an amazing concept which should make readers question their tank cycling paradigms. It allows one to do neat things with a tank once the keeper knows set bacteria aren't going anywhere.
Colonization of added filters-
The bacteria from the display *multiply* since they're fed and hydrated and send more bac down the flow channels to other new media for total colonization. The display keeps it's own bac, and casts more to the new filters as growth from the original tank sloughs off and is literally channeled down to the next.
Since the starting arrangement was sufficient surface area to handle 3 fish, instantly removing all filters still leaves the main tank with sufficient original surface area...the display tank did not need a ramp down phase, it was always sufficient. What we took away offline was just extra water volume, extra bac but we never removed from the main tank.
Uses:
So...when we remove sandbeds in tanks that already use plenty of live rock (every reef tank here) do we need a ramp down phase to allow the live rocks to build up more bac? Did having sand in the tank take away from the full complement the rocks could carry? (Asking the crowd or anyone--trying to tie in this testing thread to actual applications)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2018
- Messages
- 6,706
- Reaction score
- 7,188
Sure, limiting a nutrient can put limits on population size. What about the population distribution though? If the food is scattered, does it make sense to form a large dense colony? Or would widely scattered small colonies seem like a better choice? If the latter makes the most survival sense, then the ammonia oxidizers become scattered throughout the system, though at the microscopic level there are gaps between the colonies.
My $.02
I have 75g acropora dominate reef; nothing crazy but there approx 20 acropora in there along with a few other corals and 10 fish. Results had been largely positive (nothing died and all were growing and showing good color). At the 23 month mark, I bought a home and had to move the tank. I purchased another aquarium, set it up in the new house to act as a transfer tank, moved the rock (along with the corals) and fish from the 75g to the 60g transfer tank, and broke down 75g the rest of the way.
The 75g had 120lbs of Nature's Ocean live sand. I scooped that out and placed it into two, 5g buckets; I drained as much water as possible so it would fit. I had vacuumed the sand 2-3 times a year and I have some sifters that keep it fairly clean but there was still quiet a bit detritus in it. The sand sat in the 5g buckets for three days. Once I got the 75g in place, I transfered the rock, corals, and fish back into the tank followed by the sand. I didn't rinse the sand, I didn't do anything to it, I just tossed it right back into the tank. There were no issues what-so-ever. The macro-algae from the refugium was also in a 5g bucket this entire time (had a battery operated air pump providing some circulation in there) and I tossed that into the refugium at the same time. Unbeknown to me, our diamond goby was in this same bucket (of macro-algae) and after three days, apparently had enough. I heard some splashing and all the sudden, it popped out on top of the macro-algae so I dropped it back in the refugium and placed the fish back in the display. Nothing showed negative affects; alkalinity consumption remained equal and the fish were all fine.
The point? The sand was at room temperature (73° was the norm) along with the macro-algae for three and a half days. The rock and corals were transfered twice in the course of four days and the alkalinity consumption never went down. By the time the corals were transfered back into the 75g display, the alkalinity had dropped significantly (5.5 dKh IIRC). There were NO indications of any limitation to the nitrifying bacteria during the entire process. This leads me to believe that "mini-cycles" are likely caused by something other than disturbing the sand or rock in the display.
I have 75g acropora dominate reef; nothing crazy but there approx 20 acropora in there along with a few other corals and 10 fish. Results had been largely positive (nothing died and all were growing and showing good color). At the 23 month mark, I bought a home and had to move the tank. I purchased another aquarium, set it up in the new house to act as a transfer tank, moved the rock (along with the corals) and fish from the 75g to the 60g transfer tank, and broke down 75g the rest of the way.
The 75g had 120lbs of Nature's Ocean live sand. I scooped that out and placed it into two, 5g buckets; I drained as much water as possible so it would fit. I had vacuumed the sand 2-3 times a year and I have some sifters that keep it fairly clean but there was still quiet a bit detritus in it. The sand sat in the 5g buckets for three days. Once I got the 75g in place, I transfered the rock, corals, and fish back into the tank followed by the sand. I didn't rinse the sand, I didn't do anything to it, I just tossed it right back into the tank. There were no issues what-so-ever. The macro-algae from the refugium was also in a 5g bucket this entire time (had a battery operated air pump providing some circulation in there) and I tossed that into the refugium at the same time. Unbeknown to me, our diamond goby was in this same bucket (of macro-algae) and after three days, apparently had enough. I heard some splashing and all the sudden, it popped out on top of the macro-algae so I dropped it back in the refugium and placed the fish back in the display. Nothing showed negative affects; alkalinity consumption remained equal and the fish were all fine.
