This is what I've dreamed of for so long! Testing for microbes in our tanks!

[Hans-Werner]

One more idea to AOA (ammonia oxidizing archaea): They are meant to play important roles in nitrogen (re)cycling in corals. So finding AOA in an analysis may be not bad.

The ammonia concentrations that AOB (ammonia oxidizing bacteria) need are way too high to fulfill similar roles as AOA.

 

[MnFish1]

I expect the concern is just faster conversion of ammonia to nitrate, than when these devices are not present.

This makes sense - but - doesnt it get converted eventually either way? Or - are you suggesting that the ammonia pathway is shifted to another area (like increased coral usage, as compared to being converted to nitrate)?

 

[drbark]

I am out of town on the weekends a lot and most of the time the tank skips the Saturday feeding. I wonder if I am harming my system by skipping this feeding from what I have read in this thread with not having ammonia readily available during those times. My nitrate level still remains pretty much the same.

 

[taricha]

I am out of town on the weekends a lot and most of the time the tank skips the Saturday feeding. I wonder if I am harming my system by skipping this feeding from what I have read in this thread with not having ammonia readily available during those times. My nitrate level still remains pretty much the same.

I lean no, for following reasons.
1) nitrifying bacteria can wait un-harmed for a long time without significant ammonia input. Nobody has to feed the bottles of tank cycling bacteria ammonia while they wait on the shelves for months.
2) something is always eating and being eaten in a system. even on days when you don't feed, something is dying and something is excreting waste. And the organic matter you added from the previous days is still being broken down. So the difference is one of degree - less ammonia production - not turned totally off.

That said, would the ammonia economy be improved in your system with an auto-feeder for the days you aren't there? maybe so.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

This makes sense - but - doesnt it get converted eventually either way? Or - are you suggesting that the ammonia pathway is shifted to another area (like increased coral usage, as compared to being converted to nitrate)?

Well, I didn't actually make the claim, but the idea is speeding up the rate of conversion by providing more surface area will tend to lower the equilibrium level of ammonia in the water.

 

[Hans-Werner]

I wonder if I am harming my system by skipping this feeding from what I have read in this thread with not having ammonia readily available during those times.

No, such short-term fluctuations of ammonium will do no harm to the corals or the system for different reasons:
- Metabolisms of fish and microbes continue and release ammonia.
- There are other forms like organic nitrogen or particulate nitrogen available which may be used directly or from which corals and microbes may release ammonia.
- Nutrients like ammonia are released in the substrate (sand) and get into the water slowly by diffusion.
- Corals can repair damages when ammonium and phosphate are available again.

 

[Hans-Werner]

I want to add just one more idea: Also sponges are important parts of the nutrient cycles. Sponges are known to filter bacteria and other tiny particles and release nutrients like ammonium and phosphate, if I remember it right at quite high rates.

 

[Nano sapiens]

I want to add just one more idea: Also sponges are important parts of the nutrient cycles. Sponges are known to filter bacteria and other tiny particles and release nutrients like ammonium and phosphate, if I remember it right at quite high rates.

https://jeb.biologists.org/content/212/23/i.1

'De Goeij realised that choanocytes were shedding all over the place. And then De Goeij remembered the tiny piles of brown material he found next to the sponges in the aquarium every morning. The sponges were shedding the newly divided cells, which other reef residents could now consume.

‘Halisarca caerulea is the great recycler of energy for the reef by turning over energy that nobody else can use [dissolved organic carbon] into energy that everyone can use [discarded choanocytes],’ explains De Goeij.'


