Writing Prompt: Nitrifying bacteria are undesirable in a reef tank

[kecked]

I was very desperate and lost my head and tried anything to save my fish. In the end I won. The idea was to burn the ammonia as fast as possible with the bacteria.
prime was a Hail Mary which really didn’t hurt or help. Now I let it do its thing. Ammonia is zero and nitrates are dropping fast so I certainly have a robust colony. Now it’s back to leave it alone. I do however think I may try Randy’s ammonia dose ideas once I stabilize and get some coral going again. Seems my die off is over or the bacteria can handle the ammonia production just fine. Skimmer is maki g a normal amount of heavy dark skim so I think I cycled just fine. Thinking of it it has been just about 10 days so no surprise.

I am going to pull gfo however as I don’t want to start a Dino outbreak when the nitrate hits zero And phosphate hits zero. I’m hoping this doesn’t occur as that was a mess five years back.

 

[taricha]

Sorry to answer this Q from page 2 of the thread... my assertion was that despite bacterial analysis methods detecting significant ammonia oxidizing archaea in the water, in practice - the overwhelming majority of classic nitrifiers that I can find in my system are on surfaces.

That is great, I was about to ask if somebody tested in practice with aquarium water w/o sand/ rocks. Do you have thread (or more info) with this experiment?

I did 100mL bottles of tank water with different amounts of sand. "no sand" did nothing to the ammonia, but 1% or 2% (1mL or 2mL) of sand processed around a ~tenth ppm ammonia per day. Small, but still large compared to the nothing going on in the water.

To echo Dan's results above, replicating my earlier data it looks pretty definitive that the water is not nitrifying anything. I did 3 bottles of tank water only: 1 in the fridge, and 2 on the orbital shaker. I also redid one at 2% sand.

Left graph: tank water only, (no sand) two bottles on orbital shaker (0%snd and 0%snd_b), and one in the fridge (0%fridge). They track nearly identically, with slopes of almost zero. 2% sand definitely consumes ammonia as seen previously.
Right graph: the Redo data is in yellow stars. Ammonia consumption of zero sand looks really close to nothing. Consumption of ammonia by 2% sand looks just like my previous data.


And the nail in the coffin: NO2/NO3 production
the 2% sand produced NO3 in close agreement to the ammonia consumption - i.e. true nitrification.

None of the water-only samples produced a drop of NO2 or NO3.
So nothing interesting in my tank water as far as ammonia consumption goes.

(bonus: if you click through the above post, you'll find Dan's water didn't touch ammonia for a couple of days either.)

 

[biom]

Sorry to answer this Q from page 2 of the thread... my assertion was that despite bacterial analysis methods detecting significant ammonia oxidizing archaea in the water, in practice - the overwhelming majority of classic nitrifiers that I can find in my system are on surfaces.

I did 100mL bottles of tank water with different amounts of sand. "no sand" did nothing to the ammonia, but 1% or 2% (1mL or 2mL) of sand processed around a ~tenth ppm ammonia per day. Small, but still large compared to the nothing going on in the water.

(bonus: if you click through the above post, you'll find Dan's water didn't touch ammonia for a couple of days either.)

Thank you, lots of good reading and precise experiments as always .

 

[taricha]

Some have pointed out correctly that we can't kill off nitrifiers in any significant way long term. (though I wonder if any R2R folks have gotten directions mixed up and done Methylene Blue tankwide: Differential responses of nitrifying archaea and bacteria to methylene blue toxicity[pdf] )

But it's relatively much easier to think about flow design. Redirect flow from the sand to the water, re-aim any powerheads pointed at bulk rockwork. Think about putting your tank to sump turnover at the low end rather than the high end as @jda suggested. Imagine that you are trying to move every bit of water past coral tissue 10x before it meets sand and rock (not a technical guide, just a design thought). Think about surfaces in your system that get robust flow through/across them and try to reduce those - filter socks, biobricks, macroalgae etc.
Heck, go silly with it if you want. Trade out fish that are bottom-dwellers for those that spend more time in the coral-adjacent water. I like to think about my acro crab as a tiny reactor that converts indigestible large particulates to 24/7 targeted spot-treatments of ammonia. He's too small to be very effective, but it's a fun thought.