The point? The sand was at room temperature (73° was the norm) along with the macro-algae for three and a half days. The rock and corals were transfered twice in the course of four days and the alkalinity consumption never went down. By the time the corals were transfered back into the 75g display, the alkalinity had dropped significantly (5.5 dKh IIRC). There were NO indications of any limitation to the nitrifying bacteria during the entire process. This leads me to believe that "mini-cycles" are likely caused by something other than disturbing the sand or rock in the display.
I´ll try to sort this out - but it will not be done in one post.
First
There are two major groups of what we call life forms - autotrophic and heterotrophic organisms. Most well known among the autotrophic group is plants and other organisms using photosynthesis in order to grow – however – as we will see later on – there is not only photoautotrophic organism – there is also some organism that is chemo lithotrophic – they are autotrophic but use oxidation of different compounds as energy source instead of light energy.
Let us start with the main difference – autotropic organism create life from inorganic compounds – heterotrophic organism consume life in order to grow – they use organic compounds for their life process.
Among inorganic compounds – the most important is CO2 (or as we should see later on – forms of CO2, PO4 and NH3/NH4, NO2, NO3 and other inorganic N compounds. ( carbon dioxide, orthophosphate, ammoniac/ammonia (or ammonia gas/ammonia ion), nitrite and nitrate)
Organic compounds include all form of C, P, N and other atoms in plants, animals and all other living organism.
Sincerely Lasse
First
There are two major groups of what we call life forms - autotrophic and heterotrophic organisms. Most well known among the autotrophic group is plants and other organisms using photosynthesis in order to grow – however – as we will see later on – there is not only photoautotrophic organism – there is also some organism that is chemo lithotrophic – they are autotrophic but use oxidation of different compounds as energy source instead of light energy.
Let us start with the main difference – autotropic organism create life from inorganic compounds – heterotrophic organism consume life in order to grow – they use organic compounds for their life process.
Among inorganic compounds – the most important is CO2 (or as we should see later on – forms of CO2, PO4 and NH3/NH4, NO2, NO3 and other inorganic N compounds. ( carbon dioxide, orthophosphate, ammoniac/ammonia (or ammonia gas/ammonia ion), nitrite and nitrate)
Organic compounds include all form of C, P, N and other atoms in plants, animals and all other living organism.
Sincerely Lasse
Last edited:
Dr. Dendrostein
Marine fish monthly
So Lasse, in Australia some of their tap water has aerobic bacteria in it. In Sweden anything like that?
I'm not saying that it is already there but.....
Can you publish the full link?
You use active chlorine in order to get rid of bacteria aerobic as anaerobic - does not matter. However the article above indicate that the nitrifying bacteria will survive. There is a hint in the abstract because that the chloramine will slowly breakdown into NH2 (that will form NH3/NH4 with help of H in the water) and chlorine. It looks like som nitrifying bacteria will survive inte the aquaria in spit of the fact that the treatment plant use chlorine in the water. It is in line of mine experiences too - they are in the water, gravel or stones but with adding nitrifying bacteria - you speed up the process in the start
Sincerely Lasse
MasterBacon
Well-Known Member
O
OurI'm not saying that it is already there but.....
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC183981/
OP
OP
I am not quite sure of the various feeding mechanisms bac can find if they're merely given water, but we r about to find out. association with non filtration bacteria and biofilm matrix catch is two of many many pathways, the chemistry part I'm not clear on but from what Lasse typed above that shared association starts to make sense as metabolites from one community are a resource to another
excellent work team
I hope this thread eventually motivates someone to set up further testing. Dr Reef has done detailed testing about bottled bac, hopefully a reader here wants to start measuring some of the claims we are challenging here additionally and post back. My particular interest would be anything involved in no assist cycling for marine substrates...how long does a bunch of dry substrate need to sit at .023 salinity with nothing else added in order to be able to oxidize 2 ppm of ammonia in 24 hours, my guess is under three months. Maybe five not sure. If the vessel sits outdoors, prob a month or two is my guess.
The output hose of the finest quality do/di setups still coats in biofilm slicks ripe with nitrifiers and associates, needs occasional cleaning. Leave that ro di catch container sealed and undrained for a year, then smell it - contaminated by aerobes initially then they died en masse
water doesn't even have alkalinity for substrate fuel, yet the rot found a way
Purest water we make... upstream micron filters do remove bac...yet they contaminate the other end
Merely an open output at the end of the output ro di tube lets the environmental bac in the hose, and they're fed only by pure water afterwards, which never starves them (and new contamination every second that hose output end stays uncapped)
Water is all it takes we see, and time. The final amounts of bac are related to avail surface area, not our blatant over feeding to 2 ppm.