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4188633/

'We have demonstrated that under steady-state conditions, cell turnover through cell proliferation and cell shedding are common processes to maintain tissue homeostasis in a variety of sponge species from different ecosystems. Cell turnover is hypothesized to be the main underlying mechanism producing sponge-derived detritus, a major trophic resource transferred through sponges in benthic ecosystems, such as coral reefs.'


https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/66/6/470/2754308

'Although sponges are important filter feeders on suspended particles, studies increasingly show that dissolved organic carbon (DOC) plays an equal or greater role than particles in sponge nutrition (Pawlik et al. 2015, McMurray et al. 2016). DOC in seawater is a poorly understood mixture of compounds that constitute one of the largest reservoirs of organic carbon on Earth (Hansell et al. 2009). An intriguing hypothesis called the “sponge loop” proposes that sponges remove DOC from the water column and return it to the reef as shed cellular detritus, thereby enhancing benthic productivity (figure 2; de Goeij et al. 2013). Although this hypothesis was developed using encrusting sponge species that live in reef interstices, larger sponge species that live on the reef surface return carbon to the benthos through growth as sponge biomass, perhaps in addition to the production of cellular detritus'

 

[drbark]

I lean no, for following reasons.
1) nitrifying bacteria can wait un-harmed for a long time without significant ammonia input. Nobody has to feed the bottles of tank cycling bacteria ammonia while they wait on the shelves for months.
2) something is always eating and being eaten in a system. even on days when you don't feed, something is dying and something is excreting waste. And the organic matter you added from the previous days is still being broken down. So the difference is one of degree - less ammonia production - not turned totally off.

That said, would the ammonia economy be improved in your system with an auto-feeder for the days you aren't there? maybe so.

Thanks for the reply. That makes sense. I have debated on autofeeders but I feed Rods and all of a sudden auto feeding dry pellets might not agree with all the inhabitants. I have experimented with dry pellets and not all are interested.

 

[drbark]

I want to add just one more idea: Also sponges are important parts of the nutrient cycles. Sponges are known to filter bacteria and other tiny particles and release nutrients like ammonium and phosphate, if I remember it right at quite high rates.

Good point. I have seen an increase in sponges in my tank since I have been out of town a lot on weekends. Maybe the tank has figured out a way to have available Ammonia by going through sponges since they are not fed every 6-7 day or so.

 

[reefluvrr]

I see the original thread was about microbes strains in our tanks. Sorry to the OP for changing gears and asking about ammonia.

It is not the plastic. Also when you put rock or coral gravel into a trickle filter or other place with high current you will have the same negative effect. The effect is mainly caused by large surface, relative speed of water to substrate, meaning very thin boundary layer, and rapid gas and nutrient exchange, supplying oxygen and ammonium at a high rate.

Under "normal tank conditions" you will never have the same currents and the thin boudary layers you find in filters etc..

Hans, Can you correct me if I am wrong:
I use my x-port biocubes in an upflow filter which I thought reduces NO3. I also carbon dose and hopefully the bacteria in the biocubes utilize NO3 and release ammonium as a byproduct. Is this oversimplified reasoning correct?

Typically my NO3 level is around 0.0 to 1ppm and PO4 is around 0.04 to 0.09.

At least it cannot be totally excluded. Ammonia-oxidizing archaea and corals may compete for ammonia. When ammonia is completely used up corals may have to use nitrate whose assimilation causes oxidative stress to the corals. This may be the "burned-tip-syndrome" of corals under low phosphate - some nitrate conditions.
This situation may be unlikely in tanks with some fish for nutrient supply but may be more likely in tanks that add nitrate for nutrient supply.

Also Is there an ammonia level range you like to see in a thriving reef tank?

 

[brandon429]

seneye pattern thread studiers think all reef tanks post cycle run in the thousandths ppm nh3 due to the degree of surface area live rock affords.

clearly we can see some test issues with seneye, tuning and calibrations are needed...but some are calibrated so precisely we've been able to get an astounding view window into real nh3 dynamics which are quite new info to the hobby...that it doesn't range greatly tank to tank. a very precise endpoint nh3 control is inherent in reefing just like all higher order animal groups have their maximum controls and amounts permitted in place, all systems functioning. reef tanks were once thought to vary greatly on post-cycle ammonia control; I bet when digital testing overtakes color tube readings, they do not vary much at all. .002-.009 ppm nh3 is where they run digitally we think.

a pico reef runs that, with no fish.

a five thousand gallon zoo exhibit runs that, with 110 fish.

its scalable/bet.

