72h cycle and avoiding the ugly stage

[sixty_reefer]

wanted to add: if a non digital test kit says it took 3 days to clear, that's not what a digital test would read. can u get a hanna meter/seneye for once? all our testing is based on the lag times of non digital kits, it'd be nice to see digital readouts and timing, for once

we all have been misinformed grossly on ammonia clearance times because testers believe absolutely anything an api or red sea kit says.


hanna/seneye= clears in a few hours vs days in active systems.

Donations are more than welcome until then the old JBL will have to do it.

 

[sixty_reefer]

where I got the notion that there's a delay between digital and non digital ammonia kits:

the thread about dosing ammonia into running systems, all on seneye, and they clear in 10 minutes. its twelve pages of the same pattern of clearance times over and over

There is no time in history API cleared an ammonia dose in ten minutes, ergo/lag. We aren't getting truth in cycling off api or red sea, only digital kits. we're getting estimates of truth from non digital kits.

Stick around, we are going to test heterotrophic bacteria on this thread and that may change your views on test kits. I have a feeling that there will be a record time in the period the system will process ammonia in comparison to nitrifying bacteria

 

[brandon429]

excellent. enjoyed reading the biology so far for sure.

 

[ggNoRe]

In! Thank you for doing this. Whether the theory is successful or not I think this will enhance the hobby.

 

[sixty_reefer]

In! Thank you for doing this. Whether the theory is successful or not I think this will enhance the hobby.

Thank you, from interpreting my theory on “understanding of nutrients” it will work, due to not having done this test before, im just being a little cautious as variables can always interfere.

in the big picture all im doing in this test is increase the carbohydrates content in food, in a way adjusting the ratio of nutrients import to match the nutrients export needed for bacteria to oxidise pollutants in our systems.
Many folks are against carbon dosing in a new system although carbon is jus part of the cycle and is present in all foods in the form of carbohydrates. Carbon from carbohydrates is what allows heterotrophic bacteria to develop in our systems and past the nitrogen cycle they are the most important strains of bacteria in reducing pollutants due to being one of the fastest strains, as long as dissolved carbon is present in the water column 5-20 minutes is all they need to divide and grow in comparison to nitrifying bacteria that will need 16 hours to perform the same.
the experiment will hopefully demonstrate that a system that is not limited in carbohydrates will outperform a system that is mainly dependent on a slow bacteria (nitrifying) at reducing or eliminating altogether nuisance from a system by denying them ammonia.

 

[Sisterlimonpot]

0.1 to 0.5 grams carbohydrate from seaweed (natural DOC)

What are you using to provide these carbohydrates?

 

[pshootr]

What are you using to provide these carbohydrates?

Seaweed

But I don't understand what (DOC) is?

 

[Sisterlimonpot]

Seaweed

But I don't understand what (DOC) is?

Dissolved Organic Carbon

 

[pshootr]

Dissolved Organic Carbon

Thank you sir

 

[sixty_reefer]

What are you using to provide these carbohydrates?

Im using a product called “reef actif” from Tropic Marine, it’s 100% carbohydrates from seaweed and plants. It comes in a powder form and once mixed with water doesn’t dissolve instantly like other forms of carbohydrates like sugar. This avoids a bloom as it’s slow release into the water column. This will also mimic the addition of carbohydrates from food in feeding as they not dissolved straight away into the water column like acetic acid or ethanol. I believe the polymer chains on this product are also longer in comparison to ethanol and acetic acid that makes it harder to be metabolised by nuisance in our systems according the manufacture post on another thread.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Seaweed

But I don't understand what (DOC) is?

DOC or dissolved organic carbon is part of the 3 main nutrient that create a equilibrium in our systems, also known as CNP, you may have seen many folks mentioning about it on the subject of Redfield ratio. In this experiment we will use CNP to balance the import export ratio of a system, that is more relevant to our hobby than Redfield implemented on residual nitrates and phosphates concentration in a system. Some off the laws of limitations brought to light by redfield are also in use here. As carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus limitation and abundance are all connected directly with the increase and decreasing residual nitrates and phosphates concentration in our systems.

 

[pshootr]

DOC or dissolved organic carbon is part of the 3 main nutrient that create a equilibrium in our systems, also known as CNP, you may have seen many folks mentioning about it on the subject of Redfield ratio. In this experiment we will use CNP to balance the import export ratio of a system, that is more relevant to our hobby than Redfield implemented on residual nitrates and phosphates concentration in a system. Some off the laws of limitations brought to light by redfield are also in use here. As carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus limitation and abundance are all connected directly with the increase and decreasing residual nitrates and phosphates concentration in our systems.

Very interesting stuff! Thank you very much for taking the time to explain all of that. I never really understood the story behind carbon dosing, and this helps a lot.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Very interesting stuff! Thank you very much for taking the time to explain all of that. I never really understood the story behind carbon dosing, and this helps a lot.