I'm used to measuring the physical presence of bac on environmental surfaces, but that feed biochemistry really takes some study to absorb I knew you were good at that explanation L
A verified unassisted marine cycle test thread puts the total perspective on human affect vs bac getting their own feed if given a little longer. Myth busters time anybody we welcome your test. A five gallon bucket with some red bricks and standing .023 saltwater, one inside one outside and kept topped off would attain the ends just fine...substrate is substrate. No heating or circ required, since cold is coming allow a little more time for completion
excellent work team
I hope this thread eventually motivates someone to set up further testing. Dr Reef has done detailed testing about bottled bac, hopefully a reader here wants to start measuring some of the claims we are challenging here additionally and post back. My particular interest would be anything involved in no assist cycling for marine substrates...how long does a bunch of dry substrate need to sit at .023 salinity with nothing else added in order to be able to oxidize 2 ppm of ammonia in 24 hours, my guess is under three months. Maybe five not sure. If the vessel sits outdoors, prob a month or two is my guess.
The output hose of the finest quality do/di setups still coats in biofilm slicks ripe with nitrifiers and associates, needs occasional cleaning. Leave that ro di catch container sealed and undrained for a year, then smell it - contaminated by aerobes initially then they died en masse
water doesn't even have alkalinity for substrate fuel, yet the rot found a way
Purest water we make... upstream micron filters do remove bac...yet they contaminate the other end
Merely an open output at the end of the output ro di tube lets the environmental bac in the hose, and they're fed only by pure water afterwards, which never starves them (and new contamination every second that hose output end stays uncapped)
Water is all it takes we see, and time. The final amounts of bac are related to avail surface area, not our blatant over feeding to 2 ppm.
I'm used to measuring the physical presence of bac on environmental surfaces, but that feed biochemistry really takes some study to absorb I knew you were good at that explanation L
A verified unassisted marine cycle test thread puts the total perspective on human affect vs bac getting their own feed if given a little longer. Myth busters time anybody we welcome your test. A five gallon bucket with some red bricks and standing .023 saltwater, one inside one outside and kept topped off would attain the ends just fine...substrate is substrate. No heating or circ required, since cold is coming allow a little more time for completion
Last edited:
Second (continue from post 30)
As you maybe already get an idea about it - the nitrifying bacteria belong to the chemo lithotrophic group. They oxidize first NH3/NH4 -> NO2 and after that they oxidize NO2 -> NO3. In this process they use oxygen – a lot of oxygen and use the difference in energy levels between NH3/NH4 – NO2 – NO3 to get the energy they need in order to build biomass. They are strictly aerobic – it has been reported that oxygen levels below 4 mg/l (ppm) can stop the second stage – NO2->NO3. Most chemo lithotrophic bacteria are aerobic – however there are some anaerobic sulphur bacteria involved in the reduction of NO3 that belong to this group. Which compound they use as an oxidizer is for me unknown.
They use inorganic carbon (as CO2) in the cell process but it looks like they use CO3/HCO3 in the water and transform this to CO2 inside the bacteria. I know that this is under discussion but my experiences is that they need higher pH (lower free CO2 in the water) and at least 3-4 dKH as carbonate alkalinity (in freshwater) This I have seen thousand of times in aquaria, fish farms and waste water treatment plants.
However – the important thing is – they need inorganic C. They need inorganic P and inorganic N and other inorganic compounds for growth. They need also NH3/NH4 as energy source (read food) in the first step and NO2 in the same way in the second step. They need oxygen, much oxygen and places to attach on. They create biofilms and the biofilm will grow in thickness. Because of the demand of oxygen – it is only a very, very thin part of the biofilm that’s active. Many companies talk about all the pores that’s in just their filter material. Forget that – the bacteria will grow its film over these pores and it is only the surface that can have high oxygen levels that’s active. Best filter material (for nitrification) is rather course plastic wheels or 10 pp filter mat with a high flow through it
These bacteria are slow growers – in pure media – they double their biomass in 13 hours. They create biofilm.
Sincerely Lasse
As you maybe already get an idea about it - the nitrifying bacteria belong to the chemo lithotrophic group. They oxidize first NH3/NH4 -> NO2 and after that they oxidize NO2 -> NO3. In this process they use oxygen – a lot of oxygen and use the difference in energy levels between NH3/NH4 – NO2 – NO3 to get the energy they need in order to build biomass. They are strictly aerobic – it has been reported that oxygen levels below 4 mg/l (ppm) can stop the second stage – NO2->NO3. Most chemo lithotrophic bacteria are aerobic – however there are some anaerobic sulphur bacteria involved in the reduction of NO3 that belong to this group. Which compound they use as an oxidizer is for me unknown.