 

[reefluvrr]

I bet when digital testing overtakes color tube readings, they do not vary much at all. .002-.009 ppm nh3 is where they run digitally we think.

Wow, that is so low. I wonder how some people wanting to try dosing ammonia can even do that!

 

[brandon429]

That’s what systems will bring dosed ammonia down to, if there is cycled rocks and or sand present and in a decent flow zone. Many folks are able to move down to thousandths from ~2ppm original dose after a cycle and that’s a lot of movement.



In our seneye studies, quarantine tanks lacking surface area run in the hundredths...the thousandths is a function of us all having so much surface area by nature of reef substrates in a display

 

[brandon429]

Additional fascinating surface area + seneye facts:

you can add huge (but not lethal levels) doses of ammonia to a reef and it trends back to thousandths in five minutes

even a dead fish doesn’t move out of thousandths, what this means about the physics of current + wet surface area is an amazing science window in my opinion. Color tube tests just over report bigtime, likely total ammonia. But the nh3, the consequential form, is innately controlled post-cycle this is amazing. It affects retail purchase markets to know this info.

dosing raw ammonia to reef tanks tracked by seneye:

Does anyone dose ammonia and/or how would one try?

I found a bottle of ammonium hydroxide from the supermarket but it doesn't tell the strength. From a little research I'm finding that most household solutions are 3%. (I'm hoping this is a safe guess!). I'd like to ask for someone to confirm my math: 3% = 30mg/ml. Tank vol = 150 L I...

www.reef2reef.com

so seeing that data, we get a window into how all display reefs work, not just some.

so who has a stuck cycle at day fifteen? Only non seneye testers. That moves markets. cycled surface area is hungry, just hungry for nh3 and scrubs it down to the thousandths. Very quickly.

being able to accurately measure active surface area shifts the market back into favor of buyers, we need less supports to keep bacteria happy now, says accurate nh3 testing. Before seneye we bought lots of bacteria support so we didn’t lose filtration, that wasn’t needed.

Not all seneyes are accurate, Jon’s has been benchmarked in amazing ways here though

Is anyone with a mindstream or seneye ammonia reader willing to co-fund a cycling experiment with me

Hmm this 20 gallon tank took almost 1ml to hit 0.022. I didn’t see any movement till .5ml Per Dr. Tims, 1ml = 20 drops. I'm dosing 0.2 ml (4 drops) to get a few thousands, give or take. Sometimes my drops are not that exact though. My Seneye is in the return chamber and I dose one chamber...

www.reef2reef.com

 

[brandon429]

I think microbe testing and dosing is valid and awesome reef hobby science.

even though nh3 is inherently controlled like a cycle chart says it is, there’s twenty other reasons to dose bacteria. My friend @Ludders showed me a link about specialized bacteria for coral feeding, that’s a legit dosing angle for bottled bacteria.

sludge digesting dosed bacteria are legit to reef with as well, clearly microbe assessment is a coming big deal and aquabiomics is in on a great industry.

 

[Hans-Werner]

I use my x-port biocubes in an upflow filter which I thought reduces NO3. I also carbon dose and hopefully the bacteria in the biocubes utilize NO3 and release ammonium as a byproduct. Is this oversimplified reasoning correct?

I am not sure whether it may work this way. There is a kind of dissimilatory denitrification where nitrate indeed is reduced not to N2 but to ammonia. However, I think the normal way of nitrate reduction during organic carbon dosing, especially on quite open surfaces, ist assimilatory denitrification. This means bacteria use nitrate and other nitrogen compounds to form biomass and proteins. In this case the corals may feed on the bacteria when biofilms slough off or bacteria swarm as bacterioplankton.

 

[reefluvrr]

This means bacteria use nitrate and other nitrogen compounds to form biomass and proteins. In this case the corals may feed on the bacteria when biofilms slough off or bacteria swarm as bacterioplankton.

Thank you for clarifying this.