Hopefully we will be able to shine some light on the subject in the days to come. We did many testing in the past on bacteria although those tests were aimed at nitrifying bacteria only never accounting for the heterotrophic bacteria nutritional needs, in a way giving a incomplete results on the actual picture of what’s happening in our systems. @MnFish1 may know what I mean as he done many testing himself and will be interesting to compare the new data with the old one.

 

[MnFish1]

Hopefully we will be able to shine some light on the subject in the days to come. We did many testing in the past on bacteria although those tests were aimed at nitrifying bacteria only never accounting for the heterotrophic bacteria nutritional needs, in a way giving a incomplete results on the actual picture of what’s happening in our systems. @MnFish1 may know what I mean as he done many testing himself and will be interesting to compare the new data with the old one.

One issue is that there are always heterotrophic bacteria in a tank - so - it's difficult to separate out what's being taken up by obligate autotrophs and what is being taken up by heterotrophs.

 

[sixty_reefer]

One issue is that there are always heterotrophic bacteria in a tank - so - it's difficult to separate out what's being taken up by obligate autotrophs and what is being taken up by heterotrophs.

In the test we done in the past, all ammonia was being oxidised mainly by autotrophic with the exception of the testing that had water from a cycled tank, that water could possibly contains carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus. We never included that variable as we were only testing the performance of nitrifying bacteria, to test the performance of both bacterias we need to add to the equation the nutrients that limit the heterotrophic bacteria growth and division.
this could explain why the rock from the display always outperformed the rock from the dark sump as NPC could be within the rock leaching into the water column.

 

[MnFish1]

In the test we done in the past, all ammonia was being oxidised mainly by autotrophic with the exception of the testing that had water from a cycled tank, that water could possibly contains carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus. We never included that variable as we were only testing the performance of nitrifying bacteria, to test the performance of both bacterias we need to add to the equation the nutrients that limit the heterotrophic bacteria growth and division.
this could explain why the rock from the display always outperformed the rock from the dark sump as NPC could be within the rock leaching into the water column.

here is where I think you're wrong - one cannot determine - which bacteria are doing the job. Heterotrophs multiply much faster than autotrophs. The end comment - is IMHO - correct. However the multiplication of for example pseudomonas - a heterotroph - Is much much more rapid as compared to autotrophs.

 

[sixty_reefer]

here is where I think you're wrong - one cannot determine - which bacteria are doing the job. Heterotrophs multiply much faster than autotrophs. The end comment - is IMHO - correct. However the multiplication of for example pseudomonas - a heterotroph - Is much much more rapid as compared to autotrophs.

Hopefully some light may come soon, (hobby level of course). I have a strong feeling that if we have the right nutrients in the water column the ammonia oxidising time will be much faster than the testing we done before, I wouldn’t be surprised if it just takes hours to oxidise the 2ppm in comparison to days as the earlier test showed, if the ammonia gets processed in just hours we would be able to conclude that both bacterias are working in reducing ammonia.
I will try and perform the first test on a weekend wile at home to test ammonia reduction every 60 minutes.

on our previous testing I noticed that most of my ammonia was processed on the first 8 hours, most likely due to the above conclusion.
I’m that test I believe I’ve added 20% of tank water possibly having enough CNP to aid the heterotrophic bacterIa and slowing down once nutrients got depleted, in that particular test I believe carbohydrates were the culprit

 

[sixty_reefer]

final bits to start the exercise are here, may actually start some testing this weekend

 

[sixty_reefer]

I was all set for tonight and as setting up the tank I accidentally drop more ammonium that I wanted. For this reason I will call this test off as there is no way to confirm the start up ammonium, in this tank I am adding 2 gallons of new saltwater and 10% of it is from my tank. I’ve also increased phosphates and nitrates to 0.1 ppm and 20 ppm and around 0.1 gram of carbohydrates. Some results are still interesting such no2 showing up at 1 hour into the test.

start:
Nh4 3ppm >
No2 not tested
no3 20ppm
Po3 0.1

1 hour:
Nha 1.5 to 2 ppm
No2 0.05ppm
No3 20ppm
Po4 0.1ppm

2 hours:
Nh4 0.6 to 0.8 ppm
No2 0.1ppm
No3 20ppm
Po4 0.1ppm

3 hours:
Nh4 0.1ppm
No2 0.025ppm
No3 20ppm
Po4 0.1ppm

 

[sixty_reefer]

Beginning of testing now:

14:00 local uk time on 18 dec 2022

for this test am using:

• 3 gallons new saltwater (no cycled water added)

• 2 pounds live rock from local LFS

• heater, wavemaker and light

inicial water parameters

Nh4 2ppm (12 drops dr. Tim’s ammonium chloride)
No2 0ppm
No3 10ppm (potassium nitrate)
Po4 0.2ppm (unsure on source)

carbohydrates dosed today

the quantity chosen is to small to be able to use a scale to quantify, picture for scale.

The goal of the test is to observe if carbohydrates can aid avoiding nuisance during cycling a system. The rocks chosen for this test are full of photosynthetic organisms, some may be considered nuisance. Dinoflagellates and Cyanobacteria was also present in the system this rocks were collected from.