The point is that there are lots of practical ways to bring down the effect of nitrification in your tank to give corals more shots at the nitrogen in the water, if that's a goal.

 

[taricha]

....or, do what @kecked did. Pull a bunch of rock out and wash them in tap water.
it killed enough ammonia consumers that the water accumulated measurable ammonia (more than desirable, but certainly effective)
Edit: to be clear, I'd never do that, because I value surface maturity over getting a little extra ammonia in the water, but my point is that it's not actually all that difficult to really lower the nitrification in a system.

 

[biom]

Some have pointed out correctly that we can't kill off nitrifiers in any significant way long term. (though I wonder if any R2R folks have gotten directions mixed up and done Methylene Blue tankwide: Differential responses of nitrifying archaea and bacteria to methylene blue toxicity[pdf] )

But it's relatively much easier to think about flow design. Redirect flow from the sand to the water, re-aim any powerheads pointed at bulk rockwork. Think about putting your tank to sump turnover at the low end rather than the high end as @jda suggested. Imagine that you are trying to move every bit of water past coral tissue 10x before it meets sand and rock (not a technical guide, just a design thought). Think about surfaces in your system that get robust flow through/across them and try to reduce those - filter socks, biobricks, macroalgae etc.
Heck, go silly with it if you want. Trade out fish that are bottom-dwellers for those that spend more time in the coral-adjacent water. I like to think about my acro crab as a tiny reactor that converts indigestible large particulates to 24/7 targeted spot-treatments of ammonia. He's too small to be very effective, but it's a fun thought.

The point is that there are lots of practical ways to bring down the effect of nitrification in your tank to give corals more shots at the nitrogen in the water, if that's a goal.

Or remove all sand and all rock, hang on corals on strings or glass racks (it is good to have lots of corals), put the skimmer into the display and cut off the sump (so only fish and coral). I am not seriously suggest that but if one want to play with this I think it will be interesting to see what will be the final result long term. But personally I don't expect wonders .

 

[pygo1]

So chloramines , good or bad?


BRS will have a new video, everyone needs to by an ammoniator and hypochlorite generator. Chloramines will be the next craze, sterilize nitrifying bacteria and feed you corals all in one.
KZ will have a new product, chloramine in a bottle

Time to toss the RODI, mixing with tap is the way of the future!

 

[jda]

I see all of this kinda like rain over crops. Even if you have one acre of land surrounded by thousands of acres of corn, when the rain falls, you get your share. When the flow pumps move the fish waste all around the tank, all of the surfaces should get similar amounts of contact time, provided that the flow is not too linear or static.

Even if you wanted to try some of these things to get more nitrogen and phosphorous to corals, you have to assume that they are already deficient which is not likely the case in most tanks.

 

[kecked]

While what I did was stupid, my tank is now really really happy. I’ve not seen my fish so active in years. I’m going wait few months and start adding back corals. Since all my bristle worms are gone going need a new cleanup crew too but at least if I add a nice dearesa clam it won’t be harassed. Btw that clam was my nitrate removal device for over a decade. It grew huge and I didn’t have nitrates.

 

[kecked]

So my Hanna digital ammonia kit came today. My ammonia is at 0.29 and my fish look completely happy. Actually since I did this and the tank recovered. They swim around and are much much more active. I could add more bacteria and drive it down but why.

 

[brandon429]

That's nh4

Run the nh3 conversion for it / that's for reefing/ what is the level then

 

[brandon429]

Post cycle reefs don't need bac added to control ammonia, it's not supposed to be zero. Only old cycling science told us it had to be zero, notice how that old rule causes the purchase of more bacteria? I think old cycling science was salesmen fleecing the masses.