They use inorganic carbon (as CO2) in the cell process but it looks like they use CO3/HCO3 in the water and transform this to CO2 inside the bacteria. I know that this is under discussion but my experiences is that they need higher pH (lower free CO2 in the water) and at least 3-4 dKH as carbonate alkalinity (in freshwater) This I have seen thousand of times in aquaria, fish farms and waste water treatment plants.
However – the important thing is – they need inorganic C. They need inorganic P and inorganic N and other inorganic compounds for growth. They need also NH3/NH4 as energy source (read food) in the first step and NO2 in the same way in the second step. They need oxygen, much oxygen and places to attach on. They create biofilms and the biofilm will grow in thickness. Because of the demand of oxygen – it is only a very, very thin part of the biofilm that’s active. Many companies talk about all the pores that’s in just their filter material. Forget that – the bacteria will grow its film over these pores and it is only the surface that can have high oxygen levels that’s active. Best filter material (for nitrification) is rather course plastic wheels or 10 pp filter mat with a high flow through it
These bacteria are slow growers – in pure media – they double their biomass in 13 hours. They create biofilm.
Sincerely Lasse
Dr. Dendrostein
Marine fish monthly
No wonder I'm starting to get flow restrict thru canister filter and of course detritus. Thanks Lasse. Lotta info
Dr. Dendrostein
Marine fish monthly
Here something interesting, i dont understand, NH3 on day 10, was 1 ppm, nitrates 3-5 ppm. I add 2 tsp sugar to get nitrates and possibly
Phosphates down.
In 12 hours free ammonia was 0, NO3- 0, PO4- 0
I understand NO3 & PO4 to 0, but ammonia too. Lasse help me, I'm drowning here. Help me
Phosphates down.
In 12 hours free ammonia was 0, NO3- 0, PO4- 0
I understand NO3 & PO4 to 0, but ammonia too. Lasse help me, I'm drowning here. Help me
I do not understand this either - it should have been the opposite if you add organic carbon (sugar) - it will form DOC and is a good carbon source to heterotrophic bacteria. See further on
Sincerely Lasse
john.m.cole3
cyclOps
All 10 canisters will be "cycled" by month 5, but most likely they will be cycled in 1 month. I think there is a bacterial cycle that takes place in our tanks. Bacteria grows on hard surfaces, anaerobic in low flow zones and aerobic in higher flow zones. I think the aerobic stuff grows and dies fast with the die off feeding new bac of both varieties. this provides a continuance of food for new bacteria to gtow.
I think you could add an infinite amount of canisters and they would all cycle. The limiting factor would be if the hard surfaces are wet or not. The bacteria will spread to anything wet in the system.
You can rip all media out overnight and those 3 clowns will do fine in the original tank that was cycled for them. I know it works bc I've done it before, lol. I recently ripped apart my 175 gallon coral system running with a brightwell biobrick, an 8 inch boulder, and 8 fish in it. I moved everything to a 50 gallon system with all fish and just the boulder/no brick. The tank cycled overnight without addition of bacteria or anything. I took the boulder out a month later. Now that tankis running with 8 fish, no rock, no biomedia. My guess is that the bacteria on the glass, frag racks, pump, and other equipment is enough to process the waste.
I think you could add an infinite amount of canisters and they would all cycle. The limiting factor would be if the hard surfaces are wet or not. The bacteria will spread to anything wet in the system.
You can rip all media out overnight and those 3 clowns will do fine in the original tank that was cycled for them. I know it works bc I've done it before, lol. I recently ripped apart my 175 gallon coral system running with a brightwell biobrick, an 8 inch boulder, and 8 fish in it. I moved everything to a 50 gallon system with all fish and just the boulder/no brick. The tank cycled overnight without addition of bacteria or anything. I took the boulder out a month later. Now that tankis running with 8 fish, no rock, no biomedia. My guess is that the bacteria on the glass, frag racks, pump, and other equipment is enough to process the waste.
OP
OP
agreed fully
and one other detail. Lasse mentioned earlier about pore clogging and I agree those slicks w take up low micron channels
but
we both saw marine pure work in your tank, it did help with denitrification. that's pore based, and that's a neat confound to consider ~
maybe the pores are just big enough to be anaerobic deeper within and not totally clogged I guess. thanks tons for posting based on experience!
and one other detail. Lasse mentioned earlier about pore clogging and I agree those slicks w take up low micron channels
but
we both saw marine pure work in your tank, it did help with denitrification. that's pore based, and that's a neat confound to consider ~
maybe the pores are just big enough to be anaerobic deeper within and not totally clogged I guess. thanks tons for posting based on experience!
Similar threads