Now that everyone can get digital meters which are never zero in a stocked and running reef tank... silence. No updated cycling articles, just silence from the cycle rule makers of yesteryear. Anyone who ever wrote that ammonia must be zero to be cycled is part of the old cycling science pantheon

 

[brandon429]

Whatever your post cycle display reef runs at for ammonia: that's what it should be. Nobody needs to be testing for it, it's not going to drift out of spec

Ammonia doesn't rise to kill fish, fish die from other causes and rot to rise ammonia in a normally running tank... so that means any reef display that can account for its fish isn't ever going to be in ammonia distress, and no ammonia test kit can help someone account for their fish. You can either find them or you can't. If fish die, just remove them, and ammonia self corrects in fifteen minutes (if you have a digital meter, api can take ten days to come down we show in comparison threads)

 

[kecked]

I’m Learning. I come from 1990s reefing world. My fish are happy so am I. Now if I get some coralline going I’m home and will stock corals again. I feel like y house burnt down and I’m building a new one. I really cant believe how much more active they are. Maybe the clowns will breed now.

0.26x0.94=0.24NH3

 

[taricha]

Good NO2 discussion with @Hans-Werner and @biom and others.
For any who are interested in whether they have nitrite, but don't want to bother getting a separate nitrite test just to find out it's zero, here's a crude way to check.
The timing of a nitrate (NO3) test can tell you if you have nitrite (NO2).
On the hanna high range NO3, use 45 seconds as the distinguishing time. If your color forms around 1 minute and later then it's all nitrate. If there is noticeable color forming earlier than 45 seconds like starts forming color by 20-30 sec then there is some clear NO2 in your sample.

edit: it's not so clear cut, especially at high NO3, see post 200

 

[Sisterlimonpot]

On the hanna high range NO3, use 45 seconds as the distinguishing time. If your color forms around 1 minute and later then it's all nitrate. If there is noticeable color forming earlier than 45 seconds like starts forming color by 20-30 sec then there is some clear NO2 in your sample.

Does this prove to be true if you run nitrates in the 60s plus? Because my hanna high range n03 almost immediately starts to turn pink when i add then packet.

 

[Miami Reef]

Does this prove to be true if you run nitrates in the 60s plus? Because my hanna high range n03 almost immediately starts to turn pink when i add then packet.

I don‘t think so. Established tanks don’t normally have elevated nitrites, so if it turns pink sooner when it’s higher, it is probably relative to the concentration (higher nitrates will show more pink sooner compared to lower values).

I tested my LFS‘s water for nitrates and phosphates. Their nitrates was 50ppm on Hanna HR. I got some initial pink, but the pronounced color wasn’t there until 45-60 seconds.

 

[taricha]

Does this prove to be true if you run nitrates in the 60s plus? Because my hanna high range n03 almost immediately starts to turn pink when i add then packet.

I think so, but your question makes me want to recheck to be sure.

If you had a nitrite test handy, that would be convenient.

 

[Sisterlimonpot]

If you had a nitrite test handy, that would be convenient.

I do not. However I will pay more attention next time I test nitrate and time how long before I start seeing pink.

 

[taricha]

I wanted to recheck this...

The timing of a nitrate (NO3) test can tell you if you have nitrite (NO2).
On the hanna high range NO3, use 45 seconds as the distinguishing time. If your color forms around 1 minute and later then it's all nitrate. If there is noticeable color forming earlier than 45 seconds like starts forming color by 20-30 sec then there is some clear NO2 in your sample.

Y'all are right to be skeptical on this point.....

Does this prove to be true if you run nitrates in the 60s plus?

I don‘t think so. Established tanks don’t normally have elevated nitrites, so if it turns pink sooner when it’s higher, it is probably relative to the concentration (higher nitrates will show more pink sooner compared to lower values).

Here's a sample of water that I spiked to 70ppm NO3 (hanna says it's 75+) and then I tested the same with an added 0.5ppm NO2.
The tests are run side-by side, and I paused shaking just long enough to get pictures at 20, 40, and 60sec.

a) You can see what I was getting at about the color showing up faster and darker if NO2 is present, but also....
b) you can see that it's pretty useless for the case of high NO3 with NO2 being less than 1% of the NO3, unless you have a side-by side comparison.

After doing this, I remembered that I came up with this "helpful" timing indicator while trying to measure NO3 in samples with NO2 values more like 0% to 50% of the NO3 value. I could tell by the timing of color development if I needed to run an NO2 test to do a big correction of the NO3 values. But that's a very different scenario.